Why don't conspiracy theorists talk about WTC3

[peteweaver]

Why don't conspiracy theorists ever talk about the collapse of WTC 3 which collapsed after large pieces of debris from the twin towers hit it ?

50 people died in WTC3, no one died in WTC 7.

Do they ignore WTC 3 because its harder for them to deny the structural damage it suffered ?

[Arus808]

wtc 3 was right below the towers. WTc 7 was across the street. that's their reason.

[zorro99]

I didn't know that about WTC 3. Do you have any links about it?

[Magenta]

I didn't know that about WTC 3. Do you have any links about it?


There's some photos and links in this thread (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=96110&highlight=wtc3+yikes).

[gumboot]

I believe a lot of firemen died in WTC3 as it was set up as the main command post after the second tower was hit.

[peteweaver]

45 firefighters died in WTC 3 I believe.

[DC]

I believe a lot of firemen died in WTC3 as it was set up as the main command post after the second tower was hit.

according to the Naudet Docu, the main command post was in the loby of the north tower (or south?)

[cludgie]

Do they ignore WTC 3 because its harder for them to deny the structural damage it suffered ?

Probably because it didn't have US Secret Service and CIA field offices and Giuliani's command post in it and thus they couldn't come up with a sexy story for a 'motive'. Nor did it have Silverstein's 'admission' of demolition and thus lacked an 'evil Jewish person' angle.

[deep]

Why don't conspiracy theorists ever talk about the collapse of WTC 3 which collapsed after large pieces of debris from the twin towers hit it ?

50 people died in WTC3, no one died in WTC 7.

Do they ignore WTC 3 because its harder for them to deny the structural damage it suffered ?


Because there's nothing strange about the collapse (or partial-collapse) of WTC3 - given the circumstances, it was completely normal. Nothing to question.

[DC]

Probably because it didn't have US Secret Service and CIA field offices and Giuliani's command post in it and thus they couldn't come up with a sexy story for a 'motive'. Nor did it have Silverstein's 'admission' of demolition and thus lacked an 'evil Jewish person' angle.

oh this ***** jews crap is so childish.
i think it really doe not mather what religion the guy had that says the decided to Pull it.

as soon one is a jew, your not allowed to suspect him for anything, jews will never do antything wrong.

[MarkyX]

Why don't conspiracy theorists ever talk about the collapse of WTC 3 which collapsed after large pieces of debris from the twin towers hit it ?

50 people died in WTC3, no one died in WTC 7.

Do they ignore WTC 3 because its harder for them to deny the structural damage it suffered ?

It wasn't owned by a Jew. What did you expect from a movement founded by holocaust deniers?

[Dave Rogers]

Because there's nothing strange about the collapse (or partial-collapse) of WTC3 - given the circumstances, it was completely normal. Nothing to question.

So there's nothing unusual about a building collapsing after it gets hit by a chunk of a taller building collapsing next to it, but if it's on fire for seven hours as well, the collapse is unexpected?

Dave

[deep]

So there's nothing unusual about a building collapsing after it gets hit by a chunk of a taller building collapsing next to it, but if it's on fire for seven hours as well, the collapse is unexpected?


All collapses are not created equal. WTC3 behaved appropriately relative to the damage it received.

To put it another way- if I built a scale model of WTC3 and simulated falling debris, I would wind up with a similar result. Do you honestly believe a scale model of WTC7 would behave similarly? There's no way.

Here's a picture of WTC3 after the part of the South Tower fell on it. There's absolutely nothing strange about that.

http://i56.photobucket.com/albums/g171/boloboffin2/911/wtc3.jpg

[aggle-rithm]

All collapses are not created equal. WTC3 behaved appropriately relative to the damage it received.

To put it another way- if I built a scale model of WTC3 and simulated falling debris, I would wind up with a similar result. Do you honestly believe a scale model of WTC7 would behave similarly? There's no way.

Here's a picture of WTC3 after the part of the South Tower fell on it. There's absolutely nothing strange about that.

http://i56.photobucket.com/albums/g171/boloboffin2/911/wtc3.jpg

Who determines what "appropriate" behavior for a building is?

[DC]

All collapses are not created equal. WTC3 behaved appropriately relative to the damage it received.

To put it another way- if I built a scale model of WTC3 and simulated falling debris, I would wind up with a similar result. Do you honestly believe a scale model of WTC7 would behave similarly? There's no way.

Here's a picture of WTC3 after the part of the South Tower fell on it. There's absolutely nothing strange about that.

http://i56.photobucket.com/albums/g171/boloboffin2/911/wtc3.jpg

we will see what NIST will do with the WTC7 model.i think we have to take a close look to the NIST "Fire Events" and "Blast Events" in theyr Symulation.

[DC]

Who determines what "appropriate" behavior for a building is?

Isaac Newton

[deep]

Who determines what "appropriate" behavior for a building is?


It's pre-determined by the laws of physics.

[peteweaver]

WTC 7 like WTC 3 was hit hard by debris from the twin towers, it burned for seven hours before its collapse.

Thats a very big clue as to why it collapsed DC.

[aggle-rithm]

It's pre-determined by the laws of physics.

Well...yes, that and the design of the building, which is different for every building.

What if I were to tell you that WTC3 should not have been damaged that badly? What if I were able to find a few sociologists and electrical engineers who would attest to the fact that it could not have been damaged, so something sneaky must have been going on?

Would you accept that? Why or why not?

[Good Lt]

It's pre-determined by the laws of physics.

Oh, you mean the ones that WTC 1 and 2 and 7 followed?

Yeah, thought so.

[DC]

WTC 7 like WTC 3 was hit hard by debris from the twin towers, it burned for seven hours before its collapse.

Thats a very big clue as to why it collapsed DC.

theres a huge diffrence betwee 3 and 7.
with 3 i would directly agree saying it had a tower fallen on it.
what i would not agree about 7. it was heavy damaged, but nowhere close to WTC3.

and even when you want to ignore it, its not about that it fell, its about how it fell.

[deep]

Well...yes, that and the design of the building, which is different for every building.

What if I were to tell you that WTC3 should not have been damaged that badly? What if I were able to find a few sociologists and electrical engineers who would attest to the fact that it could not have been damaged, so something sneaky must have been going on?

Would you accept that? Why or why not?


I would listen to what they have to say, but ultimately I would probably trust the opinion of 350+ architects and engineers..

..and like I said, the behavior of WTC3 could easily be duplicated with a scale model. That's what happens when you drop numerous tons of debris on a building. It didn't collapse at near free-fall speed - you can see in the picture I posted that it was only partially collapsed after the first tower fell.

[Good Lt]

what i would not agree about 7. it was heavy damaged, but nowhere close to WTC3.

This - meaning your opinion on the matter - is irrelevant. Reality exists. A is A. You haven't demonstrated why it would be impossible for WTC7 to fall the way it did, other than to say "I don't think it could."

and even when you want to ignore it, its not about that it fell, its about how it fell.

No, it isn't.

It's about evidence supporting a conspiracy theory or the lack thereof.

So far, you've provided no evidence suggesting that what happened to WTC 7 was anything other than what happened - a building severely weakened by structural damage and fires collapsed without warning as many predicted it would.

[Good Lt]

I would listen to what they have to say, but ultimately I would probably trust the opinion of 350+ architects and engineers..

And ignore thousands of others?

Could you provide a list of these 350+ Architects and Engineers, and then show us what they get right that every other structural engineer and architect on the planet got wrong?

Thanks.

[aggle-rithm]

I would listen to what they have to say, but ultimately I would probably trust the opinion of 350+ architects and engineers..




