NIST Admits Total Collapse Of Twin Towers Unexplainable

Originally posted by seanm
I still see that denial reigns supreme amongst you 9/11 Deniers here. I personally think Valhall should know better than to make a statement, get called on it, then deny, incredibly, what NIST actually said and concluded.

You wouldn't know what NIST actually concluded. Valhall is more educated than you are on the subject AND she actually read the report.

It is perfectly ridiculous for those here to deny that two top sections of WTC 1 and 2, representing 40,000 tons and 110,000 tons neither existed or began to each fall as a single piece of mass, nor possessing any kinetic energy. This is the height of stupidity.

No, it's a reflection of your own ignorance of basic mechanics.

There is kinetic energy, yes, but you DO NOT calculate it from PE in this case, because there was NO free-fall. Calculating instantaneous KE is irrelevant because it doesn't reflect how the KE came about. Obviously more KE would come about if connections were deliberately severed beforehand, but how would you differentiate between the two scenarios? You probably can't without some intense computer modeling, and that's why PE and KE calculations are only good for showing outright theoretical impossibilities for some models.

Nor are the bodies two distinctly separated bodies. It was a welded-and-bolted assembly, and all the connections had strength ratings just like the columns themselves. The collapse initiation is more like a complex set of deformation problems (know what those are?) than it EVER has been one body dropped from a free-fall directly onto another. That kind of "thinking" is what's REALLY stupid, and it irritates me when you post so much sarcastic and cynical garbage like some jaded armchair debunker, when that's all you have going for you, and you don't even understand why it's so wrong. Just like a horse with blinders, except the "blinders" in this case are apparently simply never haven taken a proper physics course. This stuff is objective, and you are wrong.

If there was a free-fall drop of the entire upper mass, then a chunk of building height would have to instantly disappear for the upper mass to just start falling. You're thinking of floors, not welded beams and columns, and like I said, there are more educated people here that realize this difference whether you do or not.



Look at this, sean:




That's from an early attempt to run a simulation on the WTC collapses, specifically I think it was generated as part of a Silverstein report for their insurance case.

Notice how it isn't two bodies, where one is simply dropped onto the other. Instead, it's a complicated system of deformations. A very different thing. Not my problem if you still don't understand this.


Now respond by telling me again how stupid and in denial I am. It's not enough that you don't know what you're talking about, you have to be a jerk at the same time. Reflects well on your character, doesn't it?

[edit on 31-10-2007 by bsbray11]

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by seanm
I still see that denial reigns supreme amongst you 9/11 Deniers here. I personally think Valhall should know better than to make a statement, get called on it, then deny, incredibly, what NIST actually said and concluded.

You wouldn't know what NIST actually concluded. Valhall is more educated than you are on the subject AND she actually read the report.

Sigh....

Nist:

"The change in potential energy due to the downward movement of
building mass above the buckled columns exceeded the strain energy
that could be absorbed by the structure. Global collapse then ensued."

It is perfectly ridiculous for those here to deny that two top sections of WTC 1 and 2, representing 40,000 tons and 110,000 tons neither existed or began to each fall as a single piece of mass, nor possessing any kinetic energy. This is the height of stupidity.

No, it's a reflection of your own ignorance of basic mechanics.

There is kinetic energy, yes, but you DO NOT calculate it from PE in this case, because there was NO free-fall.

There didn't need to be "freefall."

You really do need to catch up.

Originally posted by seanm

"The change in potential energy due to the downward movement of
building mass above the buckled columns exceeded the strain energy
that could be absorbed by the structure. Global collapse then ensued."

Why did you post this? You don't even know what it means.

Are you trying to "teach" me something I understand, and you do not, just by posting someone else's text? You sure do have a lot of blind faith in a bunch of people you don't know.

There didn't need to be "freefall."

There does to convert PE straight to KE. NIST simply stated that the PE changed in the quote above. So what? It would have changed no matter how or why the building moved. Hey -- when are you going to stop faking knowing what you're talking about?

