9/11 Conspiracy Debunkers

originally posted by: samkent
a reply to: bloodymarvelous

When a structure fails due to gradually increasing stress, it isn't usually going to fail completely in an instant. Go from not falling to immediately falling at free fall speed.

Why do you keep ignoring the tower falling through first?

That's like saying Hiroshima had a mysterious explosion and ignoring the plane.

What do you mean by "falling through first"? The fact any part of it EVER reached a free fall velocity is the issue.

Whatever part failed first should still have failed gradually.

originally posted by: mrthumpy

originally posted by: bloodymarvelous



When a structure fails due to gradually increasing stress

What gradually increasing stress are we talking about here?

I'm counting the heating of the pillars as "stress". As they got hotter and hotter, they gradually lost strength.

For them to fail instantly, they would need to suddenly increase in temperature by quite a lot. (Hence the theory that thermite could account for the suddenness here).

Or by some means their strength would have to jump quickly from "strong enough" to "much weaker than strong enough".

If they go from "just barely strong enough" to "just barely not strong enough", they will still be padding the collapse at that point.

originally posted by: neutronflux

originally posted by: thunderfoot
a reply to: bob234arley

Everyone sees that the Grenfell tower not fall down, this is pure proof that WTC 7 was controlled demos. Now none of you can ever deny it anymore. There needs to be new investigation NOW>

Whole lawsuit, Aegis insurance vs WTC 7 Owners, which engineers backed with technical documents and testimony the NIST WTC 7 conclusions.

Like to debate the technicalities of the case to discredit a fire that lead to a series of failures which resulted in collapse? Or just go off innuendo and no evidence?

Lawsuits only require 51% certainty for either side to win.

You're confusing the fact experts testified with an insistence that they therefore had lots of evidence to go on.

That's like assuming in a normal trial that if the police forensic expert testifies, that therefore the state must have damning evidence. Instead of looking at what the forensic expert actually has to say.

Most likely the reason the case turned out as it did is because neither side could say for sure what happened, but collapse due to terrorist attack appeared most likely given the FBI finding Korans in the car of the 19 terrorists. NOT because of anything the engineers had to say.

originally posted by: bloodymarvelous

originally posted by: neutronflux

originally posted by: thunderfoot
a reply to: bob234arley

Everyone sees that the Grenfell tower not fall down, this is pure proof that WTC 7 was controlled demos. Now none of you can ever deny it anymore. There needs to be new investigation NOW>

Whole lawsuit, Aegis insurance vs WTC 7 Owners, which engineers backed with technical documents and testimony the NIST WTC 7 conclusions.

Like to debate the technicalities of the case to discredit a fire that lead to a series of failures which resulted in collapse? Or just go off innuendo and no evidence?

Lawsuits only require 51% certainty for either side to win.

You're confusing the fact experts testified with an insistence that they therefore had lots of evidence to go on.

That's like assuming in a normal trial that if the police forensic expert testifies, that therefore the state must have damning evidence. Instead of looking at what the forensic expert actually has to say.

Most likely the reason the case turned out as it did is because neither side could say for sure what happened, but collapse due to terrorist attack appeared most likely given the FBI finding Korans in the car of the 19 terrorists. NOT because of anything the engineers had to say.

Sorry, the suit was by Aegis insurance to get out of paying the claim for WTC 7. They claimed neglect by WTC 7 owners. If there was any evidence the owners imploded their own building, Aegis lawyers would have been all over the sabotage narrative.

Sorry, both sides gave proof and support to the NIST conclusions. Court submitted technical documents and testimony. All in support of NIST peer reviewed conclusions.

Are you saying WTC 1 and 2 were fire root cause initiated collapse, but not WTC 7.

How did the government and private owners conspire with each other? Why would the government include WTC 7 owners? Cover for WTC 7? Firefighters knew about WTC 7, but were lead like sheep to a slaughter at WTC 1 and 2?

Where was the magical remote control station to initiate collapse for 3 Buildings? Who had the control for the three buildings.