Even if all the thousands of other architects and engineers disagreed with them?

Obviously, WTC3 could indeed be expected to fall given the damage it suffered. The point I was trying to make is that simply CLAIMING it couldn't have happened, even if academics could be found to back up such a claim, doesn't make it true.

The fact that the damage suffered by WTC7 was less obvious to the layman, due to heavy smoke and the fact that photographers were not allowed in the war zone where the heaviest damage could be observed, does not mean that the collapse of WTC7 wasn't expected. Quite the opposite, in fact.

[WildCat]

I would listen to what they have to say, but ultimately I would probably trust the opinion of 350+ architects and engineers..
Can you point us to the papers written by these giants of the architecture and engineering fields in professional peer-reviewed journals?

Surely they must be published somewhere, because otherwise it might just be a group with a bunch of inflated credentials who conducted no research... :rolleyes:

[deep]

Can you point us to the papers written by these giants of the architecture and engineering fields in professional peer-reviewed journals?

Surely they must be published somewhere, because otherwise it might just be a group with a bunch of inflated credentials who conducted no research... :rolleyes:


Can you point me to the papers written in support of the US Government's official story that have been published in professional peer-reviewed journals?

Oh, I see, it's a double standard.

I also love your new approach - any expert who disagrees with you has "inflated credentials". I can't wait to hear what you'll come up with next, once their membership reaches 1,000+.

[Almo]

To put it another way- if I built a scale model of WTC3 and simulated falling debris, I would wind up with a similar result. Do you honestly believe a scale model of WTC7 would behave similarly? There's no way.

Scale models don't behave in the same way as their gigantic counterparts. Just as a 10 ft building made of toothpicks won't behave the same way as a 1000 ft building made of toothpicks, a 10 ft building made of concrete won't behave the same way as a 1000 ft building made of concrete.

[Good Lt]

Can you point me to the papers written in support of the US Government's official story that have been published in professional peer-reviewed journals?

Burden of proof's on yourself and the "350+ Architects and Engineers" whose opinions you support to prove themselves correct. Burden of proof is always on the plaintiff. In this case, the plaintiffs are those claiming that the architectural and engineering community are wrong about what happened on 9-11.

Oh, I see, it's a double standard.

No, it isn't.

It's a call for you to provide some evidence back up your claims. And the claims of the "350+ Architects and Engineers" who are at odds with the thousands of other architects and engineers who regard 9-11 Trooferism as a fool's errand.

I also love your new approach - any expert who disagrees with you has "inflated credentials". I can't wait to hear what you'll come up with next, once their membership reaches 1,000+.

Can you show everyone where your "350+ Architects and Engineers" got it right where the rest of the architectural and engineering community got it wrong?

Thanks in advance.

[chillzero]

To be fair to Deep44, this scenario was put forward as a pretended claim that WTC 3 should not have fallen as it did, based on some fictional reports by fictional experts.

Was this actually the case, then Deep44 would be correct in asking for that claim to be supported.

Which is precisely the point that s/he is missing, however in the actual scenario for WTC7.

[DGM]

Can you point me to the papers written in support of the US Government's official story that have been published in professional peer-reviewed journals?
Oh, I see, it's a double standard.

I also love your new approach - any expert who disagrees with you has "inflated credentials". I can't wait to hear what you'll come up with next, once their membership reaches 1,000+.

Oh come on. Even you can't be that clueless. Have you ever heard of Bazant, Greening, Benson or Seffen (to name a few)?

[deep]

Scale models don't behave in the same way as their gigantic counterparts. Just as a 10 ft building made of toothpicks won't behave the same way as a 1000 ft building made of toothpicks, a 10 ft building made of concrete won't behave the same way as a 1000 ft building made of concrete.


With regard to your example - if the 10ft building was made of toothpicks, the 1,000ft building could not also be made of toothpicks. You would need pieces of wood that are 17.7ft long, 7.8in diameter (give or take).

Assuming you had it properly scaled - what differences do you suspect there would be?

Structural engineers use scale models quite extensively - even the Army uses them for testing:

http://stinet.dtic.mil/oai/oai?verb=getRecord&metadataPrefix=html&identifier=ADA369355

[deep]

Oh come on. Even you can't be that clueless. Have you ever heard of Bazant, Greening, Benson or Seffen (to name a few)?


Yes. Which professional journals did they have peer-reviewed papers published in?

[Jonnyclueless]

Is it me or is it just getting more and more painful watching these two come up with these absolutely absurd claims?

[Good Lt]

Yes. Which professional journals did they have peer-reviewed papers published in?

Which journals have these "350+ Architects and Engineers" been published in?

And please provide a list of their names, publications, claims and areas of expertise.

Thanks.

[DGM]

Yes. Which professional journals did they have peer-reviewed papers published in?
Why are "truthers" so challenged when it comes to research?

Journal of Engineering Mechanics, International Journal of Impact Engineering and the Fire Safety Journal to name just a few.

Look and learn:
http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/peer-reviewedpapersaboutthewtcimpacts%2Cfi

[aggle-rithm]

Assuming you had it properly scaled - what differences do you suspect there would be?



Mass would be far greater in proportion to size, so the load would be greater.

Take the toothpick analogy. The volume can be determined roughly by length times the formula of a circle, PI * radius squared. If the radius increases by a factor of 100, then the new volume will be far greater than the old volume times 100.

[beachnut]

I would listen to what they have to say, but ultimately I would probably trust the opinion of 350+ architects and engineers.
At least you have company for being wrong about 9/11. Nice post, no facts, no evidence, the hearsay ideas of 350 and you.

And thus there is nothing wrong since WTC3 was hit by the towers! OOPS, so was WTC7. deep44 now agrees, fire and impact can destroy buildings, as it has always been, even before Rome burned.

[RKOwens4]

I don't know if this has been mentioned in the replies, but I've actually seen LEADERS of the truth movement talking about how WTC3 was on fire and DIDN'T collapse and how this is evidence against the collapse of the towers and WTC7 from fire. No, I'm not kidding. I couldn't make this up even if I tried. This is how desperate and incompetent these "experts" are.

WTC7 had about 40-47 floors of weight on its weakened columns (depending on the floor in which the collapse actually began). WTC3 was reduced to about 3 storeys total and only on one tiny section of the building's original footprint. I've never even seen photos of WTC3 on fire, but if there were any fires then they must have been minor.

The real question is, why don't conspiracists ever talk about WTC5? About 1/5th of the floor area from floors 4-8 DID collapse from fire alone, in a section undamaged by debris. 1/5th of the floor area may seem small, but the building overall was about 3 times the floor area of the twin towers. So that's still a huge, huge section. Floors 1-3 did not catch fire. The leaders of the truth movement don't talk about it because there is no motive whatsoever to demolish anything in WTC5, and this proves that steel-framed floors CAN collapse from fire. Also, the sections which didn't collapse still showed signs of severe sagging of the floor trusses and buckling of the columns. But unlike WTC7, there wasn't as much weight bearing down on these columns.

Any truthers want to take a shot at explaining why part of WTC5 collapsed?

[defaultdotxbe]

Isaac Newton

It's pre-determined by the laws of physics.
unless newtons 4th law was "building 7 shouldnt have collapsed, but building 3 should have" you have some eleborating to do

[gumboot]

..and like I said, the behavior of WTC3 could easily be duplicated with a scale model. That's what happens when you drop numerous tons of debris on a building. It didn't collapse at near free-fall speed - you can see in the picture I posted that it was only partially collapsed after the first tower fell.


I love the whole scale thing. It's the perfect benchmark for determining who knows anything about physics.