They also state that this change was great enough (whatever caused this change) to propagate runaway failures, but NIST never studied the global collapse and just assumed it. So you can take their word for it, but it's just that, and they never gave anything solid for it.

It's amazing how I can say this, too, and you can't refute it, but yet you ignore it and never consider it. NIST never provided evidence. Try to give me NIST's evidence for their global collapse scenario. Just stating that it exists doesn't cut it.







Going to tell me what that is yet, Sean?

Is it two bodies, one dropped from free-fall onto the other?

Come on, educate me on that graphic next!

[edit on 31-10-2007 by bsbray11]

Can anyone here with a background in science or engineering explain to me (since I'm oh-so-stupid) why this doesn't look like two bodies impacting each other?




Why doesn't the above look like a simple collision problem, one mass dropped onto another?

Hmm.. It looks like a bunch of deformations, but I'm so stupid, someone explain to me what Sean is trying so hard to teach me about two WTC blocks slamming each other.


Which way of thinking is more realistic? And more accurate?

You may be beyond educating if you cannot grasp something as simple as this: The building was connected at MANY points by bolted and welded steel frames and supports..OK?

Now, when a deformation takes place, damage shifts the weight of the upper floors to those load bearing members unaffected..still with me? OK. Then, if there is to be a ' collision ' somehow you also must have something that SEPERATES the two parts of the building TOTALLY, so that there is room for one section to begin to drop onto the other section below. Picture this: you are standing in front of a huge block of cheese, shaped like a square. About a fifth of the way down from the top you take two large knives and slash sideways, removing a section of the cheese, thus allowing the reamining top section to drop onto the remaining block.

It is like taking a tablecloth off really fast and the dishes drop onto the table...get it? SOMETHING has to remove, instantly, an entire section in order to get a space for the top section to drop, caused by gravity. A building bending and buckling from NON-UNIFORM damage cannot, and will not, exhibit what we see on the Towers..impossible.

The upper floors could not fall all at the same time, despite the amount of damage or weakening, because the damage was not universal but localized. When we see the Tower start to lean, that means that at one end the part under the section was REMOVED, in order to initiate the downward motion. Simply weakening the sections below could NOT cause the ' global collapse ', due to the fact that we have laws of physics, which are totally violated by the excuse the official story purports to be true.

When that large section begins to drop over to the side, iot should have kept going and crashed into the street: But it did NOT!! What do we see? We see the entire section STOP the fall sideways and simply drop straight down!! WHAT could cause that? ONLY the REMOVAL of the section that was at the far side of the tilt, where the building was still solidly connected to the bottom area. Deforming that area from stress alone CANNOT account for the FACT that the pivot point simply disappeared, and what else do we see? We see the entire huge section turn into dust on the way down!!

If the official story were true, we would have seen a huge section of the top sitting on a pile of rubble at the bottom, mostly intact, not turned to dust. The FACT that the top section stopped rotation and dropped is a SURE sign of the removal of the part below, and with welded and bolted steel the ONLY way to seperate and remove any section is with either explosives or heat or other means that could INSTANTLY eliminate the part where the two section met.

Why do people think that a building can just decide to seperate by itself?What could cause the buildings we see dustified to simply seperate at the point of tilt, with the parts below just ' going away' thus causing the upper section to fall? NOT gravity, or fire, so that is out. When thaty building stopped tilting and dropped down, it was because the parts underneath that area were REMOVED, instantly..that is the ONLY way that the tilt could stop: A body in motion will REMAIN in motion, unless affected by some other force: What was that force?

It was a force big enough to eliminate almost an entire floor or so of the unit, all at once, so the section above could drop straight down. By the way, in the scenario above with the cheese example: What makes one think that removing a section and allowing the upper part to fall would cause the bottom to simply turn to squirt cheese from solid cheese??!! When the upper part makes contact, there would be the path of greatest resistance there, the LEAST likley way to fall..the fall SHOULD have been asymmetrical and to one side, but it is not. That violates another law of physics: Objects falling follow a path of least resistance, not the MOST.