Again, the outer vertical columns only had to bow in enough to transfer the load of the upper structure off the foundation to critical points in the bends to cause sudden failure.

originally posted by: neutronflux

originally posted by: bloodymarvelous

originally posted by: neutronflux

originally posted by: thunderfoot
a reply to: bob234arley

Everyone sees that the Grenfell tower not fall down, this is pure proof that WTC 7 was controlled demos. Now none of you can ever deny it anymore. There needs to be new investigation NOW>

Whole lawsuit, Aegis insurance vs WTC 7 Owners, which engineers backed with technical documents and testimony the NIST WTC 7 conclusions.

Like to debate the technicalities of the case to discredit a fire that lead to a series of failures which resulted in collapse? Or just go off innuendo and no evidence?

Lawsuits only require 51% certainty for either side to win.

You're confusing the fact experts testified with an insistence that they therefore had lots of evidence to go on.

That's like assuming in a normal trial that if the police forensic expert testifies, that therefore the state must have damning evidence. Instead of looking at what the forensic expert actually has to say.

Most likely the reason the case turned out as it did is because neither side could say for sure what happened, but collapse due to terrorist attack appeared most likely given the FBI finding Korans in the car of the 19 terrorists. NOT because of anything the engineers had to say.

Sorry, the suit was by Aegis insurance to get out of paying the claim for WTC 7. They claimed neglect by WTC 7 owners. If there was any evidence the owners imploded their own building, Aegis lawyers would have been all over the sabotage narrative.

Sorry, both sides gave proof and support to the NIST conclusions. Court submitted technical documents and testimony. All in support of NIST peer reviewed conclusions.

There wasn't a lot of evidence to go on. Again, you are confusing "expert testimony" with "informed expert testimony". Informed by what?

It's like if you're in court and the police forensic expert takes the stand. That doesn't automatically mean the forensic expert has damning evidence of a crime (or exonerating evidence either.) It just means someone felt like calling them to the stand.


There are times when science simply doesn't know something. When that happens, you can't just ask "what do the experts think?" The experts don't know everything about everything.

Are you saying WTC 1 and 2 were fire root cause initiated collapse, but not WTC 7.

How did the government and private owners conspire with each other? Why would the government include WTC 7 owners? Cover for WTC 7? Firefighters knew about WTC 7, but were lead like sheep to a slaughter at WTC 1 and 2?

WTC 1 and 2 were owned by the same person as WTC 7. Larry Silverstein. He finished purchasing the lease on WTC 1 and 2 less than 2 months prior to the attacks (and insured them for twice their value in the event two incidents were to occur, and argued later in court that the two planes were two incidents.)


I really doubt firefighters knew anything. That isn't the way a conspiracy would have worked if there was one. That's not the way real conspiracies work.

In a real conspiracy, there's one or two people on the inside. Like, if the Mafia wants to derail a police investigation, they'll just use one, or maybe two dirty cops to do the deed. Not pay off the whole force.

Where was the magical remote control station to initiate collapse for 3 Buildings? Who had the control for the three buildings.

You're kidding, right? This is the middle of New York. Plenty of places available for that.

But no need, because cell phones existed back then.

Again, the outer vertical columns only had to bow in enough to transfer the load of the upper structure off the foundation to critical points in the bends to cause sudden failure.

Which building are you talking about now?

For WTC 1 and 2, you can plainly see the core failed simultaneously with the outer walls. Otherwise the spire would have stayed put for a moment as the walls began falling.

Also one of the walls had bowed quite a bit, a long time before collapse began. And it was holding. So the idea that bowing would cause sudden collapse doesn't hold water. (Although it could easily cause gradual collapse).

a reply to: bloodymarvelous

Materials can fail suddenly. After their ultimate tensile strength is exceeded, snap. That can happen fast, there is no need for a gradual weakening and bending under all circumstances.

a reply to: bloodymarvelous

Again, the critical point at the bows has been explained over and over to you with no credible rebuttal. The slow progression to collapse was the vertical columns being pulled in and bowed. Once enough load was transferred off the foundation to the bow in the vertical columns to the bend in the columns, they buckled.