Anyone who suggests that a scale model can be used to assess the performance of the full size building has just waved an enormous big flag declaring "I am grossly unqualified to discuss anything to do with engineering".

[DC]

So Scale model of WTC7 would not be representative?

Resolution1 to 60 in. is that a scale model NIST is using?

http://wtc.nist.gov/media/WTC7_Approach_Summary_18Dec07-Final.pdf

page 10

[AZCat]

So Scale model of WTC7 would not be representative?

Resolution1 to 60 in. is that a scale model NIST is using?

http://wtc.nist.gov/media/WTC7_Approach_Summary_18Dec07-Final.pdf

page 10

I don't see a tenth page to that presentation, but I see the phrase on page 4. Regardless, resolution is not the same thing as scale factor.

[gumboot]

according to the Naudet Docu, the main command post was in the loby of the north tower (or south?)


An initial command post was set up in WTC1's lobby, however fire chiefs decided that it was too unsafe so move the command post to the corner of Vesey and West streets, leaving the lobby post as an Operations Post. After the second aircraft impact a second Operations Post was established in the lobby of WTC2 while a Command Post was established in WTC3 and a staging area was established at West and Liberty streets.

[DC]

An initial command post was set up in WTC1's lobby, however fire chiefs decided that it was too unsafe so move the command post to the corner of Vesey and West streets, leaving the lobby post as an Operations Post. After the second aircraft impact a second Operations Post was established in the lobby of WTC2 while a Command Post was established in WTC3 and a staging area was established at West and Liberty streets.

oh thx
didnt know that.
i hope that was not in the NIST report. would have missed that.
where can i read about that?

[DC]

I don't see a tenth page to that presentation, but I see the phrase on page 4. Regardless, resolution is not the same thing as scale factor.

:eek:
it has 16 pages. i pointed out page 10.

there are other NIST documents that even describes more detailed that the use a Scaled model and not a full scale model.
but maybe im misstaken.

[AZCat]

:eek:
it has 16 pages. i pointed out page 10.

there are other NIST documents that even describes more detailed that the use a Scaled model and not a full scale model.
but maybe im misstaken.

The document you linked only has nine pages (at least for me). Please check to make sure you linked the correct one.

Please find those other NIST documents, because this is not a description of a scale model - it is only a description of the fidelity of the model. Besides, why would a computer model be created at anything other than a 1:1 scale?

[gumboot]

So Scale model of WTC7 would not be representative?

Resolution1 to 60 in. is that a scale model NIST is using?


No, it's a computer model. Computer models do not have physical dimensions, nor do they have physical properties.

[gumboot]

oh thx
didnt know that.
i hope that was not in the NIST report. would have missed that.
where can i read about that?


Anywhere you want. I've seen at least one NIST document which mapped out the various FDNY and NYPD staging areas and command posts.

[DC]

The document you linked only has nine pages (at least for me). Please check to make sure you linked the correct one.

Please find those other NIST documents, because this is not a description of a scale model - it is only a description of the fidelity of the model. Besides, why would a computer model be created at anything other than a 1:1 scale?

sorry you are correct, i linked the wrong document, it has indeed only 9 pages, its on page 4 then.

i was indeed a little disappointed when i readed about a scale model, i hoped for a full scale test.

but after trying to do a droptest of a very simplyfied WTC core of only 20 floors in full scale (Ansys LS Dyna v11), i can somehow understand it :)

[DC]

No, it's a computer model. Computer models do not have physical dimensions, nor do they have physical properties.

pls?

[gumboot]

pls?


A computer model is data consisting of 1's and 0's. It is not made of concrete or steel or wood or plaster or any other material that buildings are made of. Rather than having a size measured in meters and kilograms and cubic meters, they have a size measured in bytes.

[Evilgiraffe]

Oh come off it DC, you're just being willfully dense now.

A computer model obviously has dimensions and physical properties as inputs, but these are chosen by the designer so that they are consistent.

A physical model would have to be nearly full scale since the physical properties of the material are fixed. Steel has a fixed strength, fixed bulk and shear moduli etc, so building too small a scale model from steel will result in it being too strong, too stiff.

[DC]

A computer model is data consisting of 1's and 0's. It is not made of concrete or steel or wood or plaster or any other material that buildings are made of. Rather than having a size measured in meters and kilograms and cubic meters, they have a size measured in bytes.
When i make CAD Models i always give those biytes and bits , dimensions, and material. sometimes even a temperature.

[BenBurch]

Oh come off it DC, you're just being willfully dense now.

A computer model obviously has dimensions and physical properties as inputs, but these are chosen by the designer so that they are consistent.

A physical model would have to be nearly full scale since the physical properties of the material are fixed. Steel has a fixed strength, fixed bulk and shear moduli etc, so building too small a scale model from steel will result in it being too strong, too stiff.

Is he claiming that AGAIN?

Well, even if I have him on ignore, I can relate a story from my youth.

When I was but a sprout I had an amazing collection of Matchbox vehicles and Hot Wheels cars. Of course they got dropped a lot, rolling off the table by accident and sometimes on purpose. They were nearly indestructible!

But I always used to wonder; Why aren't real cars that strong?

I had seen what became of Dad's Rambler station wagon when he hit a deer while on a hunting trip in Canada.

Why wasn't it built like the matchbox cars so that the deer would have just bounced right off?

So I asked... And an engineer who frequented our tavern (that was our business) explained how things scale up, and how if you made the real vehicle as thick as the matchbox car it would weigh so much it couldn't move, and the tires would never be able to withstand the weight, and how it STILL wouldn't be as strong. Took me many years to understand exactly what he meant, but when I did it all fit together.

If I built a 20" scale model of WTC-7, I'd easily be able to STAND on it. It would have SO much excess strength at that scale. It would behave NOTHING like the real building.

[Tbone]

When i make CAD Models i always give those biytes and bits , dimensions, and material. sometimes even a temperature.

So when you input dimensions, materials, and temperatures, your computer magically turns into those materials with those dimensions and those temperatures?



Or does it display a graphical representation of said input? :rolleyes:

[gumboot]

When i make CAD Models i always give those biytes and bits , dimensions, and material. sometimes even a temperature.


No you don't. Bytes and bits do not have dimensions, materials, or temperatures.

You assign to elements in the model to mimic the dimensions, materials and temperature you determine, and you can assign any dimensions, materials or temperature you feel like. The bytes and bits merely record the parameters you have determined.

If you cannot see how this is not a scale model of a physical structure I cannot help you here.

[DC]

so NIST will do the WTC7 model only for a graphical representation?

[Evilgiraffe]

Yes, a computer model's output is numerical. Unless you like reading vast, unrelenting tables of data you are going to have to make a graphical representation at some point.

The point that went sailing over your head is that computer models do not (yet) act like Star Trek replicators, converting numbers into real, physical objects.

[NWO Memo]

For everyone involved in the project.... Ixnay on the eplicatoray

[/NWO Memo]

[DC]

oc, but my point is, it should not be only an animation, while you see an animation, it is based on a FE Simulation. a Dynamic FE Simulation. which does consider things like materials and dimensions etc.

you ppl want to have everything expresed perfectly from truthers.

but when a OCTer says the plain came straight down, while it was a 40° angle, it is ok for you, precise enough....

hypocritics?

[Evilgiraffe]

Which animations are you talking about DC?
Can you provide evidence that they weren't based on a simulation accurate enough to represent reality?

Before you bring up the collapse progression of WTC1 + 2 again, I believe it's already been pointed out that FE simulation of such a large and chaotic event is impractical. Particularly when it's been demonstrated, to the satisfaction of the vast majority of the scientific community, that once collapse starts the remaining structure could not have stopped it.

