Don't Miss Out!
Get a free weekly digest of FPJ's latest delivered straight to your inbox.

You can unsubscribe at any time, and FPJ values your privacy. Your email will never be sold or shared with third parties.

A Scientific Theory of the WTC 7 Collapse

This year will mark the 10th anniversary of the September 11, 2001 disaster. In these 10 years, not only have extremely important scientific questions about this tragedy gone unanswered, but they have even been ridiculed to the point of deranged absurdity. We owe a valid scientific explanation to the 3000 victims on that day, the steadily dying health-stricken first responders, the dead and wounded soldiers, and the untold thousands upon thousands of dead and injured Afghans and Iraqis resulting from the terrifying never-ending “war on terror”. Critics of those skeptical of the official story of 9/11 have often objected that an alternative theory has never been put forth. To that end, this article will put forth a scientific theory for one important aspect of the 9/11 event, the Building 7 collapse.

Collapse of WTC 7

(Photo: http://911research.wtc7.net)

On September 11, 2001 a third building came down. This building was 7 World Trade Center (WTC 7), a 47-story building about the width and length of a football field. NIST, the National Institute of Standards and Technology, was tasked with officially explaining how WTC 7 fell. Their theory is documented in the report entitled Final Report of the Collapse of Building 7[1]. Many people are under the mistaken impression that NIST’s theory of how WTC 7 fell down is a valid scientific theory. In science however, a valid theory must be the simplest theory available that best explains all the available empirical data.[2] This article will show that the NIST theory is a highly convoluted theory that cannot explain important observations.

A major piece of evidence in the WTC 7 collapse is the fact that WTC 7 underwent free-fall acceleration for a period of at least 2.25 seconds.[3] A free-falling building means there is no supporting structure whatsoever below to slow the building’s fall. The NIST theory does not explain this astounding fact. However, if their theory is to believed, the 2.25 seconds of free fall must have resulted from near-simultaneous buckling and breaking of the 58 perimeter columns and most of the 25 core columns over eight stories. The only evidence NIST provides to support their theory is in the form of a computer model. While it could possibly be argued that the model does show some buckling occurring over eight stories, it most certainly does not show a period of free-fall. So NIST’s theory has absolutely no scientific evidence whatsoever for the fact of free-fall. In other words the NIST theory cannot explain key empirical data.

Another requisite for a scientific theory is that the empirical data the theory is based on must be reproducible by others. Other scientists must be able to perform the exact same experiments and obtain the exact same results. Unfortunately, NIST’s only empirical data to explain the eight story buckling, the data their computer model is based on, is unavailable to independent researchers. It is unavailable because NIST refuses to release it. NIST has stated that releasing the data “might jeopardize public safety”.[4] So because the NIST model cannot be verified, it is meant to be taken on faith. The NIST model, then, is faith-based, not science-based. Since NIST’s theory does not explain fundamental facts of the WTC 7 incident and other important facts are so far unreplicated, we can categorically state that NIST’s theory is in no way scientific. At best, it could be referred to as faith-based pseudo-science. Since the NIST theory is in no way scientific, competent conscientious scientists must reject it in favor of a science-based theory.

The best alternative to NIST’s WTC 7 theory is the controlled demolition theory. This theory states that additional sources of energy other than fire and gravity were used to bring down WTC 7. The strongest theories contend that these alternate energy sources included explosives and incendiaries. It is common knowledge that shaped charges can cut through steel support columns.[5] If all remaining support columns of WTC 7 were rigged with shaped charges on both sides, on each story for eight stories and were set off in the correct precisely timed manner, they could remove all remaining resisting support for WTC 7 allowing it to free-fall for 2.25 seconds. So unlike the official story, the controlled demolition theory does explain all the observables: the rapid onset of collapse, the largely symmetrical collapse into the building’s footprint, the roof line kink causing the building to fall in on itself, minimizing damage to other buildings, the intricate roll to the south at the end of the collapse away from valuable real estate, and the free-fall period.

There definitely are problems with the controlled demolition explosives theories. For instance, although there is some evidence of explosive sounds,[6] in the available audio/visual evidence of the WTC 7 collapse, you don’t see the flashes and the loud booms typically seen with explosive controlled demolitions. But the sounds and flashes could be muted by Romex blasting mats,[7] for example. Non-typical technologies could also have been used. Recent experiments by the engineer Jonathan Cole have shown that relatively small amounts of thermate, thermite mixed with sulfur, can cut through vertical support beams like a shaped charge and yet produce much less noise.[8] These experiments also show that thermate can also easily weaken beams and cut bolts. Note that in typical controlled demolitions the building’s structure is weakened as much as possible to minimize the amount of high explosive needed. Explosive nano-thermite has also been found in the WTC dust.[9]

So the inescapable and disturbing conclusion is that the most scientific theory available for the WTC 7 collapse is that it was a controlled demolition, brought down with explosives. This conclusion shows without a doubt that a thorough independent scientific investigation into the 9/11 event must be undertaken. Until now, this has not been done. I strongly urge all scientists and scientifically-oriented individuals to support Scientists For 9/11 Truth (http://www.scientistsfor911truth.org/) in calling for an real unbiased scientific investigation of the 9/11 tragedy.

Notes

[1] NIST NCSTAR 1A, Final Report of the Collapse of Building 7 http://wtc.nist.gov/NCSTAR1/PDF/NCSTAR%201A.pdf

[2] Merriam-Webster.com Merriam-Webster Dictionary: Theory in Science

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/occam%27s%20razor

[3] NIST admits freefall of WTC 7 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ii49BaRDp_A

[4] http://911blogger.com/news/2010-07-12/nist-denies-access-wtc-collapse-data

[5] Shaped Charge Explosion Compared to Explosion at WTC http://www.mefeedia.com/watch/30834556

[6] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ERhoNYj9_fg

[7] Y. Kasai. The International Union of Testing and Research Laboratories for Materials and Structures. Demolition and reuse of concrete and masonry http://books.google.ca/books?id=Q3wOAAAAQAAJ

[8] 9/11 Experiments: The Great Thermate Debate http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5d5iIoCiI8g

[9] Niels H. Harrit, Jeffrey Farrer, Steven E. Jones, Kevin R. Ryan, Frank M. Legge, Daniel Farnsworth, Gregg Roberts, James R. Gourley, Bradley R. Larsen, “Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe,”
The Open Chemical Physics Journal. Volume 2, 2009, pp. 7-31. Available from: http://www.bentham-open.org/pages/content.php?TOCPJ/2009/00000002/00000001/7TOCPJ.SGM


About the Author

Michael Fullerton

Homepage
Michael Fullerton has a BSc in Computer Science and Psychology from the University of Calgary. He works as a software designer. He is a member of Scientists for 9/11 Truth and Scholars for 9/11 Truth & Justice. Fullerton began studying scientific problems with the official 9/11 story in 2006 and has written several articles on the subject. Visit his website at www.skeptopathy.com. 
  • Gregory Scott

    Having just read the NIST Final Report on the collapse of WTC 7, I feel this article is rather dismissive of the study. The concern is that if this building collapsed due to fire damage, what this means as far as public safety for countless other tall buildings is frightening. I can only assume that this public safety issue is why the models have not been released. To dismiss the exhaustive scientific study as “faith based” because the author was not given the model is in error. If the author had developed a computer model that failed to yield the same resutls, then a discussion on findings would be valid. I liken it to the fact that NASA has not flown me to the moon, so I dismiss the Apollo missions as fantasy. The Author’s assertions that because he has not been granted access to the model, the likelyhood of the buckling of a single column is invalid and only controlled explosives remain and therefore are the scientific basis for an answer is junk science of the worst kind.

    • blake minnerly

      As a research scientist who has published a scientific journal article based on a mathematical model, I must say that not providing the actual model or at least the specific parameters and inputs used in the model does seriously undermine the scientific validity of their claim. If I had failed to provide that information in my submission, my article would surely have been rejected. The reason is that everyone who deals in this kind of modeling knows that you can massage the inputs to eventually get whatever result you want. Given that the model is also purporting to validate a previously unseen phenomenon, the collapse of a steel framed sky scraper due to fire alone, the report should at a bare minimum, provide the specific inputs used if it is to be considered a valid scientific result. Otherwise, they are essentially saying, trust us, we’re experts. Thats not science. Besides, surely if NIST now believes that steel framed skyscrapers are vulnerable to fire in ways previously not understood, public safety would demand sharing that information so more study can be done, not hiding basis for their conclusion.

    • http://www.jeremyrhammond.com Jeremy R. Hammond

      Gregory, it’s a rather elementary observation that NIST’s refusal to share its data is contrary to the scientific method. Ergo, it is faith-based rather than science-based.

      Also, pointing out NIST’s failings regarding free-fall is not “dismissive”. It is NIST that has been dismissive, of the implications of free-fall, and much other evidence.

    • SG

      Re: “Having just read the NIST report”> Please, tell us: Does the NIST report mention that they were not planning to substantiate their claims about the simulation and freefall? Did they mention that they used logical fallacies in their reasoning not to investigate physical evidence? “[S]uch tests would [for explosives] would not necessarily have been conclusive,” NIST wrote in response to a Data Quality Act request. That’s a red herring fallacy because perhaps tests for explosives would have been conclusive. Additional energy is needed to explain freefall — the building’s kinetic energy would be spent crushing materials, slowing the fall. Instead, the building begins dropping at freefall. You are ridiculous.

      Reading a report and being science literate enough to know what you are reading are two different things.

      This video has some pertinent information:

      “We Have the Results and Only We Have the Results”

      • Gregory Scott

        Just like the towers collaspe slowing and stopping. Wait that did not happen. Please tell me where you got your engineering degrees from and I will share with you where I got my two.

    • goa way

      youre right, lets just believe them.

    • Matt Schweder

      Gregory, you’ve obviously not done any research on WTC building 7 or the collapse of 1 and 2 WTC. Apply your critical thinking to the government’s official theory, taking into account basic middle school chemistry, physics and common sense, and see what you come up with.
      The simplest explanation for NIST not releasing their models is that they know their models don’t hold water. If the models were accurate and every skyscraper in the nation was indeed shown to be unstable and dangerous, they would be held liable if buildings everywhere began collapsing and people were dying.
      But when you actually study these events, you eventually come to the undeniable conclusion that the rest of the skyscrapers in the world face no danger from collapse whatsoever. Steel and concrete are two of the chemical and construction world’s most perfect companions and they don’t totally collapse or turn to dust all by themselves or because of fire.

      • Gregory Scott

        Explain how the 1 and 2 WTC collapsed please. And by the way, I had a friend in the towers and have followed the reports out of interest.

    • http://frankensteinsforsale.com Franken Stein

      Gregory,

      1. If the frightening prospect that buildings may collapse solely or mostly due to fire is the reason for witholding the data used in NISTs computer models, engineers, owners, occupants and passers-by of other buildings similar to WTC7 would certainly be in a better position to respond to future threats if they knew their building were capable of collapsing like WTC7 did or not. Witholding the information simply means they may be fortunate enough to die quickly as the building collapses on them at ~freefall speeds.

      2. In terms of comparing NASA not flying you to the moon to NIST witholding data, I liken the situation more towards a teacher asking a student to prove ‘pi’, the student writes ’3.14′, the teacher says ‘ok now show your work’, to which the student says f.u., my dad’s a lawyer.

      -Frank

      • Gregory Scott

        Pi is the ratio of a circles circumference to its diameter. 3.14159… it the value, not a proof.

        I would like to hear from structural engineers who are now examning these issues. After Okla City, lateral blast was examined and if buildings weren’t retrofitted, measures were taken to prevent such balst fro happening too close. The same holds true for buildings and fires. Proper fire supression systems will prevent this from occuring. Of course conspiritors will plan to blow up the dam that supplies the city water therefore foiling the fire supression system allowng the building to collapse.

        The Towers took out the water system, the fires were uncontrolled because the firemen were out of action, the building burned, metal fatigued and buckled and the building collapsed. This is the most likely senario.

    • Henry H

      Gregory, how can concealing the information needed to make buildings safer contribute to building safety?
      Also, WTC7′s free fall is impossible without demolition. For expert, detailed proof, please see the excellent videos at http://www.911speakout.org

  • RICHARD COL

    I read you article. You didn’t mention the interview with Silverstein were he claims to have “ordered”, as he portrays in his interview casually, the demolition of WTC7 at about 1600Hrs. As if anyone can order a controlled demolition within a few hrs.
    I believe the biggest insult to the people of this country, and frankly the world, is the biggest B.S. story in 200 years made up by our government to control people in this country and relieve the US Gov. of the Constitution. We celebrate the uproar in Egypt and we do nothing in this country. What our government has done with 911 and since is far more detrimental to civil liberties and citizen autonomy than Mubarick

    • http://www.jeremyrhammond.com Jeremy R. Hammond

      According to Silverstein, his “pull it” comment was a reference to the decision to pull the firefighting effort. The remark is not testimonial evidence, and people should stop relying upon it as such.

      • Matt Schweder

        You obviously haven’t watched the interview with Silverstein when he says this. This is typical of the brainwashed drones in this country. You’ve got the nerve to come on here and pretend to know something and actually criticize someone else’s comments when you haven’t even bothered to spend 5 freaking minutes looking up the interview and watching it for yourself! You lazy, pathetic excuse for a citizen!

        • http://www.jeremyrhammond.com Jeremy R. Hammond

          Yes, I have seen it. I’m not your enemy.

      • Peter

        ok, then it would have been “pull ‘them’” not “pull it”. To go even further, there is another 9-11 conspiracy debunking site that alleges that what Silverstein (who had leased the buildings a few months before and had them insured to the hilt) “really meant” was that they were going to pull the building with cables. The “pulling” with cables is then demonstrated with WTC6 as a kind of bait and switch. WTC6 was only a few storeys high. In any case, it would be interesting to see how cables pulling down diagonally can make a building (WTC7) fall into its own footprint…and see it done with a 47 storey building.
        There is a lot of effort put into rationalizing what appears to defy logic. The “Tribe” benefitted mightily from this false flag outrage and I suspect that they are working overtime to prevent the possible fall out.

        • http://www.jeremyrhammond.com Jeremy R. Hammond

          When that same PBS documentary described what to “pull” means in demolitions lingo, it was indeed to pull the building with cables.

  • http://empirestrikesblack.com nit2am

    Gregory,

    If indeed the building did fall from fire (which it obviously didn’t because that cannot explain freefall), keeping the model secret would HARM public safety the world over. If a fundamental flaw were found in steel-framed skyscrapers, this should be publicised to save lives the world over.

    But, alas, there isn’t a flaw. If there were, this event would not be the only one of its kind in human history.

    • Gregory Scott

      This all seems to boil down to a belief that since the buckling of column 79 can’t be proven, therefore controlled explosives must have been used. The NIST report admits that there is no record of a building failing due to fire alone. I recall there never having been a suspension bridge being felled by wind be for the Tacoma Narrows Bridge did. Natural forces (i.e. heat affects on metal strength and gravity) are much more powerful than we like to admit and designs are always being improved to account for senarios we never imagined.

      I recall seeing the towers come down after the planes hit. I don’t see the author saying these were controlled demolitions. Therefore they must have been caused by fire weaking the truss supports from the central columns to the curtain walls producing a progressive collapse.

      Wait that means building can fall due to fire and this building was the third in histroy to do so.

      The freefall assertion is made by the author and explained in the NIST report as progressive collapse due to the buckling of a column and loads being placed on members that exceeded their capacity resulting in total collapse. Sounds like a scientific reason which was modeled.

      For the articles hypothesis, they fail to explain how someone went into a burning building with explosives, rigged them and triggered them. I see no proof there were wintesses saying they noticed this work being done Monday night or earlier. Last time I checked demolition of buildings by explosives is not a very neat and quite operation. The article says there were sound dampening mats used, they would be pretty visable beforehand. So lack of other details, they must have been rigged after the WTC towers collapsed. I find that logistically hard to swallow.

      • Henry H

        Gregory says: “This all seems to boil down to a belief that since the buckling of column 79 can’t be proven, therefore controlled explosives must have been used.”

        It boils down to the laws of physics. Free fall is quite literally impossible without demolition.

        http://www.911speakout.org

  • Mark

    The only MAJOR flaw to this explosives theory, is that the accessing of the structural frame in order to apply even the thermate would be highly visible to the building occupants and easily detected. At best someone would only be able to gain access and apply these explosive to a limited number of columns. There is no way they could have accessed all the columns required for this “theory” to be plausible.

    • http://www.jeremyrhammond.com Jeremy R. Hammond

      Eliminate the impossible and whatever remains, however unlikely, must be the truth.

    • blake minnerly

      And yet you seem to have no problem with the NIST explanation that the failure of a single column (column 79) led to the progressive collapse of the entire building. Which is it? Can freefall result from the buckling of a single column as NIST claims? If so, then access seems a non-issue, no? If not, then the NIST report is in error, no?

    • Michael Fullerton

      Well fortunately access is not a major flaw. “Maintenance workers” could have easy undetectable (to normal occupants) access to all core columns. In his video, Jonathan Cole explains how the perimeter columns could have been rigged. This work would be more obvious to occupants but certainly not impossible. As others have stated, this scenario is definitely more plausible than the official theory.

    • http://thedailygruel Patrick

      No offense but unless you are familiar with applying thermate you have no idea what’s involved or if it would be detectable. Also, unless you are a structural engineer and familiar with the the construction of WTC7 and expert in CD you lack the experience to say what is plausible and what is not. WTC7 suffered sudden structural collapse at free fall which is not possible unless all structural components fail at the same instant on each floor. This is not a characteristic of failure due to fire but is characteristic of controlled demolition (CD). NIST originally indicated free was fall not possible and further stated it did not occur during the collapse of WTC7. Only when confronted by David Chandler that free fall had occurred and could be simply proven did NIST modify their results to include free fall. They don’t explain it, they just include it as part of the total time of collapse. One might call it scientific fraud. If you really want to understand why WTC7 didn’t collapse from fire google AE911TRUTH and you’ll have you answer.

    • SG

      Re: “There is no way they could have accessed all the columns required for this ‘theory’ to be plausible.”>

      Argument from lack of imagination, a logical fallacy. That you have no imagination only avoids an inconvenience for you (thinking), but it does not prove anything logically.

    • Peter

      That major “flaw” assumes that the perpetrators (to stretch the point) would have been going around with villain masks and sticks of dynamite. All you need is the connivance of some top people, such as the security company (Jebb Bush by the way) and a plausible appearance: renovation technicians in overalls with company logo and name tag– carrying insulation, paint, cables… it is laughably easy to fit a worker stereotype and the white collars will not glance twice.
      You, and countless others who have presented the same objection are really ingenuous and have not thought this through properly. Perhaps you lack imagination.

      In point of fact, there was maintenance going on in the previous months.

    • Henry H

      Mark, column access would have been relatively easy. The cores could have been accessed during the major “elevator renovations” taking place immediately prior to 9-11-01, and the perimeter columns could have been accessed by simply pushing up the suspended ceiling tiles along the exterior walls.
      The government’s crush down theory is quite literally physically impossible.
      Demolition is not. Please see http://911speakout.org for proof.

  • Sean

    A building of this size has more safety factors built into it than what is explainable for this comment. The fact is the columns in this building can handle the weight of this entire structure and to only have a small piece at the top crumble would have no effect on the rest of the structure unless it was rigged. The top structure could not freefall and NIST has no business in saying so. Steel even when heated will bend slowly and a freefall therefore would not exist. The jet fuel burns hot, yes, but only for a few minutes, does it burn at superheated levels therefore you cannot superheat all of these columns in only a few minutes to cause the steel to fall. This was planned from the beginning, weather or not the US was involved, I don’t know, but this was a controlled fall. Like the article says, we need an explanation not a bunch of B.S about protecting the public, so therefore we can’t release our theory. We are nothing but sheep to them, line up and listen to what they tell you is not my strong point, I lead and despite what some may think is wrong, then prove it, stop hiding behind “copouts”. Try to heat steel fast enough to make it fail in a brittle manner does not happen, steel bends and gives fair warning that failure is occurring, that’s why it’s a great building material. Common sense here prevails, you can have all the proffessionals in the world call this a free fall, but I know steel will not act in this way, give me a better explanation. Amateurs built the ark, professionals built the titanic, sometimes you need to step back and listen to yourself despite what they call a professional opinion. The fact that we have no access to their professional theory, screams to me there’s errors in it. Again the article is really asking for a theory that can be reviewed to silence me and other critics but I guess this is not important because what can I do about it anyway. The governments we have are corrupted by Pharmaceutical companies, insurance companies, banks, and anyone else willing to give top officials bonuses. We need a small government made up of only a few individuals who will put the vast majority of people first and not their own needs be it family or not. Governments are never held accountable, all they ever do is deflect blame and hide behind the B.S that are are trying to pull of here, it’s almost so bad it’s commicable, we are turning into a complete joke.

    • http://www.jeremyrhammond.com Jeremy R. Hammond

      “The top structure could not freefall and NIST has no business in saying so.” You’re right, under the fire-induced collapse hypothesis, free-fall would be impossible. Yet, there it is. It’s measurable, and the fact is that to the resolution of the video, acceleration indistinguishable from the acceleration of gravity occurred. It should be pointed out NIST originally denied free-fall, but was FORCED to acknowledge it after public comments on their draft included analyses showing that free-fall did indeed occur.

      “Steel even when heated will bend slowly and a freefall therefore would not exist.” You misunderstand. NIST acknowledges that columns did not reach temperatures where any significant loss of strength occurred. This is why their hypothesis depends upon the idea that thermal expansion of floor beams caused a girder failure, leading to a cascading collapse of floors over 9 stories, and the buckling of Column 79 due to lack of lateral support (not due to being heated).

      You mention jet fuel. WTC 7 was not hit by a plane. As for fuel oil fires from tanks in the building, NIST concluded that they played no role in the collapse. Although this has widely been reported as the cause in the mainstream media, even FEMA, which first presented that hypothesis, said it had a low probability of occurrence.

  • Andrew

    Crackpot…. The absolute thought that someone was able to place these explosives without the notice of individuals in the building is insane… Anyone who thinks our government destroyed those buildings is insane. Not to mention the fact that these comments are made by a software designer and not an engineer.

    This type of argument from a dedicated “truther” is absolutely insane and I can’t believe that ASCE would send out a link to this garbage!!!

    • http://www.sacredsheath.com Cory

      Andrew,

      Anyone who doesn’t read the article “Demolition Access” by Kevin Ryan is… well… I wouldn’t go so far as to say insane, but you’d be doing yourself a disservice by staying in your comfort zone–asserting that explosives and incendiaries would be “impossible” to place without detection. Also read Jim Hoffman’s “Hypothetical Blast Scenario” and you begin to get the picture as to how those pesky red/gray chips got in the dust. The sane thing to do would be to conduct your own investigation into 9/11 and make up your own mind. Plus, beware of confirmation bias. I’m talking to both sides of this issue.

    • http://www.jeremyrhammond.com Jeremy R. Hammond

      Andrew, why do you think that the laws of physics were suspended on 9/11. Isn’t that … insane?

    • wgalison

      Andrew: the fact that you used the word “insane” three times certainly makes your argument unassailable.

      If there are circumstances under which a steel reenforced building can be brought down by fire alone, don’t you think it is in the interest of public safety to reveal these circumstances so that engineers can preempt them in future projects?

      According to NIST, the collapse occurred as a result of unplanned, “random” effects of the fire, from an attack that was not even aimed at the building.

      So NIST can either ignore the fact that huge skyscrapers can collapse under the right conditions, and wait until these conditions occur again- killing thousands- or we can publish these mysterious conditions and allow engineers and architects to preempt them in future buildings.

      Obviously, the second approach is the reasonable one. If the building could be brought down by random conditions, surely a terrorist/ engineer can figure out how to reproduce and optimize these conditions.

      On the other hand, if there is foul play to hide, it would make perfect sense to cover up the simulation inputs.

    • Joe

      Substitute “foolish” for “insane” and I’m with you 100%; but you will get absolutely nowhere arguing engineering principles with non-engineers. The truth is only there for those who want to or can understand the engineering principles. That the “truthers” will accept the ravings of a software designer over engineering experts should amply illustrate the futility of trying to interject facts into the discussion.

      Sure, you could show why F=ma amply explains the so-called “free fall”; but really, do you think you’d get anywhere?

      • blake minnerly

        Joe, I have a masters in mechanical engineering and taught college physics for 15 years. Could you please share, how exactly does F=ma “explain the freefall”?