There is no video supporting the core of the towers ware cut, and the core was dropped to induce buckling. No physical evidence.

Can you cited and provide a rebuttal to the expert testimony at the Aegis lawsuit?
www.metabunk.org...

From the poster: benthamitemetric

The reports as follows:
Analysis of the Impact of a Fire in the Mechanical Room (5th & 6th Floor) of the World Trade Center 7 Building by Jose Torero.
World Trade Center 7 by Joseph P. Colaco (same file as above)
Response of WTC7 to Standard Office Fires and Collapse Initiation by Colin Bailey
Expert Report by Frederick Mowrer
Report and Summary of Findings: Global Collapse Analysis, World Trade Center 7 Investigation by Guy Nordenson (Report 1, Report 2)

www.metabunk.org...

I, Colin G. Bailey, declare:
1. I have been a practicing structural engineer for 22 years and I am presently a Professor of Structural Engineering at Manchester University in Manchester, England.
2. Among my specialties are the fire safety engineering of structures and steel-concrete composite systems. I am a Fellow of the Institution of Civil Engineers (FICE), a member of the Institution of Structural Engineers (MIStructE), and a member of the Institution of Fire Engineers (MIFireE). My curriculum vita is attached hereto as Exhibit A.
3. In 2007, I was retained by counsel for Plaintiffs in this case to provide expert analysis with respect to the cause of the global collapse of World Trade Center 7 on September 11, 2001.
4. Since that time, I have reviewed thousands of documents, drawings, and photographs, and actively participated in and reviewed the computer fire modeling performed on behalf of the Plaintiffs in this case.
The opinions that follow are based on that review and activity, and are made to a reasonable degree of scientific probability. These opinions and the data and materials relied upon in forming these opinions are more fully set forth in my report dated February 15, 2010, attached hereto as Exhibit D and made a part hereof.
Based on my work to date, including computer modeling at the University of Edinburgh in which many columns were removed in the model to see the effect on the structure of the building, it is my opinion that any structural damage caused by debris from the collapse of WTC 1 or WTC2 played no part in the collapse of 7WTC.
Based on my work to date, including computer models by the University of Edinburgh, it is my opinion that if there had been a diesel fuel fire on September 11 involving between 7,350 and 9,300 gallons of diesel fuel on the fifth floor of 7WTC in the area of the transfer trusses, such a fire would have compromised the strength of the transfer trusses, and could have caused them to fail, resulting in the collapse of columns 79 and/or 80.
The computer modeling completed to date supports the conclusion that 7WTC would have collapsed as a result of typical office contents fires because of several design/construction failures, including the failure to adequately fireproof the flutes of the metal floor decking for 7WTC and the failure to ensure that a restrained floor system was constructed.
When a steel beam supports a composite deck, comprising a fluted (trapezoidal shaped) steel deck, concrete and mesh reinforcement, a cavity (or void) is formed between the top flange of the beam and the fluted deck. For fluted decks, such as those used on 7WTC, this cavity (or void) is large. Leaving the cavities between the fluted deck and top flange of the beam unfilled or inadequately filled with fire protection material results in:
a. an increase in temperature of the top flange and web; b. an increase in temperature of the shear studs;
c. reduction in load capacity of beams during a fire; and d. reduction in overall fire resistance.
In the
following statement: “Cavities, if any, between the upper beam flange and floor or roof units shall be filled with the fire protection material applied to the beam, unless stated otherwise on an individual design.”
UL Fire Resistance Directory for 1983 and 1985 the need to fill the voids is covered by the upper beam flange and floor or roof units shall be filled with the fire protection material applied to the beam, unless stated otherwise on an individual design.”
10. The photographic evidence shows that the cavities were either not filled with fire protection at all, or were so inadequately filled as to have been unfilled for all practical purposes. See Exhibit A. An example of flutes in the process of being filled with fire protection on a different building is shown in Exhibit B. Exhibit C, which appears in the American Institute of Steel Construction Design Guide, shows another example where the flutes have been filled with fire protection.1 Failure to construct the building with adequate fire protection by filling the voids reduced the fire resistance below building code requirements.
11. The structural fire protection was specified by the 7WTC architect based on a restrained system. However, the main girder from Column 79 to 44 was not designed and constructed as restrained. The girder did not have a sufficient number of shear studs2 and the connections were not constructed to allow the adequate transfer of thermal thrusts to the supports as specified in the UL Fire Resistance Directory for 1983 and 1985. Specifying a level of fire protection based on restrained systems to a constructed unrestrained system resulted in a reduction of fire resistance for 7WTC.
12. The combination of very large floor bays, transfer trusses, cantilevered girders and unusual angles at which beams, girders and columns joined created a building that required careful examination and construction to ensure structural integrity. Such an examination and construction would include, but not necessarily be limited to:
i. Design and construction of connections to allow adequate tying;
ii. Design and construction of the building such that removal of one structural element,
either a beam, column or truss, would not result in global collapse;
iii. Increasing the normal factor-of-safety against failure, through design and construction, of any structural member within a building which, if it failed, would
lead to global collapse.
13. Inadequate consideration was given to the structural integrity of 7WTC, despite the structural issues listed above. Construction of 7WTC without regard for its structural integrity was the cause of the global collapse of WTC 7 on September 11, 2001.
14. Because of the building’s lack of structural integrity, an initial localized failure at column 79 precipitated a global collapse of the building.
15. Constructing the building with adequate structural integrity could have been achieved at a cost insignificant in relation to the total cost of construction of the building.
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing statements made by me are true.
COLIN G. BAILEY