This is an important point. Even if such a simulation were technically possible, you'd never get processor time on a computer powerful enough to run it. There are more pressing computational problems in the world today.

[DC]

Which animations are you talking about DC?
Can you provide evidence that they weren't based on a simulation accurate enough to represent reality?

Before you bring up the collapse progression of WTC1 + 2 again, I believe it's already been pointed out that FE simulation of such a large and chaotic event is impractical. Particularly when it's been demonstrated, to the satisfaction of the vast majority of the scientific community, that once collapse starts the remaining structure could not have stopped it.

This is an important point. Even if such a simulation were technically possible, you'd never get processor time on a computer powerful enough to run it. There are more pressing computational problems in the world today.

Actually this is about the coming FEA sim about WTC7, NIST plans to do a simplified scaled collapse sim with Ansys LS Dyna.

we have global weather simulations, we have nuclear bombs simulated, we simulate PLane crashing in a building, we can simulate car shrashes.
we also can simulate collapses.

and btw, there is already a FEA sim about the towers. not very well modeled, but the Chinese are able to do it, but the US cant?

[DC]

http://www.luxinzheng.net/news/enwtc.html

[tomwaits]

straitjackets

[AZCat]

Actually this is about the coming FEA sim about WTC7, NIST plans to do a simplified scaled collapse sim with Ansys LS Dyna.

we have global weather simulations, we have nuclear bombs simulated, we simulate PLane crashing in a building, we can simulate car shrashes.
we also can simulate collapses.

and btw, there is already a FEA sim about the towers. not very well modeled, but the Chinese are able to do it, but the US cant?

Global weather "simulations" do not support your point as much as you might think. They take a "Ideal Gas Law" approach to the system, not a "pool table" one.

Nuclear bomb simulations do not support your point either, as they are focused on a very short time span, long before the system gets too "chaotic". They don't work that well, which is why the U.S. is building a huge underground laser testing facility to empirically study the behavior.

[BenBurch]

Global weather "simulations" do not support your point as much as you might think. They take a "Ideal Gas Law" approach to the system, not a "pool table" one.

Nuclear bomb simulations do not support your point either, as they are focused on a very short time span, long before the system gets too "chaotic". They don't work that well, which is why the U.S. is building a huge underground laser testing facility to empirically study the behavior.

Correct. Hmmm... Where have we SEEN that sort of scenario before, though? Something you can model until it starts happening and then become too chaotic to model?

Maybe the NIST report of the towers, eh?

So, by Truther logic, a fission bomb doesn't explode because we can't fully model it?

[AZCat]

Correct. Hmmm... Where have we SEEN that sort of scenario before, though? Something you can model until it starts happening and then become too chaotic to model?

Maybe the NIST report of the towers, eh?

So, by Truther logic, a fission bomb doesn't explode because we can't fully model it?

Exactly their logic. The cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki must have been hit by space beams, because fission doesn't look like that!

[Blender Head]

no one died in WTC 7.

Didn't a 'Craig Miller' die in WTC 7?

[DC]

Global weather "simulations" do not support your point as much as you might think. They take a "Ideal Gas Law" approach to the system, not a "pool table" one.

Nuclear bomb simulations do not support your point either, as they are focused on a very short time span, long before the system gets too "chaotic". They don't work that well, which is why the U.S. is building a huge underground laser testing facility to empirically study the behavior.

oc you dont will get a superb exact result.
but it would be much much closer to reality than Bazant's elementary calculations.

Nist tried to sim the collapses of the tower.

and the Chinese have theyr FEA sim of the collapses.

but somehow some JREFers seem to know its impossible.
they prolly would claim its also impossible for WTC7......

[DC]

according to our FEA experts on JREF , Lu Xinzheng's LS-Dyna sim is impossible.
we can dabate their modeling, but i would not say their Ansys sim is impossible.

maybe some peoples should inform themself before claiming such stuff.

http://www.luxinzheng.net/news/enwtc.html

ETA : btw notice how Ansys LS Dyna debunks Bazant claim about crush down and crush up.

[AZCat]

Nist tried to sim the collapses of the tower.

You still have yet to provide any proof of this. Is it forthcoming?

according to our FEA experts on JREF , Lu Xinzheng's LS-Dyna sim is impossible.
we can dabate their modeling, but i would not say their Ansys sim is impossible.

maybe some peoples should inform themself before claiming such stuff.

http://www.luxinzheng.net/news/enwtc.htmlhttp://i.ixnp.com/images/v3.29.1/t.gif (http://www.luxinzheng.net/news/enwtc.html)

ETA : btw notice how Ansys LS Dyna debunks Bazant claim about crush down and crush up.

Nobody here has claimed to be an expert at FEA - such strawman arguments are easily spotted and do not improve the quality of your post. Nor has anyone claimed that a FEA simulation of anything is impossible - just the opposite. You can model anything you damn well wish, but will the results be relevant? If you actually read the paper you linked to in your post you would find a similar discussion. Instead you fell for the pretty pictures like a naive layperson, thinking you could score some points on an internet forum.

[DC]

You still have yet to provide any proof of this. Is it forthcoming?



Nobody here has claimed to be an expert at FEA - such strawman arguments are easily spotted and do not improve the quality of your post. Nor has anyone claimed that a FEA simulation of anything is impossible - just the opposite. You can model anything you damn well wish, but will the results be relevant? If you actually read the paper you linked to in your post you would find a similar discussion. Instead you fell for the pretty pictures like a naive layperson, thinking you could score some points on an internet forum.

oh i did only watch the pictures?
http://www.luxinzheng.net/publications/english_WTC.pdf

and now its not relevant, but Bazant's oversimplified elemntary calculations are very relevant.....

its just laughable.

[LashL]

its just laughable.



Why, yes. Yes, you are.

Your point?

[DC]

Why, yes. Yes, you are.

Your point?

wow what a post. impressive

[Cuddles]

Nobody here has claimed to be an expert at FEA

I am.

according to our FEA experts on JREF , Lu Xinzheng's LS-Dyna sim is impossible.
we can dabate their modeling, but i would not say their Ansys sim is impossible.

Certainly the simulation they did is not impossible. However, you yourself say that the model was wrong, which means that it was pointless. What people say is impossible is doing a simulation of the kind truthers say they want. In order to accurately model the collapse, the whole tower would need to be modelled with a mesh size on the order of 1mm. The towers were approximately 400*60*60m. That means 1.44*1015 mesh points. Using the same mesh size, I can model a maximum of about 5*107, which takes 8GB RAM and up to a week to run.

In order to simulate the tower collapse you would need a minimum of 100 million times as much memory, which simply doesn't exist. No doubt you could reduce the memory requirements a bit by only looking at small parts of the structure, but certainly not by eight orders of magnitude. Even if you could somehow manage to run it, it would take months at the least, possibly years. The simple fact is, it's not necessary. The little details of exactly what each piece of the tower did and where each column and each part of the plane ended up just aren't relevant. All that is needed is to know how much weight the structure could hold, how much damage would compromise this and what would happen when one floor failed. NIST and others have adequately proven, using simple calculations of the laws of physics as well as a very coarse model, that a collision from a plane and the ensuing fires are quite capable of compromising one floor and that after that global collapse is inevitable.

There is simply no need for a much more detailed simulation, and given the resources and time it would require, no-one cares enough to bother trying. If you are that desperate for it to be done, feel free to book some time on a supercomputer and do it yourself.