The core supports structure should have and would have held the building up quite well had there not been explosives or such to destroy the core from the bottom up, just as the Towers fell from the top down: It was a MULTI-directional demolition job: The base and core supports were blown simultaneous to the aircraft strikes, thus the molten metals at the extreme lower levels and reports of explosions at those same levels...and the enetire core and steel frame were blown to bits and then pulverized to dust: total destruction, yes....total collapse, NO!!

So, can you now see how lusicrous it is to suppose that fire and gravity could POSSIBLY account for what is seen? It violates several laws of physics and all common sense. Why do you think that the NIST refused to model the ' collapses ' on the copmputers? It showed NO collapse!! They KNEW that NO form of gravity or fire could cause what is seen, and they knew that fire and gravity could NOT cause the total pulverization of the concrete and the dustification of the core steel. The mere fact alone that the core turned to dust is a screaming sign of energy far beyond any that could be found in gravity or from fire. Impossible.

So the NIST did the ONLY thing it could do: Ignore the ' collapses ' and only look at what happened before the ' collapses '. If they examined the ' collapses ' in a scientific manner, they would HAVE to admit that steel frame buildings with massive cores CANNOT turn to dust from gravity and heat, and thus expose the crimes that were committed by the Cheney/AIPAC/ Neocon cabal that pulled off a coup on 9-11 by means of muder and treason and conspiracy.

Here are the marching orders for the NIST:" Explain in terms that will satisfy the ignorant the events seen: The others we will ignore and demean until they are ignored ". And THAT is a coverup in any language.

reply to post by bsbray11


You know the old saying about arguing with fools?

They will drag you down to their level, and beat you with experience.

Unfortunately eywwitness, your theory is not how physics works at all. I challenge you to present your claims there to a panel of engineers. While being wordy may seem impressive, it does not change the fact that your claims are not correct. It's simply your attempt to rationalize a conspiracy theory with what you believe is how physics works. The things that you are claiming are impossible have been proven by engineers and published in papers that have been peer reviewed. So perhaps if you feel these engineers are all wrong in their understanding of their craft, you could maybe publish a paper on this.

Originally posted by bsbray11
Can anyone here with a background in science or engineering explain to me (since I'm oh-so-stupid) why this doesn't look like two bodies impacting each other?

Why doesn't the above look like a simple collision problem, one mass dropped onto another?

Hmm.. It looks like a bunch of deformations, but I'm so stupid, someone explain to me what Sean is trying so hard to teach me about two WTC blocks slamming each other.

lmao - I won't explain anything to you you evil person. j/k No, I won't because then (even though you are being very very facetious) it will promote the false idea that you don't know what you're talking about and need me to "splain mo betta". And I don't need to.

Plus eyewitness did a pretty good job.

As for trolls who want to act like "changes in PE are what collapsed the building" and then model the collapse by stacking wooden blocks that have the alphabet on the faces - I don't feel like talking to them anymore.

Originally posted by snoopy
I challenge you to present your claims there to a panel of engineers.

A panel of engineers? Engineers are everyday people. Somewhere along the line, they've apparently become like priests to you. Val is an engineer, why don't you talk to her? You don't think she exists in the real world? Griff is an engineer. Why don't you talk to him? He doesn't exist, either? You just pick and choose who you listen to. And if you really had your own head you'd appeal to concepts and ideas before you would other people.

reply to post by snoopy


Here are a few list of of over 200 Engineers and Architects that question the official 9-11 story.

patriotsquestion911.com...

www.ae911truth.org...

Having worked on structural steel buildings as a civil engineer in the era when the Twin Towers were designed and constructed, I found some disturbing discrepancies and omissions concerning their collapse on 9/11. ...

