What brought down WTC7

Page 14 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Status
Not open for further replies.

LunarRay

Diamond Member
Mar 2, 2003
9,993
1
76
Originally posted by: ironwing
Thermite reaction:
Fe2O3 + 2Al ? 2Fe + Al2O3 + heat

They found iron and aluminum oxide or aluminum and iron oxide in the debris of a steel frame office building? Holy cow! That's like finding plastic bags in the bushes around a Walmart parking lot.

And?

They found what they found but did they find it at walmart?... Look I don't know.. I like to look at stuff and ponder. Dont mean I accept it. I sorta like to develop the null hypothesis and try to reject or not reject it... I'm sorta icky sticky that way... I don't laugh anything off ever. Again, only when you eliminate the impossible are you left with the improbable but also the answer!

I'm not anything like a scientist but like Emily said:
I've never seen the moors;
I've never seen the sea;
but know I what the heather is
and what a billow be....

close anyhow

 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
74,744
6,761
126
Originally posted by: LunarRay
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Originally posted by: Sclamoz
Originally posted by: kylebisme


For everyone else, again; the official story is physically impossible. No one can simulate it while respecting the laws of physics. If you choose to believe the official story of how WTC7 came down, you are holding to a position of faith in contradiction to demonstrable physical reality.

http://www.nist.gov/public_aff...videos/wtc_videos.html


Hey look, some people simulated and explained what happened to WTC7. Imagine that.

And the real video of the event looks just like the simulation with damage from debris from the towers.

heheheeh It would have been sorta dumb to make a video simulation that did not mimic the actual video... hehehehe we'd all have laughed and stuff... but the inside of the building is where all the interesting bits lived... can't see them. I like TLC's Elephant version best.

I assume the data was put in and out came something that looked like what happened, not that it was chosen to look that way. The other video without damage from the towers does not match the fall I saw as closely.

Also, in other videos of the actual event, one can see part of roof fall first through the building just like in the simulation creating a cascade event just like in the sim.
 

IronWing

No Lifer
Jul 20, 2001
72,852
33,908
136
Originally posted by: LunarRay
Originally posted by: ironwing
Thermite reaction:
Fe2O3 + 2Al ? 2Fe + Al2O3 + heat

They found iron and aluminum oxide or aluminum and iron oxide in the debris of a steel frame office building? Holy cow! That's like finding plastic bags in the bushes around a Walmart parking lot.

And? ...

And? Oxygen, aluminum, and iron are the first, third, and fourth most abundant elements at the earth's surface. Iron and aluminum are common building materials. Oxygen makes up 19% of the atmosphere and readily reacts with iron and aluminum. To claim that traces of iron, aluminum, and their oxides found in the burned remains of an office building somehow equate to thermite is ridiculous.

Ten most abundant elements at the earth's surface by mass:
O, Si, Al, Fe, Ca, Na, K, Mg, Ti, H
 

LunarRay

Diamond Member
Mar 2, 2003
9,993
1
76
Originally posted by: Moonbeam

I assume the data was put in and out came something that looked like what happened, not that it was chosen to look that way. The other video without damage from the towers does not match the fall I saw as closely.

Also, in other videos of the actual event, one can see part of roof fall first through the building just like in the simulation creating a cascade event just like in the sim.

To my eye it did too. So I called my super duper [I think Structural] Engineering Prof Friend at the university and he said 'Trust me, the simulation works'. He don't agree with all of it but he does in the logic of how the sim indicated it COULD have happened. Failing any thing else we have that compares, we are left with it, atm. From his POV. He'd like to see the data pack, he calls it.. I think he said they won't release it yet.. or someone here said that.

 

LunarRay

Diamond Member
Mar 2, 2003
9,993
1
76
Originally posted by: ironwing
Originally posted by: LunarRay
Originally posted by: ironwing
Thermite reaction:
Fe2O3 + 2Al ? 2Fe + Al2O3 + heat

They found iron and aluminum oxide or aluminum and iron oxide in the debris of a steel frame office building? Holy cow! That's like finding plastic bags in the bushes around a Walmart parking lot.

And? ...