[gumboot]

Certainly the simulation they did is not impossible. However, you yourself say that the model was wrong, which means that it was pointless. What people say is impossible is doing a simulation of the kind truthers say they want. In order to accurately model the collapse, the whole tower would need to be modelled with a mesh size on the order of 1mm. The towers were approximately 400*60*60m. That means 1.44*1015 mesh points. Using the same mesh size, I can model a maximum of about 5*107, which takes 8GB RAM and up to a week to run.


When NIST refers to a resolution of 1 to 60 inches, can you explain what this means in modelling terms?

[DC]

I am.



Certainly the simulation they did is not impossible. However, you yourself say that the model was wrong, which means that it was pointless. What people say is impossible is doing a simulation of the kind truthers say they want. In order to accurately model the collapse, the whole tower would need to be modelled with a mesh size on the order of 1mm. The towers were approximately 400*60*60m. That means 1.44*1015 mesh points. Using the same mesh size, I can model a maximum of about 5*107, which takes 8GB RAM and up to a week to run.

In order to simulate the tower collapse you would need a minimum of 100 million times as much memory, which simply doesn't exist. No doubt you could reduce the memory requirements a bit by only looking at small parts of the structure, but certainly not by eight orders of magnitude. Even if you could somehow manage to run it, it would take months at the least, possibly years. The simple fact is, it's not necessary. The little details of exactly what each piece of the tower did and where each column and each part of the plane ended up just aren't relevant. All that is needed is to know how much weight the structure could hold, how much damage would compromise this and what would happen when one floor failed. NIST and others have adequately proven, using simple calculations of the laws of physics as well as a very coarse model, that a collision from a plane and the ensuing fires are quite capable of compromising one floor and that after that global collapse is inevitable.

There is simply no need for a much more detailed simulation, and given the resources and time it would require, no-one cares enough to bother trying. If you are that desperate for it to be done, feel free to book some time on a supercomputer and do it yourself.

wow a 1mm mesh, that would be indeed impossible.
and oc you need simplifications.

but it would be possible, and interesting to learn from.

and for those that say we dont need to learn from it.

here what bazant said.

Because of the shroud of dust and
smoke, these histories can be identified from the videos of the
collapsing WTC towers only for the first few seconds of collapse,
and so little can be learned in this regard from that collapse.

i would say, a FEA sim would let us learn alot more from the collapses than Bazants oversimplified calc.

btw, theyr model was not so representative do to a lack of information about the steel columns, so they used the same from bottom to top.

meanwhile the ammount of information we have, would improve such a simulation.

and as a FE expert, you know it would be very good to learn from the collapses. when they was collapses.

[gumboot]

There's really nothing useful to be learned from the WTC collapses. Understanding the detailed mechanics of the collapse is akin to understanding the detailed mechanics of a high speed aircraft crash or midair break up. It certainly might be interesting for its own sake, but the information cannot actually be put to any practical use.

Learning for the sake of learning is all well and good, but when that learning starts to incur substantial costs, you really need to justify how that learning can be put to good use.

This seems to be something Conspiracy Theorists cannot grasp.

[Cuddles]

When NIST refers to a resolution of 1 to 60 inches, can you explain what this means in modelling terms?

I've never really looked at it, but at a guess I'd say they used a variable mesh size of between 1 and 60 inches. Presumably the areas of more interest, such as the actual crash site, would be modelled in much greater detail than the areas where essentially nothing happened until it started falling.

wow a 1mm mesh, that would be indeed impossible.

But how fine does the mesh need to be? How thick was the fireproofing, for example? If you want to be even close to realistic you need several mesh points in it, at minimum. If you don't model that detail accurately, you can't be sure that the result will be at all accurate for the effects of the fires. What about only modelling the collapse area? That would be a great way to reduce the size. But what about the fireball down the lift shafts? Sure, you can assume that had no significant effect, but if you leave it out of the, how will you know?

I certainly can't answer any of these for sure, since I've never looked at it in depth. However, you can't just say it's possible, because there are many, many factors that could make it impossible, or at least impractical.

but it would be possible, and interesting to learn from.

And yet no-one agrees with you. The people actually tasked with investigating the collapse don't agree that it would be worth doing. Of course, exactly why they don't agree can't be certain. Maybe they looked into and and decided it wasn't possible. Maybe it was possible but not worth the resources. Maybe they would have had to make too many simplifications and therefore wouldn't give reliable results. The simple fact is, no-one apart from truthers cares about either detailed simulations or scale/full models, and when it comes down to it, no-one cares about truthers.

[Cuddles]

Certainly the simulation they did is not impossible. However, you yourself say that the model was wrong, which means that it was pointless. What people say is impossible is doing a simulation of the kind truthers say they want. In order to accurately model the collapse, the whole tower would need to be modelled with a mesh size on the order of 1mm. The towers were approximately 400*60*60m. That means 1.44*1015 mesh points. Using the same mesh size, I can model a maximum of about 5*107, which takes 8GB RAM and up to a week to run.

Thinking about it, this is a serious underestimate. The simulations I run are mostly calulations of electromagnetic fields. These are relavtively simple integrations that assume a cahrge is moving and calculate the field produced in the structure. Simulations involving moving particles are much, much more memory and processor intensive. A simple particle-in-cell simulation that is similar to the above but also models the motion of a particle in response to the fields can need tens or hundreds of times more memory. A kinetic model that needs to consider motion in every single mesh cell simultaneously would require thousand, probably millions, of times more memory, at minimum.

I assume that the NIST model only looked at a few floors around the impact area, and yet it still only used a few thousand mesh points, if I am correct in my reply to Gumboot. I suspect this is simply because it was not possible for them to model it in any more detail.

[DC]

I've never really looked at it, but at a guess I'd say they used a variable mesh size of between 1 and 60 inches. Presumably the areas of more interest, such as the actual crash site, would be modelled in much greater detail than the areas where essentially nothing happened until it started falling.



But how fine does the mesh need to be? How thick was the fireproofing, for example? If you want to be even close to realistic you need several mesh points in it, at minimum. If you don't model that detail accurately, you can't be sure that the result will be at all accurate for the effects of the fires. What about only modelling the collapse area? That would be a great way to reduce the size. But what about the fireball down the lift shafts? Sure, you can assume that had no significant effect, but if you leave it out of the, how will you know?

I certainly can't answer any of these for sure, since I've never looked at it in depth. However, you can't just say it's possible, because there are many, many factors that could make it impossible, or at least impractical.



And yet no-one agrees with you. The people actually tasked with investigating the collapse don't agree that it would be worth doing. Of course, exactly why they don't agree can't be certain. Maybe they looked into and and decided it wasn't possible. Maybe it was possible but not worth the resources. Maybe they would have had to make too many simplifications and therefore wouldn't give reliable results. The simple fact is, no-one apart from truthers cares about either detailed simulations or scale/full models, and when it comes down to it, no-one cares about truthers.

well i talk about the collapse .
you first build the single components, with a very fine mesh, and you test em, you run several sims, so you can collect data to simplify it. exactly like NIST did to calculate the impact damage of the planes.
sure you have to take care you dont have to much loose parts, cause that would reduce clac speed enormly.


but actually, the only thing we have now are elementary calculations that do not represent the collapse, it only trys to show that the collapses was not stopable.

but hey oc, its not worth the resources, simulating nukes and other destructive army crap is so much more important...

[parky76]

WTC 3 is where FEMA stashed the bodies of the firemen who were infected by the alien virus. It was brought down on purpose to hide the secret. Oh wait...that was the X-Files. Sorry.