.

a reply to: bloodymarvelous

Frederick W. Mowrer, Ph.D. C P Fire, LLC 4101 College Heights Drive University Park, MD 20782
Submitted to:

Mark Antin, Esq. Gennet, Kallmann, Antin and Robinson, P.C. 6 Campus Drive Parsippany, NJ 07054



February 15, 2010

www.metabunk.org...

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This volume is a compilation of the currently available images taken on 11 September 2001 of World Trade Center 7. These images were all taken after the collapse of World Trade Center 1 but before the collapse of World Trade Center 7. Only images that show discernible debris impact or fire-related damage to the building have been included. The damage apparent in each photograph has been catalogued according to its type and location on the building (see Appendix 1A - Photographic Damage Index). The categories of type are as follows: broken window, debris damage, debris damage and broken window, gash, smoke, broken window with internal fire, broken window with external fire, and burned-out. This database of damage makes it possible to discern the patterns of fire and debris damage present on the building in order to give a comprehensive view of the building before its collapse.
This volume also attempts to create a timeline of events based upon these photographs. Many of the images were included in the National Institute of Standards and Technology’s Structural Fire Response and Probable Collapse Sequence of World Trade Center Building 7. Within this document NIST delineated either precise times or a range of times for each of the images. Also, approximately 28 image files contain metadata with timestamp information. These images afforded an overall timeline into which the remaining untimed photographs could be inserted based upon locations of fires, smoke, and burned-out windows in relation to the NIST and metadata images. These times are understood to be approximate and subject to the accuracy of NIST’s timing along with the limitations of the individual photographs’ quality and scope.
In order to provide an overview of how fires behaved during the period between WTC1’s collapse and WTC7’s collapse, this volume has been divided into hourly increments. Each of the volume’s sections approximately represents an hour of the day. Within each section are diagrams of the four façade elevations that demonstrate how fires changed throughout the day across the entire building. When there was evidence of changes to the fire within a particular hourly increment, detail elevation diagrams
and corresponding images are included as well. These sequences of detail elevations illustrate how each fire moved on a given façade during that hour. In addition to diagrams, the photographic evidence pertaining to the hour is also contained within the section. This assemblage allows each section to comprise all the information available for an increment of time.
The information contained within this volume has been constructed based upon the photographs and corresponding times currently available and is subject to change in the event additional information is obtained.

