It's Japan with more plastic surgery and harder drinking

[Russell]

Yes but do not forget to factor in the fact that the towers were not empty and might have had sufficient carpets and furniture to maintain a fire.

As I stated above, the fires were not sufficiently hot (even though furniture was burning), witness significant smoke.

[Russell]

As a scientist I find it hard to come up with a rational explanation of all this shit. But psst, keep it quiet, because it is a taboo to talk in this way.

As a scientist (materials science? engineer? anything actually relevant to put you in a position of greater knowledge than the average man in the street?), what do you think is the most likely explanation? Why is that consideration -- of the most likely out of all possible hypotheses -- not considered a valid scientific method in this case? Isn't this the way that science has evolved in its journey towards better understanding?

If this site is about anything at all, it is about riding roughshod over taboos. Go for it!

I expect, and will demand, scientific rigour in your explanation.

It is basically about common sense. Most of what is written and said by the "official channels" does not make sense. Funny thing is that many facts about the collapse of the three WTC towers contradict even basic physics. But more about that later.

My basic premise is that the investigations into the causes of the collapses of WTC1, WTC2, and WTC7 were not convincing, to say the least, and that a new investigation is badly needed. Before a scenario can be decided upon of what actually happened, this new investigation should be finished first.

[Russell]

Is this really incredible? Genuine question.

Immediately following the attacks, a building performance study (BPS) team of engineering specialists was formed by the Structural Engineering Institute of the American Society of Civil Engineers (SEI/ASCE) and Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). The BPS team issued its report in May 2002, finding that the aircraft impacts caused "extensive structural damage, including localized collapse" and that the resulting fires "further weakened the steel-framed structures, eventually leading to total collapse". They also presented recommendations for more detailed engineering studies of the disaster.[5]

The BPS team investigation was later followed by a more detailed investigation conducted by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), which also consulted outside engineering entities. This investigation was completed in September 2005. The NIST investigators did not find anything substandard in the design of the WTC towers, noting that the severity of the attacks and the magnitude of the destruction was beyond anything experienced in U.S. cities in the past. They also emphasized the role of the fires and found that sagging floors pulled inward on the perimeter columns: "This led to the inward bowing of the perimeter columns and failure of the south face of WTC 1 and the east face of WTC 2, initiating the collapse of each of the towers."[6]

Snip

The light construction and hollow nature of the structures allowed the jet fuel to penetrate far inside the towers, igniting many large fires simultaneously over a wide area of the impacted floors. The fuel from the planes burned at most for a few minutes, but the contents of the buildings burned over the next hour or hour and a half.[22] It has been suggested[by whom?] that the fires might not have been as centrally positioned, nor as intense, had traditionally heavy high-rise construction been standing in the way of the aircraft. Debris and fuel would likely have remained mostly outside the buildings or concentrated in more peripheral areas away from the building cores, which would then not have become unique failure points. In this scenario, the towers might have stood far longer, perhaps indefinitely.[23][24] The fires were hot enough to weaken the columns and cause floors to sag, pulling perimeter columns inward and reducing their ability to support the mass of the building above.[25]

See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collapse_of_the_World_Trade_Center for more and for references.

Lots of impressive names and institutions, but I don't give a hoot. I have learned to think for myself. The NIST report on WTC7 is a joke. It took them 7 years to come up with it, after they maintained for a long time that in the best-case scenario they couldn't explain the WTC7 collapse. And then, after 7 years they could only describe the onset of the collapse in computer simulations after lots of manipulations with their model. They stopped there, and apparently were unable to get the actual collapse occur in their simulations, i.e., what happened after the onset. The name NIST sounds impressive, unless you realize that it was just a couple of people doing these simulations.

In the mean time there is a list of about 2500 building engineers and architects calling for a new investigation, because they disagree with the conclusions of NIST. Most of these people come out after their retirement, because then there is no risk to loose their jobs. As I said, it is a taboo to speak openly about your doubts.

[Russell]

Further, it is not a unique example of a fire buckling structural steel members, even without the addition of external fuel, and remaining over its own footprint.
http://www.mace.manchester.ac.uk/projec ... efault.htm

A hint for Russell: I think the jet fuel factor is a complete red herring, except maybe as a aviation チャッカマン. The question is not whether jet fuel can or cannot melt steel. The question is whether a fire in a building can reach sufficient temperature to weaken steel enough that it is structurally unstable. As with so many conspiracy theories, the basic assumptions are flawed.