The interesting fact is that each of these 110-story Twin Towers fell upon itself in about ten seconds at nearly free-fall speed. This violates Newton’s Law of Conservation of Momentum that would require that as the stationary inertia of each floor is overcome by being hit, the mass (weight) increases and the free-fall speed decreases......William Rice, PE – Registered Professional Civil Engineer who worked on structural steel and concrete buildings in Boston, New York, and Philadelphia. Former Professor at Vermont Technical College where he taught engineering materials, structures lab, and other building related courses.

"I have watched the construction of many large buildings and also have personally witnessed 5 controlled demolitions in KC [Kansas City]. When I saw the towers fall on 9/11 I knew something was wrong and my first instinct was that it was impossible. When I saw [WTC]building 7 fall I knew it was a CD [Controlled Demolition]. Why was there so many video cameras aimed at B7 when it fell if it was unexpected? Some coincidence. I have been studying this subject since it happened. I can find no evidence that any of the official story, even events other than the 3 [WTC] buildings, makes any sense or is even possible."...... Chester W. Gearhart, BS CE, PE (ret) – Retired Civil Engineer for the City of Kansas City, MO.

"By 9/12 I was convinced that there was something 'fishy' about the 'collapse' of the WTC. I learned about progressive collapse from my engineering professors at Columbia, and I found it hard to imagine that the Twin Towers could have failed in that way. They were specifically designed to resist impact and load applied by the collision of a Boeing 707 jet. The buildings appeared to have been destroyed by an engineered demolition. When I articulated my suspicions, however, I was met with derision. I have continued, however, in my conviction that the buildings were intentionally destroyed."......Nelson L. Johnson, M.Arch, PE – Licensed Architect and Licensed Professional Civil Engineer, State of California

If you dont believe the professional engineers on ATS do yourself a favor and read what these professionals have to say.



[edit on 31-10-2007 by etshrtslr]

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by seanm

"The change in potential energy due to the downward movement of
building mass above the buckled columns exceeded the strain energy
that could be absorbed by the structure. Global collapse then ensued."

Why did you post this? You don't even know what it means.

Of course I know what it means. That you deny what it means is your problem alone.

Are you trying to "teach" me something I understand, and you do not, just by posting someone else's text? You sure do have a lot of blind faith in a bunch of people you don't know.

Sorry, bsbray1, that dodge is blatant as can be and still doesn't work. Your wrote for all to see:

"You wouldn't know what NIST actually concluded.

Gosh, you've really sunk into the woo, now. What part of NIST's statement perpetually confuses you? Shall I repeat it.

There didn't need to be "freefall."

There does to convert PE straight to KE. NIST simply stated that the PE changed in the quote above. So what? It would have changed no matter how or why the building moved. Hey -- when are you going to stop faking knowing what you're talking about?

I repeat what you deny: The building fell down go boom for reasons you can't refute. That you want to deny that the top sections of WTC 1 and 2 didn't fall after failure in the collapse zones is a huge problem for you, against all reason and evidence, against all knowledge that the energy necessary to start global collapse was there. Amazing.

They also state that this change was great enough (whatever caused this change) to propagate runaway failures, but NIST never studied the global collapse and just assumed it. So you can take their word for it, but it's just that, and they never gave anything solid for it.

Actually, as you WELL know, but need to deny, the energy was more than sufficient to ensure global collapse without modelling the collapse itself. Read. Learn. Take physics.

It's amazing how I can say this, too, and you can't refute it, but yet you ignore it and never consider it. NIST never provided evidence. Try to give me NIST's evidence for their global collapse scenario. Just stating that it exists doesn't cut it.

That dodge STILL doesn't work, bsbray1. The burden of proof is, always has been, always will be, on your shoulders to demonstrate that the evidence, methodology, conclusions, math, physics that everyone has access to, does not account for global collapse, and has been shown by you to be false.