        • Joe

          @Blake: In the absence of any support, i.e. instantaneous removal of all building columns, the building would accelerate downward at g. Any force F resisting that free fall would decrease that acceleration by F/m.

          Inasmuch as the axial capacity of buckled columns is very small, and the mass of the building is very large, the resulting F/m=a is also quite small, and arguably negligible within the limits of accuracy of the observations. If the lower columns bucked in a progressive collapse originating at the transfer girder, visual measurements of the downward acceleration could easily appear to be equal to g, whether or not it actually is.

          • http://www.jeremyrhammond.com Jeremy R. Hammond

            That’s just the problem. The fire-induced progressive collapse hypothesis doesn’t and can’t account for the instantaneous removal of all building columns.

            NIST ruled out the system of transfer girders and trusses as having anything to do with the collapse.

      • http://www.jeremyrhammond.com Jeremy R. Hammond

        Clearly, Joe, you’re not an engineer. If you were, you would know what nonsense it is to say, “you could show why F=ma amply explains the so-called ‘free fall’”.

        I’m not an engineer either. But you don’t need to be in order to understand a few basic high school physics principles, like Newton’s second law of motion (F=ma).

        Newton’s first law of motion states that an object will remain at rest or in uniform motion unless acted upon by an external force, so that if there is no net force acting on an object, then it will remain at a constant velocity. Newton’s second law of motion states that force is equal to a change in momentum with a change in time (momentum is defined as mass multiplied by velocity, and acceleration is defined as velocity over time, so for a constant mass force equals mass multiplied by acceleration). Newton’s third law of motion states that for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction, so that if one object applies a force on another object, the second object will also apply an equal force in the opposite direction upon the first. The law of conservation of momentum states that within a given problem domain the amount of momentum remains constant and, while it can be changed, can neither be created nor destroyed. The law of conservation of energy states that the amount of energy in a given problem domain remains constant and, while it can be converted from one form to another (i.e. potential energy can be converted to kinetic energy), can be neither created nor destroyed.

        In the case of WTC 7, naturally, the force of gravity was acting upon the building, expressed by its weight, which can also be expressed as its potential energy. While the gravity load of WTC 7 exerted a downward force on its steel columns, those columns also exerted an equal and opposite force resisting that load, which is of course why it is possible to build a 47-story skyscraper in the first place. While there was no net force acting on the building, it remained in equilibrium, with a velocity of zero (that is, it remained standing). Both the force of gravity and the mass of the building remained a constant, so in order for the gravity load to have overcome the resistance of the structure and cause the building to gain downward momentum, some external force must have acted upon its structural elements, and the load-bearing steel columns in particular, causing them to lose their structural integrity.

        The achievement of free-fall acceleration means that for 2.25 seconds and over a height of 8 stories, 100 percent of the building’s potential energy was converted to kinetic energy, which means there was no energy remaining to buckle the columns. The laws of physics dictate that, absent some additional external force acting on the load-bearing steel columns of WTC 7 resulting in a total loss of their structural integrity, they must have offered resistance to the building’s collapse, which must have slowed its rate of acceleration. Conversely, acceleration indistinguishable from free-fall means that for those 2.25 seconds, the columns offered no resistance; all of the building’s 81 columns had suffered a total loss of structural integrity. That this total loss of structural integrity for all 57 of building’s exterior columns occurred near simultaneously is evident in the sudden onset of global collapse, sudden onset of gravitational acceleration, and the remarkable symmetry of the collapse, with the entire upper portion of the building moving downward “as a single unit”.

        • Sean

          F = m x a Force is a newton or a pound
          Mass is a kilogram or a slug

          A newton or a force is explainable by what your acceleration is based on. Gravity, on earth; downward acceleration is 9.81m/second-squared for the moons gravity is less. This can only tell you how much something weighs on the moon or on earth. To calculate the force on the falling of the building you need the actual acceleration slowed from 9.81m/s to an indeterminate sum from the resistance that the columns gave. From this you need to calculate the velocity equal to acceleration times “time” from this you need to calculate the mass of the rubble hence Momentum = m x v now we have a (kilogram x velocity or kg-m/s) a newton or force has the units kg-m/second squared hence we need to divide Momentum by seconds hence the time it takes to stop the rubble then you have your force.
          An impossible task to calculate based on assumptions input into a computer, hence garbage in-garbage out, but if we assume worst case scenario’s you will find that even these falling dead loads are minimal as compared to the design of these structures. Imagine holding a weight and you are not at or near your capacity only 80% and the loads you hold at 80% are not really there unless you experience disaster conditions, then you need to use 80% capacity of your strength so the load you are actually holding has you at only 50% capacity.
          By design you give yourself a safety factor of 5 meaning you five times your 100% capacity that is what is applied to these buildings at a minimum so you are now five times stronger than you have to be at 80% capacity the load above you is now really small.
          If it falls do you think you can stop it, remember the below structure is unafected and at 100% you are around 6 times stronger than you have to be.

          If you hold 150 lbs max you can hold 120 at 80% so lets say approximately you are now 6 x stronger than 150 so you are maxed at 900 lbs or 408kg, really the load is only 75 lbs or 34 kg by actual design as this is how buildings are designed the 34kg only increases when disasters take place; so it falls for 2.25s at an acceleration due to full gravity of 9.81 m per second squared; velocity of the weight is now 9.81m/second squared times 2.25 seconds = 22.1m/s Momentum is m x v = 34kg x 22.1m/s = 751.4 kg-m/s, now how long does it take to stop the object, lets say 1/2 second 0.5 seconds. We now have the worst case gravity and stopping condition of the entire dead load not just bits and pieces of the 34kg. Gravity is full not slowed by the structure as we took full 9.81m/second squared so this is worst case condition therefore the average force over 0.5 seconds is 751.4 kg-m/s divided by 0.5s =1503kg-m/second squared, these units are equal to a newton, a newton on earth when divided by gravity will leave you with kg hence 1503kg-m/second squared divided by 9.81m/second squared leaves you with a force of 153kg you can stop 408kg.
          Buildings are designed with these kind of safety factors even more so with skyscrapers as important factors are added in as well but I am not a high rise expert but at minimum the above factors are there or even more so due to the importance of these buildings should they see hurricanes or earthquakes and due to there shear size and improbabilities.
          The dead loads were even smaller than what I just calculated in relativity when the building colapsed because the loads came down in pieces not as one and they were slowed from full gravitational pull by the resistance of the members.

          • http://www.jeremyrhammond.com Jeremy R. Hammond

            I don’t understand what your point is, Sean.

          • Sean

            My point is by relativity a building is designed to an 80% capacity not 100% then it is designed with safety factors of at least 6 overall to handle disasters due to it’s size. Most buildings may only have safety factors of 1.5 such as houses hence they get blown away in hurricane winds skyscrapers do not because they have massive safty factors as explained previously. Therefore my calculation analogy is based on relativity based on a safety factor of 6 what I start with does not matter the end result is that these dead loads wheather they are acclerating or not are small in comparison to the strength of the building. Say the building in the end can hold 408kg it will only see a maximum of 153kg therfore it can handle the free fall and therefore something other than the free fall brought these buildings down. My numbers are not accurate but in relation to how strong these buildings are the falling dead loads have to remain small as this is how a building is built of this size and importance regardless when there are no disasters in place the building is usually only at 50% capacity then we add safety factors, enormous safety factors to skyscrapers which make dead loads almost negligible as compared to the disaster and live loads. So falling dead loads even under acceleration should not colapse a skyskraper. The calculations previously give you an idea in relation not exact weights but the percentage between 408kg to 153kg remains the same or of a close approximation in a worst case scenario.

          • http://www.jeremyrhammond.com Jeremy R. Hammond

            Sean, with respect, I’m still at a loss to understand your point, particularly when you say nonsensical things like, “therefore something other than the free fall brought these buildings down”.

          • Sean

            I give up, it’s a futile attempt that rather needs months and months of research. I guess I was just trying to show how a falling dead load is small in relation to the strength of the building by calculation and ratio of load vs safety factors within the design of a skyscraper. Despite the lengthy report of the WTC 7 final report there is nothing in there that convinces me that columns will buckle bend break from expansion of steel or from the heat they were exposed to because the loading conditions were small weather or not they were in free fall could not bend columns with massive safety factors regardless of heat expanded metal. This is true for othe skyskrapers that burned hotter and longer and never collapsed as history will tell you.

          • http://www.jeremyrhammond.com Jeremy R. Hammond

            Yes, there is redundancy built into the design of the structure. Columns are not loaded to full capacity. I believe NIST points out that the structural steel would need to be heated to temperatures where there is a 50% loss of strength for failures to occur. And NIST does acknowledge that columns did not reach temperatures where there was any significant loss of strength.

          • Sean

            Ok with respect to what they said about 50% loss of strength in order for failure to occur.

            Engineers design to 80% capacity not 100%

            We further design to a minimum limit states safety factor of 25% added to dead loads and 50% added to live loads, to generalize lets say a total of 40% added to the overcompensated combined loading conditions.

            This includes all dead loads that may occur on each floor but usually do not exist but we put them there to cover our ass, then all live loads taken as people, elevators and partial snow loads, and wind being hurricane conditions, then we combine all these loads together to act at the same time because this is a possible scenario. But again usually do not, and hurricanes did not exist at this time and that’s a big one.

            Therefore the building by actual facts not by design has overcompensated dead and live loads acting all at once to bring it to an 80% load condition in order to collapse the building you need to be over 100%.

            Without a hurricane and without maximum actual dead and live loads and without them acting all together in a combined condition the building in my opinion stands stronger than 50% maybe some beams like he said would be at 50% within the main structure but the important members that hold the structure from collapse are massively overcompensated.

            Lets recap, 100% the building fails, it’s designed to only 80% capacity with combined hurricane conditions. In reality the building will be at much less than 80% capacity but we multiply this overcompensated combined load condition by 40% to again cover our ass, this is a generalization, but relatively close. Without hurricane conditions and without usually overcompensated dead and live loads the building is at maybe 60% capacity, this is up for discretion but I believe it is a bit on the high side without the hurricane condition which it is designed for. Therefore we have a combined actual Safety factor of 1.4 divided by 0.6 = 2.3. Therefore in order to fail just one of these main members you need to induce a load of 2.3 times the actual strength of it’s main member. Really if the building holds 100lbs by design it can actually hold 233lbs in a disaster situation making it’s main members 233% stronger. Under combined loading conditions this would be less in a hurricane and decrease, but this is why we have safety factors in order to keep a building standing, we do not want to see 100% capacity so we overcompensate every where we can to cover our ass. But wait it gets better, because with high rise buildings, due to their importance they have massive safety factors around 5 added to load conditions thus repeat the above explained with a safety factor of 5 and you will begin to see how strong these skyscrapers really are. They have massive sf’s due to the disater they would cause should they fall so we need to put massive sf’s to ensure these buildings remain standing in disasters, residential houses with sf’s of 1.4 blow away in hurricanes skyskrapers do not.

            Therefore you need something like explosives to bring them down, fire, thermal expansion, the loss of only some members or a massive jet flying at 500mph hitting WTC 1 and 2 cannot do the job. WTC 7 is ridiculous a it only had minimal damage and fell like it’s 233% capacity disapeared and gravity did it’s thing, all the members do not fail simutaneously in the conditions that NIST speaks of and if we look at the video it’s no doubt all members main lost their footing, much like in demolition.

            And why is our government so incompetant not to investigate all avenues when this is just simply an impossible scenario and NIST is hiding it’s work because they know it’s in error if they release it. Engineers and the public can get information on the properties of materils and building requirements whenever they please to do so, some of it is free on the internet and some you pay for, regardless it’s all available. Why is NIST getting away with saying that this information will harm public safety when it’s available anyway, to anyone wishing to get it.

    • blake minnerly

      “Anyone who thinks our government destroyed those buildings is insane” And why is that? Surely you are aware of historical precedents such as Operation Northwoods, the Gulf of Tonkin and the Tuskegee experiments, all of which are well documented events that establish the willingness of our government to take American lives to achieve a political goal. Of course, this is not a uniquely American phenomenon. Most, if not all, governments have, at some point in their history, been willing to sacrifice the lives of their own citizenry to achieve, consolidate or increase political power.

      • Sean

        MSG in foods it’s killing us and making us obese and the government allows it, we buy foods without MSG and now companies have over 24 different names for MSG to hide the fact on the ingredients that MSG is in the food and the government allowed this to happen.
        Growth Hormone and yes steroids will cure 100′s upon hundreds of ailments if you educate yourself on the topic, only and only when you overdose do these drugs have a negative effects. Not 99% but 100% of all drugs that you have access to will only relieve your symptoms because providing a cure is bad business, so pharmaceuticals will never allow you to get cured they want to sell more, this is why you will never see a cure for cancer…and the government allows this why because they are paid off. doctors are not allowed to give people growth harmone because by government law it is not a medicine it’s anti aging drug therefore you have to pay big money for this drug, if your caught with steroids you go to jail, this is no surprise. The government is corrupt because they are paid to be corrupt, the same way doctors feed you medicine because the more they hand out the bigger their bonus is from pharmaceutical companies.

        Like Blake said historically governments will sacrifice our health and well being for the almighty dollar they recieve from companies that are getting rich from us sheep. The same thing may have happened in 911 now we have access to oil and we were on limited supply. However, being as corrupt as they are by human nature we accept money and look the other way and we need to put a stop to this if at all possible.
        But lets not forget our enemy whether parts of our governmeent had a play at this, we need to stop terror first and foremost so I am still supporting troops overseas but I have little respect for our system at hand. Historically governments are ruled by the dollars they recieve and not by the good that they can do. And it’s still going on today.

      • Gregory Scott

        I am glad the Bush Administration went to war only because WTC7 fell and not WTC1 and 2. Whew, now I can sleep at night.

        Why bring down this building?

        Still no motive that I am aware of.

    • Michael Fullerton

      A crackpot is someone ignorant and irrational, prone to illogical reasoning. In a humorous twist of irony your post contains at least two logical fallacies: argument from incredulity (can’t believe it could be true so it isn’t) and ad hominem (personal attack).

      Jonathan Cole is an engineer who is referenced in the article. He explains how thermate controlled demolition devices could be placed in buildings. Instead of making completely unsupported pronouncements why not explain how Cole is wrong?

    • Marian Galbraith

      Why is it so hard to realize that Silverstein, his contractors, and his tenants in WTC7 (which include the CIA, Secret Service, and countless other gov’t agencies) had constant access to these buildings for years? They could easily go “unnoticed” with the excuse that they’re working on electrical upgrades, computer wiring upgrades, or countless other “legitimate” reasons? If nanothermite was used, it could possibly have been painted on by painting contractors. Just because a demolition job is different from the past, doesn’t make it “impossible” or “insane”. We deserve real answers, not ridicule, and so do the victims of 911.

    • SG

      It was largely a government building with intelligence agencies in it. Could they manage something that looked like a renovation? Sure.

      The insane part is that people are generally so science illiterate that they let lack of imagination marginalize facts.

    • http://911review.com ResearchGuy

      Andrew,

      Your belief that explosives sufficient to account for the observed freefall and near-freefall downward acceleration of WTC 7 could not have been emplaced without people noticing, and reporting it, and getting meaningful action response to such a report, is completely fallacious, but it is so common that I wrote a long essay in response to it (http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/roberts/index.html).

    • goa way

      gee.. apart from absolutely no sources to back up your worthless opinion, that was a fantastic ad hominem attack! – please, do go on! – with your sort arguing the defence, the prosecution case is automatically made.

      here you have been offered forensic evidence, and the best you can do is insult and name call… how very primary school of you.

      im amazed you didnt include a link to popular mechanics though… your mates wont like that

    • Peter

      op cit

      another character devoid of imagination–

    • Henry H

      Andrew ranted: “The absolute thought that someone was able to place these explosives without the notice of individuals in the building is insane…”

      What’s insane, is your apparent belief that criminals are *always* caught in the act. With the cooperation of the owner and his “security”, it is quite possible. The perps probably were not wearing uniforms with large DEMOLITION CONTRACTOR lettering on them. Like most criminals, they probably took precautions to keep their criminal behavior hidden.
      What is quite literally impossible, is free fall without demolition. Either you are denying WTC7′s free fall, which would be your error, or you fail to comprehend the concept of free fall.
      Free fall is both proved and explained here. Time for you to get informed.

      http://www.911speakout.org

  • Sean

    Sheep, Andrew go back to your cute imaginary world, Baaah. Buildings don’t just fall down. To think that all 58 columns failed simutaneously is garbage, as this would be the only way a free fall could happen, those scientific posts are not science and that’s what ASCE is pointing out. We need a better explanation and we are not getting one. There are bad and corrupt things happening world wide, for you to live in your dream land is ridiculous.

  • John W

    Good article covering the bare basics of WTC7 collapse.

    For much more information re technical issues and to see where 1,436 (make that 1,438) well-vetted Professional Architects & Engineers have signed a detailed petition demanding a new & independent investigation, please see:

    http://www.ae911truth.org

    It would be easier than most people realize to set some form(s) of explosives &/or thermite/thermate/nano-thermite in any of the towers–but especially in Building 7, which housed numerous covert govt ops (CIA, etc) on many floors.

    Also, there was a significant elevator in the Twin Towers prior to 9/11, providing ample opportunity. Keep in mind those towers are actually mostly Empty most of the time. They were numerous floor completely unoccupied–and of the occupied floors, they were typically inhabited approx 1/3 of the day (~8 hrs out of 24), 5 days/week, and empty on various holidays, etc.
    Plus, you would Not need to put charges on every single column/beam on every floor, but rather just enough to get it accelerating downward & then leverage gravity.

  • Navin1

    “So the inescapable and disturbing conclusion is that the most scientific theory available for the WTC 7 collapse is that it was a controlled demolition, brought down with explosives. This conclusion shows without a doubt that a thorough independent scientific investigation into the 9/11 event must be undertaken. ”

    So let us look at the reasoning. The author believes explosives could have been used. That is the support of the “inescapable” theory. I could fly water in airplanes and drop it. That does not generalize to saying rain down pours come from airplanes. I could shoot my neighbor. That does not generalize to an inescapable theory that I did.

    Sorry, science is not, it could have been therefore it inescapably is. As the author suggests, you need models to show your theory is likely. So, the author should make available his calculations of the amount of explosive needed to cause the WTC to collapse. The author should make available his calculations of the time it would take to set up such a demolition and the persons who have the expertise and motive (and the resultant gain). If the author is unable to provide these, in less than a week as the author presumably has already done due diligence and constructed such models, then we can conclude the author has a different agenda than scientific inquiry. That agenda would, based on the evidence that the author does not have reasonable models to come to his inescapable conclusions, have to be to obfuscate the truth of the self proclaimed vows of islamic radicals who take credit for (and their friends that celebrate) the premeditated murder of 3000 common people in the name of islam and their belief in the blood thirst of their god allah.

    • http://www.jeremyrhammond.com Jeremy R. Hammond

      “Sorry, science is not, it could have been therefore it inescapably is.” Nor does the author employ that logic. Your entire argument is premised on a strawman.

    • Michael Fullerton

      The article actually does include a model in the form of a thought experiment. Since you seem to be having trouble seeing it I’ll elaborate. Imagine WTC 7 prepped with thermate devices. Some of the devices are set off long before the collapse to weaken the redundant structure. Then right before the collapse other thermate devices and kicker charges remove 8 stories of support structure to get the building moving. The charges are precisely timed to remove the center columns first to cause the roof-line kink and resulting “implosion”. Other precisely timed charges cause the final roll to the south. Jonanthan Cole’s experiments provide support for this model. As do the entire history of controlled demolition and structural engineering. The amount of explosive used, who did it and how access was gained is largely immaterial. These are minor questions that further competent and conscientious study could illuminate. This theory and model is vastly superior so NIST’s faith-based pseudo-science.

    • Henry H

      Navin says:

      “So let us look at the reasoning. The author believes explosives could have been used. That is the support of the “inescapable” theory. I could fly water in airplanes and drop it. That does not generalize to saying rain down pours come from airplanes.”

      Navin, you’re getting away from the facts again and creating silly and irrelevant “straw men”. Let’s get back to the hard facts and evidence.
      Are you denying that free fall is quite literally impossible without demolition, or are you denying that WTC7accelerated at the rate of a freely falling object? Either belief would be at odds with reality. Perhaps you do not understand the concept of free fall. Here is a good place to get informed.
      Let us know if you disagree with any of the evidence or points discussed with regard to WTC7′s sudden free fall and symmetric drop.

      http://911speakout.org

  • Navin1

    The website noted above is of news articles. Not science. Where are the models?

  • Sean

    The final report on WTC 7 written is bias in my opinion, it’s like a lawyer wrote this who defended only his theory and neglected to consider others or to do a proper investigation into other avenues but their own. To say that explosives is ruled out is bias. There is most certainly the possibility that there could have been explosives but their viewpoints suggest otherwise as if this would have been impossible because there were no sounds heard and they asked people if they heard loud blasts and they did not so I guess then there were no explosives, whoever wrote this is bias to any other possibilities but his/her own and spent no time looking at other possibilities. As dismal and absurd that this was planned by government may be true but for the final report to say it was not possible is surely a bias view. Explosive experts can do whatever they want to do, to say the sequence is not right is bias. An explosives expert can do whatever he pleases to do; to say no to this is outright bias and proves the report is bias to what they want us sheep to believe. There are intentional blank pages and an endless supply of information about their theory and about one paragraph ruling out explosives. If someone were to really dig into their theories you will find all kinds of mistakes, but oops we already have and I bet if we had acces to those blank pages we could surely find more errors. I am a Structural Engineer and can say that these buildings have huge safety factors in them, the dead loads are overcompensated and then multiplied by safety factors to overcompensate again, the live loads are truly overwhelmingly compensated for and then even more so are multiplied by even bigger safety factors, on top of all of this the building is further designed for 1/100 year wind loads maybe even greater for a building of this size but a minimum of 1/100 wind load that would cause severe buckling to the opposite column from which the wind is blowing along with all the other overcompensated loads, and probally have even more safety factors built in for earthquakes. I am not a high rise expert but I know most of these safety factors apply. The blabber that is in final report is jibberish almost lawyer like, trying to dazzle people with with computer printouts and how many megs and gigabites it took to run their science models. Being that there were no snow loads on the roof at the time, a limited amount of people therfore reducing the absorbent live load, it was not windy and there were no earthquakes, how is that the entire building can collapse. Some of there pictures show columns buckling below the flames; how so if these are not heated then they have all there strength. These columns hold up ridiculous fictitious loads and are cross braced to heck, there not going to buckle because they are massive in design. The floors above are only a small point load in relation and they fell in pieces and parts, it was not a free fall with all the weight hitting at once. The outside columns below would not buckle they were not hot and therefore had there overcompensated strengths built in and could surely handle the small point load above. A Jet flew into this building at 500mph and it barely moved. The top mass of the building is much greater but the building is already designed for this, if the top falls and crumbles, that’s fine but the bottom structure is so strongly overcompensated it can handle this scenario. In relation this would have only produced a compressive point load that in relation is small considering the size of the rest of the building. The top crumbled it did not hit with all if it’s load at once and considering the building is already holding this load and overbuilt with massive safety factors, how can it all of a sudden fail. The WTC 7 report tries to explain this phenomenon but as a structural guy the report fails in my opinion and I give it an F grade, especially because it’s missing pages, it has way too much technical information that is not valid, (nobody cares about how many rams your computer has), this was placed in the report to try to dazzle readers, uneducated to what is pertinent for this report (lawyer like) and is way to lengthy, which means they are really trying to force feed their theory that lacks a “bias viewpoint” for the reader and is full of errors. Can you say Baaaaaah…..Baaaaaaah. Just believe what your told I guess? Don’t question where the explosive particles came from, nope, it just got there somehow, can you say oblivious, dootadooootadoooo. The ASCE just on purpose prints out garbage for no reason. And the fact that the guy who wrote it is a software engineer just goes to show you he using his own common sense, you don’t always have to be a proffesional to understand things. We need more people using their heads and expressing thier points of view because what we hear in the media and from our governments are not always true and this has been proven time and time again.

    • http://www.jeremyrhammond.com Jeremy R. Hammond

      Comments appreciated. But no plane hit WTC 7!

