FYI . If you are physically incapable of scrolling up the thread to see the link for the recent study on the collapse, then I can’t help you and won’t be responding in kind
Be specific what recent study?
The discredited one?
Hey, how about that melting temp of steel, what’s the deal???
Who are you kidding? You go out of your way to be UNHELPFUL, with a tad of nasty on the side, for fun and perhaps to prop up your self-esteem.
I am trying to help you. But, if cut and paste is as far as you can take it, then there’s not much point anyways.
1 Like
Ahhhh…trolling!!!
What because I challenge to you to explain something that you supposedly believe.
I’ve taken the time to talk serious construction, yes, basic and simple, but bearing points, connections, stress, and gravity are simple as can be, but important as can be and key to understand why those three building failed. With supporting links that go to information from experts.
You come up with a report by three nobodies in structural engineering and declare it the Holy Grail. Why? How does your line of logic work?
If that scares you into crying “troll, troll” - lordie, lordie I feel bad for you.
“You come up with a report by three nobodies in structural engineering and declare it the Holy Grail”
That’s your scientific response?
What’s scientific about talking about the melting temp of steel, when it’s besides the point to the structural collapse.
Besides, I’m not the scientist, and you ignore most of them. Please go back to:
[quote=“citizenschallengev4, post:24, topic:8311”]
The Seismology of 9/11
#24. September 9, 2016 - Columbia University’s Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory
By Kevin Krajick
[/quote]
#35
#36
Tex, why did WTC #7 come down?
Can you simply in your own words explain why you think all those accredited experts are wrong?
If you can’t.
You should take the hint.
Responding to the 2020 study with "article is suspect study is suspect " is not a response worth entertaining as was your "three nobodies " snort.
The links you have provided don’t discuss WTC 7 and we have already gone over old 2007 reports from NIST. The seismic article nothing to do with collapse and the conversation article has a link for WTC 7 but the link goes no where
Seems your fishing around for anything just to be argumentative and not an honest interlocutor
[quote=“djtexas, post:49, topic:8311”]
The links you have provided don’t discuss WTC 7 and we have already gone over old 2007 reports from NIST. The seismic article nothing to do with collapse and the conversation article has a link for WTC 7 but the link goes no where
OK, this is a 2008 report.
7 World Trade Center (7 WTC or WTC-7
The original 7 World Trade Center was 47 stories tall, clad in red granite masonry, and occupied a trapezoidal footprint. An elevated walkway spanning Vesey Street connected the building to the World Trade Center plaza. The building was situated above a Consolidated Edison power substation, which imposed unique structural design constraints. When the building opened in 1987, Silverstein had difficulties attracting tenants. Salomon Brothers signed a long-term lease in 1988 and became the anchor tenant of 7 WTC.
On September 11, 2001, the structure was substantially damaged by debris when the nearby North Tower of the World Trade Center collapsed. The debris ignited fires on multiple lower floors of the building, which continued to burn uncontrolled throughout the afternoon. The building’s internal fire suppression system lacked water pressure to fight the fires.
The collapse began when a critical internal column buckled and triggered cascading failure of nearby columns throughout, which was first visible from the exterior with the crumbling of a rooftop penthouse structure at 5:20:33 pm. This initiated progressive collapse of the entire building at 5:21:10 pm, according to FEMA,[5]: 23 while the 2008 NIST study placed the final collapse time at 5:20:52 pm.[6]: 19, 21, 50–51
The collapse made the old 7 World Trade Center the first steel skyscraper known to have collapsed primarily due to uncontrolled fires.[7][8]
In respect to any question of combustibility, the planes hitting the buildings were virtual bombs loaded with 90,000 lbs of highly combustible fuel, creating a continual fire of near 1000 degrees, sufficient to melt any shape-memory fasteners used to fasten floor-joists for building flexibility in case of earth-quakes.
The Canadian study does not mention this detail.
World Trade Center 7 building did not collapse due to fire: Report
Ian Harvey May 20, 2020
“Fires could not have caused weakening of displacement of structural members capable of initiating any of the hypothetical local failures alleged to have triggered the total collapse of the building,” the report states. “Nor could any local failures, even if they had occurred, have triggered a sequence of failures that would have resulted in the observed total collapse.”
The NIST report held that lateral support beams buckled because of thermal expansion from the fire and because they had “nowhere to go” and thus deformed and weakened the structural integrity. Other failures were triggered when joists and beams “walked off” their connections, NIST found.
It was also the first NIST finding of a highrise collapse from thermal deformation caused by fire which the 125-page Alaska report disputes.
It presents arguments showing it was a simultaneous global failure not a localized failure causing a domino effect.
Hulsey et al argue that the collapse was straight down in a pancake fashion with about 2.25 to 2.5 seconds for free fall acceleration.
“In a typical building collapse (given a localized structural steel failure) WTC 7 would be expected to experience a combination of axial rotation and bending of members, resulting in a disjointed, asymmetrical collapse at less than free-fall acceleration,” the report states.
As to the lack of lateral collapse.
It has been suggested that it was fortunate that the WTC did not tip over onto other buildings surrounding the area. There are several points that should be made.
First, the building is not solid; it is 95 percent air and, hence, can implode onto itself.
Second, there is no lateral load, even the impact of a speeding aircraft, which is sufficient to move the center of gravity one hundred feet to the side such that it is not within the base footprint of the structure.
Third, given the near free-fall collapse, there was insufficient time for portions to attain significant lateral velocity. To summarize all of these points, a 500,000 t structure has too much inertia to fall in any direction other than nearly straight down.
https://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/jom/0112/eagar/eagar-0112.html
However, it is entirely possible that a large part of collapsing building, falling some 900 ft may have gained sufficient kinetic impact to shift the older WTC 7 building and caused its collapse as if it had been hit by a bomb.