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: bloodymarvelous

Again, the critical point at the bows has been explained over and over to you with no credible rebuttal. The slow progression to collapse was the vertical columns being pulled in and bowed. Once enough load was transferred off the foundation to the bow in the vertical columns to the bend in the columns, they buckled.

There is no video supporting the core of the towers ware cut, and the core was dropped to induce buckling. No physical evidence.

Can you cited and provide a rebuttal to the expert testimony at the Aegis lawsuit?
www.metabunk.org...

From the poster: benthamitemetric

I don't think you understand how the scientific method works. There is no need to refute speculation.

Nothing in your quote rises above speculation. He only testified that he believed collapse due to fire was possible. He never definitively said he could prove fire did cause it.

The second issue is this:

Based on my work to date, including computer models by the University of Edinburgh, it is my opinion that if there had been a diesel fuel fire on September 11 involving between 7,350 and 9,300 gallons of diesel fuel on the fifth floor of 7WTC in the area of the transfer trusses, such a fire would have compromised the strength of the transfer trusses, and could have caused them to fail, resulting in the collapse of columns 79 and/or 80.

In NIST's FAQ on the topic they say:




www.nist.gov...

19. Did fuel oil systems in WTC 7 contribute to its collapse?
No. The building had three separate emergency power systems, all of which ran on diesel fuel. The worst-case scenarios associated with fires being fed by ruptured fuel lines—or from fuel stored in day tanks on the lower floors—could not have been sustained long enough, could not have generated sufficient heat to weaken critical interior columns, and/or would have produced large amounts of visible smoke from the lower floors, which were not observed.
As background information, the three systems contained two 12,000-gallon fuel tanks, and two 6,000-gallon tanks beneath the building's loading docks, and a single 6,000-gallon tank on the 1st floor. In addition, one system used a 275-gallon tank on the 5th floor, a 275-gallon tank on the 8th floor, and a 50-gallon tank on the 9th floor. Another system used a 275-gallon day tank on the 7th floor.
Several months after the WTC 7 collapse, a contractor recovered an estimated 23,000 gallons of fuel from these tanks. NIST estimated that the unaccounted fuel totaled 1,000 ± 1,000 gallons of fuel (in other words, somewhere between 0 and 2,000 gallons, with approximately 1,000 gallons as the most likely figure).
The fate of the fuel in the day tanks and the two 6,000-gallon tanks was unknown, so NIST assumed they were full on Sept. 11, 2001.

To clarify, NIST definitively refutes the claim that diesel fuel caused the collapse of building 7.

We're left with only burning office debris. But unlike buildings 1 and 2, there was no sudden and intense ignition event to get the fire stoked to maximum hotness. Just a plain old, run of the mill, office fire.

a reply to: bloodymarvelous

For thermite, you have what to supersede the lawsuit and NIST conclusions?

They follow the scientific method by applying modeling, observation, and research to produce the most likely cause of collapse.

I asked you to discredit the sworn testimony from the Aegis lawsuit.

No proof the cores failed in the two towers to initiate collapse. Video proves only a one or two story section of vertical columns buckeled to initiate collapse. A falling core would produce the same effect on ever floor above the point of failure in the core.

You misinterpreted the WTC antenna where other videos shows the antenna leaning, and then descending with the upper block of the tower. The antenna did not fall into the roof of the tower at collapse initiation.

If thermite was only used in a few cuts, how would it even be detectable in 1,000,000 tons of dust, ruble, and steel?


Can you cite credible work thermite was discovered at the WTC.

It's been shown how bowing would lead to vertical column failure.

a reply to: bloodymarvelous

An office fire that still would cause steel to expand. An office fire that would still cause structural steel to lose 60 percent of its ability to resist load. Especially in a building where people testified and provided evidence the fire proofing was inadequate, with long floor trusses with no mid supports, and inadequate floor connections for the abnormal angles for the building.

Then who knows what would happen to a deranged building once the expanded steel in portions of the building would start to cool and contract at different rates.

originally posted by: bloodymarvelous

originally posted by: mrthumpy

originally posted by: bloodymarvelous



When a structure fails due to gradually increasing stress

What gradually increasing stress are we talking about here?