  • Sean

    My regrets, I had my crossers set on WTC #1 and #2 in all it’s same theory we are stuck with, whether it be 1, 2 or 7. They all in the end fell due to fire damage, but, take a look at some scyskrapers in spain that burned for longer and hotter and never fell, so why would WTC 7 fall exactly in the same way WTC 1 and 2 fell. All three buildings fell in the same manner, this further supports a controlled fall for all three buildings. Why have no other skyscrapers fallen due to fire, all of a sudden we have a convuluted explanation of of fire bringing down skyscrapers in the WTC 7 final report. To stick with my point previously is that these buildings have massive overcompensated load conditions and at that time these overcompensated loads were fictitious and incorporated into the design. the actual dead loads are minimal loads at best and do not free fall and cause massive columns to buckle. These buildings are designed to withstand earthquakes and hurricane winds and yet a small dead load (small in comparison to the rest of the building) caused it to fall, I don’t believe it. Massive columns don’t buckle under their own weight as can be seen in other skyscrapers that burned in spain and their shells are still in tact. Common sense prevails here, skyskrapers do not fall from fire damage. However that Final report sure is lengthy probally because they are trying to force feed their bias theory. They do not support any other theories other than there own and to a reader we should not be led into their theory we should be left to make our own conclusion but they seem to make their conclusions all the way through the entire report.

  • Joe

    Uh..John W. – your statement here, “Plus, you would Not need to put charges on every single column/beam on every floor, but rather just enough to get it accelerating downward & then leverage gravity.” contradicts the so-called “free fall” theory. If not every column is instantly severed, there would remain an upward force counteracting the free fall that the truthers steadfastly maintain happened. In that statement, you are conceding that the mass of the building can cause buckling of intact columns without impeding the downward acceleration of the building. Need I point out that is the same theory as the NIST report?

  • Navin1

    I can hold up a weight of about 150 lbs. But after it is falling about 1 second, I can’t catch it. Supports in buildings are designed for lateral sheer and vertical compression. Not vertical sheer. Not only would the explosives have be planted as “an explosive expert can do anything” – talk about bias – but they would also have to be timed exactly to the airplane crash and the rate of acceleration of the floors from the top. If the structure was imploded, then the whole structure would have come down simultaneously. Instead, the structure was compressed like a pancake – top down. So now the conspiracy theorists would have to say that Bin Laden was in cahoots with a paramilitary organization that pre planned the attack on the WTC. Ergo, Bin Laden and is islamist supporters were joined with the US to cause an attack on the WTC to prompt an attack on Iraq and Afghanistan…

    Ah the webs we weave when first we deceive. Science is about evidence. Models help interpret evidence – they are not the evidence itself. Claims are not science. But a person, Bin laden, who gets up and says I caused the attack on the WTC, the White House, and the Pentagon, and then can be linked by a series of events or training and funding to the persons flying the airplanes should be taken at his word. Of course if Bin Laden is a liar. Then so be it. That makes Bin Laden and his followers the liars and the conspirators.

    Any reputable journal that publishes nonsense becomes nonsensical.

    • http://www.jeremyrhammond.com Jeremy R. Hammond

      Navin. WORLD TRADE CENTER 7. No plane hit WTC 7.

      Good grief.

  • Sean

    Okay, one last time, here is the logic behind this. Journals are not nonsensical because of facts they find and because of history and because information crucial to the report is being withheld. In history no steel high rise building has ever fallen due to fire anywhere, does this not ring your bell for a second. Here is an article that states such “http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/compare/fires.html”

    Now your 150 lbs Navin1 reduce this to 1 pound can you catch it then. I can catch a 90 mile an hour fast ball that weigh’s a pound, but not 150lbs. In comparison 150 lbs would be like stacking 5 more buildings on top of each other because when you factor in all safety factors these buildings have a minimum of 5 times their required strength if not 10 so dropping only 1 lbs into your hand from a freefall of 1 second is comparible to these structure, would your hand collapse.
    But let’s be real with my arguements buildings do not fall under there own weight because in comparison the dead loads are always a negligible load condition in design, falling material would have no effect on these structures.
    Hence my proof is in the bag because no building has ever fallen before 911 but all of a sudden 3 fall from fire, someone please do a statistacal analysis on this, you would have a better chance buying a lotto ticket. So to say foul play had no part is wrong. Fires do not bring down high rises that’s why we are in arguement because if they don’t then we assume the unthinkable and no one wants to believe that and reports are hiding information so what do you want us to do???????
    And Mr Hammond columns don’t bend whether heated by expansion or not under the proposed load scenarios given in the final report and that’s my proffesional opinion and I don’t need a model to tell me that, a lot of engineering relies on what is and what has worked in the past and as history stands high rise buildings don’t fall due to fire.
    And Navin1 your speach on supports lacks way too much logic and makes no sense. It is too vast a subject to touch on and we need a better non bias report that is based on history and theory that leaves the reader with a choice. The WTC final report force feeds a only one theory that has never happened before and yes explosive experts are talented, thats not a bias statement and has anyone looked at other avenues such that thes columns could have been cut or chemicals used to rot steel connections in prime locations or a combination of, there are many ways these building could have been tampered with while these individuals took the time to learn how to fly a jet for their attack on sep 11. Again it’s a possibility that needs investigation not a cover up, if our government is covering things up I get suspicious.

  • Navin1

    Many buildings fell because bombs hit them from above. At least that is the history I read. The bombs themselves were pretty light. Somehow, the explosions and ensuing fires seemed to make those building fall. I haven’t done a scientific study of falling buildings, I admit my ignorance. But, I know how to read science. There is a hypothesis, a methodology, an experiment to test the hypothesis, and a tentative conclusion. That is not present in this article. This is not a scientific article. There in no scientific theory presented. We could just as well postulate poor building techniques, short cuts by builders and contractors, aging / rusted supports… in the fall of the towers, as these certainly participated in the devastation of Port au Prince. We would then want to improve civil inspections. But the blame, the responsibility, of the attack lies with the attackers – self proclaimed attackers. I may forget my bullet proof vest, but my murderer is the murderer, not my lack of a bullet proof vest.

    I am not against skepticism about government. But I do not hold my skepticism only for government. Religious groups (christianity and islam in particular) lie to their followers. Ideologues of all types lie to those who will listen – the opiate of the masses as the saying goes. I am skeptical of the nazi who says he comes in peace, less so to Buddhist who does so.

    I also respect individuals who put their theory down to be testable by others. A statement, john is the enemy of joe, is meaningless unless you know who john and joe are – then it is testable. The root of skepticism is denial. The route out of skepticism is hypothesis testing.

    We should always be suspicious of our government. And we should be suspicious of people who claim any knowledge (for and against the government arguments). We seek truth. It is difficult to know. A talibani in Afghanistan hates America when he has never been here. An American hates a talibani when he has never been there. Both are equally false for the hate is based on ignorance. It is when we realize hate and love are within us as tangible that we can then choose truth, love, or (in the freedom of the human mind) hate based on the science of self beyond skepticism – but that is not what this article is about.

    • Michael Fullerton

      If you know how to read science Navin, how did you miss the hypothesis that explosive controlled demolition brought down WTC 7? How did you miss the methodology explaining a likely scenario? How did you miss the referenced experiments that support the model? And how did you miss the conclusion that explosive controlled demolition is the most likely explanation for the WTC 7 collapse? The article and the theory within it is scientific. It contains all the criteria you state it should contain. You’ll need something more than denial and unsupported pronouncements to convince sane rational people otherwise.

  • Navin1

    Michael

    You’ve gone and undone yourself. A methodology in science is how one is going to address the problem (use a mathematical model, reconstruct the scanario, what variable are going to be controlled and how…) A methodology in science is not the method of the scenario. Science is about experiments. Not just referrences to other experiments. If the conclusion, in scientific papers, is considered, along with the discussion, the weakest part. The data generated by a hypothesis test is simply explained. The conclusion that the “explosive controlled demolition is the most likely explanation” can be stated by anybody.

    Consider: Mars causes wars (hypothesis). Mars spins around the earth in a funny orbit different than the stars (observation). Things that are irregular in the heavens are dangerous (methodology). The funny orbit of Mars causes wars (conclusion). That, my fellow searcher, is not science. I can add references to irregularity causing chaos, the history of Mars’ relationship to war like behavior, and wars occur on the earth. It is still not science.

    It is clear that I have guessed correctly. Yours is not a science background. That’s ok. You still have a right to an opinion. But an opinion too is not science.

    Let us look seriously at the hypothesis that the WTC was brought down by internal explosives. Methodology: 1) systemic search for remnants of explosives / accelerants. 2) demonstrate that such materials were present in sufficient amount to cause damage. 3) demonstrate that such explosives could be timed to airline attacks (3a establish link of airliner attacks and those planting explosives), 4) establish a group that was motivated to carry out the attack and their motive – not as conjecture but as evidence – memos, planning, self affirmations, video of terrorist cells, ideological constructs….). Then establish that a massive explosion of jet fuel on the buildings is insufficient to explain the collapse (this you have argued but unconvincingly to me). Then establish incompetent building would not explain the collapse. Then establish that incompetent maintenance would not contribute to the collapse. Present that data. Reproduce the scenario on small scales. Then let the experts play with your models…

    I know science, but I am not an engineer. If I can expect that level of detail, how much more can a scientist engineer want before she seriously consider this hypothesis? And no, the whole point of a 150 lbs weight is not countered by a 1 lbs ball caught in a mit that allows deceleration to occur over time and distributes that force to the leather (F/A) and thus limits the trauma to my hand. Your bias is blinding you to make poor arguments. If you are indeed a software engineer, make the model and show us the math.

    • http://www.jeremyrhammond.com Jeremy R. Hammond

      Navin1,

      WTC 7 was not hit by a plane.

      If you know science, as you so profess, you know that free-fall means all the building’s potential energy was converted to kinetic energy. Which means there was no energy available to do the work of buckling columns under the fire-induced collapse hypothesis. Which means that that energy must have been provided from elsewhere.

      The leading hypothesis is that explosives or thermitic materials were used. To test that hypothesis, an international team of scientists obtained several samples of dust and examined it to see whether there was any evidence for this hypothesis. They found unreacted thermitic material in the dust. They also found iron-rich microspheres. Both of these pieces of evidence support the controlled-demolition hypothesis. The fire-induced collapse hypothesis cannot account for them.

      You talk the talk about using the scientific method. Now walk the walk. Where do you propose the energy came from that acted on the columns near instantaneously resulting in their structural integrity becoming zero? How do you explain the presence of thermitic material in the dust according to the fire-induced collapse hypothesis? The iron spheres?

      All ears.

      • Sean

        Mr Hammond this reminds me of an old saying “Do not argue with idiots, they will drag you down to their level, and beat you with experience” In other words common sense has taken a back door to some. Unfortunately in court he could win depending on the judge. Some of us use our heads…. common sense, and others want and need their evidence handed to them on silver trays. I don’t mean to call anyone an idiot it’s a paraprosdokian which makes you think for a minute, and you are just waisting your energy on some individuals who may for good reason believe they need icing on a cake to eat it.

        • http://www.jeremyrhammond.com Jeremy R. Hammond

          I have a character flaw in that I believe everyone can be reasoned with. It’s crazy, I know.

    • Michael Fullerton

      Navin there’s a simple test to determine who has a better understanding of science. Explain which theory of the WTC 7 collapse, the NIST theory or the explosive controlled demolition (ECD) theory is more scientific. The most fundamental requisite of a scientific theory is that the theory explains all observations. The NIST theory however, does not explain key observations. NIST simply ignores them. That fact alone shows that the NIST theory is wrong. The only experiment NIST performed to support their theory, their computer model, looks nothing like the actual building collapse. There is no roof-line kink, no roll to the south and no free fall period. The CD theory explains all these observations and is therefore the theory that must be accepted as the best current explanation. Your sophist arguments are merely primitive attempts to divert attention away from this damning reality.

    • Henry H

      Navin, You’re changing the subject into something irrelevant and absurd.. Also, WTC7′s free fall and symmetric drop was not timed to any planes, anf there was no jet fuel in WTC7.
      The fact is, WTC7 accelerated at free fall while supposedly bending, crushing, and moving tens of thousands of tons of structural steel. Free fall can only take place when there is no resistance. It is physically impossible for WTC7′s massive hurricane and earth quake resistant steel frame to crush itself at the rate of a freely falling object. As has been explained, in order to accelerate at free fall, *all* of the building’s gravitational potential energy has to be converted into motion, which leaves no energy to crush the frame. I suggest that you view some of the excellent videos at http://911speakout.org All of this is articulately documented and explained. Free fall proves demolition. There is no way around that hard fact.

  • Sean

    Looks like were the last three grunts still at this, however Navin you forgot about history and statistics. Despite what you think about the jet fuel their are buildings, skyscrapers that have burned for longer and hotter than these three buildings ever got to. So how do you explain that history and convince me that three can fall from fire in one day. Statistically very near impossible. The jet caused damage in WTC1 and 2 but the steel was still upright, after that, fire should not be blamed or skyscrapers would have fallen before now. An incompetant building is also very near impossible, I would not even consider that one, sounds like your grasping at straws there. Your other points were never investigated properly and that’s the problem from the start, it’s like something was being withheld inspectors were not allowed to do there jobs from the start. Your statements are like stealing candy from a kid, hiding behind your back…..and the kid says give me my candy and you say, what candy, prove to me there is candy, the poor kid can’t prove it because you have all the control now. Your analogies are just as bad LOL…..and just like a baseball mit steel bends and will absorb falling loads, take a steel ruler and see how far you can bend it before it breaks, but it won’t you will be amazed at how far you can bend it, at some point it goes from elastic to plastic at the plastic stage it will not come back to it’s original shape at this point it can be further stretched like plastic where it gains more strength and then finally breaks, bolted conections in shear act the same way so there is plenty of room left in steel to absorb falling loads much like what you said about the mit, thus reducing the falling forces. Read post 22 for the math behind it.
    I don’t need science any way to tel me that smoking is bad for me because science without a doubt cannot prove that tabacco causes cancer so I rely on statistics and history behind smokers who have health problems to come to my own conclusion that if you smoke then statiscally speaking you will develop health problems from it. So science can take a back door at the point where it finds explosive material but now your asking for a proper amount, how much semen do you need to prove rape.

  • Navin1

    Grunts ongoing. I appreciate the humor.

    I learned how to break bolts recently. Pretty easy. A lever arm (pliers) and two or three good bends, snap. Scarry. And yes, that was on structural bolts.

    You are of course correct. Science aside, we can look at history (which is heavily not scientific due to the limitations on reproduction of testable hypotheses). Actually, it did take most people around the world science to figure out smoking is bad for you. Still, despite the science, people still smoke and think its not bad for them. Oh well, history I guess.

    Semen needs to provide enough genetic data to say x raped y. But the presence of semen alone does not prove rape. You have to prove compulsion. Darn it, even the court of law, a most unscientific entity, doesn’t help. So we end up with belief. I have an open mind. The people who said they attacked us, I believe they did. Somebody else helped them. I believe it. Did we get all the bad guys, probably not. Did some of the bad guys come from within the US, probably. But for some reason, people don’t believe Bin Laden was honest when he said he did it. That is a bit beyond me, frankly. History is full of nut case individuals who blow up things for their sense of spiritual salvation and sadistic sense of needing to be in charge of the world. Bin Laden seems to be one of those. (Andrew Jackson as well).

    But still, understand at least that methodology in science is not how a thing happened but by what method we derived our data. That is an important distinction. Grunts away.

  • Sean

    This sounds good to me except the steel thing you mentioned…….. two or three good bends then yes it will brake easy if you got it to the plastic stage of bending, the prying back and forth is how you break it. However, bend once and you cannot break the structural bolt because it will stretch further and gain strength. Bending back and forth does not represent a falling load it bends only once. Also this probally was not a structural bolt, bolts from canadian tire are not the same grade, structural bolts come in various abundant grades for a specific purpose and these ones would have had good plastic capabilities….in other words not as brittle as you are describing. Also beams will bend to an incredible distance and break before the connection ever does. But dependant on if the connection is hit directly but this is the strongest place to hit but has less flexibility, however it will stretch unles you bend it up and down then it will eventually break with ease. But this is not the case.

  • Navin1

    massive vibrations from an explosion – to and fro – snap.

    Again, I don’t know.

    • http://www.jeremyrhammond.com Jeremy R. Hammond

      Come again?

  • Sean

    No, take a look at the steel in demolition and how bent some beams are due to failure. This provides you with the fact that the falling load would have been reduced to to the bending of the steel before it broke. in an explosion the force will bend the steel only once then twice by the falling load bending this steel twice will not have much effect on this stuff, it’s like bubble gum, much like a steel ruler, however the steel I am talking about is not damaged from the explosion in the first place. M y point still stands; steel will absorb bending, try it with a steel ruler. The steel below undamaged should support the dead loads above, in relation to the strength that holds them up; they are small. Vibrations were not present in the way that they could effect the bolts or the steel.

    Build yourself a building out of chicken wire bend it all you want within reason to get it built. Then take about 15% of that load and drop it on top of your chicken wire structure, from however high you want to drop it, you will see how the steel will bend and absorb the load, it will not fall in brittle failure as you speak of, in relation the WTC7 is only bigger…..same effect if you get the picture now. But WTC 1 2 and 7 did not behave like this.

  • http://www.global-platonic-theater.com Dan Noel

    The fundamental problem of Building 7 is not whether the NIST report is science-based of faith-based. Even if it is faith-based, this is just one more instance of governmental incompetence, negligence or corruption. Most disturbing is the fact that not a single TV network worldwide has produced a short, inexpensive, compelling, and highly educational documentary on the contradiction between NIST’s model and the reality: http://www.meetup.com/OC-911-Truth/pages/911_Truth%3A_a_Simple_Matter_of_Epistemology

    Building 7′s enigma is not technical or administrative, but epistemological.

    Love,

  • Christine L.

    Thank you for writing this. I’m one of those “insane” folks who does not believe the official story. As the 10 th anniversary of that day approaches, I believe that Americans have all but forgotten. No one wants to talk about it. It’s too difficult to imagine that we are not america the exceptional.
    I ‘ve lost hope that Americans will ever understand the truth of what happened that day but keep fighting the good fight.
    It is appreciated by those of us who still care.

  • Sean

    I read the article….Epistemology, I agree that the government shows off incompetence, negligence or corruption. What I don’t believe is ruling out foul play for WTC1 2 or 7. You talk of explosives in the building as being so highly technical and takes months to study the building, hello these people learned how to fly a commercial jet and had months maybe years to plan this attack. On top of that you do not have to be as perfect as an expert in demolition just good enough to get the job done. It may not look as pretty as an experts demo but anyone willing to put the effort forward could get it done. They may not have been able to land the commercial jet perfectly but probally could have landed the jet nevertheless, they were good enough to pinpoint the tower with a remarkable bullseye twice so I consider these people highly technical. Monkeys were not flying those jets so don’t rule out precalculated demolition, or sabotage to WTC 1 and 2 that has yet to be determined, if you believe WTC 7 was sabotaged after the fact then why not WTC 1 and 2. IF we find out the TRUTH behind WTC 7 then we will likely find out how WTC 1 and 2 fell as well be it explosives or tampering of any kind yet to be discovered due to government incompetence, negligence or corruption. A Tv reproduction much like our news could lead the majority of people to believe the wrong theory depending who is backing the presentation otherwise it,s could be as fictional as a 4×4 commercial. We need information available to independant experts that can verify evidence, not a show that will lead people to believe what they see is true. They can start by releasing the the information on those blank pages in the final WTC report, I would like to have a look at them.

  • r e m o

    NCSTAR 1-9:352 and :378 take us even further into the Crippled Epistemology of NISTs “Fire Induced Sequential Collapse due to Normal Office Furnishings Fire” Theory, possibly the greatest outrage against truth ever devised by a state run propaganda team. Led by Shyam Sunder and Gross .
    This theory involved NIST inventing fires burning in places they couldn’t have for durations longer than they could have at temperatures impossible to achieve [2,012F], all in a computer model. But, proviso was NCSTAR1-9:378, wherein the reader was to understand “The observed fire activity gleaned from the videos and photographs was NOT a model input, and thus one should NOT expect a perfect correspondence between predicted high temperatures and observed fire activity”. So, what we SAW and what was RECORDED as having been SEEN was not a model input. And we should not expect correlation.
    Thermal Conductivity was also NOT a factor in the model. So no allowance for heat reduction throughout the network of interconnected steel was factored in. But, they are relative anomalies, given the penultimate 352.
    In David Ray Griffins excellent work’ The Mysterious Collapse of Building 7′, researchers found that the critical moment in the NIST scenario revolved around the BREAKING of SHEAR STUDs co-joining concrete floor slabs to the steel beam/girder in the model. Which HAD to break to allow the beam to axially expand.
The problem NIST had was, under heat, concrete and steel expand at more or less the same rate, therefor the studs remained in harmony and wouldn’t break.
For the Fire induced collapse theory to ‘work’, the studs HAD to snap, thus allowing the artificially superheated beams to axially expand – much like Pinocchio’s nose – Or Sunders in this case – therefore pushing the girder between columns 44 and 79 off its seat. An action Kevin Ryan proved impossible anyway given the allowables.
    The problem NIST had, was that the shear studs would not break in the model until NIST turned the heat OFF the concrete slab,
ONLY heating the steel beam immediately connected to it.

    NCSTAR 1-9:352. ” No thermal expansion or material degradation was considered for the concrete slab, as the slab was not heated in this analysis”

  • Ron Brookman

    WTC 7 was a modern commercial office building designed in 1985 to AISC and NYC Building Code standards, and I seriously doubt it was constructed in such a shoddy manner as to collapse like a house of cards following an unabated office fire. The NIST study does not come close to proving this unlikely occurrence. For example, NIST investigators claim the absence of shear studs on interior steel girders was a primary cause of collapse initiation. This assumption, however, conflicts with information published previously by the Canadian Steel Construction Council. See John J. Salvarinas, ”Seven World Trade Center, New York, Fabrication and Construction Aspects,” Canadian Structural Engineering Conference Proceedings—1986, (Canadian Steel Construction Council, Willowdale, Ontario, 1986), pp. 11-1 – 11-44. The article written by the project manager for Frankel Steel Limited, the fabricator of WTC 7 steel, clearly shows shear studs along the interior girders. The NIST collapse-initiation model is invalid if there were shear studs along these girders.

  • darvido

    if what happened to wtc7 was not a unique event
    and i look for something to compare it to – (videos on youtube)
    it appears to me like it fits in the category of controlled demolition
    rather than collapse by fire

    i’ve watched videos of buildings collapse by intentional demolition (there are many)
    i’ve watched videos of buildings on fire that collapse (there are few)

    the demise of wtc7 looks intentional and not random

  • Walker

    When will Kevin Ryan publish his latest work on these red/gray chips? on page 26 , they stated that they performed the FTIR test and they will publish it elsewhere. When will it happen?

  • http://the911forum.freeforums.org Jeffrey Orling RA

    You analysis is not entirely accurate. For the upper structure to descend without resistance for 2.35 seconds or 105 feet the structure in place over this height of 8 stories had to fail over a PERIOD of 2.25 seconds, NOT SIMULTANEOUSLY.

    Of course you literally “erased” the structure in one event OVER all 8 stories it certainly WOULD descend those 105 feet without any resistance at free fall.

    What needs to be considered is that structural failures can RAPIDLY progress as a column or structural member fails and the loads / stress it carried is transferred instantly to the remaining structure. If you remove one leg of a 6 legged table the remain 5 INSTANTLY carry 1/6th additional load. Take another leg and it redistributes INSTANTLY to 4 legs and then now are each 1/4 of the load instead of the original 1/6. Their load has increased by 50%. This load redistribution occurs instantly.

    Second one needs to consider that the strength of a given column is not only determined by it cross section etc, but by its length. Short columns of the same cross section carry more load before buckling. In the case of building 7 the columns were each spanning 2 stories with bracing provided by the beam and girders supporting the floors at two locations. The design of the columns DEPENDED on this lateral bracing. If the bracing is removed the columns load carrying capacity is GREATLY reduced. If the bracing is removed on two consecutive columns the more the carrying capacity again reduces. If the slenderness ratio of a steel column exceeds 1/150 is cannot even support its own weight and buckles.

    It appears that there was a progressive structural failure in the core of building 7 which rapidly spread throughout the core. 2.25 seconds is not especially rapid once a point of no return has been reached and the core columns fail in rapif succession – almost instantaneously.

    The columns above the failed core without support will then descend with no resistance… and pull inward the perimeter columns via the girders which connect them to the core. The perimeter columns just inside the facade will then move inward and they too, will plunge down and pull the curtain wall facade which is attached to the spandrels inward.

    I believe a careful study of the descent will show that it was not a smooth free fall acceleration, but it averaged to free fall because there were actually brief periods in EXCESS of free fall likely caused by a spring action from the girders being pulled down and snapping.