=)

[DC]

Thinking about it, this is a serious underestimate. The simulations I run are mostly calulations of electromagnetic fields. These are relavtively simple integrations that assume a cahrge is moving and calculate the field produced in the structure. Simulations involving moving particles are much, much more memory and processor intensive. A simple particle-in-cell simulation that is similar to the above but also models the motion of a particle in response to the fields can need tens or hundreds of times more memory. A kinetic model that needs to consider motion in every single mesh cell simultaneously would require thousand, probably millions, of times more memory, at minimum.

I assume that the NIST model only looked at a few floors around the impact area, and yet it still only used a few thousand mesh points, if I am correct in my reply to Gumboot. I suspect this is simply because it was not possible for them to model it in any more detail.

the PW4000 model had
9560 brick elements
54788 shell elements
and a total of 101822 nodes.

and thats only 1 engine.

the fine brick model of truss floor assembly had

6928 beam elements
230778 Brick elements
148256 shell elements
372084 Nodes

and the coarse shell model had

3440 beam elements
39000 shell elements
48971 nodes.

the impact sims had almost 2.3 million nodes.

sure homecomputers cannot handle it, but Clusters can.

[BenBurch]

Exactly their logic. The cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki must have been hit by space beams, because fission doesn't look like that!

The essential problem is that none of them, and I mean NONE of them have any real concept of the forces involved here.

I mean we are just talking about TITANIC amounts of energy stored in that building.

BTW, let me here voice a though I have had upon looking at the failure of the lower floors - just a half formed hypothesis;

Was there a "zipper" effect? The shelf the floor trusses rested upon was not wide. If the falling mass that was within the walls forced the walls outward fairly uniformly along its diameter, how could the floors remain attached? The attachment mechanisms were not designed for that sort of strain. This would also account for the horizontal vector on the detached wall segments that caused so much damage to surrounding buildings.

[DC]

WTC 3 is where FEMA stashed the bodies of the firemen who were infected by the alien virus. It was brought down on purpose to hide the secret. Oh wait...that was the X-Files. Sorry.

=)

sorry, but thats a very very stupid comment.

[twoofer]

WTC3 was badly damaged by falling debris from the Twin Towers but which remained standing. WTC5 was also damaged by falling debris and had raging fires but did not collapse. WTC7 suffered minor damage and had minor fires but eventually collapsed in a neat pile.

Hmmm.... Nothing unusual with buildings WTC3 and WTC5, they behaved as expected. WTC7 completely collapsed, symmetrically and at free fall speed inward onto its own footprint.

If anything, I would say the evidence of WTC3 and WTC5 only makes the anomalies of WTC7 standout even more!

[Cuddles]

the PW4000 model had
9560 brick elements
54788 shell elements
and a total of 101822 nodes.

and thats only 1 engine.

the fine brick model of truss floor assembly had

6928 beam elements
230778 Brick elements
148256 shell elements
372084 Nodes

and the coarse shell model had

3440 beam elements
39000 shell elements
48971 nodes.

the impact sims had almost 2.3 million nodes.

sure homecomputers cannot handle it, but Clusters can.

Which just reinforces my point. 2 million points is not even close to 1015 points. They used coarse simulations to model relatively small areas, but it is simply not possible to do the kind of simulation that truthers generally ask for. Having looked at the pdf you linked, this reinforces it even further. NIST have done fairly detailed thermal analysis of of relevant components based on assumptions about fire and impact damage, and they are currently working on much coarser simulation of the structure's response to this. Of course you are correct that a home computer could not do this. My point is that the computers available to an organisation like NIST could not do any more than they have. Even the most powerful supercomputers in the world would struggle, if they could manage at all.

Incidentally, you seemed to enjoy criticising the lack of knowledge of FEA of posters here, but you somehow thought that the mesh size of a computer model was something to do with a scale model of a building. Perhaps you should save your insults for subjects that you actually have knowledge of yourself.

[DGM]

WTC3 was badly damaged by falling debris from the Twin Towers but which remained standing. WTC5 was also damaged by falling debris and had raging fires but did not collapse. WTC7 suffered minor damage and had minor fires but eventually collapsed in a neat pile.

Hmmm.... Nothing unusual with buildings WTC3 and WTC5, they behaved as expected. WTC7 completely collapsed, symmetrically and at free fall speed inward onto its own footprint.

If anything, I would say the evidence of WTC3 and WTC5 only makes the anomalies of WTC7 standout even more!
Good job!!!!! You've memorized your lines well. No go get your "twoofer" treat.

[twoofer]

DGM,
Heh, LOL ("twoofer" treat).
I take it you disagree with some or all of the lines above (that I summarized).

[aggle-rithm]

DGM,
Heh, LOL ("twoofer" treat).
I take it you disagree with some or all of the lines above (that I summarized).

Were the firemen in on it?

They certainly didn't think they were fighting "minor" fires.

[aggle-rithm]

If anything, I would say the evidence of WTC3 and WTC5 only makes the anomalies of WTC7 standout even more!

Yes! Because the remnants of WTC3 and WTC5 were brought down by demolition experts. According to you (I assume), WTC7 was ALSO brought down by demolition experts.

So, why was WTC7 handled in secrecy, but WTC3 and WTC5 were demolished openly...?

I'll bet the guys in the demo team at WTC7 were pretty jealous of the WTC3 and WTC5 guys, who DIDN'T have to slip past the firefighters unnoticed and enter a burning building, then slip back out without being noticed, then have to KEEP QUIET about it FOR THE REST OF THEIR LIVES!!!

I hope they got bonus pay. In fact, if I were one of those guys, I would be constantly hitting The Man up for MORE pay, in exchange for my continued silence...

[DC]

Which just reinforces my point. 2 million points is not even close to 1015 points. They used coarse simulations to model relatively small areas, but it is simply not possible to do the kind of simulation that truthers generally ask for. Having looked at the pdf you linked, this reinforces it even further. NIST have done fairly detailed thermal analysis of of relevant components based on assumptions about fire and impact damage, and they are currently working on much coarser simulation of the structure's response to this. Of course you are correct that a home computer could not do this. My point is that the computers available to an organisation like NIST could not do any more than they have. Even the most powerful supercomputers in the world would struggle, if they could manage at all.

Incidentally, you seemed to enjoy criticising the lack of knowledge of FEA of posters here, but you somehow thought that the mesh size of a computer model was something to do with a scale model of a building. Perhaps you should save your insults for subjects that you actually have knowledge of yourself.


eeerm what kind of FE sim do truthers ask for pls?
and why you still claim its impossible is just beyond me. i have already showed such a FE sim. and it was not very detailed, i guess the impact damage sim needed more computing power.

i dont criticising ppl for they lack of FE knowledge, i wonder why they do claim stuff they dont know and now even you joined that claimed to be an expert.

and maybe i am wrong about the scale, but i didnt read that they will do a full scale model.
so you think they ment the mesh size?

[twoofer]

Where the firemen in on it? -- are you kidding? They were just doing their job.

Shall we at least agree that the damage and the fires in WTC7 pale in comparison to the other building's damage and fires?

[aggle-rithm]

WTC 3 is where FEMA stashed the bodies of the firemen who were infected by the alien virus. It was brought down on purpose to hide the secret. Oh wait...that was the X-Files. Sorry.

=)

At least that movie had a plot you could follow...

[aggle-rithm]

Where the firemen in on it? -- are you kidding? They were just doing their job.

Shall we at least agree that the damage and the fires in WTC7 pale in comparison to the other building's damage and fires?

What other building are you talking about?

Regardless, there was no other building on 9/11 that burned quite as much as WTC7. The towers MIGHT have burned that much, had they stood long enough, but the collapse put a damper on the fires.