And? Oxygen, aluminum, and iron are the first, third, and fourth most abundant elements at the earth's surface. Iron and aluminum are common building materials. Oxygen makes up 19% of the atmosphere and readily reacts with iron and aluminum. To claim that traces of iron, aluminum, and their oxides found in the burned remains of an office building somehow equate to thermite is ridiculous.

Ten most abundant elements at the earth's surface by mass:
O, Si, Al, Fe, Ca, Na, K, Mg, Ti, H

OK, I guess then I don't follow why it was such a big deal to have found it and put it into a scientific journal.. his reputation and that of the 8 other co-horts is on the line. Scientists don't often go jumping into something to end up with egg on their face, usually. Their ego forbids it and their peer relations demand it... Seems to me.

edit: I was going to also add that you won't find plastic bags at a cost co parking lot... hehehe but decided you may not see my humor.
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
74,744
6,761
126
All this nonsense about iron and aluminum and stuff is just nonsense. Termites leave a carbon residue and don't effect steel buildings.
 

kylebisme

Diamond Member
Mar 25, 2000
9,396
0
0
Originally posted by: BeauJangles
There is a consensus among experts in building demolition and disasters that the official story of what happened on Sept 11th is generally correct.
I'm guessing you are referencing your imagination here again, the same place you got your "thermite doesn't explode" nonsense from, eh?

Originally posted by: BeauJangles
So now you're telling us that the government, or whoever pulled off 9/11, couldn't even get together a plausible cover story? Jesus christ man, you are so blinded to the bigger picture...
Rather, you are blinding yourself with the big picture, like a creationist arguing that evolution doesn't explain the origin of the universe. I'm telling you that the physics of the story you are clinging to simply don't work, just as I would to someone who believes the Earth is only 6000 years old.

Originally posted by: LunarRay
... but that magnesium burned throught that steel like it was butter... almost sunk the ship. Is there such stuff now or in '01 that was like that? IF so should they have included that type of cutting substance?
They couldn't look for anything of the sort if they wanted to defend the official story, just like they can't admit the molten steel. Or they won't admit it unless directly confronted with the evidence like TLC was, and of course then he just pretends it is irrelevant. Such are the ways of the falsers.

Originally posted by: Sclamoz
Originally posted by: kylebisme
No one can simulate it while respecting the laws of physics. If you choose to believe the official story of how WTC7 came down, you are holding to a position of faith in contradiction to demonstrable physical reality.
http://www.nist.gov/public_aff...videos/wtc_videos.html

Hey look, some people simulated and explained what happened to WTC7. Imagine that.
Hey look, the exact same page I linked to previously in this thread, with videos of simulations which were also included in one I linked to in the OP. Am I to take it you didn't even bother to actually consider what was presented in the OP, and instead just imagined you had an argument against it?

Regardless, if you see any free fall in those simulations, or even anything which would allow for the possibility of it, you have a very active imagination.
 

LunarRay

Diamond Member
Mar 2, 2003
9,993
1
76
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
All this nonsense about iron and aluminum and stuff is just nonsense. Termites leave a carbon residue and don't effect steel buildings.

omg... Wait till TLC hears that you think termites did it...

 

IronWing

No Lifer
Jul 20, 2001
72,852
33,908
136
Originally posted by: LunarRay
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
All this nonsense about iron and aluminum and stuff is just nonsense. Termites leave a carbon residue and don't effect steel buildings.

omg... Wait till TLC hears that you think termites did it...

Wait until they discover that Moonbeam used effect to affect a great effect.
 

shrumpage

Golden Member
Mar 1, 2004
1,304
0
0
Originally posted by: LunarRay
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
All this nonsense about iron and aluminum and stuff is just nonsense. Termites leave a carbon residue and don't effect steel buildings.

omg... Wait till TLC hears that you think termites did it...

TERMITES USED IN WTC BOMBING!!!

That would be a great Onion article.
 

IronWing

No Lifer
Jul 20, 2001
72,852
33,908
136
Originally posted by: shrumpage
Originally posted by: LunarRay
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
All this nonsense about iron and aluminum and stuff is just nonsense. Termites leave a carbon residue and don't effect steel buildings.

omg... Wait till TLC hears that you think termites did it...