After all, we've all been waiting years for you to put your money where your mouths are.

Your epistemic arrogance is truly a sight to behold.

reply to post by etshrtslr



And how many of those "200 architects and engineers" are actually qualified? That brings the list down to maybe 3 or 4. And not a single one o those 200 people has been able to publish a paper backing up the claims o the organization. Why do you suppose that is? Plenty of people have published papers showing what happened and the mathematics behind it. yet according to ae911 and people who know nothing about engineering, it's obvious for everyone to see. yet no published papers. No one has been able to prove the engineers wrong on an engineering level.

Instead it's absurd attacks like this thread which try to claim that because NIST didn't include some superfilous analysis which does not determine if the building would have collapsed (despite the false claims of many people in this thread) that it somehow proves a conspiracy theory.

So you're going to need a lot more than a site that tries to mislead people into thinking that it somehow has credible qualified people so that they can mislead people into buying into their false claims. If they were right, they wouldn't have some relatively unknown conspiracy web site, they would be publishing papers and exposing this to the scientific community who pretty much rejects the claims made by them.

My real beef isn't in conspiracy theories, it's in groups such as ae911,P4T, etc who try to mislead people and try to use numbers and credentials to make up for lack of evidence or research.

Originally posted by eyewitness86
You may be beyond educating if you cannot grasp something as simple as this: The building was connected at MANY points by bolted and welded steel frames and supports..OK?

I'll stick to reality, if that is OK with you.

Here, this may help you understand better:

911myths.com...
911myths.com...
911myths.com...
911myths.com...

As always, any of you are free to refute these.

Originally posted by snoopy
reply to post by etshrtslr

 

My real beef isn't in conspiracy theories, it's in groups such as ae911,P4T, etc who try to mislead people and try to use numbers and credentials to make up for lack of evidence or research.

Unfortunately, its the nature of the beast.

Snoop old boy, when you get to the stage of trying to denigrate 200 professionals and make assumptions totally unsupported by any evidence, like only 3 or 4 being licenced, etc. that makes people want to put you in a category like ' ignore '.

You really believe that all those engineers and architects are madhatters and insane and considered renegades in their fields? Are we to believe YOU instead of THEM? Unreal..absolutely unreal.. Some desperation is so pathetic that it almost inspires pity...except for the brazenness of the assertions made and the lack of substance therein.

Originally posted by eyewitness86
Snoop old boy, when you get to the stage of trying to denigrate 200 professionals and make assumptions totally unsupported by any evidence, like only 3 or 4 being licenced, etc. that makes people want to put you in a category like ' ignore '.

You really believe that all those engineers and architects are madhatters and insane and considered renegades in their fields? Are we to believe YOU instead of THEM? Unreal..absolutely unreal.. Some desperation is so pathetic that it almost inspires pity...except for the brazenness of the assertions made and the lack of substance therein.

So you are saying that those 200 professionals are all structural engineers? So tell me then. Why out of 200 has not a single one been able to publish a paper on this? Please put me on ignore, I would appreciate that. but so long as you try to pass off bogus information and mislead people into thinking it's credible by using a misleading site such as ae911, then I will make sure to speak up.

And now you are saying that theya re all architects and engineers? Really? You do realize that engineering is a vast field. one being an engineer or architect does not qualify them to be experts in this area. This is where the fraud begins. trying to mislead people into thinking such things.

Here's a good example. One of those expert listed as a member died on 9/11 in the attacks. Yet they list him as a member. That alone is flat out fraud. Even you cannot deny that. What's desperate and pathetic is to try to pass off fraud by exploiting job titles. Much like Pilots for truth which tout all these pilots when the majority of their members aren't even pilots.

And look at your claim as well. You make the argument "are you saying that 200 experts are wrong?". Well, you are saying that 10s of thousands of experts are wrong. So isn't that aq bit hypocritical?

Am I allowed to ask how old someone is?