    Building 7 was a progressive failure.. not an instantaneous one over those 2.25 seconds, Once this is understood and accepted the structure can be analyzed and modeled to see how the sequence of failures could have progressed and then the initiating CAUSE determined.

    I suspect there were some assumptions about the design which led to a less rather than more complex initiation scenario. However the NIST one doesn’t cut it.

    • Michael Fullerton

      “For the upper structure to descend without resistance for 2.35 seconds or 105 feet the structure in place over this height of 8 stories had to fail over a PERIOD of 2.25 seconds, NOT SIMULTANEOUSLY.” What on Earth is this supposed to mean? It appears you are saying that the free-falling building was breaking up the structure in it’s way. If so where is this energy coming from when all the gravitational potential energy (the only energy source available) available to do work is being converted to kinetic energy?

      “The columns above the failed core without support will then descend with no resistance… and pull inward the perimeter columns via the girders which connect them to the core.” Now you appear to be saying the perimeter columns provided no resistance whatsoever.

      “Building 7 was a progressive failure.. not an instantaneous one over those 2.25 seconds,” Rubbish. For those 2.25 seconds of free fall there were no structural components whatsoever below the falling building. Free fall means no resistance not some resistance. Your analysis is entirely inaccurate. Not only that, but your analysis is completely irrelevant to the driving point of the article. The article clearly shows the official theory of WTC 7 is completely unscientific while the explosive controlled demolition theory of WTC 7 is scientific. Your post is a diversion away from this glaring significant fact.

    • Sean

      Jeffrey Orling RA, you mention the transfer of loads, as 1/6 to 1/5 try 58 core columns and 25 outer columns which are all at a minimum twice as strong as they have to be. This is due to big safety factors within these buildings and no disaster condition existed other than fire. For a column to buckle under it’s own weight is near impossible….it would have to be 1000miles high so this is deflection from how strongly overcompensated these buildings are, if and only if a column lost it’s cross bracing for the weak axis then it’s length increases and it load capacity is reduced, but you are talking about 58 core columns and 25 inner columns. Also when the original bracing fails due to a girder there are additional safegaurds taht give it it’s stability such as the floors acting as a diaghram, unacounted for in design but it is there nevertheless and it helps, now you have to get rid of all the other braced columns as well because if we can walk into a building and cut a girder to make the building progessively fall then why do we need specialists in demolition. These people need to study the building a a specific means of dtonation in order to make the building progessively fail, kind of makes you think now?

      I know what you are saying about girders pulling the columns in during failure but the girders do a job that is exactly opposite to that …..they support, they do not cause more failure only if they are being told to do so, by sabotage which is what specialists in demo do. They analyize to great detail where they need to weaken the structure to cause failure, otherwise this is an impossible task and cannot happen. because a girder failed and because metal expanded in the fire which does not happen eithier ….check history.

    • http://www.jeremyrhammond.com Jeremy R. Hammond

      “For the upper structure to descend without resistance for 2.35 seconds or 105 feet the structure in place over this height of 8 stories had to fail over a PERIOD of 2.25 seconds, NOT SIMULTANEOUSLY.”

      With respect, I don’t know whether you haven’t studied the issue or whether you just don’t understand the physics of it, but this is nonsense. For free-fall to have occurred for 2.25, the load-bearing columns must have ALREADY lost all structural integrity. The “failure” had already occurred from time 0.0s for the 2.25s of free-fall.

      The rest of your comment kind of follows on from this initial faulty premise.

    • Henry H

      Jeffrey, you can find a careful study of WTC7′s decent here:
      http://911speakout.org. It did, in fact, accelerate at free fall. The video proof is so convincing that free fall is is no longer denied by government hired researchers. Videos show all four walls instantly transitioning from still to free fall. Also documented at the website above, is vaporized/molten steel, which requires temperatures far higher than those achieved by office fires.

  • John O Eiden

    What has taken place almost 10 years ago is in fact a done deal. So why the long drawn out investigation and to prove what?. Suppose the investigation does prove out correct other than what millions of us know?. Who really cares anymore other than just trying to live our daily lives and let the powers to be do whatever as you know they will. Kick back watch a ballgame eat popcorn and enjoy your favorite brew. What is done is done and beyond our imagination except for chewing the fat. May the Good Lord take liking to you and have the most wonderful day of your life.

  • Medjool Zahidi

    WTC 1, WTC 2, and WTC 7 were demolished by nuclear blasts underneath their foundations. There are no conventional means of demolition that would instantly reduce buildings of that size into fine dust. This idea however is inconceivable because it would force everyone to rethink their entire view of the world. Therefore it cannot be the truth. But it’s the only thing that explains what we saw on TV. Meanwhile everyone argues in a cloud of confusion. Till we’re dead. Then the horrible secret will be safe.

    • Michael Fullerton

      Medjool your claims are simply a rehashing of the old “mini nukes” disinformation campaign. Nuclear blasts result in radiation. No abnormal radiation levels were ever recorded at ground zero though. First responders are dying from lung problems not radiation poisoning.

      • PJD, P.E.

        Mr. Fullerton,

        Controlled demolition is can only be made a cerdible scenario if you begine your analysis at the start of collapse. Perhaps, as a software engineer and psychologist, not a civil engineer in the construction industry, you are not aware of what would be involved in installing the explosive or thermite materials. One would have to knock holes, then repair, the drywall, or in some locations CMU partitions at at least 664 locations to access every column over 8 stories of this large building. It would be a major expensive operation which would have been not only noiiced by the the office workers, building engineers janitors and security staff, but would been a amjor disruption due to noise, dust and workers in the office space.

        And no, working only at night, and doing absolutely expert patching, re-painting, and cleanup work still wouldnt cut it, there are security, janitorial and maintenance, plus at least some office workers in a typical Manhattan office building at all times.

        Then there is the logistics. Whether it was done by terrrorists or and “inside job” by a US government agency, there would have been an enormous paper and personnel trail of design engineers, contractors, the purchace of explosives, detonators, detonator wiring or shock-tubing, and sophisitcanted control devices. Hundreds of people would have all had to simultaneously been “in” on the conspiracy amd kept their mouth shut over the years.

        So, sorry, your controlled demolition scenario is simply not credible due to purely logistican and administrative considerations..

        I could also explain the difficulties of using thermite materials to cut through the thick plate flanges and web of a vertical column at the required speed (it would require some kind of bulky, purpose-built, ceramic cricible device attached to the column) but that is another topic.

        Paul D., Civil Engineer

        • Sean

          Paul, I urge you to watch the “You Tube” videos posted as a resource to this article, especially the thermate debate. The question is how they could have done this, and I agree it would be hard to go unrecognized, however if I were a judge and looked at our evidence supported by these videos then I would have no choice but to say our government was involved, it’s no longer wheather you believe our government was involved, there is too much evidence that proves otherwise, how they did it is still up for debate. However it’s not impossible to do, there are ways if your willing to look for them. Despite what you don’t believe look at the posts on this subject on “You Tube” and here as well and you will see that you are now a minority by a long shot.
          If these individuals did indeed highjack the planes then why have they not done so again. Do you know how easy it is to sneak a knife or a gun onto a plane, all the security in the world cannot prevent one from doing this if they wish to do so. The government gives us all false hope that security has been hightened and therefore we are safe….not a chance ….if these individuals really acted solely on this attack then they would still be at it today. But there is no need for it, the government has all they need for now to continue the war on terror and eventually capitalize on the fuel that is over there. Bush and Bin Ladin are friends, thats why he will never be caught.
          This precalculated attack is all justified to them because they feel they are saving people from a worse fate. If the states run out of fuel reserves what do you think will happen….think about it. If you had to do something unthinkable to one person to save three lives would you do it, this is up for debate of course depending on you.
          Now go look at eye witness accounts and live video depicting explosions, this is unexplainable, yet NIST denies explosives or anyone being a witness to explosives yet there are witnesses who clearly say they heard explosive, eithier the NIST professionals do not know how to investigate or they are covering things up, even the emergency crews were told by their higher ups that the building would fall and the evidence of corruption goes on and on. You only need a relatively large group of individuals willing to do something for a greater good that will keep there mouths closed and in the higher end of government individuals are trained to think this way in order to to good for their country when they look at the bigger picture. Not the right way to go about things but how else would they get support from the masses go to war. I still support the war over their due to their harsh religious beliefs that are completely unacceptable and therefore carry on.
          But why did we cover and destroy all the evidence if we had nothing to do with it.? Why can someone in their back yard prove that thermate can cut steel but yet our specilists said it was impossible and led us to believe so, and the list goes on, all the way to a convuluted final report that makes no sense.

        • Henry H

          Paul, Most commercial buildings have suspended ceilings with easily removable tiles. Simply push them out of the way, and attach a remotely activated cutting device. This is not impossible, but free fall is. A steel frame can not crush itself while accelerating at free fall. This is quite literally physically impossible. Resistance will slow or stop the fall.
          Free fall proves demolition – unless you know of a way to suspend the fundamental laws of physics.

        • http://www.jeremyrhammond.com Jeremy R. Hammond

          Paul D, PE, your argument is based upon a speculative premise regarding the question of HOW demolition charges could have been planted. As an engineer, you should recognize that the proper procedure to determine how the building collapsed is to examine the available evidence and data, not engage in speculation.

          You deny that it could have been controlled demolition based on a conclusion that explosives or thermitic materials could not have been planted. Yet you don’t address a single point that Mr. Fullerton made in his article, beginning with free-fall. As an engineer, I’m sure you understand the implications of free-fall, so perhaps you could explain to readers just how it is you think fire caused that phenomenon.

    • http://www.jeremyrhammond.com Jeremy R. Hammond

      Actually, pyroclastic flows of dust are a characteristic of controlled demolitions. Therefore the premise of your argument is false.

    • Joe P

      Zahidi above is right.

      Nukes were used. Not mini-nukes. Full several hundred kiloton nukes were set off. The effects seen at “ground zero” can only be produced by nukes. Molten granite and steel. Now you might ask why the whole city was not destroyed. It was because it was an under ground explosion. Please search for Dimitri Khalezov videos and articles to learn about it.

      • http://www.jeremyrhammond.com Jeremy R. Hammond

        All right, Joe P, you can take a Geiger counter down to Ground Zero and look for evidence for your hypothesis, if you’re actually being serious.

        Good luck with that.

        • Joe P

          Geiger counters would not work. Clean thermonuclear devices detonated 1000 ft below ground do not give off large amount of radiations. The only way to prove it is to drill a hole in ground zero and recover material for analysis. I bet they have not done that. I bet they will never do that. Please go and watch the videos I referred to above.

          • http://www.jeremyrhammond.com Jeremy R. Hammond

            So, let me get this straight: you think they tunneled 1000 ft below the WTC to plant nukes, and it was the detonation of these nukes that caused the collapses. Is that right?

          • Henry H

            Joe, please tell us how nukes detonated 1000 feet below ground caused WTC1 & WTC2 to violently explode from the top down. Also, were there three nukes – one for each demolition? Why didn’t WTC7′s thermonuclear device cause adjacent buildings to also crush themselves at the rate of free fall?
            This should be fun…. ;-)

          • http://www.jeremyrhammond.com Jeremy R. Hammond

            In addition to Henry’s request for explanation, I’d like to know how they managed to extend the slurry wall 1000 ft underground to keep the Hudson river out. Or something.

        • Joe P

          @ Jeremy R. Hammond & Henry H,

          Ok, lets now put things in order since you are interested to know. The explosives and aviation fuel does not burn for weeks and does not keep steel melting weeks after 9/11. Only and only nuclear reactions are capable of doing that. Ask any chemist about chemical fires and their characteristics. Molten steel was flowing out of ground zero weeks after 9/11. Lava coming out of ground it appears only is formed by nuclear reactions. As for how the buildings came top down. It is simple. The Crush zone of nuclear blast went only up to middle 3/4 of the building. The force of the building’s top crushed the weakened building below. It is a complex nuclear engineering concept. Please watch the videos. I will put the links in my next comment. This is the only scientific hypothesis that can explain the fall of WTC 1, 2 and 7. And the only hypothesis which is being actively censored on the net.

          • Joe P

            The links:
            http://www.disclose.tv/action/viewvideo/44972/Dimitri_Khalezov___WTC_Nuclear_Demolition_1_26/

            http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=brQqRLCxJew&feature=player_embedded

            About the 1000 ft shaft, it is being said that the shaft had already been dug when WTC was being built not for nefarious purposes then but for future planned demolition of the building if it ever becomes necessary. It was part of the engineering drawing of the building code. As for the river, that is not a problem. River does not flow 1000 ft below surface and test nuclear explosions have been conducted safely under water numerous times. So that is not a problem.

          • http://www.jeremyrhammond.com Jeremy R. Hammond

            No, it wasn’t part of the engineering drawing. And no, they didn’t build a 1000 ft shaft when they constructed the WTC. And water from the Hudson would seep into any such shaft even if they had done so. This is why they had to build the slurry wall and construct the towers in a giant “bathtub”.

          • Joe P

            Also you can find all 26 parts of video here at this site. I guess it is easier if you play them from this site. You will get all your answers but then you will have questions of new nature. Sorry forget to say this to you both. This the red pill to paraphrase Morpheus in the movie Matrix, if you are not ready do not take it since after you watch these 26 parts then you world view will change:
            http://www.dimitri-khalezov-video.com/View%20online.htm

          • Henry H

            Joe says:

            “As for how the buildings came top down. It is simple. The Crush zone of nuclear blast went only up to middle 3/4 of the building”.

            So, the top part of the towers, where the massive, synchronized explosions began, were not affected by the underground thermonuclear blast…. Joe, why are you wasting our time with such contradictory, impossible nonsense?
            Read up on the thermetic material that was discovered in the
            dust and steel samples. It explains *all* the evidence, including
            the persistent high temperatures and molten metal.

            http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/thermite/explosive_residues.html

          • Joe P

            Henry,

            Thermetic material does not burn and make molten steel three weeks on in the rubble. So that hypothesis is not consistent with facts on the ground. You have not watched the videos and come here calling my comment nonsense. Either you do not want to know the truth or that you are trying to spread misinformation here. I hope you go and watch the videos and learn about this theory. You obviously are not a nuclear engineer or a nuclear physicist so your out right rejection of my comment without first going through my sources is very rude. Engage me with logics not with semantics. You see we both agree that truth is not compatible with official version. The only difference is I believe alot of hypothesis out there can not explain what happened while nuclear hypothesis can explain it. But at the end of the day only experimental proof and forensic analysis can prove beyond doubt what happened. For now answer me this. Can limited thermetic material and jet fuel in oxygen deprived environment of underneath rubble produce lava of molten steel and cement. How much chemical fuel whether thermetic or fuel is needed to heatup the rubble of two thousand feet skyscrapers to the extent that the firefighters shoes were melting 6 weeks after 9/11? And where were those fires? Underground? Have you ever heard of an underground fire where oxygen does not exist?

          • http://www.jeremyrhammond.com Jeremy R. Hammond

            Joe, you cannot rule out that thermitic material continued to react and burn for many weeks. As for the lack of oxygen, thermitic materials have their own oxidizer.

          • Henry H

            Joe says,

            “And where were those fires? Underground? Have you ever heard of an underground fire where oxygen does not exist?”

            Joe, read up on thermite reactions and hopefully learn the source of the oxygen. I even provided the link for you. Here it is again.

            http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/thermite/explosive_residues.html

            Here’s a quote.

            “The most familiar aluminothermic material is thermite, a mixture of a powdered metallic fuel such as aluminum, and a powdered oxide of another metal such as iron or copper. The thermite reaction involves the transfer of oxygen from the oxidizer (metal oxide) to the fuel (metal).”

            Molten metal is a by product of a thermite reaction.
            Also, your claim that the explosions began at the top of the towers because “The Crush zone of nuclear blast went only up to middle 3/4 of the building” makes no sense at all. When something makes no sense at all, it is nonsense.
            And again, how can a blast 1000 feet underground cause WTC7 to drop at free fall without damaging adjacent buildings? It can’t. More nonsense.

          • http://www.jeremyrhammond.com Jeremy R. Hammond

            I welcome you to present evidence for your claims, Joe, if you think any exists.

          • Joe P

            I did not exclude thermite. It could well be thermite. But the issue here as I said above, we do not have experimental or forensic proof. Only a transparent and international investigation (including all those countries opposed to us) to this giant crime against humanity can for sure put the case to rest. As for our hypothesis here I still believe both are very strong and before I learnt about nuclear devices, I also thought it was thermetic material, but now I am more inclined to nuclear hypothesis. I guess it is then a matter of “personal choice” until we have transparent proof of it. The good news is even if this international investigation is done many years from now, still it would give the answers since the crime was so gigantic. Specially if it was done by nukes then the radioactive remnants must be still there under the ground, and will remain so for a considerable period of time, and if the test for those came negative, I still keep an open mind for thermetic material. But one thing is sure, it was a controlled demolition, a false flag. I bet in addition to this terror perpetrators many others know what it was including intel agencies of repute. It will some day come out. As for my proof for the nuclear theory, please watch the 26 part videos of Khalezov. Also can download his PDF book online. Thank you.

    • Henry H

      There were no nukes, nor were the buildings reduced to fine dust. The concrete floors were reduced to dust, but the steel, although some of it was molten and vaporized from the demolitions, was still there.
      Please look at the videos at http://911speakout.org

  • Sean

    John O Eiden, I see what you are trying to do. You believe to leave things alone will help us to live a better life, it’s appreciated. However there is no respect to the thousands that are dead and to the people who are suffering from these effects today. We do not let murderers go because we should just forgive and forget, otherwise they kill again. We need to know what kind of an animal we are up against in order to catch it and put it away. Also if you ever took a history class you will realize the importance behind history and truth seekers. To sit on a couch and drink beer…. as you put it ….is only because thousands of us seekers, be it war or political campaigns, gave you this freedom. So if someone took away your beer and your TV would you not fight back for that ……because some of us lost our spouses, children, Fathers daughters brothers, Moms and friends, etc.
    We are still being abused by banks, pharmaceuticals, insurance companies, etc…..and with the internet we are able to fight back a little. At some point you won’t be able to afford your house but wait that has already happened to countless Americans, just drink your beer and be happy is not a good idea any more.

    • http://the911forum.freeforums.org Jeffrey Orling RA

      Some clarifications about both my own position and progressive failure of Bldg 7.

      I do believe that the cause was not office fires. If 105 feet of the building were “erased” and offered no resistance the top 30+ stories would then drop driven by gravity at free fall acceleration. We would also have to see the entire 8 floors of columns, all the steel beams and floors blasted away or turned to something which offered no resistance at all.

      What happened to the slabs of those eight floors? I’ll get back to that later.

      Euler buckling of slender columns tells us that an unbraced steel column which has a slenderness ratio of more than 150 cannot support its own weight. For example, a steel column which is 12×12 can only be 150′ tall. Look up Euler buckling for slender columns.

      In the case of the structural failure in WTC7 it is certainly plausible that the core columns had their bracing removed over eight floors. It was the girders and beams which were framed into the columns also carrying the floors which were “attacked.”

      In the period before the rapid descent we can observe the entire East penthouse drops right through the building. Then there was a short period of a second with slight downward movement of the top, and bowing inward of the facade. This was likely the period where the rest of the core was progressively undergoing failure from one column to the next.

      When the free fall period of the collapse kicked in in the first .5 seconds the top section dropped about 5 feet… less than a story. In the next .5 second after one second it had dropped 21 feet – not quite two stories. The average speed for the first second was about 11 mph. It was accelerating at FF so by 1,5 seconds the top moved down 52 feet or 4 stories which is equivalent to 2 26′ column lengths. It was now dropping at 25mph. At 2 seconds it was almost 100′ and now traveling at 45 mph and at 2.25 seconds it met resistance and began to slow its acceleration. It had reached about 60+ mph.

      It was not necessary or likely that all 8 floors of the structure disappeared in an Instant. It is more likely that it the columns buckled and offered no resistance or support and the floors and girders bracing them at 13′ intervals dropped with nothing to support them.

      Office towers are basically 96-97% air, so floors which are “freed” from the columns which support them will accelerated to free fall. And that’s what appears to have happened. Beams and girders which supported the floors and were the bracing were “destroyed” . Each floor of removed bracing made the effective length of the column longer and more slender and therefore weaker.. ie its load carrying is reduced. When enough bracing has been removed the column reaches its “euler limit” and fails. In the case of the columns in building 7 they not only carried their own weight but the 3 floors above them so it’s likely that they buckled considerably before 8 floors of bracing was removed. Once a column buckles the remaining ones which are still attached to the floors will carry the proportional share of the floor load. If those columns have had lateral bracing removed as well… and this is what would occur immediately as the columns adjacent the a failed (buckled one) then it will likely be over loaded and bucked and so on.

      This sort of rapid, almost instantaneous load transfer and structural failure will lead to all the columns buckling and failing.

      Buckling is not necessarily crushing or compacting the column. In the case of the WTC columns the buckling caused the columns to break apart and spring them off axis at their joints. Imagine a stack of thin “rigid” 1/2″ wood dowels… 12″ tall and 4 high. When you press down on the top one, the bucking will cause them to break apart where they meet. Once that alignment is broken… and dowels jump off to the side, the top one has no support and plunges at free fall. The buckling will usually occur below the mid point.

      The floor destruction preceded the column buckling, In fact a few collapsing floors might be enough to rip off the floors below from the column which supported it and take the bracing with it.

      This sort of runaway floor failure is much more likely in hull and core designs which all three buildings had. This provided few floor to column connections. The more common steel frame has more columns and floor collapses can be isolated within a column bay (4 columns).

      The open office designs require much stronger beam-girder to column connections as their are few of them. But once they begin to fail there are fewer to take up the load and the additional load is much greater.

      This is how those towers collapsed so rapidly and so completely. Once the floors are over loaded the strength of the columns makes no difference. And once there is a a runaway floor collapse, the columns are made more and more slender and weaker and weaker and they buckle and with them the entire building.

      Pyroclastic flows are extremely hot and this was not the case in the billowing dust clouds at the three collapses.

      The cause of the floor collapse, the destruction of enough of the bracing is likely not fire caused. But the building collapsed and in so doing the mass crushed the contents and the concrete into fine dust, leaving the steel largely intact, mangled, bent but pretty much all there.

      The observations of burnt away flanges and holes in the web is indicative that enormous heat was present and office fires won’t do that to steel even in 7 hours of open burns. That is where the initiation of the collapse likely began. But this was a progressive failure….not a massive explosion nor a serious of hundreds of precisely times explosions.

      Jeffrey Orling, RA

      • http://www.jeremyrhammond.com Jeremy R. Hammond

        Jeffrey Orling, again, you’re muddying the waters with statements like, “If 105 feet of the building were “erased” and offered no resistance the top 30+ stories would then drop driven by gravity at free fall acceleration.”

        Jeffrey, there is no “IF”. The building WAS at free-fall for 105 feet. 8 stories. 2.25 seconds of acceleration indistinguishable from the acceleration of gravity to the resolution of the video.

        Then you say, “It was not necessary or likely that all 8 floors of the structure disappeared in an Instant. It is more likely that it the columns buckled and offered no resistance or support and the floors and girders bracing them at 13′ intervals dropped with nothing to support them.”

        You are neglecting the laws of physics in yet another nonsensical statement. You can’t have buckling AND free-fall. It’s one or the other. Pick one. The law of conservation of energy dictates that free fall means all the building’s potential energy was converted to kinetic energy, which means there was no energy remaining to do the work of buckling columns. Your collapse scenario requires buckling. Newton’s second and third laws and the law of conservation of momentum dictate that if the force of gravity was acting on columns expressed as the weight of the mass of the building above, then those columns were also exerting an equal and opposite force on that mass, slowing its rate of decent.

        On the pyroclastic flow, we are not discussing an actual volcanic pyroclastic flow, obviously. It’s a description used to compare the dust flow with the pyroclastic flow of a volcano. I would like to think this was obvious enough, so that I wouldn’t have to explain it in reply to arguments like, “Pyroclastic flows are extremely hot and this was not the case in the billowing dust clouds at the three collapses.” Nor is it the case with any classic controlled demolition, which also produce similar dust flows.