Wagyl, did you actually look closer to that link?

Because it actually supports the suspicions about the collapses of WTC1 and WTC2.

The Windsor Tower in Madrid had no fire protection on its steel columns, it had no sprinklers, it burned for 18 to 20 hours, the fire was much fiercer than in WTC1 and WTC2, and it only partly collapsed, leaving the steel frame mostly intact (though buckled).

The WTC1 and WTC2 had fire protection on their steel columns, they had sprinklers (which were installed after the very fierce electric fire on the 11th floor of WTC1 in 1975, which did not cause any structural problems with the steel funnily), they burned for one hour or so, the fires were relatively low temperature witness the smoke, they both collapsed completely, and their steel columns were heavily impacted, some witnessed to appear having been cut.

It only gets worse, once you look into more facts.

And then I did not even start with WTC7. Why don't you watch a few videos of WTC7, because that is what gets most people to doubt the "official story", whatever that may be.

[Russell]

OK, I'm aware that I must royally look like a "conspiracy theorist" by now, but let me just sum up my arguments of why the collapse of WTC7 looks so suspicious.

WTC was damaged by debris falling from WTC1, and got on fire. About 8 hours later it collapsed. Look at the video.

This is a typical case of what you see is what you get: a controlled demolition. That is confirmed by analysis of videos of the collapse that show a free fall acceleration for at least 2 seconds. Problem is that controlled demolition is denied officially.

The official explanation, supported by NIST, is that office fires weakened the steel columns, such that the building collapsed. Now, let's examine this argument. There were about 50 steel columns in this building. That is, 50 vertical massive steel columns that kept the building up. You can see in the video that WTC7 collapses symmetrically. Just imagine in what order these columns have to fail in order to make this collapse occur symmetrically. It appears that at the roof the center of the building is giving in first, but after that most of the building goes down as one block. This means that most of those 50 steel columns have to fail at virtually the same time.

Now think about that: all columns failing around the same time means that they should have been weakened in a homogeneous pattern, which implies that there was fire all over the place. Even if that were the case, then it is still extremely unlikely that all those columns would fail at the same time. That is not how processes in nature take place: there is always an element of randomness involved, which appears to be completely lacking in this case. If fire would weaken the columns, and if that would cause the building to collapse, it would be extremely likely that this collapse would be asymmetrical.

This is the basic argument that led me to the conclusion that this building was brought down by explosives. My first thought was that authorities rushed in after the attacks with explosives to bring down WTC7 because it could have been a safety hazard, but that is not how controlled demolition works. It takes at least a few weeks to a month to install explosives for controlled demolition. My second though was then that Al Queda did a pretty good job preparing for this by wiring this building in the weeks before the attacks. Problem is, both the FBI and the CIA had an office in WTC7, so they surely would've noticed, wouldn't they?

So, that led me to the conclusion that there was something funny going on. Actually, there are many more funny things with WTC7 that do not make sense at all, but I won't delve into this, because it's time for a good sleep.

[Tsuru]

The collapse is not symmetric, it's a cascade. As you can see in the video, a structure on the roof disappears first indicating that something has happened on the (already heavily damaged) other side of the building. I remember seeing pictures of the other side of building 7, think Oklahoma federal building. The steel lattice is not only weakened due to temperature, but now also gets pulled inward horizontally toward this collapse, which triggers further buckling because too many of the the continuous vertical components and load paths of the lattice that carry the weight of what remains of the building are now being interrupted.

If you put a bucket of water on a broomstick, it can carry the weight just fine. If you take a hacksaw to it in the middle and put the pieces together perfectly again, it will still stay up. But if you give it the slightest push horizontally in the same spot the broomstick will suddenly collapse very quickly.

It's the same with the pancaking collapse of the second WTC tower: Temperatures keep rising, yield strength of the remaining structure keeps falling and then suddenly, in the blink of an eye at one point or node in the structure the stress is higher than the yield strength at that particular point. And then Mr Newton takes it from there.

There were too many unpredictable factors for the collapse to have been planned. How would you even do this? Even collapsing a stable structure during a normal demolishing operation by a professional company that does this all day every day has a lot unpredictable factors, and takes weeks of planning and preparation. Now imagine trying to perfectly and professionally bring down a structure damaged by random debris two another structures falling into it, which themselves were knocked down by jets impacting in random locations from different directions. Within a few hours.

If I were you I'd focus on the people who had prior knowledge of this and dumped unusually large volumes of UAL and AAL stock on september 10.