I understand the truther position -- it's difficult to see the flames for all the smoke the fire generated. However, I tend to believe a professional firefighter who saw the fire close up over someone with no special knowledge or expertise who simply looked at pictures and watched videos. If you don't believe the firemen who described the fire as encompassing the whole building, and concluded that the building would indeed collapse, then you are saying the FDNY is composed of either idiots or liars.

Which is it?

[DC]

and afaik truthers dont demand FE sims. they creat them. here is one

http://de.youtube.com/watch?v=YjdhTaXZec4

[twoofer]

aggle-rithm,
Don't assume :). WTC3 and WTC5 were not demolished. I think we can both agree on that. No self-respecting Truther would believe this. That is the point. We have damage and fires in two other buildings that were MUCH worse than WTC7, but yet they did not completely collapse or even came close to what WTC7 did. BTW, the firemen were ordered out of WTC7 at around noon. Hmmm ... why was that? Well I don't know, so I will have to refer you to the detective who worked on this criminal case... wait a minute! There wasn't one. Sorry.

[Pardalis]

A detective? Are you a joke Twoofer?

[DGM]

Where the firemen in on it? -- are you kidding? They were just doing their job.

Shall we at least agree that the damage and the fires in WTC7 pale in comparison to the other building's damage and fires?
Can I assume then the you don't buy that Larry Silverstein's"s "pull it" comment implied controlled demolition?

The building did not fall anywheres near free fall TIME (stop saying "free-fall SPEED" it's meaningless and makes you look like a moron)

[aggle-rithm]

WTC3 and WTC5 were not demolished. I think we can both agree on that.

So...they're still there?

That is truly an astonishing claim. Do you have any evidence to back that up?

[Pardalis]

Is it vacation time already?

It's been so long I don't remember when exactly the school year ends, but it seems the twoofers we get these days are all teenagers.

[DC]

Can I assume then the you don't buy that Larry Silverstein's"s "pull it" comment implied controlled demolition?

The building did not fall anywheres near free fall TIME (stop saying "free-fall SPEED" it's meaningless and makes you look like a moron)

the Lead Investigator from NIST even used 9 and 11 seconds for the collapses.

so dont get angry when others get confused when even NIST claims such crappy collapse times.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/wtc/cons-flash.html

[twoofer]

WTC7 never had fire encompassing the whole building. The building went down symmetrically and "fast" (no slower than a controlled demolition).

[BenBurch]

Twoofer;

http://www.firehouse.com/terrorist/911/magazine/gz/hayden.html

Deputy Chief Peter Hayden. (Ret.)

The whole narrative is compelling, but here is what I think the key part is;

Firehouse: Other people tell me that there were a lot of firefighters in the street who were visible, and they put out traffic cones to mark them off? [He's referring to the fallen.]

Hayden: Yeah. There was enough there and we were marking off. There were a lot of damaged apparatus there that were covered. We tried to get searches in those areas. By now, this is going on into the afternoon, and we were concerned about additional collapse, not only of the Marriott, because there was a good portion of the Marriott still standing, but also we were pretty sure that 7 World Trade Center would collapse. Early on, we saw a bulge in the southwest corner between floors 10 and 13, and we had put a transit on that and we were pretty sure she was going to collapse. You actually could see there was a visible bulge, it ran up about three floors. It came down about 5 o'clock in the afternoon, but by about 2 o'clock in the afternoon we realized this thing was going to collapse.

[lapman]

13+ seconds is fast?

[twoofer]

A detective? Are you a joke Twoofer?

Whenever there is a crime, there should be an investigator (detective), or a whole hierarchy investigators working on the case. It seems like there were a lot of people on the scene when WTC7 "dropped" that can help resolve these issues. These people need to be properly investigated/questioned under oath on the record. Analysis of the evidence needs to be done. Where is the evidence now? I'm still waiting for the final analysis of NIST on WTC7. But the NIST investigation only deals with a very narrow segment of the crime. I want detectives to open a case and investigate people. Why are there so many people witnessing a general countdown before WTC7 "dropped". Who are they and what were they doing there counting down? Who are those people on the video evidence doing the count down? Lets get it all on record and available to the public. This seems like a reasonable thing, yes?

[BenBurch]

... This seems like a reasonable thing, yes?

No.

It was an Federal investigation and was ably handled by the FBI.

Next scripted assertion, please?

[lapman]

Whenever there is a crime, there should be an investigator (detective), or a whole hierarchy investigators working on the case. It seems like there were a lot of people on the scene when WTC7 "dropped" that can help resolve these issues. These people need to be properly investigated/questioned under oath on the record. Analysis of the evidence needs to be done. Where is the evidence now? I'm still waiting for the final analysis of NIST on WTC7. But the NIST investigation only deals with a very narrow segment of the crime. I want detectives to open a case and investigate people. Why are there so many people witnessing a general countdown before WTC7 "dropped". Who are they and what were they doing there counting down? Who are those people on the video evidence doing the count down? Lets get it all on record and available to the public. This seems like a reasonable thing, yes?
And what crime was committed at WTC 7?

[1337m4n]

Whenever there is a crime, there should be an investigator (detective), or a whole hierarchy investigators working on the case. It seems like there were a lot of people on the scene when WTC7 "dropped" that can help resolve these issues. These people need to be properly investigated/questioned under oath on the record. Analysis of the evidence needs to be done. Where is the evidence now? I'm still waiting for the final analysis of NIST on WTC7. But the NIST investigation only deals with a very narrow segment of the crime. I want detectives to open a case and investigate people. Why are there so many people witnessing a general countdown before WTC7 "dropped". Who are they and what were they doing there counting down? Who are those people on the video evidence doing the count down? Lets get it all on record and available to the public. This seems like a reasonable thing, yes?

Waste of time and taxpayer dollars.

Go through this forum, use the "Search" function, and see why secret demolition of WTC7 is practically impossible.

[Redtail]

Whenever there is a crime, there should be an investigator (detective), or a whole hierarchy investigators working on the case. It seems like there were a lot of people on the scene when WTC7 "dropped" that can help resolve these issues. These people need to be properly investigated/questioned under oath on the record. Analysis of the evidence needs to be done. Where is the evidence now? I'm still waiting for the final analysis of NIST on WTC7. But the NIST investigation only deals with a very narrow segment of the crime. I want detectives to open a case and investigate people. Why are there so many people witnessing a general countdown before WTC7 "dropped". Who are they and what were they doing there counting down? Who are those people on the video evidence doing the count down? Lets get it all on record and available to the public. This seems like a reasonable thing, yes?

Well then why are you wasting time here? Why aren't you presenting the evidence to the authorities and demanding an investigation?

[Mangoose]

Was there a "zipper" effect? The shelf the floor trusses rested upon was not wide. If the falling mass that was within the walls forced the walls outward fairly uniformly along its diameter, how could the floors remain attached? The attachment mechanisms were not designed for that sort of strain. This would also account for the horizontal vector on the detached wall segments that caused so much damage to surrounding buildings.

I like the way you put that. Makes sense.

[gumboot]

I've never really looked at it, but at a guess I'd say they used a variable mesh size of between 1 and 60 inches. Presumably the areas of more interest, such as the actual crash site, would be modelled in much greater detail than the areas where essentially nothing happened until it started falling.


Thanks. This would seem to confirm out initial thoughts that this does not constitute a scale model but reflects the level of detail present in the simulation.

[gumboot]

but actually, the only thing we have now are elementary calculations that do not represent the collapse, it only trys to show that the collapses was not stopable.


NIST have already provided elementary calculations to demonstrate that the collapse could not have stopped.