TERMITES USED IN WTC BOMBING!!!

That would be a great Onion article.

We've got mounds of evidence!
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
74,744
6,761
126
Originally posted by: ironwing
Originally posted by: LunarRay
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
All this nonsense about iron and aluminum and stuff is just nonsense. Termites leave a carbon residue and don't effect steel buildings.

omg... Wait till TLC hears that you think termites did it...

Wait until they discover that Moonbeam used effect to affect a great effect.

I have to do that kind or thing once in a while like spell terrif as tarriff and such, because if I didn't make some gaffs that TLC could cluck about he might die of apeoplexy. Folk with gravel in their craws need to grind something.
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
74,744
6,761
126
Originally posted by: ironwing
Originally posted by: shrumpage
Originally posted by: LunarRay
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
All this nonsense about iron and aluminum and stuff is just nonsense. Termites leave a carbon residue and don't effect steel buildings.

omg... Wait till TLC hears that you think termites did it...

TERMITES USED IN WTC BOMBING!!!

That would be a great Onion article.

We've got mounds of evidence!

Hehehe
 

kylebisme

Diamond Member
Mar 25, 2000
9,396
0
0
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
All this nonsense about iron and aluminum and stuff is just nonsense.
It is the best explantion for the molten steel I've seen so far.

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Termites leave a carbon residue and don't effect steel buildings.
Here is an example of fire's effect on a steel building, and a shot of the aftermath. As for examples of fire bringing down any such structure with a period of free fall acceleration; you won't find any, and you won't find anyone to make one, as it is physically impossible.
 

alchemize

Lifer
Mar 24, 2000
11,486
0
0
Originally posted by: BeauJangles
Originally posted by: alchemize
Originally posted by: SandEagle
BBC reported WTC7 came down before it actually did:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/the...of_the_conspiracy.html

"We no longer have the original tapes of our 9/11 coverage (for reasons of cock-up, not conspiracy)" lol.. how convenient that they lost the footage.
You even link to the BBC calling you a fucking tool :laugh:

What would the BBC reporting WTC7 coming down earlier than it did prove? That the BBC was involved in the conspiracy but fucked up so badly that they occidentally let the cat out of the bag?

The mental gymnastics involved in this thread are astounding.
Duh, we all know that the BBC is the Seventh Jewel on the Illuminati Crown of World Domination.

 

Sclamoz

Guest
Sep 9, 2009
975
0
0
Originally posted by: kylebisme


Regardless, if you see any free fall in those simulations, or even anything which would allow for the possibility of it, you have a very active imagination.

In a video, it appears that WTC 7 is descending in free fall, something that would not occur in the structural collapse that you describe. How can you ignore basic laws of physics?
In the draft WTC 7 report (released Aug. 21, 2008; available at http://wtc.nist.gov/media/NIST...or_public_comment.pdf), NIST stated that the north face of the building descended 18 stories (the portion of the collapse visible in the video) in 5.4 seconds, based on video analysis of the building collapse. This time period is 40 percent longer than the 3.9 seconds this process would have taken if the north face of the building had descended solely under free fall conditions. During the public comment period on the draft report, NIST was asked to confirm this time difference and define the reasons for it in greater detail.

To further clarify the descent of the north face, NIST recorded the downward displacement of a point near the center of the roofline from first movement until the north face was no longer visible in the video. Numerical analyses were conducted to calculate the velocity and acceleration of the roofline point from the time-dependent displacement data. The instant at which vertical motion of the roofline first occurred was determined by tracking the numerical value of the brightness of a pixel (a single element in the video image) at the roofline. This pixel became brighter as the roofline began to descend because the color of the pixel started to change from that of the building façade to the lighter color of the sky.

The approach taken by NIST is summarized in Section 3.6 of the final summary report, NCSTAR 1A (released Nov. 20, 2008; available at http://wtc.nist.gov/NCSTAR1/PDF/NCSTAR%201A.pdf) and detailed in Section 12.5.3 of NIST NCSTAR 1-9 (available at http://wtc.nist.gov/NCSTAR1/PD...R%201-9%20Vol%202.pdf).