      • Henry H

        Jeffrey, buckling a massive, hurricane and earth quake resistant steel frame that is engineered with incredible reserve strenght requires a tremendous amount of energy. SInce all of the building’s gravitational potential energy was converted into motion, what is your source for the energy that was used to bend and buckle the columns? Obviously, it could not have been gravity, since the structure accelerated at free fall.
        I strongly suggest that you view the excellent videos at http://911speakout.org

  • Gregory Scott

    The model code changes consistent with the NIST WTC investigation recommendations that are now required by the IBC include:

    Increased bond strength for fireproofing (nearly three times greater than currently required for buildings 75–420 feet in height and seven times greater for buildings more than 420 feet in height).
    Field installation requirements for fireproofing to ensure that:
    installation complies with the manufacturer’s instructions;
    the substrates (surfaces being fireproofed) are clean and free of any condition that prevents adhesion;
    testing is conducted to demonstrate that required adhesion is maintained for primed, painted or encapsulated steel surfaces; and
    the finished condition of the installed fireproofing, upon complete drying or curing, does not exhibit cracks, voids, spalls, delamination or any exposure of the substrate.
    Special field inspections of fireproofing to ensure that its as-installed thickness, density and bond strength meet specified requirements, and that a bonding agent is applied when the bond strength is less than required due to the effect of a primed, painted or encapsulated steel surface. The inspections are to be performed after the rough installation of mechanical, electrical, plumbing, sprinkler and ceiling systems.
    Increasing by one hour the fire-resistance rating of structural components and assemblies in buildings 420 feet and higher. (This change was approved in a prior edition of the code.)
    Explicit adoption of the “structural frame” approach to fire resistance ratings that requires all members of the primary structural frame to have the higher fire resistance rating commonly required for columns. The primary structural frame includes the columns, other structural members including the girders, beams, trusses, and spandrels having direct connections to the columns, and bracing members designed to carry gravity loads.

    But I guess we should have just said it was explosives and kept the standards the same.

    • Henry H

      Gregory says:
      “But I guess we should have just said it was explosives and kept the standards the same.”
      Yes, we could have done that, and WTC7 would still be the only steel framed high rise that crushed itself due to fire, prior to or since 9-11-01. And of course, WTC7′s free fall drop would still be a blatant violation of the fundamental laws of physics. The fact that NIST suggested new codes proves nothing….

      Please view the excellent, brief videos at http://911speakout.org

  • http://the911forum.freeforums.org Jeffrey Orling RA

    The official explanation is rubbish. But the mechanism of collapse much match the observations and the engineering. Simply declaring CD is not a explanation of what happened. It’s too vague and doesn’t describe the mechanism.

    We need to agree on what happened after the initiation and then we might begin to understand what led up to the collapse. And there is a very good possibility that a few explosives and incendiary devices might have kicked off a progressive failure.

    A CD doesn’t destroy EVERY column or joint and it DOES rely on the stored PE (gravity) to destroy the structure. If you destroy the minimum required to when hen the structure has lost its integrity then it will rapidly and progressively and catastrophically fail.

    • http://www.jeremyrhammond.com Jeremy R. Hammond

      I fail to see how proposing the alternative hypothesis of CD — the only existing hypothesis that doesn’t violate the laws of physics (and glad to see there is agreement that the fire-induced collapse hypothesis is “rubbish”) — doesn’t describe the mechanism by which the building collapsed.

      If not all load-bearing columns were destroyed, you would not have had free-fall. If you want to convince people that you can have both, you need to show how the resistance of remaining columns that were buckling was so insignificant that to the resolution of the video and margin of error of estimate of the vertical distance represented by a single pixel, it cannot even be measured (ergo we measure acceleration indistinguishable from the acceleration of gravity).

  • http://the911forum.freeforums.org Jeffrey Orling RA

    First of all, Can Mr . Fullerton provide his background? Is he a writer, a science writer, a scientist or an engineer?

    In fact there was actually a brief period where the descent EXCEEDED free fall! And this was because, it seems there was some spring action of the girders running from core to perimeter.

    Columns do not have to be destroyed to be unable to support the load they were carrying. I explained how they can buckle and move away, and fall down. This may be a small point in that their FUNCTION as a column has been destroyed, but the actual material of the column need not be lost.

    If you examine the collapse of the “spire” at WTC 1, you will see column 501 standing up to the 77th or 78th floor before it collapses from Euler buckling. There are some who claim it was “dustified” before our very eyes… attacked by nano thermite and we see the tell tale smoke of nano thermite left behind. Both of these explanations are incorrect.

    Column 501 weighed almost 900 tons up to the 77th floor. In it’s short axis it was 22″ at at base and of course had bracing every 12 before the floors collapse outside the core. The inside of the core at column 501 was express elevator shaft so there was no floor. Standing 924′ tall if all the bracing had been stripped away in the east west direction the S/R ratio was over 500 and the column buckled from its own weight. The internal stresses just prior to buckling kicked out some of the lower sections leaving a perhaps a column weighing 800 tons with nothing beneath it and it accelerated at free fall to the ground breaking into 36′ sections. These can be seen in the debris photos.

    When it collapse all the dust and debris which clung to it and the fireproofing came flying off like dust on a flat bed truck racing down a highway. You don’t reall have to look that carefully to see it plunge straight down.

    The point being… buckled columns don’t have to be destroyed and in the case of WRT 7 they weren’t!

    There is another approach which would blast away a column on say the 8th floor… or blast it to the side. The column above it from floor 9 to the roof would have no axial path for their loads. The upper column might drop down and yank all the beams and girders and floors connected to it. Or it might remain suspended at all the loads were transferred to adjacent columns. How it performs depends on the design of the girders, beams, slabs and so forth. But if several were “severed” and could not transfer axial loads, it could reach a point of no return and the entire structure would let go and come down. But even in this scenario all the columns are not “destroyed”

    If there is a translation of the upper descending part.., and this was seen in both twin tower tops, then the descending columns would encounter not the resistance of a strong column, but a thin concrete slab… it it was still attached to the column. If the floors collapsed first then the descending upper mass would have had no resistance if it had been translated off axis.

    You don’t have to destroy 8 floors of all the columns to have a period of free fall. If the axially loads of mis aligned the resistance is virtually non existent.

    • http://www.jeremyrhammond.com Jeremy R. Hammond

      Where do you get your claim of acceleration exceeding free-fall from? NIST doesn’t claim to have gotten such results. David Chandler did, but he attributed that to the margin of error due to the resolution of the video.

      You’re right that columns do not have to be destroyed to be unable to support the load they are carrying. A column does have to be destroyed, however, in order to offer zero resistance, which is what we are talking about here.

      Also, the discussion here is of WTC 7, not 1 or 2.

      If the sentence, “If the axially loads of mis aligned the resistance is virtually non existent” is supposed to have some meaning, I confess I’m at a loss to deduce what it is.

  • http://the911forum.freeforums.org Jeffrey Orling RA

    In the previous post this

    own weight but the 3 floors above them

    should read

    own weight but the 30 floors above them

    Sorry.. I didn’t proof read the reply

  • sdemetri

    I haven’t seen David Chandler’s name come up in this discussion. He is the high school physics teacher that used educational software that analyzes video frame by frame with scientific precision to document and prove that the freefall collapse of WTC7 began suddenly, going from virtually no detectable vertical movement to freefall almost instanteously. His videos are very informative and he is open with his methodology:

    http://911speakout.org/

    Free fall is the necessary consequence of no resistance to gravity by the falling object. The video shows a building standing one moment, in free fall the next. The roofline falls symmetrically, at free fall. As the article points out, NIST offers NO explanation for this remarkable result, even after Chandler forced NIST to acknowledge freefall, and change the draft report to include what is manifestly obvious in the video record. What is seen of the facade of the building is not progressive, asymmetric collapse, but straight down, freefall collapse, at least for the 2+ secs at the very beginning of the collapse.

    What NIST failed to do was to acknowledge the necessary conclusion freefall forces, that there was support one moment, and in the next, no support. Fire weakened joints and progressive collapse in theory is weak, the publicly released computer animations that fail to model in any real way what is plain in the video record is simply a very bad theory to hold.

    CD is much more likely given what is seen in video, heard from eyewitnesses, some experiencing explosions in the building earlier in the day, the fact that a highly energetic thermitic material has been found in the dust, and the presence of molten metal persisting in the basement of the building for weeks following the collapse (as would be consistent with large quantities of iron-based thermitic materials).

    • http://www.jeremyrhammond.com Jeremy R. Hammond

      Yes, sdemetri, it is safe to say that free-fall rules out the fire-induced collapse hypothesis.

  • http://the911forum.freeforums.org Jeffrey Orling RA

    Mr. Hammond, I apologize for my typing and mangling of English and plead guilty to not proofing my comments before I hit the send button.

    I was trying to say that if the normal axial alignment of columns in a milti story building is disturbed, the loads supported by the columns above the interruption cannot be transferred to the foundation by the column it was severed from. If the columns above a point are translated laterally… somehow, the upper column with its attached loads will plunge down with no resistance… unless the moment connections of the bracing in the upper section are strong enough to be able to transfer the unsupported columns axial loads to an adjacent column(s). This depends on the loads carried by the now unsupported column.

    Structural members have a factor of safety and their safe working load is well below their yield strength. As the member is stressed (depending on its type) it will deform elastically as the stress increases. At the yield point it fails catastrophically (think of a rubber band breaking). In the multi leg table example above as one leg is removed the others carry the redistributed load. If the load redistribution is within or lower than the yield strength, the remaining columns (or legs) can support all the loads of the structure. It stands and does not collapse. If, however one column’s increased loading exceeds its yield strength is will fail and its loads will be redistributed to the remaining columns. A progressive failure can move instantaneously through a structure… certainly very rapidly and this can be seen as a sudden collapse. It depends on how strong the members are, their connections and so forth. And if course the safety factor. The column itself may be able to carry the increased loads but the girders and beams and moment connections to it may not.

    In WTC 7 we saw the east penthouse descend in ADVANCE of the upper part’s free fall drop. It collapsed right down through the building. It is possible that this led to a rapid failure of the remaining core columns. The outer core columns might have then dropped pulling the girders and beams down with them. These supported the floors. In dropping down these girders pulled the perimeter columns inward and off the columns that supported them in a sort of rapid unzipping of the perimeter column connections. The perimeter columns were connected by spandrels to which the facade was attached. If the spandrels were displaced at the bottom somewhere (height of initial failures) the facade was now mis aligned and could descend as a sheet with no resistance. And we saw something like that.. the facade came down and did not break apart except at the bottom which is not seen in the videos.

    There may have been a downward push from the springing of the beams and girders which kicked the descent slightly over free fall for a fraction of a second. This was determined by other researchers who have performed traces of parts of the facade during the descent. The descent was not smooth as all traces show indicating some changes in resistance.

    This thread is very instructive for those who are interested in the descent of WTC 7:

    http://the911forum.freeforums.org/wtc-7-trace-data-t353.html#p9790

    • http://www.jeremyrhammond.com Jeremy R. Hammond

      A good example of how load is transferred through the moment frame is the damage to the south facade. Yet the structure above the gouged out sections did not collapse because load was transferred through the Vierendeel action of the perimeter moment frame.

      As for the progressive failure you describe, it would entail buckling columns. Buckling columns means resistance. Resistance means no free-fall. Conversely, free-fall means no resistance. No resistance means no buckling. No buckling means no such progressive failure as the kind you describe.

  • Sean

    Jeffrey, the spring action thing is only a compliment to the center of the building pulling inward not downward. This defies the laws of physics, it is impossible for a falling object to all of a sudden fall faster than what gravity can obtain, there would need to be a support at the top of the structure independant of the structure to take the equal and opposite force of the spring action to exceed gravitational force. The spring action can only be attributed to falling loads that were travelling faster than the initial point you believe travelled faster than gravity. A faster falling load hitting a slower falling object can accelerate the slower object to a state faster than gravity from it’s energy transfer, but you cannot create you energy from dust if a spring pulls down then it pulls up as well. The center of the building may have experienced this but we are timing a point at the corner of the building.
    The outer columns will buckle inwards if the inner columns are destroyed at their base, there are many witnesses posted below this article in you tube that heard explosions before the building fell. Nist says there were no witnesses that heard explosions but yet here it is posted on this thread that show eye witness accounts of people and audio video capturing the explosions. The evidence is real and these explosions are likely the result of the columns removed within the center of the building, thus the inward colapse occurred pulling the outer columns inward like a cantilevered beam in bending. Also steel at yield will not see catastrophic failure. Yield is when a beam becomes plastic where it further stretches for a long period where it gains strength just before it breaks. Not as it yields. Again this is not for you as you don’t believe fire can do this but to others such as Gregory weather or not standards for fire have increased does not mean the building fell from fire check your history skyscrapers have burned for longer and hotter than WTC7 and never experienced failure anywhere ever before anywhere in the world…… yet alone free fall failure almost instantaneously. This means that fire reduced the supporting structure at all key locations symmetrically. Fire safety codes being upgraded is only a result of the outcry of media and society that were led to believe fire did this in the beginning.

  • http://the911forum.freeforums.org Jeffrey Orling RA

    Those who state that 7 came down in free fall also state that it was standing there and then began falling at free fall. This is not an accurate description of what happened. The east penthouse plunged down through the core before there was any movement in the parapet of the roof line,

    Further the 30 stories did NOT descend as free falling object which show no internal stress. The 30 stories SHOW internal stress as the facade is pulled inward as it descends, the entire 30 story part building as it descends moves from side to side and is distorted.

    If all the resisting mass was removed for 105 feet there would be no distortion at all and it WOULD appear as a solid block descending in free fall for 2.25 seconds.

    For those who thing that it DID descend as block in free fall with no internal stress you need to look at the videos at the end of this thread:

    http://the911forum.freeforums.org/wtc-7-trace-data-t353.html#p9790

    It is quite apparent that there WERE internal stresses and there fore its motion was a bit more complex than “free fall”.

    Column which buckle do not only compress and offer resistance. The might at the onset of over stressing them, but in the case of the segmented column which has an S/R of greater than 150 it is likely that the buckling causes the column to kick out and after that happens there is no resistance.

    A possible explanation is that floors collapsed and began to strip away the bracing at a column. As this stripping process continued the column’s S/T ratio was increasing. This greatly reduces its load bearing capacity. Without the bracing a very tall (too tall) segmented column will buckle by kicking out a section of the column at the joint between columns. Once this happens this column line is essentially “gone” and would offer no resistance.

    This type of column destruction could possibly have taken place in the brief period before descent is observed. The decending East and then West penthouses are evidence of the core being gutted of the floors and bracing whether or not the columns were “destroyed: by their collapses. Regardless any remaining columns standing 400 feet tall without bracing would buckle inward pulling the girders, beams and floors with them. And this is were the descent at close to free fall and faster for a brief period occurs.

    A free fall descent would be comely smooth in its acceleration. WTC 7 was not. But it was close enough to indicate that there was so little support left it requires an explanation as to how all the columns were displaced. And of course how this all began. It’s not likely that an office fire could kick off the progressive failure of the girders and beams which supported multiple floors.

    • http://www.jeremyrhammond.com Jeremy R. Hammond

      Jeffrey, you say, “Those who state that 7 came down in free fall…” as though this was a claim, and not a measurable and observable fact. You seem to deny this fact by saying there was pull-in of the north facade. Yes, there was. There was also free-fall. The two are not mutually exclusive. Your argument is a non sequitur. The pull-in began prior to the onset of global collapse due to the collapse of the core, and that momentum continued once global collapse had been initiated.

      In other words, the building imploded.

  • Sean

    A floor falling on another floor will not cause the floor to collapse the live loads are a far greater load condition then the dead weight of the material, since live loads usually do not exist unless the floor is covered with people every square foot and then multiply that by 1.5, further the dead load is multiplied by 1.25 but this is a minimum….for skyscrapers try sf of 5 instead. Now your going to say the load fell ….well the load doesn’t all fall at once and impact as a hole it crumbles, so an impact condition is negligible, further you are now concluding that the floor on the way down strips the horizontal braces for the columns, how is it that the floor touches bracing on the walls that support columns and how are they stripping them when there load cases are negligible as compared to there strength…..this cannot happen…..I agree with your last paragraph how it started is a mystery and when you solve that you will learn what caused the rest of the progressive failure, dead loads will not cause failure unless you plan precisley and eliminate not a little but a lot of main supporting columns all at once which can be heard by the loud explosions that went off just prior to the collapse, and again you cannot create forces to make something fall faster when the only force that exists is gravity…you need an independant structure to take the opposite reaction.

  • http://the911forum.freeforums.org Jeffrey Orling RA

    The dynamic load of a dropping mass can be 5 times or more of the same load applied as a static load. The floor collapses can be local, but in the case of the twin towers for example the entire core side of the 3/4 acre floors were attached to the core columns with 28 beam stubs… 2 on each core corner column and one on the other 20. Anyone can understand that perhaps half of those beam stubs might carry the floor, but how about 13 of the 28? How about 12 of the 28? You don’t have to destroy every support to cause the floor to drop. And again in the twin towers… those trusses and the beam stubs were connected to the lateral bracing of perimeter core columns.

    I am not even saying that a single floor collapse will kink off a progressive floor collapse. But I am saying that 4 of them dropping on a single floor likely will in an column free open office design.

    I demonstrated how a floor collapse which stripped off the bracing would lead to column buckling and kick out and then the collapse of the East Penthouse… then the West penthouse and the pulling in of perimeter columns by the bucking outer core columns. I didn’t say how the floors were made to collapse. And I did say it likely wasn’t fires.

    I don’t see anyone else explaining the observation except with the unspecified… controlled demolition.

    I am all ears…. how did they use CD to take down bldg 7? What was attacked? How many of them were attacked? At once? or in sequence?

    Let’s hear the scientific theory of CD explained.

    • http://www.jeremyrhammond.com Jeremy R. Hammond

      You’ve heard the scientific hypothesis of CD explained. The questions you ask, on the other hand, require pure speculation. That’s not science. Obviously, further investigation would be required to answer those questions. Which is why over 1,400 professional architects and engineers are calling for a new investigation.

    • Henry H

      Jeffry says: “The dynamic load of a dropping mass can be 5 times or more of the same load applied as a static load.”

      This is true only if the velocity of the falling mass decreases upon impact. If the falling mass remains in constant acceleration (which was the case in WTC1) it is actually exerting *less* load than when it was static. See David Chandler’s excellent video on North Tower Acceleration for detailed analysis and explanation.

      http://911speakout.org

  • http://the911forum.freeforums.org Jeffrey Orling RA

    What the truth people don’t get about the collapses of those towers was that it DID NOT requires taking our the columns FIRST. It could be… and likely WAS down by the floors collapsing on one another.

    The columns carry much more load than a floor. So the column 79 on floor 8 carries the local floor loads on floor 8 plus all the local floor loads of every floor above it plus the weight of all the columns themselves above it right to the roof.

    But in a high rise ALL the floors are designed to carry the same loads… regardless of what floor they are on. So to cause the building to collapse overload the floors. In the WTC they were designed to support 58#/ft in the twin fowers. NYC Building Code called for 100#/ft, but ther PANYNJ asked for and was granted a load reduction to 58#/ft.

    Sure there was a safety factor… even 4 or 5 times this say 300#/SF. But the floors themselves weighed about 40-50#/ft and add say another 20#/ft for live load and furniture and you can see that 1 floor might support a static load of 4 floors on top of it. But not if they are coming down as dynamic loads.

    So if you can get some of the floors to drop, you don’t HAVE to attack the columns. The columns will buckle when the bracing is stripped by the floor collapse. And when that happens one buckled column failure leads to load redistribution and and in no time all the columns fail and the top come down at free fall… or close to it with no columns or floors to resist it.

    That’s how it was done.

    • http://www.jeremyrhammond.com Jeremy R. Hammond

      Your changing the subject again, Jeffrey, away from WTC 7. But I should note NIST disagrees with you and actually concluded the pancake theory you describe was incorrect.

  • http://the911forum.freeforums.org Jeffrey Orling RA

    “In science, buckling is a mathematical instability, leading to a failure mode. Theoretically, buckling is caused by a bifurcation in the solution to the equations of static equilibrium. At a certain stage under an increasing load, further load is able to be sustained in one of two states of equilibrium: an undeformed state, or a laterally-deformed state. In practice, buckling is characterized by a sudden failure of a structural member subjected to high compressive stress, where the actual compressive stress at the point of failure is less than the ultimate compressive stresses that the material is capable of withstanding. For example, during earthquakes, reinforced concrete members may experience lateral deformation of the longitudinal reinforcing bars. This mode of failure is also described as failure due to elastic instability. Mathematical analysis of buckling makes use of an axial load eccentricity that introduces a moment, which does not form part of the primary forces to which the member is subjected. When load is constantly being applied on a member, such as column, it will ultimately become large enough to cause the member to become unstable. Further load will cause significant and somewhat unpredicfable deformations, possibly leading to complete loss of load-carrying capacity. The member is said to have buckled, to have deformed….

    A free-standing, vertical column, with density ρ, Young’s modulus E, and radius r, will buckle under its own weight if its height exceeds a certain critical height:[1][2][3]

    h_{crit} = \left(\frac{9B^2}{4}\,\frac{EI }{\rho g\pi r^2}\right)^{1/3}

    where g is the acceleration due to gravity, I is the second moment of area of the beam cross section, and B is the first zero of the Bessel function of the first kind of order -1/3, which is equal to 1.86635…”

    • Sean

      R-u-drunk….I do not see your point to your post, thanks for the 1.86635 this will be usefull somewhere somehow I hope. What about the building and related material, you don’t mention how this interacts with what or how the building fell or why…please explain. Tell me if a column say a W column can hold x amount of weight at 10ft unbraced how much x load can it carry at 20ft, this means you doubled your length how much less of a load can you carry now. This would assume the girder broke halfway.

  • Sean

    Ok once again dead loads…..negligible load condition…… even four floors falling is small in comparison to the strength even if it hits all at once it is not a block..it crumbles and slows and will rest on the floor it hits. Usually engineers will by limit states multiply live loads by 1.5 and dead by 1.25, however deflection not strength will govern their design of the floor thus the floor becomes even stronger, imagine walking on a 10 ft long 2×6 it will likely support your load however you cannot use this as a floor because your building materials will crack and people will not feel safe hence you now need five 2×6′s to support you over a 10 ft length to stop deflection when you only need one for support hence your floors are incredibly strong maybe five times stronger than they have to be. However one can sacrifice strength with depth of a beam and limit deflection but with depth comes taller floors and over 110 floors this adds up so we usually design strong with low headroom for a tall building.

    However the outer perimeter of the building needs to handle hurricanes plus all the live loads and dead loads applied at ridiculous safety factors in a combined condition and you say a floor will fall and strip the next floor of it’s supports when the upper floors are merely crumbling into dust. Therefore I conclude that a full blown impact cannot occur….this is not acceptable to me.

    On top of all this there are extra bonuses not included like stair cases and partition walls that provide support but are not included in design but nevertheless they are there and further increase the sf’s, even the windows provide support overall when the building is complete, it’s like a brick…. solid with unaccounted performance benefits not included in design but in reality the sf’s are going up over and above the calculated 5 times.

    With regards to WTC 1 and 2 the building structure above even with gravitational force cannot overcome the strength of the columns. Take hurricane winds for example that deflect the building to a point where the opposite columns are taking all the compression forces from which the wind is blowing and the the columns on the opposite side are in tension holding the building from toppling over, therfore all the combined loading conditions transfer weight that has now shifted to one side of the building, we have to design the columns to handle the entire load of the structure on only one side then apply a sf of 5 to the already ficticious loads that are likely only based on 80% capacity not 100%….do you realize how strong these buildings are and the girders and cross bracing that hold a building up in a hurricane, ….can you imagine the tension and compressive forces in the girders with fictitious load conditions with sf of 5 built into the tension and compression for design….you cannot snap these with a crumbling dead load.

    Build yourself a model take the top half of it and drop it on top of your model, almost nothing will happen if you built it out of steel corectly. The reason WTC 1 and 2 fell due to the top structure failure is due to the thermate injected into the hss sections that were melting as can be seen in the “You Tube” videos posted on this article, you can see the lava flowing from these columns like in a steel factory, fire cannot do this to steel even jet fuel burns 1000 degrees cooler then the melting point of steel. Once these main columns were comprimised from the thermate, then that’s when they lost their integrity.

    Our government lost all respect when they did no proper investigation and then they covered up and said they don’t want to waist tax payers money on an investigation but yet they give themselves raises and waste our money nontheless.
    WTC 7 fell because thermate was burning the foundations weaking the structure and then bombs were set of as can be clearly heard by video and eye witnesses and then it fell due to the loss of the columns footing, doesn’t matter how strong you are without support you fall, only then can columns buckle symmetrically due to the inward pull as you explain, I don’t believe the length having a part because I don’t believe the girder failed story because not one but many precalculated failure would have to occur and on top of that fire cannot do it, so I don’t believe the columns length was ever sacrificed and since there were no hurricanes at the time the columns had a lot of overcompensated strength left behind for good measure.