[yanpa]

Has anyone done a serious study on what would be involved in wiring up all 3 buildings so they could be brought down in a coordinated manner after having airliners crash into two of them in an unpredictable manner (unless of course those airliners were also somehow crashed in a precisely coordinated manner), and how that presumably quite extensive work could be covered up and hidden so that no-one would accidentally stumble across it and need to be disappeared in an unsuspicous way, and how that all those involved could be relied upon to provide absolute secrecy for ever?

[Coligny]

There were too many unpredictable factors for the collapse to have been planned. How would you even do this

That's the most disturbing part for me...

1- how can 3 buildings collapse in their iwn footpring in the same day after some arabs randomly crashed planes into 2 of them ...

2- how in a country now more known for its engineering failures could an organisation plan, prep and trigger a controlled demolition of 3 buildings in one of the busiest block of the busiest city without anyone noticing. And being successfull)


Which lead me to believe in my Schroedinger's conclusion...
The twin towers are still there... just cloacked and stored in another reality...

Also... Russell... I called the pope and your wife is shortlisted for eligibility into sainthood for putting up with youz...

[Coligny]

Can't bither to find the Russell's FAO thread...
So I'll just dump here an "holy f00king shit" news...

IMG_8903.JPG

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... -block.htm

[Russell]

Can't bither to find the Russell's FAO thread...
So I'll just dump here an "holy f00king shit" news...

IMG_8903.JPG

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... -block.htm

Still didn't find time to reply to the previous postings, but I too couldn't help noticing possible similarities with WTC7, except that the current fire is much more vigorous.

So, who of you thinks that this building will come down demolition-style?

[wagyl]

I'm waiting until you give a "the end" at the end of your argument, before coming back with anything in rebuttal. If only to save you from tangents while you set out your thinking, and to help you pretend that you are not under attack for your views We have had more than 15 years since 11 September, a few weeks or months before you reply will make no difference.

[Russell]

I'm waiting until you give a "the end" at the end of your argument, before coming back with anything in rebuttal. If only to save you from tangents while you set out your thinking, and to help you pretend that you are not under attack for your views We have had more than 15 years since 11 September, a few weeks or months before you reply will make no difference.

You think you can make a useful argument after your previous "rebuttal"?

[wagyl]

I'm waiting until you give a "the end" at the end of your argument, before coming back with anything in rebuttal. If only to save you from tangents while you set out your thinking, and to help you pretend that you are not under attack for your views We have had more than 15 years since 11 September, a few weeks or months before you reply will make no difference.

You think you can make a useful argument after your previous "rebuttal"?

Yes.

[Russell]

I'm waiting until you give a "the end" at the end of your argument, before coming back with anything in rebuttal. If only to save you from tangents while you set out your thinking, and to help you pretend that you are not under attack for your views We have had more than 15 years since 11 September, a few weeks or months before you reply will make no difference.

You think you can make a useful argument after your previous "rebuttal"?

Yes.

Sounds good. Looking forward to a good discussion.

[Tsuru]

Can't bither to find the Russell's FAO thread...
So I'll just dump here an "holy f00king shit" news...

IMG_8903.JPG

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... -block.htm

Still didn't find time to reply to the previous postings, but I too couldn't help noticing possible similarities with WTC7, except that the current fire is much more vigorous.

So, who of you thinks that this building will come down demolition-style?

What are these similarities?

1. It's a tall building
2. It's on fire
3. ???

Might I suggest you take a look at the NIST WTC7 report and their other 911 reports? They are very enlightening as to how extensive the mechanical damage was to the structure of WTC7 before it collapsed. https://www.nist.gov/news-events/news/2 ... ion-report

[wagyl]

They are both also closer to the North Pole than to the south, but hang on, that doesn't explain Edificio Windsor which is allegedly an exception (although I will include comment relating to that).....
Maybe the extra similarity is that they are both in the northern hemisphere and both in the Anglosphere.

But I will instruct my sniper to hold fire until Russell has completed his case, since I, too, am looking forward to a structured, proper, civil discussion.

[legion]

Can't bither to find the Russell's FAO thread...
So I'll just dump here an "holy f00king shit" news...

IMG_8903.JPG

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... -block.htm

very nasty and very sad, fingers already pointing

all I can say is

is falling apart

[Coligny]

I'm sort of hard to be disturbed...

But that tower engulfed in flames and the charred remains of the structure... not good for keeping lunch in...

The WTC collapse was near surgically clean compared to this...