1 Like
Tex, Yes they do mention building 7
write4u, thank you for pulling out those quotes.
I really don’t like this topic but snot-pullers like our Tex need to be confronted with their own delusional thinking.
Now in an adult dialogue it would be Tex’s turn to spend a little time with his report, and share some of his key quotes. Because the articles about the UAF study shows a lot of handwaving (making the melting point of steel an issue being the first to slap me in the face), but no genuinely useful evidence.
Can Tex, do it, he should be able to since the report convinced him. This is how a dialogue works buddy.
djtexas - I think I disagree with you on most of your posts in this forum. Regardless, as for 911, the ship has sailed. Cheney and Rumsfeld and the PNAC got away with it. It’s really pointless to debate anything at this point. I mean tangentially, we had a base moron adulterer as prez, countless illegal acts while in, impeached twice, and what was the consequence? Nada. So the Bush/Cheney/Rums/PNAC folks aren’t going to face a bit of consequence even if proof could be found, that all sides agree with, that definitely shows there was foul play. I mean someone could unearth a video recording of Cheney/Rums/Condi literally saying “let’s do this” and still there’d be no consequence.
That said, all this haggling over details and statistics and such, anyone with sufficient smarts can bend arguments as much as they want. It’s pointless too. The only thing that convinces me is that there’s no way that many untrained boobs could steer jetliners going that fast into tiny targets by executing those maneuvers. Professional pilots would have a hard enough time, yet alone idiots trained in Cessnas and simulators. That to me is the smoking gun.
[quote=“cuthbertj, post:52, topic:8311”]
Professional pilots would have a hard enough time, yet alone idiots trained in Cessnas and simulators. That to me is the smoking gun.
I agree with most of your post, but I must warn you not to underestimate the capabilities of terrorists. These people live in this world and are able to use all sophisticated technology just like anybody else.
Their choice of primitive weapons is a strategic move. High technology often cannot deal with primitive methods.
Example; the Russian heavy armor was useless in the Afghan mountains. The only effective weapon was heavily armed helicopters, until we sold shoulder launched "stinger missiles " to the mujahideen which were effective at that range and were later used against us as well.
They are certainly not idiots and should be respected for their unshakable Islamic commitment and willingness to die for their cause.
Holding our enemy in such low regard is what allowed this to happen in the first place.
Cheney/Bush ignored their National Security experts, because the idea of a terrorist attack against American assets wasn’t the worst thing in the world. Another embassy, a battleship, what harm could those towel heads really inflict? That seems to have been the Bush Administration’s attitude.
But then, . . . Surprise, surprise.
Sorry seems to me construction detail and accepting physical facts isn’t pointless.
And though I also agree with most of what you wrote, I’ll have to get in contact with my big bro about
it would be interesting hearing an actual 737 pilots opinion of your opinion. I’ll get back to you on that.
[quote=“citizenschallengev4, post:54, topic:8311”]
it would be interesting hearing an actual 737 pilots opinion of your opinion. I’ll get back to you on that.
I remember reading that when the terrorist signed in at flight school they were not interested in “take-off” and “landing”, but only in flying the plane.
IMO, that should have raised a red flag in the instructors. They were the “boobs” in this instance.
My brother responded with pretty much those words.
“In true capitalistic fashion they actually bought time in Airline simulators to only fly enroute. They skipped the take off and landing portion of the syllabus. One would think that would set off alarm bells with a bunch of rage heads (his words not mine) asking for limited time in the simulators.”
True that, though. But remember, Cheney Bush weren’t paying much attention to the national security experts so everyone was a bit sleepy.
How U.S. Intelligence Misjudged the Growing Threat Behind 9/11
SEP 11, 2018
Among the missteps: lack of intel-sharing between agencies, tepid responses to earlier attacks and a failure to grasp the magnitude of the terrorists’ ambitions.… Some in the intelligence community didn’t believe that Arab extremists were coordinated enough to work together to plot large-scale attacks, despite having worked together in Afghanistan to force Soviet withdrawal. Even as al-Qaeda’s attacks grew in scope, agencies were reluctant to fully accept that the group diverged from previous terrorists in that they were willing to kill civilians on a large scale. …
National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States
We believe the 9/11 attacks revealed four kinds of failures in:
imagination,
policy,
capabilities, and
management.
“Tex, Yes they do mention building 7”
Claims without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. Besides NIST , none of your links discuss the collapse of WT C 7.
I found this video by Mick West that criticises Hulseys study upon the initial release of the report in that he says non linear dynamic analysis should have applied to mimic the collapse rather than linear and static.
Since then, Hulsey has released his raw data used in modelling and am not sure if anyone else has used this themselves to test the model.
In your Conversation article there is also a claim that national/international codes have been changed as a result of NIST findings (twin towers and WTC7). As far as I know nothing of structural significance has been changed. Just ‘cosmetic’ stuff like stairwells i.e. access.
Not sure why they try to bring in Grenfell and combustible facade into it. It bears no relationship to WTC7 etc. A different cattle of fish imo.
One of the big complaints about nist is them not releasing raw data of their models for people to play with - despite initially indicating that they would
Thank you Tex, that was interesting and informative. Other than repeating himself way too often West was clear and informative and pretty fundamentally damning of Hulsey analysis.
My hat off to you for sharing it.
Why should they? The models are fundamentally flawed, his suppositions are fundamentally flawed, he misrepresent NIST and their definitive study. Garbage in, garbage out, what’s would be the point of a real expert, a professional wasting their precious time beating such a dead horse.
Doesn’t that seem a pretty damning assessment? Especially including the last minutes where West points out that Hulsey has been ignoring critique of his study for two years?