Originally posted by seanm
I repeat what you deny: The building fell down go boom for reasons you can't refute.

You haven't given me any reasons. You just keep acting like you're going to.

Actually, as you WELL know

You would be lying if you knew better.

but need to deny

Add psychiatry to Sean's expertise.

the energy was more than sufficient to ensure global collapse without modelling the collapse itself.

Nope. I've seen the numbers you're talking about, some JREF sleaze put it together. NIST never did such an analysis and neither has anyone else done a legitimate analysis. You can post the JREF'ers numbers if you want, but I don't know if you'll be able to talk to me intelligently about them except to tell me that I'm stupid.

Your epistemic arrogance is truly a sight to behold.

You try to cram any more 25-cent words into a sentence and your head might pop.

[edit on 31-10-2007 by bsbray11]

Originally posted by snoopy
And look at your claim as well. You make the argument "are you saying that 200 experts are wrong?". Well, you are saying that 10s of thousands of experts are wrong.

I love it when people say this.

This kind of reasoning is so completely ignorant, literally, snoopy has no idea what tens of thousands of engineers think, he just assumes what they think. Basically, if snoopy hasn't heard of you before, and you're an engineer, then you automatically think like he does. That's his reasoning. I hate to keep mentioning Val and Griff, but I guess they would be lumped into that mass of ten thousands too, since neither of them have taken the time out to write a paper just for our dear Mr. Snoopy.

Realistically 10's of 1000's of engineers wouldn't know what the NIST report was if you asked them. Most of them would probably give you different answers as to why exactly the buildings collapsed. Most of them probably have not even heard of WTC7.


I don't mean to pick, but really -- which scenario is more likely?

Originally posted by bsbray11

I love it when people say this.

This kind of reasoning is so completely ignorant, literally, snoopy has no idea what tens of thousands of engineers think, he just assumes what they think. Basically, if snoopy hasn't heard of you before, and you're an engineer, then you automatically think like he does. That's his reasoning. I hate to keep mentioning Val and Griff, but I guess they would be lumped into that mass of ten thousands too, since neither of them have taken the time out to write a paper just for our dear Mr. Snoopy.

Realistically 10's of 1000's of engineers wouldn't know what the NIST report was if you asked them. Most of them would probably give you different answers as to why exactly the buildings collapsed. Most of them probably have not even heard of WTC7.


I don't mean to pick, but really -- which scenario is more likely?

Completely ignorant? As opposed to the notion that the world body of engineers, most of whom have clearly read the reports as it's the biggest engineering issue ever, all disagree and sit silent? You seriously expect us to believe that? Yet 200 members of ae911, a couple of which are actually qualified, and that's your basis for the opinion of engineers? And you want to call other people ignorant? Seriously?

Have Val or Griff published anything with their arguments? Why not? If this is how most engineers seem to think (more of your hypocrisy) then what's the problem? Ryan just posted on here through proxy. His paper was published and peer reviewed. Can you point out the faults in his work? While even he admits it's more than possible for there to be flaws, I don't see Grif or Val pointing them out, just as I don't see them making such publications. So 200 experts and not a single peer review. But I am ignorant...

So please, feel free to continue thinking that the world body of engineers is sitting disagreeing with the findings but not saying a word. This coming from the same group of people who use dead people as members. But that wouldn't be ignorance Bray, that would be fraud. Outright fraud. Should I mention that I myself once signed up for ae911 and was accepted as a member? Sure they have increased the requirements now, but it doesn't change the fact that they are simply trying to mislead people and not a single one has been able to present a legitimate case in regards to an inside job or demolitions.

Seanm, you just proved to us, that you obviously don't read your own links from Myths.com.

I advice you to READ and try to understand what Greening is explaining in his Conclusion at page 13 of your last link from above :
911myths.com...

Then come back at me, explain -what- it is you understood of it, and I'll be here to assist or refute you.