[legion]

It appears the building was wrapped in combustible material recently, partly to put it in line with legislation designed to reduce energy consumption, partly to make it look pretty. Guess which aspect which papers will emphasize.

[Wage Slave]

From my Facebook page today:

So a fire that starts on the 4th floor of a 27 story council tower block, burning for almost 12 hours, and the building remains standing...? Yet BOTH of the trade centre towers collapsed from fires in the upper floors?!? Making it an absolute FIRST in the field of engineering??
#truthseekersunite

[Takechanpoo]

its plane and simple
that london apartment is made of steel frame and concrete while ex-wtts were made of only steel frame.

[Coligny]

It appears the building was wrapped in combustible material recently, partly to put it in line with legislation designed to reduce energy consumption, partly to make it look pretty. Guess which aspect which papers will emphasize.

The combustible part ?!

Maybe ?

[legion]

Britain's future PM

[Wage Slave]

It appears the building was wrapped in combustible material recently, partly to put it in line with legislation designed to reduce energy consumption, partly to make it look pretty. Guess which aspect which papers will emphasize.

The combustible part ?!

Maybe ?

Speaking of which it does seem that the particular type of cladding used was anything but the slightest bit fire resistant. And there's a good chance the same stuff has been installed in a number of other tower blocks. So far, the Council involved (Kensington and Chelsea) and Mrs May have yet to say anything on the topic. Not that I am any expert in these things but it seems obvious that if this stuff has been fitted, in the same way with handy chimney, to other buildings, then it needs to come off and pronto.

It's deeply embarrassing that this has occurred and the lack of response from those with responsibility is deeply shameful. We are still not getting anything like a reasonable estimate for the number of people who were killed in this but upwards of 150 is the word on the street.

[wagyl]

Word on the same street is that this cladding has been fitted to a huge number of buildings. For example, thousands of buildings in a dry, dusty, fire-prone little country in the Southern Hemisphere alone.

[Wage Slave]

Word on the same street is that this cladding has been fitted to a huge number of buildings. For example, thousands of buildings in a dry, dusty, fire-prone little country in the Southern Hemisphere alone.

Wow and golly gosh. News indeed. According to some reports the same company makes a couple of different versions at slightly different prices and the version fitted to that block is the cheapest and least fire resistant. The cheapest product is apparently banned in the US on high rise buildings. Given the speed that that building turned into an unmanageable inferno of a deathtrap I can't see how the stuff can be allowed to remain on buildings for a day longer than it takes to get it all taken off. And unless the slightly more expensive version is hugely less combustible, that has to come off as well.

[wagyl]

Not even Paradis terrestre is immune.

[Coligny]

I have no idea aboot building code... but usually for multi tenant blocks one can at least expect non flamable materials... (not fire resistant,just something that even if it is destroyed by fire can not be ignited)

[Coligny]

Word on the same street is that this cladding has been fitted to a huge number of buildings. For example, thousands of buildings in a dry, dusty, fire-prone little country in the Southern Hemisphere alone.

Wow and golly gosh. News indeed. According to some reports the same company makes a couple of different versions at slightly different prices and the version fitted to that block is the cheapest and least fire resistant. The cheapest product is apparently banned in the US on high rise buildings. Given the speed that that building turned into an unmanageable inferno of a deathtrap I can't see how the stuff can be allowed to remain on buildings for a day longer than it takes to get it all taken off. And unless the slightly more expensive version is hugely less combustible, that has to come off as well.

"Least fire" resistant really don't match what was seen on TV.... it was burnable...

[Wage Slave]

Word on the same street is that this cladding has been fitted to a huge number of buildings. For example, thousands of buildings in a dry, dusty, fire-prone little country in the Southern Hemisphere alone.

Wow and golly gosh. News indeed. According to some reports the same company makes a couple of different versions at slightly different prices and the version fitted to that block is the cheapest and least fire resistant. The cheapest product is apparently banned in the US on high rise buildings. Given the speed that that building turned into an unmanageable inferno of a deathtrap I can't see how the stuff can be allowed to remain on buildings for a day longer than it takes to get it all taken off. And unless the slightly more expensive version is hugely less combustible, that has to come off as well.

"Least fire" resistant really don't match what was seen on TV.... it was burnable...

Indeed. It actually burned extremely enthusiastically. How it could ever be placed on a building together with a handy chimney is difficult to fathom. Is it possible the company making it started to cheat on the manufacture? Takata style negligence? How is it possible?