  • Lord Rahl

    It is really very simple. It looks exactly like a controlled demolition. It looks nothing like damage from fire.

    Talk of Bessel functions, Young’s modulus, buckling, springing, etc is so much mumbo-jumbo.

    Its hilarious how far the folks will go to “prove” it was caused by fire.

  • Brian

    Jeffrey,

    One very important rule of scientific study is that one must accept the simplest explanation to explain observations until that explanation can be disproven. In this case, CD is far simpler than the one-in-a-million treatise you have proposed.

    If you believe your hypothesis, then:

    1) Give us another example of a skyscaper supported by a redundant grid of interlocking massive steel beams collapsing into its own footprint at free-fall speed for reasons other than CD. It has never happened.

    2) How come NIST, after years of investigation and research by a team of well-funded scientists, cannot replicate or model the scenario you propose.

    3) You talk about the greater force exerted by a load in a dynamic state vs. static. How is it then, that the type of collapse you hypothesize did not occur in the Marriott Hotel or WTC 3,4,5 or 6, all of which were impacted by dynamic loads of much greater size from the collapse of the larger towers than anything impacting WTC 7 (penthouse included). These dynamic loads fell from many stories up directly into these buildings, yet all the damage was localized and was not translated through any of these 5 structures in the way your propose.

    4) The facade of WTC 7 is not pulled inward as you describe.

    5) The process you describe is sequential, progressive, and spreading. If you were right, we would see a failure spreading from the central core of WTC 7 outward to the ends. We do not see this. We see an instantaneous catastrophic failure of the entire penthouse, followed by an instantaneous, widespread and symmetrical failure of the remaining structure. Your hypothesis is not compatible with what we see.

    The other problem with your hypothesis is we have video and audio records of people knowing in advance WTC 7 was coming down. WTC 1 and 2 were struck by large commercial jets, causing massive structural and fire damage, yet it was a complete surprise to everyone when they collapsed. WTC 7 was not impacted by any jet, experienced relatively little damage from fire and falling debris, yet it was evacuated because they knew it was going to collapse some seven hours after it experienced what little damage there was to it.

    Honestly, Jeffrey, why do you insist on clinging to this fantasy? Do you realize how many Americans, Iraqis, Afghanis, and others have died as a result of this crime? Why are you are trying to protect the criminals behind this? Free your mind from the control of these dark forces.

    • Sean

      Finally, I sit here and read your beutiful words, let me repeat them, so I don’t feel so bad saying this over and over
      “These dynamic loads fell from many stories up directly into these buildings, yet all the damage was localized and was not translated through any of these 5 structures in the way your propose.

      • Sean

        Here is a website showing the major structural damage buildings took from falling dead loads that fell from many stories up directly into these buildings, yet all the damage was localized, please look and see for yourself. http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/wtc/WTC_ch7.htm

        After your review it should be easy to conclude that dead loads cause damage but do not cause catastrophic failure, some buildings were severley damaged yet are still standing…..this is more than just typical it is truth, they are too strong,….. they are massively too strong ……dead loads such as floor collapse stops at the next floor….one failure is absorbed by the buildings strength as one. You need a lot of key precalculated losses to major members to bring one of these things down. There are several buildings damaged from falling dead loads, their columns are buckled sheared girders are destroyed but it’s all local and absorbed to one area it cannot travel once the structure absorbs the initial impact, the load is big to that area and absorbed like a sponge, the rest of the structure feels almost nothing. The buildings are condemned yes, but no engineer in their right mind will not condemn it for obvious dangers within, yet the building stands because it only needs a small percentage of it’s actual strength to remain standing.

        • http://the911forum.freeforums.org Jeffrey Orling RA

          Sean,

          If you look at the report which studied the weld performance of the facade panels of the twin towers by Banovic and Siewert you will see they discovered that 94% (IIRC) of the truss seats were destroyed, bend downward or ripped completely off. The only interpretation is that there was a downward force on the composite floors which caused this failure.

          I think you and others are not only mis understanding what I am writing, but misunderstanding or misreading the evidence.

          If something is falling down, it is collapsing driven by gravity. Stored PE is converted to KE and this is what destroys the structure and contents.

          In the twin towers we see a violent energetic collapse. The structure is ripped apart . You can see the facade panels come off. One of the largest assemblies is from the west facade of WTC 1. It is perhaps 12 stories high and over 100 feet wide – this sheet contained 25-40 10′x36′ facade panels which each weighed over 4 tons. How can an explosion blast off an assembly of facade panels of more than 1/4 acre with thousands of bolts holding it together and it remain as a single sheet? No explosion did this. This assembly FELL off and broke free ripping out the bolts holding it to adjacent panels

          You need to look at the collapse videos objectively and carefully and look at the motion of these falling assemblies and what that tells you about the cause of their motion.

          How else would you explain ripped off truss seats or bent downward legs of the truss seat angles?

          This means that there was a collapse of the floor system which was overloaded and the trusses bent the seats or ripped them off.

          • Sean

            Buildings don’t collapse on themselves only by controlled demolition can you tell a building to rip off all of it’s trusses by eliminating almost all key components of the structure. Look at the other buildings some have caved together some will fall over but even on the ground laying sideways they remain in tact. Have you not looked at the key eye witnesses and audio video proving that explosives went off prior to the collapse.

          • http://www.jeremyrhammond.com Jeremy R. Hammond

            Jeffrey, the discussion here is of WTC 7. You continually change the subject to the other towers. Please stay on topic.

  • Winston Court

    These 3000+ murders, carried out by our public servants and their puppet masters who own them, need a full independent-scientific investigation and justice for the victims, families, friends and all Americans!

    Demolition Experts know a controlled demolition when they see one!:
    http://demolitionexpertsquestion911.blogspot.com/

    Proof (lab results of dust) of explosives/thermate/thermite in controlled demolition of WTC:
    http://911research.wtc7.net/

    Freefall of controlled demolition of building 7 in WTC:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rP9Qp5QWRMQ

    Even the firefighters knew it was controlled demolitions:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SXD3bAbZCow

    Many, many links to real evidence, experts, witnesses, etc.:
    http://www.911truth.org

    Pilots seeking the disclosure of truth and justice for the murdered victims of 9/11:
    http://pilotsfor911truth.org/

    Professors, teachers and learned men seeking justice and truth for the murdered victims of 9/11:
    http://911scholars.org/

  • http://the911forum.freeforums.org Jeffrey Orling RA

    1) Give us another example of a skyscaper supported by a redundant grid of interlocking massive steel beams collapsing into its own footprint at free-fall speed for reasons other than CD. It has never happened.

    The runaway open office space collapse will only be possible in hull and core designs such as he twin towers. This has not occurred because the kick off conditions haven’t been met… that is getting enough loading onto an upper floors which will then progressively collapse in a runaway destruction. It happened in both twin towers.

    2) How come NIST, after years of investigation and research by a team of well-funded scientists, cannot replicate or model the scenario you propose.

    I don’t think NIST attempted to model the floor collapse. They DID attempt to come up with some hooey about what initiated the collapse. I do not think that the initiation was fire caused. I am in accord with the truth movement on that, but not on the collapse phase. I see it as natural from an engineered cause, they see the destruction as explosive demolition top to bottom. The visual evidence doesn’t support such a CD explanation.

    3) You talk about the greater force exerted by a load in a dynamic state vs. static. How is it then, that the type of collapse you hypothesize did not occur in the Marriott Hotel or WTC 3,4,5 or 6, all of which were impacted by dynamic loads of much greater size from the collapse of the larger towers than anything impacting WTC 7 (penthouse included). These dynamic loads fell from many stories up directly into these buildings, yet all the damage was localized and was not translated through any of these 5 structures in the way your propose.

    The Mariott Hotel, and bldgs 4,5 & 6 were not the type of building designs would could have a runaway floor collapse. They were conventional frames – not large span open office space floors. Falling debris from the fowers damaged these buildings but would not set off a runaway floor collapse.

    4) The facade of WTC 7 is not pulled inward as you describe.

    The bowing seen in the videos is NOT dipping in the center but the facade bowing inward toward to core. The upper descending block did not drop without twisting and distortion, indicating it WAS under internal stress as it came down.

    5) The process you describe is sequential, progressive, and spreading. If you were right, we would see a failure spreading from the central core of WTC 7 outward to the ends. We do not see this. We see an instantaneous catastrophic failure of the entire penthouse, followed by an instantaneous, widespread and symmetrical failure of the remaining structure. Your hypothesis is not compatible with what we see.

    I have done a detailed study of 7. I believe the sequence may have been something like this. The girders and beams over several floors in one or two adjacent column lines (under east penthouse) were “attacked”, weakened and the floors they carried dropped. The crashing floors let those columns without bracing, and the local floor collapse might have involved 4 or more floors. The unbraced columns buckled and that caused a load redistribution. The loads from above the buckled columns caused the East penthouse area to plunge down destroying all the floors along the way and stripping more bracing from nearby columns… more stress redistribution to the core columns and the rapid failure of the west side of the core columns and the descent of the west penthouse. The entire core was gutted and the outer columns of the core pulled at the perimeter columns breaking them at their column to column splices at the elevation of the first failures. The the top was without any axial support – the core columns buckled .,.. the collapsing penthouse dragged the core down to the ground… and the floors outside the core came down with the perimeter columns and the faced… basically folding in on the hollowed out core. This is a possibility.

    • Sean

      1) It did not happen in the twin towers there key members were sabotaged by thermate with overwhelming evidence to substantiate that claim if you research. Open span floors have safety designs built in to stop progressive failure an engineer will say to himself “well lets take a case where a guy loads a floor up with book shelves and uses the floor for storage when he should not be and the floor collapses onto the other floor…how do we safe gaurd the building from a global failure in case someone gets this bright idea, so we by design compansate for floor failure in case a floor lets go it’s within the design to stop global failure regardless of the open floor spans.

      2) CD

      3)No buildings are designed to have runaway collapses, it does not exist….by design this would be criminal if not completely idiotic.

      4) It is my opinion from looking at the fall that all inner columns were destroyed in the core with a mix of thermate and explosives, the thermate allowed smaller somewhat undedeted smaller explosives needed to finish the job, this is supported by the fires that burned bellow ground for six days and only thermate can do that a lot of thermate was placed in the basement on the key foundations.

      No such thing as sequential failure only in CD where it is taken to structural engineer with blueprints of the building otherwise an impossible scenario.

    • http://www.jeremyrhammond.com Jeremy R. Hammond

      Jeffrey, you said: “The entire core was gutted and the outer columns of the core pulled at the perimeter columns breaking them at their column to column splices at the elevation of the first failures.”

      Please elaborate on that process and precisely explain it, and explain how you think it is compatible with free-fall.

    • http://www.jeremyrhammond.com Jeremy R. Hammond

      Jeffrey said: “The bowing seen in the videos is NOT dipping in the center but the facade bowing inward toward to core.”

      That is absolutely correct.

      That is also why NIST’s calculated time of a 5.4 s overall collapse time for the first 18 stories is scientific fraud. The chose a seemingly arbitrary start time based on movement of the center roofline of the north facade. But that movement did not represent onset of global collapse. It was the pull-in Jeffrey describes.

      I say “seemingly” arbitrary because 5.4 s just so happens to match their computer model…

      Scientific fraud, outright.

  • http://the911forum.freeforums.org Jeffrey Orling RA

    L Ralh,

    it’s not mumbo jumbo. And it doesn’t look like something collapsing from a fire because it DIDN”T collapse from a fire.

    Three huge buildings came apart. If they were exploded apart, then whomever did it planned it and understood the structure and how it would respond to explosives, where to place them, how strong they needed to be and so forth. Even in CS every column and beam is not attacked. ALL CDs rely on gravity and progressive collapse.

    Why deny science? Why deny engineering and what CD companies actually do? They engineer the destruction. And to do that they need to understand structural engineering.

  • Brian

    Your answer to (1) is non-responsive

    (2) No, NIST did not attempt to model the floor collapse because they concluded it was not compatible with the evidence. You may be the only person on the planet who thinks it is. To say that the visual evidence does not support CD destroys any credibility you may have had.

    Your answer to (3) is a non-responsive straw-man deception.

    As for (4), we will have to disagree, I have looked at this from every angle available and I don’t see the facade bowing inward, and there is no “twisting” in WTC7 as it falls. The “distortions” are entirely consistent with CD.

    (5) Your elaborate nested “if . . . then” algorithm could easily be verified using available software, yet no one has done it, even though elements inside and outside the US government would pay an exorbitant sum to get it done. Again, I will point out that your scenario is not compatible with the video evidence showing an instantaneous, global failure of WTC 7. Your scenario is a domino effect that could not cause an instantaneous global failure, rather it would have been progressive and required more time to completion.

    You did not address the foreknowledge many people had of the implosion of WTC7. I will add that we even have a video record of the building’s owner stating that the decision was made “to pull it” which is the industry term for “demolish it”. You are trying to invoke a miracle where none is required.

    It is a strange and tragic irony that the more outrageous an action taken by a government against its citizens, the less likely the citizens are to believe that the government could have done it. Our government abuses its people on a regular basis, and these lesser abuses are readily recognized by the people as such. Yet, when the government allows or participates in extreme and outrageous crimes, the people are so unwilling to explore the possibility of a government role that they wholeheartedly accept the government narrative – even as the government confiscates all the physical evidence and prevents any independent examination of it in the name of national security.

    It is a difficult threshold for most of us to cross – to face the reality that those we trusted betrayed us. It is as if you hear that the father you knew and loved all your life has just killed your mother. You will be predisposed to believe any explanation he gives you that absolves him of any blame. It will take a great deal of time and evidence for you to be convinced otherwise – that he did it. Imagine the emotional devastation of the German people after WWII as they begin to hear of the crimes of their Nazi regime.

    But Americans have to cross this threshold. 9/11 was not the first of these events. As a group, Americans may be the most gullible people on the planet. We are so doped up on American Idol, Hollywood, TV, sports, cars, cheap food, and the next electronic gadget that we are content with moderate, routine government abuse, and will gladly accept any narrative to cover up the extreme abuses so that we don’t have to deal with them. People of other countries who have had to face and survive the worst kinds of government abuses, are not so trusting of people in power.

    Truth is coming to the USA. We will not rest until it does.

  • Sean

    It does not matter that you speak of pieces of dead loads being an acre or not it is only relative to the size of the rest of the building. Progressive failure will not occur unless there are key members sabotaged to act that way and this is an impossible task and or scenario without understanding the building first. But I guess you did not look at the post I put up previously where buildings show of these characteristics. The small but to you large dead loads negligible to my understanding will impact a localized are then by friction and absorption the building captures the falling load and in the entagled mess the loads are transfered back to the columns by snags and friction and thus transfered back to the columns which held them up in the first place….they cannot travel. In all buildings with large floor spans there are saftey factors in the design to stop progressive failure, engineers understand this and it is a load case played into worst case scenario’s and precautions are made to stop progressive failur in large floor spans, but when you remove the footprint from which they rest from CD then you have your progressive failure but you have to destroy these columns, they will not buckle because the rest of the building acts like one big diaphram once completly assembled and therefore you can remove girders and braces and the columns remain at their smaller unsuported length, when you rmove their footings then they buckle because they are no longer plum and eccentricity are overwhelming, but this has to be done to almost all of them at the same time to cause the failure observed in WTC7. Getting rid of only a few will be absorbed by the rest of the buildings massive sf’s

  • http://the911forum.freeforums.org Jeffrey Orling RA

    Sean,

    I don’t think I have made my arguments clear enough to you. Or perhaps you don’t have a background in engineering to understand how a progressive failure would or could work. I tried to give you and example with a multi leg table where it remains standing as one after another leg is remove until the remaining ones can no longer support the table (load) and they WILL buckle and the table will come down. The collapse could have taken some time before it gets to the critical point of global collapse.

    Of course there are safety factors for any member or any floor system. But in the twins and likely in 7 there was more than the threshold load to destroy the first floor and set off the runaway collapse of the floors.

    Read this thread which does this concept justice and there are plenty of slides, videos, and charts.

    I’d be interested to see what your comments are after reading this thread… and some of the other ones on that site.

    http://the911forum.freeforums.org/oos-destruction-collapse-model-t264.html

    I don’t know why there is so much resistance the notion of a engineered initiation and a natural collapse. This is not NIST, OCT or anything of the like.

    I am demanding an investigation to learn what the initiation cause was. The NIST one is incorrect.

  • http://the911forum.freeforums.org Jeffrey Orling RA

    Here is a discussion of WTC 7 . there are video analysis and gifs to help you see what’s happening.

    See how the top distorts

    http://the911forum.freeforums.org/post14212.html#p14212

    • Sean

      My backgound Jeffrey is Structural Engineering (Engineer) and I understand steel structures really well. I am not a high rise expert. Regardless of my understanding you will get a better more accurate statemnet from a demolition crew be it engineer or not and there are plenty of them who will tell you this was controled demolition and it takes experince to bring one of these down. A lot of people find the fall peculiar progressive failure is not so much engineering as it is to have backyard experience with the topic such as individuals in demolitions. Trying to calculate free falling material into a buildings structure would be like trying to win the lottery by picking numbers.

      The loads are so diverse and dynamic it is even impossible to put data into a computer, hence garbage in garbage out, however this is exactly why progressive failure does not exist, loads go of in all directions they don’t impact one area and keep on moving, they are absorbed by the structure and this cannot be calculated, this is why they test crash cars before they sell them because the load conditions are diverse, however engineers still manage to keep the driver safe through safe gaurds, these are built into the structure, we can take the worst case possible and design to resist worst case and therefore let all other negligible loads go where ever they want to because in the end the driver remains safe behind the structure.

      Now, I see your point and where you might be headed is where controlled demolition took place in the WTC 1 and 2 where they used the columns as spears to punch through the floors by seeperating/offsetting the top structure into the bottom structure, ….I am still skeptical but this scenario has some validity to it and I see why you are out in this field of progressive failure that demolition crews are familiar with.
      However if we look at the “You Tube” Thermate video you will see a distinctive grey cloud of smoke when the thermate is ignited and then an explosion. Look at the WTC 1 and 2 as the top half crashes down where it should have only toppled and came to rest, but rather you see this thermate like blast of grey smoke around the entire perimeter of the building and large pieces of the building being blasted out sideways like they were projected from the explosion. Likely 1000 or more pounds of thermate, this was already planned long ago…..have you seen the folding of the us bills that tell the story, there are much larger forces at play then what we may ever understand.
      Hence the top structure was made to fall by explosion and the weaking of lower columns filled with thermate caused the succesion failure, and yes CD will use the dead loads as a failure mechanism, but you need to remove the root supports and I believe this was done with the thermate. A man testified right after getting out of the building from the 80th floor that a blast from his office flung his door open and there was a flash of white flames, characteristic of thermate being ignited, this is why the building fell, it was weakend.
      WTC 7 again, I look at the way it first collapses and I can clearly understand that this is the removal of all the core center columns, without all the core center columns the loads in the center fall….. there is nothing there to support the loads, hence the outer columns support much like pulling back a bow and arrow shooting to the sky, the outer columns cannot do there job and are pulled inward, hence a beautiful controlled demolition where everything crumbles to the center to minimize damage to surrounding buildings. The falling center loads will explain the ripped off truss seats because there were no columns in the center of the building once they were blasted, this means all the dead loads from all the floors pulled on the roof line from the center and dragged the building down… much like into a black hole.

  • Brian
  • Brian

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rVCDpL4Ax7I

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-jPzAakHPpk&playnext=1&list=PL8FA177BD5899D57B

    Case closed.

    All that remains to be investigated is who knew planes would be flown into the twin towers on 9/11 and prepared WTC 7 for demolition in advance of 9/11.

    • Sean

      Nice posts, I agree Case closed

  • Greg

    Jeremy, I don’t have a background in engineering, but I do in physics. But I don’t understand what you are talking about.

    If there were no explosives, then the bottom of the building is crashing under the force exerted on it by the top, as there is no other force. By Newton’s third law, there is an upward force exerted on the top by the crashing bottom, which is of the same magnitude that the top exerts on the bottom to crash it (but opposite direction). So the sum of all downward forces exerted on the top is the gravity minus the force that the crashing bottom exerts on the top. That is, the net downward force acting on the top is less than gravity. So by Newton’s second law the acceleration of the top has to be less than free fall. Since it is a fact that the top was coming down with free fall, the hypotheses that there were no explosives is wrong. It is that simple.

    • http://www.jeremyrhammond.com Jeremy R. Hammond

      Yes, like I said.

  • Greg

    Oops, sorry, I meant to address my previous comment to Jeffrey, not Jeremy.
    I don’t know what Jeffrey is talking about.

    • http://www.jeremyrhammond.com Jeremy R. Hammond

      Ah, that makes more sense! LOL! Gotcha.

  • http://the911forum.freeforums.org Jeffrey Orling RA

    Sean,

    There were a few bits of time where there was free fall collapse traced on a point on the roof line. In WTC 7 and also in tower 1 for perhaps a second when the top began to descend.

    The rest of the collapses were significantly less than free fall and were clocked at something like 60+ mph.

    One aspect of the collapse AFTER initiation is that there was a continuous roar which was the sound of the floors collapsing. There were no massive percussive explosive sounds.

    Another thing to note which points to a progressive runaway floor collapse (avalanche) is the fact that most of the core remained after the floors were gone and virtually ALL the facade panels came off the building and fell outside the foot print. These two bits of evidence indicate that the floors were destroyed FIRST and then the facade peeled off and finally the core collapsed from Euler buckling.

    The material seen ejected through the facade at the crush front is the air carrying light building materials and floor contents out the windows. The air HAD to be displaced as the falling mass pushed down on it and the air escaped through the glass areas which offered the least resistance. I think this makes perfect sense and attributing these ejections to hundreds of sequences of explosives on each floor at 1/10 second apart is not plausible and the probability very low.

    The building was almost 97% air and the floors DID offer some resistance, but not much enough to arrest the hundreds of thousands of tons of rubble coming down.

    No CD company would even consider exploding the floors over 104 floors. There is no evidence of the core columns being exploded… certainly in those from BELOW the crash zone. All those columns broke apart at their joints.

    Sean there are programs which do finite element analysis and can show a progressive failure.

    I invite you to become a member of the 911 Free Forums which accepts qualified scientists and engineers. Anyone can read the threads.

    http://the911forum.freeforums.org

    I have been doing my own research focused on the twin towers and their structure in particular. I have some slides I can share with you if you are interested… send me an email to jsandero at gee mail dot com.

    In both 7 and the twins’ collapses we need to understand the initiation of what I am convinced were then gravitational collapses. The initiation took place inside behind the facade in the core area and so it virtually impossible to see it.

    The best analysis of the videos to date is being done by several scientists at the 911 Free Forums. They do not support the NIST explanation for the cause of the collapses. Neither do I.

    However, if one studies the structural design and notes how vulnerable they were to the floors being “disengaged” from the columns and going into a run away collapse mode, you are left with looking more narrowly to explain what kicked it all off.

    I believe that the initiation was NOT as complex and massive as many would believe. Conceptually it like tipping one domino to knock down a thousand. In this case it likely wasn’t fire to tip the first domino and it wasn’t the plane strikes.

    There is apparently a cognitive dissonance going on. WTC 7 whatever the cause that started it all.. was a gravitational collapse…. even at free fall for 2.25 secs and slower as the top section was crushing itself. 7 produced all dust, no slabs, lots of remain steel broken at joints, twisted and mangled. The perimeter columns came down with the collapse and everything seemed to fold into the core which went first. A giant cloud of dust spread and billowed out from the collapse.

    The twins too produced the same billowing clouds, the same lack of large concrete yet too the same average time for the floors to “destruct” and left virtually all the steel broken at the joints and some mangled from the fall. The facade columns were on the skin of the building and were pushed away by the collapsing floor avalanche, and the core was “left standing” as high as floor 77 in the case of col 501. The core was left because the floors collapsed and were ripped off the column support. And the core succumbed to Euler buckling… we see most of the remaining core columns topple from instability and some of them collapse from Euler buckling.

    If you look carefully this is what you see in the collapse of the twin towers. We don’t know what the initiation was. Office fires cannot produce the floor collapses and column displacement to kick off the runaway collapse.

    Why the resistance to a floor collapse with a engineered initiation? There is enormous resistance to this and it NOT the official story at all. I don’t get it frankly.