I'm counting the heating of the pillars as "stress". As they got hotter and hotter, they gradually lost strength.

For them to fail instantly, they would need to suddenly increase in temperature by quite a lot. (Hence the theory that thermite could account for the suddenness here).

Or by some means their strength would have to jump quickly from "strong enough" to "much weaker than strong enough".

If they go from "just barely strong enough" to "just barely not strong enough", they will still be padding the collapse at that point.

For them to fail instantly they just have to reach the stage when they can no longer support roughly forty five thousand tonnes

a reply to: mrthumpy

That instant fail scenario you describe must also account for the lateral displacement of numerous large structural pieces.

It cannot and does not account for that.

originally posted by: Salander
a reply to: mrthumpy

That instant fail scenario you describe must also account for the lateral displacement of numerous large structural pieces.

It cannot and does not account for that.

Well, that seems to contradict the "fell in its own footprint" claim that was just another non-starter by the "truth" movement. Of course it didn't fall in its own footprint and, given the lack of any evidence of outside forces during the collapse, the lateral displacement can best be ascribed to the construction of the building. The outer shell merely peeled off as connections to the core were broken. Watch the videos again and you will see no explosions as the outer walls fall outward.

originally posted by: Salander
a reply to: mrthumpy

That instant fail scenario you describe must also account for the lateral displacement of numerous large structural pieces.

It cannot and does not account for that.

Yeah I suppose around forty five thousand tonnes collapsing is unlikely to impart any energy into structural pieces.


"I can't believe it therefore it didn't!"

originally posted by: Salander
a reply to: mrthumpy

That instant fail scenario you describe must also account for the lateral displacement of numerous large structural pieces.

It cannot and does not account for that.

Why doesn't. The given account explains how 12 floors slammed down into the tower below. (29 floors for the other tower) The kinetic energy would be imparted on anything smaller. 12 floors falling into anything equal in mass to one floor or less would easily send chunks of building flying. Remember the Newton's cradle example of idle mass having motion induced by being hit with a mass with kinetic energy? You don't understand how huge chunks of building hitting smaller chunks would send them flying? What is 200 or 300 tons in a 500,000 ton building collapse?

300 tons is what of 500,000 tons? .06 percent?

The NIST report on WTC 7, is an educated guess. That is all it can be. Other than the media cameras to the north and the seismograph records, there was no other systems recording the event. So, we have one sided video, seismographs that tell us the approximate length of the final collapse and indicate no demolition style explosions, and finally we have the words of the men and women of the FDNY who were pretty much the only people who got close to 7 after the Towers collapsed. And to a person, they all report heavy damage, visible bulging on the south face, pieces falling off all afternoon and a steadily growing fire. They even talk about how a surveyor's transit was set up to measure the movement of the building, and it showed a slow, steady movement to the south. Would it be nice to have a clear and unimpeded video showing the collapse start on the south side, before it pulled the north side of the building down? Sure, it would be. However, since we do not, we have to go on what we do have videos of the fire, the scant photos we have of some of the damage, the statements of the FDNY personnel and finally, the somewhat misleading video from the north. Fire and damage killed WTC 7, that is the reality of it. Arguing over the exact circumstances of the collapse sequence is like arguing over whether the deckplates of the Titanic were holed or was it the plate seams that split.

a reply to: pteridine

Well, that seems to contradict the "fell in its own footprint" claim that was just another non-starter by the "truth" movement.

Wrong.

The fact is, WTC 7 fell in it's own foot print and the building collapse inward. The fact is the outer walls folded inwards, NOT outwards.

Anyone looking at the photos of the aftermath can clearly see the building's out walls folded in and around the foot print.

Our eyes do not lie to us.

a reply to: Informer1958

The fact is, WTC 7 fell in it's own foot print

Seems another opinion of yours that you are calling fact, sigh...
WTC 7 was all over the street, and did not fall in it's own footprint. Why repeat false information from 911 truth; it proves your source did not study WTC 7.