The analyses of the video (both the estimation of the instant the roofline began to descend and the calculated velocity and acceleration of a point on the roofline) revealed three distinct stages characterizing the 5.4 seconds of collapse:

* Stage 1 (0 to 1.75 seconds): acceleration less than that of gravity (i.e., slower than free fall).
* Stage 2 (1.75 to 4.0 seconds): gravitational acceleration (free fall)
* Stage 3 (4.0 to 5.4 seconds): decreased acceleration, again less than that of gravity

This analysis showed that the 40 percent longer descent time?compared to the 3.9 second free fall time?was due primarily to Stage 1, which corresponded to the buckling of the exterior columns in the lower stories of the north face. During Stage 2, the north face descended essentially in free fall, indicating negligible support from the structure below. This is consistent with the structural analysis model which showed the exterior columns buckling and losing their capacity to support the loads from the structure above. In Stage 3, the acceleration decreased as the upper portion of the north face encountered increased resistance from the collapsed structure and the debris pile below.

That's directly from the NIST webpage.
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
74,744
6,761
126
Sclamoz, that makes all the sense in the world and is totally consistent with how I picture what happened intuitively, but sadly we now know it is all completely wrong. There is a steel building in China that caught fire, really caught fire, but it didn't fall.

My only hope now is that somehow, in some magical way, the mighty, TastesLikePullet, will be able to explain why no occult command was issued in that case, to pull it and bring it down.

I hear, however, that there are millions of Chinese who claim it was a government conspiracy that left it standing, some secret effort to shame American building technology with ceramic insulation. Traces of feldspar and silica were found on the girders, apparently.
 

ElFenix

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Mar 20, 2000
102,402
8,574
126
Originally posted by: LunarRay

So if I've got this right, using my words, you are saying: There was an elimination of structure below the top 105 feet that was at least 105 feet and that bit did not provide any resistance to the 'block' [from the roof down 105'] of WTC 7 that did fall 105 feet at the free fall speed?
Additionally, that the top 105' fell as one block with out topple or very discernible dipping from edges indicates the failure of 105' at least of structure occurred in one fell swoop. EDIT: upon reflection you could be saying that the structure gave out sequentially for at least 105' but that sequence had to be faster than the accelerating 105' block?
And, as someone said, beam 79 gave out and all the rest of the core beams instantly (or very quickly) lost their ability to resist the call of nature... gravity.

That really is a question cuz I'm laboring with this and hope I have it right.

enough structure gave out that it did not give significant resistant to the weight of ~30 stories of exterior falling, so that the fall could be approximately at G. however, the event of falling at G was after the internal structure of the building had already been collapsing for several (~10) seconds and the exterior falling for nearly 2 seconds already. so there was some momentum already. no, it wasn't instantly, no where near it when talking about how long it takes something to fall from the top of a 47 story building



Originally posted by: kylebisme
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
All this nonsense about iron and aluminum and stuff is just nonsense.
It is the best explantion for the molten steel I've seen so far.

click meh!
 

BeauJangles

Lifer
Aug 26, 2001
13,941
1
0
Originally posted by: kylebisme
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
All this nonsense about iron and aluminum and stuff is just nonsense.
It is the best explantion for the molten steel I've seen so far.

Wait wait, this conversation has gotten around to molten steel now? Sorry to just interject, but where exactly is there proof that there was any molten steel?
 
Sep 12, 2004
16,852
59
86
Originally posted by: kylebisme
Here is an example of fire's effect on a steel building, and a shot of the aftermath. As for examples of fire bringing down any such structure with a period of free fall acceleration; you won't find any, and you won't find anyone to make one, as it is physically impossible.
That's the effect of fire on a building with a completely different structural design and which is also clad in titanium-zinc on two sides and the top. The building also had a functioning sprinkler system and firefighting efforts were on the scene in a short time to put out the fires. The fires didn't burn for hours and hours, like WTC7 did. Oh, then there's the fact that the Mandarin Oriental didn't suffer any initial strucural damage from pieces of another building falling on it, taking out supporting structure along the way.

Truthers don't like to mention those details though because the devil is in 'em.
 