    Saying this was planned decades ago requires some hard evidence and I don’t see it. That sort of speculation is not helping us get to the culprits.

    • http://www.jeremyrhammond.com Jeremy R. Hammond

      “There were a few bits of time where there was free fall collapse traced on a point on the roof line. In WTC 7 … perhaps a second when the top began to descend. The rest of the collapses were significantly less than free fall….”

      Absolutely false. Everything you say that follows rests upon this false premise.

  • http://the911forum.freeforums.org Jeffrey Orling RA

    Jeremy,

    A column does NOT have to be destroyed to have it offer 0 resistance. A column can be “pushed” out of the way. If you remove a guy wire, for example the structure it supports losses it bracing and it will buck or fall and it is NOT destroyed. It’s carrying capacity was been destroyed. The load path has been destroyed, but the column does not have to be.

    If you drive into your garage and knock over the steel lally column the floor above will come crashing down. Under the rubble you will find the lally coiumn, probably bent.. but all there.

    • http://www.jeremyrhammond.com Jeremy R. Hammond

      Jeffrey, a column that offers zero resistance is a “destroyed” column, by definition.

      The only question we’re concerned with here is HOW the columns of WTC 7 came to be destroyed.

  • http://the911forum.freeforums.org Jeffrey Orling RA

    Greg,

    As a physicist are you familiar with Euler’s formulas for slender columns and self buckling.

    Perhaps you could explain to the readers how a too tall slender steel column can buckle from its own weight.

    Thank you!

  • Sean

    Jeffrey you are completly oblivious to the evidence of eye witnesses and audio video of expolsions heard before the building fell (WTC 7). This was the removale of the core column footings…the initial failure is in the center of the building in which we see the penthouse slouch…once this slouch occured the outer columns follow the initial bow in the center and are then coming for the ride down.
    Also you are oblivious to other posts where a high school teacher shows that free fall exists for 2.25 seconds so there is no resistance from columns, hence they have been sabotaged to not offer any support of any kind.
    WTC 1 and 2 were exploded with charges of thermate, there is irreputible evidence of thermate at this location and when ignited it explodes, these charges can be seen coming from the columns blow as well….air does not blow clouds of grey smoke and eye witness on the 80th floor said his office exploded, the building was not falling at this point so where did that explosion come from….therefore I am concluding the columns were all attacked with thermate, that is why all the steel was destroyed so that there would be no evidence of it. You are doing exactly what NIST tried to do….you are trying to fabricate something when it does not exist, the evidence is overwhelming if you look at the posts Brian just put up you will see for yourself, all buildings were sabotaged from the get go, key individuals knew the planes were coming and rigged the buildings….try chasing that for awhile and tell me when you come upon a stumbling block look at sabotage and you will see that all falls make perfect sense.

  • Sean

    Jeffrey, since you are so convinced that the columns failed because they lost their supports. I will give you table loads not by my hand; but rather straight from the Handbook of steel construction (HSC) with regards to load vs effective length.
    Lets take a W360 X 1086, this is an I-shaped section…360 is the width in mm and 1086 is what the beam/column weighs per m in kg…….at 8.2ft in height it can hold 42100kN or 9,464,928lbs, this is with respect to the least radius of gyration meaning the table is with respect to the strong axis, if we use the weak axis then the numbers decrease but they decrease by the same amount or at the same rate that the strong axis does….just to be clear the 8.2 feet is considered as unsupported, now from the table when I increase the UNSUPPORTED length to 52ft the load it can carry decreases to 11,800kN, this means your buckling failure is highly improbable, you see as I explained before these columns need to support hurricane conditions and fictious loads which then multiply by 5 to have a sf of at least 5, so if I do this math that means 5 x 11,800kN = 59,000kN this means the column can still support more than what it originally started with at 8.2ft considering the load of 42,100kN
    I could do this all day with every column in this book and the results are the same….at what point will it buckle under it’s own weight, well just add up it’s weight per m, but this table includes the weight so these are the actual ratio’s, so for a column to buckle you need to lose more than 4 floors of bracing, which is an impossible task unless you plan it, since there were no hurricanes and no people in the building the sf of the buildings columns themselves would have been much greater than five because the five is taken after the fact with the people loads and hurricane conditions since neitheir of these existed your actual sf was in the neighbourhood of 8-10 so your column would have to be over 100ft with no lateral bracing if you get the picture now.

    And yes if you induce a lateral load into the column you can reduce the carrying capacity, but as rational will tell you without live loads due to hurricane and floors fictiously loaded with people every square foot that did not exist and sf of 5 min built into the structure……one can see that without eliminating the columns without explosives you cannot fail these columns because in reality their failure capacity is almost non existent without the hurricane condition so a runaway condition cannot exist especially because eliminating bracing is hard to believe in the first place and even if you can present that scenario, they are still massively strong.
    However where how and who planted the sabotage is what we need to find out. We can’t do that because when we ask Bush to explain he says nothing, hoping we can see that the speculation is so ridiculous that he doesn’t have to answer the question. This represents a guilty person on the stand much like a guy who just killed his wife, he says, that’s ridiculous..I don’t have to answer that…and who can force him to answer…pretty much nobody, the only way we have more power is if we all stand as one, we elected him therefore we are the power but we need more attention, does anybody know how to get some???

  • Greg

    Jeffrey, clearly, a column that is too thin, can buckle under it’s own weight. But it certainly does not do so with free fall man. Not until the point when it breaks.

  • Greg

    Jeffrey, what you need to explain to us is how it is possible for not one, but many columns, that were designed to hold the whole building, to stand straight in one moment and offer no resistance at all in the next, do this in a completely symmetric fashion, and through some 30 meters. If the columns were blown out of the way, since the building fell free through some 30 meters, all the columns at the same instance would have had to be blown out along that 30 meters. The floors also would have had to get detached from the columns at the same time, otherwise still there would be big chunks of the building that would have had to be crashed. All this in one moment.

    And how do you explain the extremely symmetric way of falling?

    In fact, it is clearly visible in this video
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cZsA3xb2kOA
    at 1:50 that the removal of the columns was not perfect on the left side, and there the fall meets resistance. That is the kind of thing we would have to be seeing all over the building if it was a natural collapse.

    Collapses that show similar features have been reproduced many many times in the form of controlled demolitions. I don’t think anyone can show a video of a known natural collapse of anything, let it be just a single thin column, that displays similar features to the collapse of wtc7.

    Furthermore, the theory of explosives is supported by eyewitness accounts and that scientists found remainders of explosives. Moreover, while there are plenty of strong arguments why it cannot be a natural collapse, there is no argument against explosives other than “who could have put them there?”.

  • http://the911forum.freeforums.org Jeffrey Orling RA

    You don’t have to remove 100 vertical feel of columns support all at once because it takes 2.25 seconds to fall that distance. In the first second you only have to remove 16′ of vertical support or one single set of 26′ tall columns. Let’s be clear about this.

    If you HAD removed 100 feet of columns in that first second… the falling mass would take 1.25 seconds to reach the “bottom” where the columns had been destroyed.

    NO YOU DON”T HAVE TO REMOVE 100 FEET OF STRUCTURE AT ONCE TO GET A FREE FALL ACCELERATION FOR THOSE 100 FEET.

    The weakest part of the long span open office column free space is the floor system – NOT THE COLUMNS. Each floor system was designed to support less than 100#/ft (58# for the twin towers). The floor loads were carried on beams and then framed into girders in some cases. These loads then were attached to the side of the columns.

    If the floors are overloaded past their yield strength they fail and can’t transfer the load to the columns. This COULD cause the beams, and the girders to fail and be stripped off. An attack could be focused on the grider to column connection point (beam stubs). As one connection of the floor load to a column is failed the remaining ones pick up the load. If enough of the loads are redistributed to too few girders to columns connections these remaining ones will also fail. This is how a progressive failure through a structure proceeds. In order for there to be a global failure there needs to be too few members carrying too much load. It’s really that simple.

    A progressive collapse will arrest if the load redistribution does not exceed the yield strength of the members seeing increased (redistributed loads).

    If you forget about the FF 2.25 seconds and move to the period AFTER that… what was happening? The undamaged structure… floors were seeing loads too great for them to support… so the bottom was crushed by the (dyanamic) loading of the descending mass. When that mass had crushed all the remaining bottom the descending mass then crushed to bottom of itself if there was enough dynamic load to do so. Some CDs fail and the top section simply supports itself, perhaps tipped a bit because the dynamic load was not enough to crush up from the bottom. As the in tact mass decreases from the crush up, there is less likelihood that the CD will complete itself.

    The destruction of 7 took much longer than 6-7 seconds. It likely began with muitiple floor girder to column failures and then partial floor collapse near those columns. This led to unbraced columns buckling in the core, the collapse of the east penthouse which gutted a huge section of the center of the building right ton the ground… then more columns were left unbraced and buckled pulling in the outside the core floors above and the girders and beams supporting them including the perimeter columns inside the curtain wall.

    The top did not collapse as a block and careful examination of the video shows it twisting, tipping to the east and then west, bowing of the north facade into the core and so forth as it was collapsing. It was showing INTERNAL stress and and could not be falling with no resistance, otherwise there would be nothing but the block dropping straight down. It simply does not. This is a GROSS observation not a precise one.

    There were reports that the building was distorting BEFORE it fell if I recall correctly. It was being monitored and this was a sign – the distortion – that the internal structure was undergoing a progressive series of structural failures. When it reached a point of no return it (yield point) it “let go” and the failures raced through the structure very rapidly and it fell.

    I do think it likely and possible that the initiation was not fire. I don’t think that fire could cause the failures we saw. But I do think that it was a PROGRESSIVE failure and not every member had to be attacked for this to occur.

    So in twin towers once enough mass was made to descend on the floors, the runaway collapse of the rest of them was inevitable, unstoppable and required no additional engineered intervention.

    I suspect that the open office floor design facilitates a run away floor collapse….not from a single floor perhaps, but from sufficient number of consecutive ones and that’s all it takes.

    How many floor masses (load) do you think a typical WTC 1,2 or 7 floor can support without collapsing?

    • http://www.jeremyrhammond.com Jeremy R. Hammond

      You don’t have to remove 100 vertical feel of columns support all at once because it takes 2.25 seconds to fall that distance. In the first second you only have to remove 16′ of vertical support or one single set of 26′ tall columns. Let’s be clear about this.

      If you HAD removed 100 feet of columns in that first second… the falling mass would take 1.25 seconds to reach the “bottom” where the columns had been destroyed.

      No, Jeffrey. You can’t make it fall faster than free fall by taking out longer sections of column at once. Most of your remarks seem premised upon this fallacy, so no need to address them further.

      The top did not collapse as a block and careful examination of the video shows it twisting, tipping to the east and then west, bowing of the north facade into the core and so forth as it was collapsing. It was showing INTERNAL stress and and could not be falling with no resistance, otherwise there would be nothing but the block dropping straight down. It simply does not.

      Jeffrey, my goodness, it collapsed “as a single unit” (NIST’s words) at an acceleration for 2.25 seconds indistinguishable from the acceleration of gravity. By definition, that means there was no resistance! It’s that simple.

  • http://the911forum.freeforums.org Jeffrey Orling RA

    If you look at column 501 in the Spire in serveral of the videos you can determine how fast it drops “from its own weight”. It stood over 900 feet tall … up to floor 77-78 before it is seen dropping vertically from “self buckling”

    There is one view in a film which was taken from the NE and you can see the water tank on the roof of 90 Duane street. It blocks most of cc 501. You can see the part of the column where it is joined to cc 601 at about 15 floors down at floor 63 or so. It stand 180′ or so above that point. You can also see it below that point for about another 15 floors.

    CC501 drops in a couple of frames and with the frame rate you can gauge the speed of decent. It appears to drop out of site in a few frames and this will compute to free fall. CC501 was 26 – 36′ segments and when it self buckled… it broke apart at one of the lower column to column joints and it went “out of column”. Weighing over 900 tons in total, the top section drop rather quickly with nothing to resist it.

    Study this column collapsing and you can see a column self buckling once the bracing has been removed. The S/R ratio is approaching 500 and far exceeds what such a column (segmented) can be expected to stand up and not buckle from its own weight.

  • http://the911forum.freeforums.org Jeffrey Orling RA

    The towers fell symmetrically because the CG was inside the foot print and in the case of 7 it was destroyed in the core first and collapsed into itself. The twins’ floors collapse down and there was no moment or horizontal impulse.

    Parts of the top of 2 did go outside the footprint, but the greatest force was straight down and inside the footprint.

    Why would they fall over to the side?

  • Sean

    I am not arguing about progressive failure occuring, it obviously did. However fire will not cause this because you need multiple strategic planned failures to do so. In other words I am saying something like explosives combined with thermate weakening caused the failures. I know how strong these buildings are is basically my perspective.
    Lets look at the floor load you are presenting which is 100lbs per square foot (common live load to use sometimes less sometimes more) note however this 100lbs per square ft is huge, take a floor area of 100ft x 100ft multiply that by 100 lbs/ft squared = 1,000,000Lb point load which did not exist but was built into the design multiply this by 1.5sf then figure out what the dead load of the floor is and multiply by 1.25, then multiply other possible dead loads such as partition walls book shelves etc and there will be a code requirement for this as well, I cannot right an essay here it is too long and I am giving the reader a generalization and without knowing the floor loads how they were built where the loads went to and without blueprints behind it I cannot be accurate on how many floors it would take to cause one floor to fail and neither can a computer, I just have a realization of how strong the building is especially without disaster like conditions other than the fire which is known by history to never bring down a building anywhere across the entire globe.

    Investigators said from the start if we don’t stop destroying all the evidence that we would be left with nothing but computer models as a reference and guess what we are left with computer models, this is great for the culprits because they are the ones inputing the data…the data is corrupt and we caught them doing so once already, the model is only as good as the information you feed it so models cannot tell you how a failure occurs. No one connection is the same no series of bolts even one bolt will break at the same load, it all varies, therefore if one support breaks and another support holds on for a little longer then the buildings load shifts and falls to a different location unknown where it will land and in carnage these loads are shooting of in all directions due to improbabilities, no computer can analyize that because we are feeding it the numbers and we do not know.
    In CD they remove the columns footing from the base once you remove the base, the loads and eccentricties relay through the buildings entire structure and folds on itself floor by floor as the weight of each floor pulls from the roof line at it’s center and you only need a small movement to start when the correct columns are removed. Again look at buildings damaged in the surrounding area’s they are still in one piece only local damage occured. This is typical of all buildings, in CD evry building will fall now you are saying this building had it’s own way to progressively fail if enough floors fell on top of each other but I believe other parts of the building would still be standing. And I am certain of it because even in eathquake hit areas building don’t completly demolish themselves, they topple and collapse but parts remain standing.

  • http://the911forum.freeforums.org Jeffrey Orling RA

    Sean,

    I agree with the garbage in equal garbage out. I also agree with those who point to NIST looking for a justification for a fire based cause and came up with a non credible scenario.

    However, we do need to agree on what we saw and we do need to focus on the initiation in all three collapses.

    If we can demonstrate that the initiation was engineered and not the result of fires it doesn’t even matter whether the collapse was explosive assisted or not.

    I can’t emphasize enough that ALL the focus of the truth movement needs to be in the INITIATION not in the fact that the COLLAPSE looks like a CD. A CD IS a gravitational collapse with an explosive kick off.

    Some try to demonstrate that there were explosives DURING the collapse and if this can be done conclusively it would be damning. I haven’t seen conclusive evidence of explosives in the collapse phase which I believe can be explained by a progressive gravitational collapse.

    I would like to have ALL the attention focus on what LED to the collapse because what NIST said for 1, 2 & 7 is not believable and shows errors. Falsifying their cause/initiation does NOT mean it was an explosive controlled demolition. That needs to be PROVEN. And this IS an engineering issue.

    One also needs to understand that if this was an engineered take down, the planners had to PLAN how to do it. Why can’t we? Assuming they planned it they must have had some idea of what it would look like.

    We have the plans, the basic structure and I challenge the engineers in the truth movement not to simply say it HAD to be CD because X, Y & Z, but to tell use HOW to do it… precisely how it was done because that’s what THEIR engineers did. And we have the advantage that we can SEE the collapses which resulted. THESE should contain clues.

    This may be a called for “speculation”, but this is hardly much different than calling construction plans – speculation that the building will stand.

    But this can only be done by engineers who understand how buildings stand and how structures fail. To stay these buildings were so strong is childish.

    This is an engineering problem and it can be solved. It may not produce the exact demo plan, but it will produce one that is credible and sufficiently detailed and hopefully is supported by all the observations.

    • http://www.jeremyrhammond.com Jeremy R. Hammond

      Jeffrey, for WTC 7 to have collapsed as it did, columns had to have been cut. I don’t see how too go about doing that without the use of some kind of explosives/thermitic materials. If there’s another way to accomplish that I’m unfamiliar with, please let me know.

  • Brian
  • Sean

    Jeffrey, I pointed out a lot of ways why they are strong enough to stand on there own without having to write an essay on the topic; it is a generalization of why they are so strong, if you believe this to be childish so be it, you are a fool not to recognize the value behind that, because that is credible and relates to the corrupt report from NIST with regards to free fall. We need people to understand the generilzation of the strength of buildings if they are going to stand with us, they will not understand the math behind it. You have forgotten what I said last time….we have little evidence….we are left with computer simulations, we need a generalization of how strong these buildings are and then put this into the media mainstream so that your relatives mine and America will understand that buildings don’t fall down on their own……if you try to boggle our supporters with engineering you will lose.
    The culprits are scared of mass attention…this is politics at play against us and them…tell the masses something they can understand an engineering report won’t win you any votes and we need votes…it seems we are winning but we need more publicity, anyone I talk to only remembers that thermate was ruled out by the media and never heard of a third building falling….so don’t rule out a generalization of how strong these buildings are…prove their potential and people will understand why it is so hard for engineers to believe that these buildings fell due to fire.

    Heres another engineering fact on strength…and I bet if an engineer familiar with the as built drawings of this building can verify because I garantee it’s wrong. Nist reported that the girder broke when the connection reched a temperature that reduced that connection to 50% of it’s strength….now lets dig into this a little and I hope someone familiar with the building and the NIST report is listening

    All conections by code are connected to a minimum standard of 50% of the shear capacity of a beams shear strength…now wityh beams that are longer than a stub will always fail in bending and shear strength of the beam is ridiculously strong….lets take a W460 x 89 that is 5-meters long…consider this the girder with beams framing into it the uniform load that fails this member in bending for a simply supported girder at a 5-m length is a 140kN/m….this means you would have a shear force of 352kN at each connection at the girder….the girder beam has a shear strength of 996kN designed at a minimum of 50% so it had a strength of 498kN…if it lost 50% of it’s strength it would still have 249kN of strength….sounds good for Nist except there were no live loads on that floor that brought the weight of 249kN to that connection, there were only dead loads that had safety factors as well……I believe if someone chases this you will find that that support had no where near 249kN at it’s location because this load is the maximum for that beam and engineers never design to 100% capacity usually only 80% which further reduces the numbers also engineers may pick a beam that is even stronger than wht is required for strength due to deflection and this will further reduce these numbers….if we prove NIST wrong here than what started the sequence for them will be no good thus there report would be false… but I don’t know what the beam was or what the loads are or the floor plans or the framework of the beams or whether or not the girder was a simple support so I can’t chase engineering principles, all I have is my general knowlege, trying to strip my credentials and my willingness to try to help is childish.

    Good Luck Jeremy, I hope you know someone who can look into the shear capacity of that girder because I will bet on it that it takes a lot more than a 50% reduction in strength to that support caused by fire to break it because live loads are large and they didn’t exist and shear connections are stronger than they have to be by a large margin, that is why code allows engineers to design to only 50% but it’s still too strong for what it needs to do….if we prove NIST wrong again…. then they have no start point???

    • http://www.jeremyrhammond.com Jeremy R. Hammond

      Well, that is why NIST came up wither their hypothesis of “thermal expansion”. It was the expanding beams that pushed the girder of its seat at Column 79. From an as-yet unpublished paper I happen to be working on:

      In comments on the draft report, the Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat (CTBUH), after observing that shear studs and bolt connections failed at temperatures under 200°C, stated, “The failure of shear studs is surprising, and has been modeled in a very simplistic way, which may overestimate the failure of this element. Prior studies and real fire cases have not previously identified shear stud failure as a significant possibility” – which might explain why NIST was unable to find any literature on it. A “more accurate shear stud model” might have produced a different effect, and, additionally, “It is difficult to understand why the top bolts of the girder would fail at connection to Column 79. Such failure would mean the slab had moved relative to Column 79.” This, too, was attributed to the “limited” analysis model. The Council asked, “If the primary girder had shear studs would the floor have failed?”

      By NIST’s own calculations, the answer appears to be that the girder (and thus the floor) would likely not have failed even if the girder had shear studs. NIST gives the equation for calculating a change in length due to thermal expansion (δT) as being equal to the coefficient of thermal expansion (α, given as 1.4×10-5/°C) multiplied by the increase in temperature (ΔT) and the length of the member (L). This assumes a uniform temperature (i.e. no gradient between top and bottom flanges of the beam) and “no restraint to thermal expansion” (emphasis added; i.e., no shear studs on the beam). So, for a long span beam in the northeast corner (601.75 inches ), assuming a temperature of 600 °C:

      δT = α ΔT L = (1.4×10-5/°C) x (600°C) x (601.75 in.) = 5.05 in.

      Thus, even given the above assumptions, according to NIST’s own mathematical formula for a worst-case hypothetical scenario, a beam connected to the critical girder would elongate by 5.05 inches. Interestingly, in its own example, NIST does not perform this calculation for one of the long span beams in the northeast corner, but for a girder of shorter length. This is odd since the entire question here, for NIST’s purposes, is with regard to its hypothesis that floor beams pushed the critical girder connected to Column 79 off its seat. The explanation may be implicit in the fact that NIST states elsewhere in its final report that the travel distance of the girder to walk off its seat laterally was 5.5. inches. For a beam to elongate 5.5 inches, even according to the above worst-case scenario, it would have to achieve a uniform temperature of about 653°C, which seems highly unlikely if not impossible for a fire-insulated beam heated for just 20-30 minutes by fires (real-world, as opposed to simulated). NIST’s own computer model assumed a maximum temperature of 500°C for the girder and 600°C for the beams in a worst-case scenario designed to set “boundary conditions and temperatures … to create maximum shear forces” (emphasis added).

      So, yes, NIST has not even a starting point. Their hypothesis is absolute scientific fraud from top to bottom.

      • Sean

        The Nist report says the girder was knocked off of it’s support and needed 5.05 inches to do so; as your math explains the beam would lengthin at worst case 5.05inches and the seat needs this 5.05 inches to move in order to fall off….well the beam girder could only move 2.5 inches because the opposite girder would have similiar movement as well somewhere around half and half. Also the steel is very ductile even the bolts will stretch to an incredible distance before they fail……I don’t know what the connection looks like but any typical connection known to me would have to stretch and yield at least 12 -20 inches before it fails….if someone duplicates this scenario I can bet the connection will only deform but will be know where near failure….after the girder falls off in the NIST report the column fails….again it’s too strong to fail even when the lateral support is removed….this is my common sense speaking, as I do not know what these members are so I cannot provide proof. Again it’s impossible to heat the beam to that degree in the first place so I don’t understand how they can get away with this, every engineer on that report should have their licences pulled. 20 to 30 minutes of fire could only blacken the paint.

        • http://www.jeremyrhammond.com Jeremy R. Hammond

          Also, the girder could not have been pushed off its seat because although Column 79 is a box column, it did have flanges that stuck out, which the girder was between. In fact, the NIST report even STATES that in their model, the girder was pushed until it was restricted by this flange, and they show a picture of it.

          Scientific fraud. Outright.

          • Sean

            I have severe chest pains right now from reading the hog wash in the NIST report. It’s very disturbing from my perspective and does not make sense to me….I went back to look for the connection you said would be in the NIST report and I cannot find a detail of the connection. However, I looked at the girders framing into column 79 and all three columns laterally support the column….if you remove one you have lateral support in both axis of the column from the other two girders so to say it buckled from no lateral support from only one girder being knocked off it’s connection is false, this I can prove without a doubt that column 79 had lateral support;….just by inspection of the framework of the floor, the beams and girders at that column, so how can they justify no lateral support….am I missing something here;… because even if you remove two girders you still have lateral support to column 79 from one girder….any one girder will give lateral support to that column in both axis…..why?… because of the triangular formation of the floor beams and girders that come to column 79 Any one girder connected to column 79 provides support by means of pull (tension) or push (compression) however it can still provide connection support in the sideway sway because in order to move any one girder sideways you would have to move all the other beams with it that connect to that girder which all connect to another opposite girder which connect to columns for support….in that I am saying the entire floor at column 79 is a diaghram not only by means of the concrete floor slab but by means of all the structural steel as well… this column is alone but is specifically special because it has lateral support framing into it three ways from three different girders….therefore I am saying without a doubt that if so much as one of those three girders remained attached to that column then column 79 was laterally supported…again to my discust that I need even go here because even without lateral support this column would not fail under only dead loads even without lateral support.