The first intact floor in each tower was only capable of carrying the dynamic load of six additional floors, assuming best-case scenario for collapse arrest.

Given that in each case more than six floors was above the first intact floor, and given that the best case scenario for collapse arrest did not occur, it is a no brainer that the collapse could not be arrested.

[gumboot]

Was there a "zipper" effect? The shelf the floor trusses rested upon was not wide. If the falling mass that was within the walls forced the walls outward fairly uniformly along its diameter, how could the floors remain attached? The attachment mechanisms were not designed for that sort of strain. This would also account for the horizontal vector on the detached wall segments that caused so much damage to surrounding buildings.


This is precisely what happened, and you only need to watch the videos to see it. My most powerful impression upon first witnessing one of the collapses on the morning of the 12th of September (I believe it was WTC1) was that it was like a banana being peeled.

Conspiracy Theorists talk about the upper floors crushing the lower floors, but this simply is not what happened at all.

What we quite clearly see is the forces involved peeling the exterior panels outwards away from the building in quite large sections - some of them dozens or floors high or more.

As soon as that happens the floor trusses have to fail. They cannot possibly remain in position, one end suspended magically in mid air.

What that leaves behind is the most robust part of the structure - the core.

That's precisely what we see. The exterior panels peeled away, the floor trusses collapsed onto one another, and the core remained standing.

Anyone familiar with structures can recognise that the core structure won't remain standing indefinitely, of course, and so it too eventually collapsed.

This "top falls and crushes rest of building" maxim which Conspiracy Theorists promote is utter fantasy and bears no resemblance to what actually happened. The building was not crushed. It did not dissolve. It fell apart.

ETA.

And it's worth highlighting that the debris fields perfectly match what I've described - with floor truss assemblies found compacted near the base of the towers, exterior panels found spread in a wide circle outward from the tower footprints, and core columns found laying on top of the other debris.

[BenBurch]

Don't forget that Truther physics sees nothing wrong with Wyle E. Coyote standing on thin air until he realizes he has stepped off the cliff...

[Blender Head]

Whenever there is a crime, there should be an investigator (detective), or a whole hierarchy investigators working on the case. It seems like there were a lot of people on the scene when WTC7 "dropped" that can help resolve these issues. These people need to be properly investigated/questioned under oath on the record. Analysis of the evidence needs to be done. Where is the evidence now? I'm still waiting for the final analysis of NIST on WTC7. But the NIST investigation only deals with a very narrow segment of the crime. I want detectives to open a case and investigate people. Why are there so many people witnessing a general countdown before WTC7 "dropped". Who are they and what were they doing there counting down? Who are those people on the video evidence doing the count down? Lets get it all on record and available to the public. This seems like a reasonable thing, yes?

As lapman asked, how was WTC 7 a crime?

I wish I could Stundie this whole thing, it's beautiful.

[BenBurch]

As lapman asked, how was WTC 7 a crime?

I wish I could Stundie this whole thing, it's beautiful.

Well, sort of indirectly it was as were ALL the bad things that happened that day... But they were self-closing cases as all murder-suicides are.

[DGM]

"So many people witnessed a countdown"? Has Keven McPadden's story grown again? Started off as "rhythmic sound like as count down", now this. Twoofer just because you read a story on multiple sites doesn't mean multiple people said it. (sometimes you got to state the obvious for people)

[BenBurch]

Shall I tell them about Kevin McPadden's military record again?

[technoextreme]

All collapses are not created equal. WTC3 behaved appropriately relative to the damage it received.

To put it another way- if I built a scale model of WTC3 and simulated falling debris, I would wind up with a similar result. Do you honestly believe a scale model of WTC7 would behave similarly? There's no way.

Here's a picture of WTC3 after the part of the South Tower fell on it. There's absolutely nothing strange about that.

http://i56.photobucket.com/albums/g171/boloboffin2/911/wtc3.jpg
Im kind of amazed. I did not know that truthers basis in reality was so thoroughly backwards. I need to drudge up some articles but the only building that didn't behave the way it was expected to was in fact WTC 3. I don't think engineers know why it cleaved so cleanly. I want to say that I read this in the NIST report. Also, Im pretty sure I brought up this whole argument before with WTC 5 and WTC 3.
WTC3 and WTC5 were not demolished. I think we can both agree on that.
*Bangs head up against the wall* WTC 5 was demolished because parts of it was still standing.

[AZCat]

I am.

You hadn't yet posted in this thread.

Thanks for stepping in, though - I don't do FEA professionally (although I covered some of it in college) and my knowledge is limited.

[aggle-rithm]

So...they're still there?

That is truly an astonishing claim. Do you have any evidence to back that up?

I'd like to hear you respond to this, twoofer.

You claim that WTC3 and WTC5 were not destroyed in the attacks, and they were not demolished afterwards.

Do you have recent pictures of these two buildings still standing? Because that is the only possibility left.

[Travis]

WTC3 and WTC5 were not demolished?

I guess this webcam (http://www.earthcam.net/users2/interface.php?i=0&id=445&projectid=202&clientid=158)is a slick cgi fakery. They have to redo it every 15 minutes too. The powers that be are spending a lot of money to keep us convinced those buildings are now gone.

[DC]

You hadn't yet posted in this thread.

Thanks for stepping in, though - I don't do FEA professionally (although I covered some of it in college) and my knowledge is limited.

i dont think he should call himself an expert.

i do FE at work sometimes, but my knowledge is limited.
i only do linear FE and only of solid objects (no combined objects) and only siffrent steel or metals.
when one is doing only one little part of FE, like only electromagnetic field analysis or only linear FE. i think the one should not call himself expert.

well atleast for me its a reason to not call myself an expert in FE.

[DC]

and i think the one that knows most about FE on this bord would be Newtons Bit.
and i think also he would not call himself an FE expert.

[Pardalis]

This seems like a reasonable thing, yes?

You watch too much television.

I bet you're not older than 13, right?

[BenBurch]

and i think the one that knows most about FE on this bord would be Newtons Bit.
and i think also he would not call himself an FE expert.

Who the RULE10 are you to judge who is and is not an expert? Shall we all submit our credentials to you, eh? Is there going to be an annual salary review? Are you going to pay scale?

[DGM]

Who the RULE10 are you to judge who is and is not an expert? Shall we all submit our credentials to you, eh? Is there going to be an annual salary review? Are you going to pay scale?
Ben?

Breath............................................ ...:cool:

[DC]

Who the RULE10 are you to judge who is and is not an expert? Shall we all submit our credentials to you, eh? Is there going to be an annual salary review? Are you going to pay scale?

his posts was enough to judge that :)

[aggle-rithm]

**sniff, sniff**

Is there a troll around here?

I can't see him.

[aggle-rithm]

WTC3 and WTC5 were not demolished?

I guess this webcam (http://www.earthcam.net/users2/interface.php?i=0&id=445&projectid=202&clientid=158)is a slick cgi fakery. They have to redo it every 15 minutes too. The powers that be are spending a lot of money to keep us convinced those buildings are now gone.

Twoofer has left the building.

I guess I'll have to start a new thread if I want to get his attention.

[DC]

Don't forget that Truther physics sees nothing wrong with Wyle E. Coyote standing on thin air until he realizes he has stepped off the cliff...

eerm its actually the official theory that contains comic like plane imprints into the ground.......

but you oc see no problem there.....

[aggle-rithm]

Funny how DC's posts have become MORE insightful since I've put him on ignore.

[BenBurch]

eerm its actually the official theory that contains comic like plane imprints into the ground.......

but you oc see no problem there.....

What on EARTH are you going on about?