BeauJangles

Lifer
Aug 26, 2001
13,941
1
0
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Originally posted by: kylebisme
Here is an example of fire's effect on a steel building, and a shot of the aftermath. As for examples of fire bringing down any such structure with a period of free fall acceleration; you won't find any, and you won't find anyone to make one, as it is physically impossible.
That's the effect of fire on a building with a completely different structural design and which is also clad in titanium-zinc on two sides and the top. The building also had a functioning sprinkler system and firefighting efforts were on the scene in a short time to put out the fires. The fires didn't burn for hours and hours, like WTC7 did. Oh, then there's the fact that the Mandarin Oriental didn't suffer any initial strucural damage from pieces of another building falling on it, taking out supporting structure along the way.

Truthers don't like to mention those details though because the devil is in 'em.

Don't forget that you also won't find a building designed like WTC 7 anywhere else in the world. You've covered that in depth TLC, but I just wanted to point it out again. We're not talking about a run-of-the-mill skyscraper here, we're talking about a building some truly funky engineering.
 

jonks

Lifer
Feb 7, 2005
13,918
20
81
Originally posted by: kylebisme
Originally posted by: jonks
and who are They again? or is it Them? i wanna get the lingo right. and once again, why did They/Them do it? (in all the broken up quotes I see you didn't ever answer the main question of Why)
Shit man, not having been in on it myself, and lacking omnipresence, I'm not rightly in a position to say.

Right, so ya got no "why" or "how" or "who". You have a purported "newtonian physics buff's" understanding and a few seconds of video explained 10 ways from sunday and from that you extract OMG conspiracy, black helis, da jews, W, and the saudis all in on it. It's almost too perfect.
 

OCGuy

Lifer
Jul 12, 2000
27,224
37
91
Originally posted by: jonks
Right, so ya got no "why" or "how" or "who". You have a purported "newtonian physics buff's" understanding and a few seconds of video explained 10 ways from sunday and from that you extract OMG conspiracy, black helis, da jews, W, and the saudis all in on it. It's almost too perfect.

The moon landing and JFK assassination are soooo last century. So basically he got to choose between being a truther and chem-trails.
 

kylebisme

Diamond Member
Mar 25, 2000
9,396
0
0
Originally posted by: Sclamoz
Originally posted by: kylebisme
Regardless, if you see any free fall in those simulations, or even anything which would allow for the possibility of it, you have a very active imagination.
...

That's directly from the NIST webpage.
It sure is, and it is a summary of the report I linked to and quoted from in the OP, including a link to that report in what you quoted, and the summery was also quoted previously in this thread. It would be nice if you could bring yourself to actually read the thread and consider then information provided in it before attempting to construct an argument. Is that too much too ask of you?

Regardless, NIST didn't present simulation demonstrating how WTC7 achieved a period of free fall on the page you quoted from or any other, nor will you find one anywhere, or anyone to create one while adhering to the official story; because it is physically impossible.

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
There is a steel building in China that caught fire, really caught fire, but it didn't fall.
There are steel buildings all over the place which have caught on fire but didn't fall, let alone free fall, for the same reason a steel grill doesn't fall when you make a fire in it. You can find some more examples of skyscraper fires here.

Originally posted by: BeauJangles
Sorry to just interject, but where exactly is there proof that there was any molten steel?
I linked some previously in this thread. Her that is, along with with TLC's belligerent denial of its significance:

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Originally posted by: kylebisme
Rather, they ignored any evidence which contradicted the official conspiracy theory, and dance around like sock puppets when confronted about it. But again, the free fall itself disproves the official story, and your quoting a summery which pretends otherwise does nothing to change this.
First of all, all the handwaving about "molten steel" proves nothing and makes no case for demolition, except maybe to absolute simpletons...
You can ask TLC for a learned explanation for what caused the molten steel, but he can't give you one, nor can anyone else who insists on clinging to the official story. If you do ask him for a reasonable explanation, he'll likely lash out at you, calling you a simpleton and anything else he can come up with to obfuscate the evidence in his demented defense of the official conspiracy theory.
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
74,744
6,761
126
I think the Chinese building was sprayed with Mandarin orange oil because you could hear the termites exploding. They must have exploded before they could drill into the metal with their Mandarin mandibles.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.