          • http://www.jeremyrhammond.com Jeremy R. Hammond

            Look to NCSTAR 1-9 Vol 1, p. 353. Also from my yet-to-be-published paper on WTC 7:

            Even given all of the above assumptions (i.e. uniform temperature throughout member, failure of shear studs on beams, no shear studs on girder, 500-600°C structural temperatures), NIST’s own computer model showed that “axial expansion of the floor beams pushed the girder laterally, where it came to bear against the inside of the column flange.” That is to say, the flange of Column 79 restricted any further westward movement of the girder (Figure 27).

            On lateral support for 79, I don’t think NIST really summarized the extent of the loss very well, but you can look at their damage assessment input data for each floor and see that there was still lateral support on some floors, particularly the girders west and south of 79. They argue the greater loss of support north and east caused it to buckle in that direction. I don’t have the engineering knowledge to be able to challenge that, but it’s something I question, also, since that would mean the intact girders connected to column 79 would offer restraint to outward bowing.

          • Sean

            The girder connections are designed to hold the floor up and are very strong as compared to what is needed to stop the girder from bowing, it’s a negligible load condition that I have never had to design for…all the girder does is keep the column straight with regards to their relationship with a minimal load to hold it straight, and yes if the column did bow then the other two girders have to come along for the ride pulling everything with it even collapsing the outer columns that are designed to withstand hurricane forces….this is impossible to say the least…if this was true then it should have buckled the building when they were all attached…same thing…basically….again for column 79 to buckle in the North – East direction, it has to take the other two girders with it, if they were attached then NIST is falsifying the claim that column 79 buckled due to know support from one girder being detached. Again like you said it can’t be pushed off of it’s seat to begin with if it was between two plates and due to the fact steel connections will yield a lot more than 5 inches before failure ever occurs.

          • Sean

            Correction to the previous sentence in capitization

            The girder connections are designed to hold the floor up and are very strong as compared to what is needed to STOP COLUMN 79 from bowing

  • http://the911forum.freeforums.org Jeffrey Orling RA

    Sean,
    One can do some reverse engineering to size the steel. Even if it is conservative or over sized it is possible to get a pretty close approximation to the size and types of connections used for the structure… and even more so having images from the construction phase in some cases. So like any structure design you being with the live load, the areas, the dead loads and so forth. Yes you do have to consider wind shear and the special loads like HVAC equipment, tanks and so forth.

    But these loads have little to do with the floor loads, and the beams which support them. I am not an engineer and I don’t know how wind shear would be taken into consideration as additional steel. My understanding is that it is mostly to make the frame stiffer and typically would involve diagonal members or if no possible a more rigid and heavier core.

    But I do believe in the WTC collapses they all were involving not column failure exclusively, but floor systems failures which LED to column buckling. The composite floors acted as bracing for the columns and if that bracing was removed first the columns load carrying capacity drops and if this extends over enough floors the columns WILL buckle and pop out of axial alignment. This leads to a progression of failures in the core columns until there is not enough to carry the central loads, the unsupported mass drops with no resistance, guts the remaining central area, pulls in the perimeter and the building folds in on itself.

    I think this IS a plausible scenario which matches the observations. The problem then becomes how does one achieve multiple local floor collapses to destroy the bracing of core column(s) in such a manner that one or more columns stripped of their bracing will lead to a progressive failure of all the core columns? This, I think is what happened in 7, but not what happened in 1 & 2.

    The NIST FEA is an attempt to track a progressive failure from a fire related heat expansion and a key girder (bracing) dropping off a single seat. Not only does it not look like the failure we say, but it stretches credulity. The tried the same slight of hand heat expansion in the twins and that too was bogus.

    I think the more plausible cause was an attack on multiple floors at the same column(s) which is hardly likely from office fires. They clearly don’t want to look at something OTHER than office fires because that undermines their hijacked planes caused fires and fires can weaken steel and make building collapse.

    But the fact remains, in my opinion, that all these long span column free tenant spaces in high rises are susceptible to progressive floor collapses if enough of the floors can collapse locally. The twin towers with the rather flimsy trusses was an example of this “poor design” or vulnerable design concept on steroids. And so the strength of the columns had little to do with preventing the collapse.

    And this brings me to the “arguments” to persuade the public. It is true that the technical argument is outside the understanding of not only the general public but even many scientists who are not familiar with structural design. And so the arguments seem to have devolved to cartoon like simplistic presentations which in fact are not really true.. Such as the Gage list of signs of controlled demolition and the logic if it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck and walks like a duck it HAS to BE a duck. Perhaps this is a good point to examine the real evidence, but such arguments are not conclusive.

    It’s like finding a person dead with what looks like a bullet wound. The forensic examiner must not only determine that the bullet wound was fatal, but find the bullet, link it to a specific gun and then somehow determine who fired that shot with that gun.

    We’re really very early on in the forensic case… we have the dead body (collapsed buildings). Now we need to know what caused it to die (collapse). And there are some that say it didn’t even collapse .. it came down too fast for a collapse.

    So in the interest of truth, since an investigation will lead to the perps, we do need to properly understand what happened.

    I for one don’t think the truth movement is doing a good job of this and in some cases appears to not be concerned with it. The gov lied, the gov is complicit. Case closed. So we convict them of perjury… the what?

    • http://www.jeremyrhammond.com Jeremy R. Hammond

      To properly understand what happened, we need to explain free-fall. Your hypothetical does not and cannot explain gravitational acceleration for 2.25 seconds, as I’ve elaborated on in more detail previously.

      • http://the911forum.freeforums.org Jeffrey Orling RA

        It most certainly DOES.

        Once the core was gutted by the top plunging down through the center of the building, the remaining columns buckled removing any axially support in the core side of the floors which yanked at the perimeter columns pulling them off axis and the whole mass dropped until some of the columns in the remaining descending structure crashed into the resistance of material below which was not destroyed and still connected to the foundations.

        • http://www.jeremyrhammond.com Jeremy R. Hammond

          But that’s what I mean. Your scenario requires that columns be buckling, just as NIST’s does. In fact, it rather seems to be the same argument NIST makes. But, like NIST, you’re neglecting free-fall. There was no energy available to buckle columns. Which means some other force must have acted upon them causing their structural integrity to be reduced to 0 near instantaneously for all perimeter columns.

          Your scenario cannot account for that. Only the CD hypothesis accounts for all the evidence. Your scenario also seems not to take into account the presence of thermitic materials and iron-rich microspheres in the dust, among other evidence.

  • http://www.abovetopsecret.com/ LaBTop

    http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread612056/pg1

    Pay especially sharp attention to the two seismic diagrams in my opening post.
    And the fact that seismic signals needed 17 seconds to arrive from New York at the seismic station at Palisades, New York State.

    Then you see a huge energy event, 3 seconds before we even saw any movement at the visible exterior of WTC 7 (like the dent, forming in the eastern penthouse roof), and that event was magnitudes greater than the whole seismic energy event that followed, the visible global total collapse of WTC 7.

    You wanted evidence of human intervention? We call that an explosion.

    • http://the911forum.freeforums.org Jeffrey Orling RA

      I am not sure that explosions produce seismic shocks. They certainly can but not every explosion will produce one.

      I am waiting for information from Lamont Doherty about the threshold sensitivity of their equipment.

  • Brian
  • Brian
  • Brian

    Did he say “pull it” ?

    http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4406049214568362566#

    . . .

    Did he say “pull it” ?

  • Brian

    Did he say he heard explosions inside WTC 7 ?

  • http://www.abovetopsecret.com/ LaBTop

    http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread612056/pg5#pid9595093
    http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread612056/pg5#pid9595267

    I challenge NIST Answers to FAQ – Supplement (December 14, 2007) :
    http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread321170/pg1

    You can find all diagrams and photos and screen shots from videos in my
    LaBTop’s “Seismic evidence 9/11″ folder :
    http://media.abovetopsecret.com/profile_gallery/LaBTop/&action=list_photos&album_id=5899

    http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread612056/pg7#pid9597385
    http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread612056/pg7#pid9600041

    My seismic WTC 7 anomaly posts, long ones mostly, oldest first :
    http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread612056/pg8#pid9602587

    An important seismic post, with a lot of seismograms, and the Cianca photo of the first dent in the WTC 7 penthouse roof, time-stamped by NIST with an atomic clock coupling :
    http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread612056/pg9#pid9606926

    Barry Jennings last video interview, where he explicitly explained that the explosion which blew him and Mr Hess up one stair in WTC 7, happened at a moment when both South and North towers were still standing :
    http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread612056/pg12#pid9959734
    http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread612056/pg12#pid9960799

    There are also a few very interesting technically correct videos included, which give the reader a much better grasp on the whole WTC 7 collapse scenario.

    I can not comment much at the moment, because at the moment I am quite busy at the Pilots for 911Truth forum, to give my opinion on the real flight path of the Pentagon attack plane :

    The Pentagon Attack Arguments List : Fly-over, Or Head-on Impact?, Just two options left : NoC fly-over, or NoC 90° impact :

    http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=21099&st=0

    Any logical person will get interested by my arguments there, I hope.

    Jeffrey Orling RA, you seem such a logical person, just as a few others here, so let’s see if you can come up with some solid argumentation regarding the seismic evidence I have brought to the “court” of everyday global citizens.

    Btw, Dr. KIM from LDEO has already answered, that explosions can and will produce seismic shocks, in the week after 9/11. He referred to quarry explosions near NY which were his main source in the many years before 9/11 to calculate the Raleigh waves speed through the upper crust of NY State before they reached the needle of his seismographs at LDEO. Links are all in those new links above.

    There was already many years another seismic station on Manhattan Island, but that one was closed shortly before 9/11. That one should have given us perfect evidence what really happened at the Towers.

    The official LDEO site has all 5 seismograms of the 9/11 events still on their site, with their sensitivity scale in nm/s, imprinted on them. Some are expressed in 10 nm/s, and some in 100 nm/s.
    The filters they used are also imprinted, in Hz.

    Btw, why do you ask for the sensitivity threshold, when the whole event can be perfectly seen expressed in that LDEO diagram I used, and where I imprinted all my remarks on?

    On a side note, my original thesis was written at a now defunct website, Studyof911Truth. I still have to repost it somewhere, for further reference, since all these links I gave you all here, do link a lot to that original thesis.

    I got a bit tired of losing all those important information tidbits collected in all these years now, at these now disappeared forums, websites and other sources, as if a cleaner firm is walking behind you to erase as much 9/11 evidence as they can.

    • Brian

      I have followed your work, and greatly admire the quality of your contributions – very important stuff. Just wanted to express my thanks, I know you have invested a lot of time in it. I can tell you that the word is getting through to people – the tide is rising, and the dam is going to break.

      • Sean

        Appreciate it, I see there is a broadcast coming up on March 06, I believe this year about the negligence behind the Nist/Bush investigation. I see from your posts that that there are a lot of people in belief that this Bush administration falsified evidence and the entire investigation. this has already been proven so once the word gets out it should spread fast and we will get a proper investigation done and prosecute those responsible for writing the NIST report.

    • http://the911forum.freeforums.org Jeffrey Orling RA

      LaBtop,

      I’ve only briefly skimmed your WTC 7 presentation and it looks excellent. I have been working on WTC 1 and 2 and so I am not up to speed on WTC 7 at all.

      Getting past the lies is the problem… not to mention the cover up.

      I certainly need some help with seismic information and I believe this is crucial data. I believe Graham MacQueen did some work with LD data.

      I would urge you to post your work at the 911 Free Forum

      http://the911forum.freeforums.org

      which already has some interesting advanced work on WTC 7.

      Please feel to email me at jsandero at geeeeeeeee mail dot com

  • Sean

    Jeremy, it took me a while researching the NCSTAR 1-9 vol 2 it wasn’t posted on this thread and this is where I learned about mostly all of this…the girder connection you mentioned was just a drawing of the column and secondary plate work, however I looked at what started the failure event on page 457. From there NIST gives a lot of good information on what the column sizes were, the loads, what the connection looked like etc.

    As I read along NIST starts to evaluate theoretical situations and just keeps adding to theory without real world situations….for example they said since the shear studs failed between the concrete and beam that the beam failed in lateral torsional buckling this is when a beam twists and thus it’s strength in the top and bottom flange cannot meet it’s max yield and is considered weaker and there are reductions for this…now in theory this is true…however what is causing the beam to torsionally twist is the load of the slab of concrete because it has no bond to the beam anymore and acts as a weight so the top flange in theory can twist… however with the load of the slab on the top of the flange the flange cannot rotate, therefore no reduction should be taken.

    Also the studs in the center span of the beam would not have lengthened or sheared because the beam cannot lengthen at the center as much as it does overall, eventually if all studs sheared then what is shearing the last stud because they all work together to shear each other…one or two have to remain and would provide lateral support to the beam anyway
    If NIST did what they should have done they would see that their theory has no leg to stand on. When you do these kind of investigations you build yourself real world models of these floors…heat them up in a controlled setting and test your theory….all the way through as I read I am being fed theory that works to their advantage to be able to fail column 79,..only once did I see them mention that shear studs under real world testing broke at 65Ksi but they did not back up how the studs got to 65ksi other than their theory.

    Shear studs won’t fail regardless because the concrete expands as well and this has never been a problem in other buildings before so I am sure if they did an actual test and built a real world model, we would see how false this claim really is.

    They also are ambiguos to point out what the loads are that they used on the columns, they say they took 25% of the live loads….this is a big number for them…as I have said before live loads are big loads that did not exist and NIST is getting away with using 25% when this should be 0% maybe 1%.., its like there taking whatever they can wherever they can, to get the maximum loading condition possible….when they should be placing real world numbers in place.. there wasn’t any live loads in the building….it was empty, and there was no wind so where do they get off taking 25% of a massive load condition.

    Also in their model they put the load on the very top of the column as they put it; when in fact the loads come into the column at different floor elevations, so this part of there model is incorrect.

    They also say what the safety factors are based against the design condition, they do not verify what the design condition is…is this real world design for the actual case or the original fictitious design or the one they made up taking 25% of live loads

    Shearing the bolts on the connections is way out in left field…this would not happen and I can say that by inspection. The fact NIST does not back anything up through real world testing is criminally negligent on their part for an investigation of this kind of importance.

    Secondly they contradict themselves saying the beams would bow from the weight of the concrete……now listen clearly for a real world fact…they said the beam would sag from the weight of the concrete…..when a beam bends the top flange is being crushed because it has a smaller inner radius…the bottom flange is being stretched because it has a bigger outer diameter….the bottom flange needs no lateral support because it is being stretched or lengthened by the weight of the concrete bending it…..the top flange is being compressed and needs lateral support much like a column because now it can buckle because it’s being compressed…..do you see my point……the top flange has the shear studs and they said they sheared because the beam lengthened due to heat…however the beam cannot lengthen on the top flange if it is being bowed because the top flange is being compressed and if the beam is in a bow shape it is already longer than it would be in a straight line…thus how does the beam kick the girder off of it’s seat and how do the shear studs fail when you have thermal expansion causing a tension load in the top flange but a reverse compression load in the top flange from the weight of the slab…at some point the shear studs would become neutral and no shear stud failure can be possible. Thermal expansion shears studs in one direction and bending shears them in the opposite direction…a balance point has to occur. Again this is my theory now I wish somebody would do the job NIST should have already done and prove that what they said can happen can really happen because I bet my theory is better than theirs.

    They play this game all through the report but everything seems to favour the collapse of column 79….like you said it’s fraudulent from start to finish….and how more true a statement can that be…..because even if there garbage was right…they don’t back it up by real world test’s which go hand and hand with any investigation where things are questionable or theoretical. And they basically did nothing to that extent.

    • http://www.jeremyrhammond.com Jeremy R. Hammond

      Also in their model they put the load on the very top of the column as they put it; when in fact the loads come into the column at different floor elevations, so this part of there model is incorrect.

      In their 16 floor model, they didn’t account for any load redistribution above the 16th floor. 31 floors where loads could possibly have been redistributed through the floor system, just as it was through the Vierendeel action of the exterior frame, that just don’t exist in their model. Yet they include all the MASS from those 31 floors and apply them, like you said, to the TOPS of the columns.

      I’ve also considered that they don’t account for bowing when they propose thermal expansion as the culprit. Or the thermal expansion of the slab.

      Fraud.

  • http://the911forum.freeforums.org Jeffrey Orling RA

    I suggest anyone who has some good research become a member of the 911 Free Forum and post your findings over there.

    http://the911forum.freeforums.org

    This is not a JREF or OCT site or debunker of anything except false claims… regardless of who makes them. These are scientists and engineers attempting to analyze what happened using science and observations. They makes mistakes, acknowledge them and retract them and refine their understanding bit by bit.

    911FF seems to be doing the best work on 911. Please consider joining and bringing your expertise.

    I am very interested in the seismic data.

    • http://www.jeremyrhammond.com Jeremy R. Hammond

      Thanks for the invite.

    • Sean

      I’ll put some of my comments up and see what others think, maybe it’s been thought of already, I am a member now.

      Regards,

      • http://the911forum.freeforums.org Jeffrey Orling RA

        Sean,

        Welcome aboard. I am sure others who are more knowledgeable than I will comment. I will be interested to see the discussion.

        best
        Jeffrey

  • aussie

    LaBTop – I notice you focus on Pilots for 911 truth (unfortunately one of the weaker groups in the research community) and seem to spend time checking ‘flight paths at the Pentagon”.

    I’m of the school that discussing/speculating about the Pentagon is a classic example of people ‘talking themselves to death’ over something they can never definitively prove.

    The Pentagon holds all the cards as to what hit it.

    Anything you or I come up with is guesswork – and would be easily ridiculed by the Pentagon if it released one of the many CCTV videos in its possession showing you exactly did go on that day.

    Many wise people have recently announced they no longer waste their energy second-guessing the powerful and secretive Pentagon – Richard Gage, Frank Legge, John Bursill, Peter Dale Scott (I believe) have all recently spelled out their conclusions that Pentagon research is a waste of valuable time – a diversion, a dead end, a river running into the sand., a distraction, an area rife with mis- and disinformation.

  • aussie

    To add to my note above: Pentagon flight paths has absorbed much energy of well-intentioned people.

    The point is, the Pentagon holds all the cards, all the info, all the forensics.

    911 discussion actually doesn’t need to expend itself on the Pentagon – there’s enough stuff for productive discussion, with far more information available. NORAD ‘stand down’; the early, ever-changing, self contradictory military statements,; the capacity of 19 rookie pilots to carry out a highly specialised, military, under-the-radar Top Gun operation – dominating US skies for 90 unchallenged minutes; etc, etc.

    What’s the stress to ‘prove’ what went on at the Pentagon? We’ll never know – they are a non-transparent , locked-down organisation by definition.

  • aussie

    Jeffrey Orling RA. Nice try. But you have been argued into a corner here.

  • xat

    I just wish they’d hurry up and get this new world order thing underway already. Every second the dumb, ignorant, religious masses are in any kind of influencial position is another WASTED ON STUPIDITY.

    GO, dark orders in secret. Rid these yelping monkey-dogs of the power they simply don’t deserve, even over themselves. Bow before your new masters, you dim-witted peasants, and know you’d never do anywhere near as well as them as a part of the deciding force.

  • http://URLUnavailable(NotPublished) Lance Clutter

    hi there and thanks for your information – I’ve definitely found something new through your blog. I however noticed some on-site difficulties using this blog. I had been curious about whether your web hosting service is ok? Not that I’m complaining, but slow loading instances times could likely affect your placement in google and may damage your excellent articles on this site. Well I’m putting this Rss feed to my personal feed reader and will look forward to more of your fascinating posts..

  • Truther Smasher

    Attention “Truthers”:
    I cant believe Im responding to this.
    Check out http://ronmossad.blogspot.com/2009/04/final-word-on-niels-harrit-nanothermite.html

    • http://www.jeremyrhammond.com Jeremy R. Hammond

      Wow, so-called “Truther Smasher”. That really ended the debate. (Sarcasm intended).

  • aussie

    Ron Mossad is weak. I looked at the site once a while back and can’t be bothered to look at it again.

    As regards to your title, what is the opposite of a Truther I wonder?

    A Truster? As in blindly trusting all official narratives and propaganda?
    Or someone who is Anti-Truth? Why would anyone want to block or disrupt an honest, open search for truth? What are Anti-Truthers afraid of?

  • Mary

    In Rochester, MN, according to two known and reliable sources, a long-term apartment complex primarily occupied by individuals from the UAE/Saudi Kingdom (here for medical treatment) nearly emptied out. Notices of vacancy were shoved under Management’s door. Personal belongings were left. Payment of the last month rent was left… Eye witnesses say black SUV’s and “official looking cars” showed up in the wee hours of the morning to take people to the airport. Our Governor, Jesse Ventura, claims he was told not to fly on 9/11. One of the terrorists who allegedly died in one of the WTC attacks was drinking in a bar and was talking about something he was going to do, a message he was going to send….days before the attacks. “We” knew. They knew. The WTC and Building 7 were apparently loaded with documents that resulted from an investigation going back three years. Indictments were about to be handed down on an international group of money brokers caught “in the act”. And then it all went up in flames and smoke. 9/11 gave the government an excuse for secrecy when it should have caused them to become more transparent. Last I heard, nearly 70% of Americans do not believe the official story so clearly the message of the so-called Truthers is getting out and getting through. If the official story is accurate and true, the NIST should have no objection to allowing other scientists access to the information they had in order to put the issue to rest.

  • The Uprising

    I realize this is a thread about science re. 9-11.

    When you use scientific evidence alone you are at the mercy of the experts in those sciences as has been stated in the comments here regarding the Pentagon. This means the majority opinion. They write the textbooks and constitute judge and jury in these regards.

    After 8 years of independent research I too believe science can show that the story of what happened on 9-11 cannot be as has been described, and in fact the towers fell via the highest-tech controlled demolition procedures, and that it was prepared for destruction in the weeks prior to the collapse.

    However, I cannot understand why more attention has not been given to the other connections, which appear to show more clearly a sinister plan carried out to near perfect execution and that relied as much on deception and pre-meditated criminal activities as expected conformity to scientific laws. There are ethical problems that prove the case for a 9-11 conspiracy more clearly.

    Here are many non-scientific aspects to 9-11, but not all, for the sake of brevity here. If any of my facts which are used as basis are wrong let me know. But from what I understand the following are all true:

    1) The WTC was leased in a very shady, almost insider-type deal with the man nobody seems to want to mention anymore, Larry SIlverstein. He has connections with Israel’s government, the builders of the new Towers (Tishman Construction and Bloomberg group…etc.), the Port Authority.

    2) Post 9-11 “reparations pay” for victims’ survivors was really “hush money” paid out to reduce the frequency of questioning about the “official” version of 9-11. I am told they had to sign a waiver that they would not challenge these determinations. Some 95% of these “surviving spouses” took the hush money.

    3) The money trail and the relationship of these white-collar racketeers shows a definite collaboration. Research the connections of Port Authority major players-Bloomberg-Schumer-Giuliani-Tishman-Controlled Demolition-the cleanup crew-the security that day-the chain of command at NORAD-the DESIGNER of the new towers-NIST major players-Silverstein’s insurance- and then some. You will get dizzy in the muddle. You should know Tishman construction contributes to BOTH party candidates the maximum allowable campaign contributions, too. What this will do for your idea of bipatisanship is staggering.

    4) The investigation by NIST is a study in incompetence less because of scientific explanation for the collapses (it really gives none) but more because of, again, the players involved.

    Our nation is run by the organized crime protected unfairly due to preferential treatment given to those who claim to be Jewish. They are immune.

  • aubreyfarmer

    Everyone wants the truth to come out, but that might be the straw that breaks the camels back. As long as the government is able to cover their lies, a second, even larger “false flag” is not necessary. When you see the majority of the public clamoring for a new investigation, watch out. No way would I be anywhere close to a heavily populated area when and if that time ever arrives.

  • Pingback: Amazing chutzpah - New 9-11 museum never mentions WTC-7!!! - Page 6 - US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum