Your Blog

Prove Me Wrong (9/11 WTC Collapse FAQ)

Posted by kozmicstu on Friday, 02 February 2007 16:13:32

I'm posting this here because I'm tired of repeating myself in multiple threads and saying exactly the same thing over and over again. I will attempt to be concise, illustrative and exact in what I say, and put everything into laymans terms for you. As the title suggests, the aim of the thread is for somebody to prove me wrong, if I am. Please, resposes ONLY to the points made in THIS posting - attempts to deviate, change subject or confuse the issues at hand will not be dignified with responses. This thread is about buildings WTC1 and WTC2. WTC7 is entirely different and needs to be tackled seperately. Please do not respond to the thread with questions/info about WTC7, OR the Pentagon attack.

I have, in fact, said this four times now on seperate threads, and nobody seems to grasp what I am saying, so I'm going to put this forward step by step with as little room for confusion as possible. I'd appreciate it if you could do me the honour of genuinely and carefully reading what I say, and then you may commence proving me wrong. I promise you, I come not from a point of ignorance, but from having heard all of the questions and accusations and given them due thought. Please don't just throw insults at me.

How did the Twin Towers fall down in 11 and 9 seconds?!

Several people keep asking exactly the same questions, and I can easily assume they've all at least been told that the fastest you can fall from 417m is 9 seconds, and are amazed because the NIST says that the towers collapsed in apporximately 9 seconds. Considering that there was a large amount of material in the way of their descent, providing resistance, this doesn't seem to make sense.

1. The NIST says that a complete collapse took place in 11 seconds

No, they don't. NIST never said that. Nowehere is it stated that the entire building collapsed in 11 seconds. This point is the one that seems to be catching most people out. The NIST does not say that the buildings collapsed in 11 or 9 seconds. There is no video showing the collapse of the buildings in 11 seconds. There is simply no way to tell how long it took for the top section of the building to reach the ground, nor how long it took for a 'total collapse' to take place. This is because of the amount of smoke and dust obscuring the bottom of the building. When the smoke begins to clear in the videos, you can quite clearly see large sections of building that have not yet collapsed.

2. So where did 11 seconds come from? Are you saying the NIST are wrong?

"NIST estimated the elapsed times for the first exterior panels to strike the ground after the collapse initiated in each of the towers to be approximately 11 seconds for WTC 1 and approximately 9 seconds for WTC 2" Now, read through that sentence again carefully, particularly noting the bit where it says "the elapsed times for the first exterior panels to strike the ground". The exterior panels, as the observant ones may have already noticed, are not part of the central column of the building, and would not necessarily be slowed down by impacts and resistance on the way down. Therefore, you could expect the time it would take for these panels to hit the ground would be quite close to 'free fall' speeds. They were.

EDIT: I have added a video of the collapse in which you can clearly see debris falling fatser than the collapse of the tower. If the collapse is happening at speeds indicative of free fall, the debris could not be falling faster. That WOULD be impossible.

3. So how long did the buildings take to completely collapse?

Even NIST do not speculate. I have not heard a single conspiracy theorist speculate. You quite simply cannot tell, because of the smoke. What the NIST do say is that "significant portions of the cores of both buildings (roughly 60 stories of WTC 1 and 40 stories of WTC 2) are known to have stood 15 to 25 seconds after collapse initiation before they, too, began to collapse." This suggests a total collapse time of 25-35 seconds. I have watched the collapse videos, and I definitely can see large portions of building still standing behind the smoke during the collapses.

It is important to remember that no timings can be guaranteed OR accurate, as there is always going to be considerable margin for error amid the calculations. An error of only 1 or 2 seconds can also make a huge difference.

4. But the steel could not have melted at the temperatures inside the towers

No, they could not. Again, nobody ever said they could have, except for those who are creating straw men for the purposes of their arguments (and possibly some people who didn't know any better, but they can be safely ignored). What is entirely plausible is that the steel may have weakened under the increasing temperature. When you consider the pressure that the steel was under, it is plausible that part of the support structure buckled. There is another important and subtle point to be made here, and I'm going to devote the entirety of question 5 to it.

5. The steel should not have buckled at the temperatures inside the tower

Now, this all comes down to who you want to believe. Nobody knows for certain what the temperatures WERE inside the tower. Nobody is exactly certain how high a temperature is needed to buckle the steel. Nobody knows how much damage had been done to the steel by the aircraft impact. What can be said is that it is PLAUSIBLE that the impact of the aircraft damaged the fireproofing. With the fireproofing damaged, it is again PLAUSIBLE that the steel could have reached temperatures up to and exceeding 1000C. At those temperatures, the steel would be seriously weakened, and could easily have been weakened enough to cause buckling under the not negligable force of the top section of the building. Notice, the most important thing about this section is that it is emphatically not impossible for this to have happened. Those who claim it is impossible are, simply put, wrong. Note, I am not saying that the steel melted, nor am I saying that there were temperatures high enough to melt the steel. I had an analogy using a spoon and a Zippo lighter. You can weaken a steel spoon to the point where it will bend and eventually snap using just a Zippo lighter, whose flame never reaches the melting point of the steel. You are not melting the steel in the spoon, just as the fires did not melt the steel girders in WTC, but you are significantly weakening it to the point where it becomes strucurally unsound.

6. The top section of the building should have broken off and fallen sideways

It would require some considerable force from the side for this to have happened. The only forces acting on the building were wind and gravity. The top section of the builing had a massive amount of inertia, and so the wind would have little effect, not to mention that it was still connected to the bottom section of the building, keeping it centred. Gravity, on the other hand, would be acting directly downwards on the top section of the building with a huge amount of force, pulling it in a straight trajectory through the rest of the building. The building would collapse roughly onto it's own footprint, with the central column leading the outside by a small distance, due to the fact that the center was the first part to start falling. As it falls, it would gain momentum and velocity, as more weight and more gravitational acceleration take effect. Due to the aforementioned massive (and increasing) inertia, each successive floor would cause less deceleration to the falling section than the one before it. Thus, the falling objects velocity would increase exponentially.

7. But WTC7 fell at free fall speeds!

Yes, yes it did. I know I said I wasn't going to talk about WTC7, but I'll just quickly answer this. I hope sincerely it doesn't distract from the main point of this post. the top floors of WTC7 fell at free fall speed, or near enough. This is because there were no resistive forcs to their motion. If you look at the video, you see that all the floors of WTC7 are falling in parallel. Because of this, no one floor is resisting the downward motion of those above it. This is the exact opposite of how the WTC1&2 buildings collpased: with them, the top part of the building fell and would have hit the bottom part as it came down. This is why it is important to remember that those buildings DID NOT fall at 'free fall' speeds. WTC7, however, started falling from near the bottom. You can clearly see this in the videos. Collapsing from the bottom means that there is no upward forces to resist the downward motion, besides the contact force of the ground. As you can again see quite clearly in the video, the ground is pulverising each floor as they hit it, as you would expect. Since there is little or no time when the building is travelling through air, there is no air resistance. As to why it started collapsing from the bottom, I can't adequetly answer as there is not any information to go on. There was a large fire on floor 5, though. Another thing that is important to note is that the collapse of WTC7 was not unexpected - because of creaking sounds and parts of the wall leaning outwards in a dangerous fashion, the building had been evacuate for fear of a collapse

8. Will this post ever end?

I hope to see people replying sensibly - remember, if you deviate from the topics in this post, be prepared to be ignored. I'd like somebody to tell me exactly why the above is entirely 'impossible' as claimed by many of the theorists. I'm not interested in links to other sites or stories of professors or engineers who believe otherwise, or letters people have sent to important figures. I want you to actually explain, in exact, clear, precise detail, why the above is IMPOSSIBLE. Nothing less will do. When you have ruled out all impossibilities, as Sherlock Holmes said, the possible - however unlikely, is undoubtedly true. If it is not impossible, then it is the explanation that makes the most logical sense.

An open challenge, then. Convince me.


This video shows the collapse of the North Tower. Note in particular that there is debris falling to the sides of the building that are falling considerably faster than the rest of the building, thus showing that the top section of the building is not in free fall

This image shows a huge amount the debris from the North Tower collapse hitting WTC7

Here is a picture taken from the South-West of WTC7, showing the damage to the structure and the smoke from large firescoming from a large proportion of the building. It may not have been hit by a plane, but it was definitely severly damaged, and clearly was quite seriously ablaze.

Post edited by kozmicstu on Saturday, 03 February 2007 23:33:49

,

You could comment if you logged in | Read comments


 

Posted by Geddes on Friday, 02 February 2007 16:19:22

Lovely. :P I have been flicking through the other WTC posts, and to be honest, I don't want to read all the mathematical formulae and arguments about 17 metres and 11 seconds and all... hopefully this comes through so we can get it over with! (BTW - has something happened or why is WebCameron so excited about 9/11 blogs while I've been away?)

Posted by Paine on Friday, 02 February 2007 17:35:49

Thanks for taking the time to do this, Stu. I hope it allows webcameron to get back to issues that actually matter to most Britons today.

Posted by davetheslave on Friday, 02 February 2007 18:24:38

Ha ha!

I hope you've got a lot of free time on your hands Kozmic, the tin helmet brigade will swamp you!

Posted by 2012AD on Friday, 02 February 2007 18:27:12

You ask some very pertinent questions kozmicstu , and I applaud you for that. I will, if possible over the next coulple of days (if nobody does a better job before me) post up a response to your questions, however there is a long list there so it should take me a while to compile. These are all questions that i mulled over for a long time, and i am glad that you have taken it upon yourself to go this far.

The one thing i really do not want you to do is listen to that physics911comfan bloke, he has no idea what he is on about and none of his posts make any sense.

Posted by 2012AD on Friday, 02 February 2007 18:42:07

I also think you have shown that even the most ardent of skeptics of the so called 'conspiract theory' have plenty of questions surrounding the events of 9/11. Hence highlighting the need for a full independant invesigation. Also, just another question, why are you not interested in any of the paper trail and non-physical evidence? There is plenty of damning evidence of that sort aswell which screams some form of complicity.

Posted by kozmicstu on Friday, 02 February 2007 19:00:23

thanks guys

2012AD, I am not out to disprove any conspiracy theories. People have invested a lot of time, effort and even money into constructing the fallacies they espouse and they will not be convinced by me (who is, at the end of the day, simply some bloke on the internet) that they are wrong. Add to this that it has already been implied by stav1 that I am on some form of government payroll, and carlos just accused me of being 'a plant'. It is plainly obvious that even if I provided some form of evidence proving the conspiracy theory false (which is technically impossible, by the way, because the accusations are both vague and flexible) the theorists would simply decide that I must be working for 'them' and ignore me anyway. I just don't see any point going into it.

Instead, I am simply disproving, using fact, that it is not impossible for the buildings to have come down because the planes hit them. The most common claim that these conspiracy theorists make is that the collapse is entirely impossible without a controlled demolition. This claim is false, unless somebody can prove otherwise. A further enquiry would almost definitely end up with exactly the same findings and would waste literally millions upon millions of dollars in the process.

Hey, for all I care, the US government could have hijacked the planes and crashed them into the buildings and you could be right about everything else. It could be a huge conspiracy after all. What they did NOT do, though, is plant explosives inside the buildings and THEN crash planes into them. There is no need to speculate that there were explosives inside the buildings, because it is possible that they could have come down without the explosives. That's all that this post concerns.

Stu

P.S. I said 'at the end of the day' just for you, canvas. I hope you noticed.

P.P.S. This is deviation! damnit!

 

Comment edited by kozmicstu on Friday, 02 February 2007 19:19:30

Posted by canvas on Friday, 02 February 2007 19:20:15

but there was NO reason to say 'at the end of the day' ! It's meaningless!!! :) LoL

Posted by angelfish on Friday, 02 February 2007 20:12:24

[due to possibly offensive language this message has been edited]

kozmicstu,

Everything you have written has been either 1) Your own opinion OR 2) from a Government agency that doesn't like to speculate. The same Government that expects us to believe 19 hijackers took control of four planes in the most heavily controlled airspace in the world and be left alone for upto 2 hours (contrary to NORAD and FAA hijack SOPs).

From the beginning:

1. The NIST says that a complete collapse took place in 11 seconds

No, they don't. NIST never said that. Nowehere is it stated that the entire building collapsed in 11 seconds.

2. So where did 11 seconds come from? Are you saying the NIST are wrong?

"NIST estimated the elapsed times for the first exterior panels to strike the ground after the collapse initiated in each of the towers to be approximately 11 seconds for WTC 1 and approximately 9 seconds for WTC 2"

Would it be okay if I use an official report? Look for "ten seconds" in the following link:

http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report_Ch9.htm

3. So how long did the buildings take to completely collapse?

Even NIST do not speculate.

4. But the steel could not have melted at the temperatures inside the towers

No, they could not. Again, nobody ever said they could have.

5. The steel should not have buckled at the temperatures inside the tower

First you say:

With the fireproofing damaged, it is again PLAUSIBLE that the steel could have reached temperatures up to and exceeding 1000C. At those temperatures, the steel would be seriously weakened,

What do you mean by the use of the word "PLAUSIBLE"? That it is possible but, realistically, did not happen? Then you say:

I am not saying that the steel melted, nor am I saying that there were temperatures high enough to melt the steel.

Er, it can only be one or the other. Are you confused?

Will repeat your quotes:

No, they don't. NIST never said that.
Even NIST do not speculate.
Again, nobody ever said they could have

"I want you to actually explain, in exact, clear, precise detail, why the above is IMPOSSIBLE. Nothing less will do."

Well, I have to say your whole post has been driven by speculation yet you expect "clear, precise detail" from people who wish to argue a different case?

Link to flash animation:

http://www.checktheevidence.com/911/BYUStevenJones/Flash/


 

Comment edited by angelfish on Saturday, 03 February 2007 06:43:13

Posted by AndrewFarnden on Friday, 02 February 2007 20:16:32

Thanks for that stu, I feel much better now.

On the point of the steel being weekend I believe this is entirely possible, it is widely suggested that the combined forces of the crash along with the hest of the fire could of caused this.

I've been a firefighter for 14 years and I've seen plenty of steel structures left buckled and damaged by far less intensive fires. The conditions of the fire would of added to the possibility of this. The other week in the height of the storms we had a hollow, dead tree that caught fire on the top of hill after it touched a live wire. There it was in gale force winds and poreing rain burning like a furnace from the top with a 5 ft jet of flame, bazarre!
Had it been led on the ground it would of gone out, but due to access for air intake at the base, along with the hollow inside and exit hole at the top and the wind it turned it litterally into a furnace.

There are of course many similarities to the towers especially with the large opening at the base of the fire that would feed it with oxygen. Its rare that a contained structure has such a good suppy of oxygen to feed the fire and I'm sure this was crucial to what happened next.

The bottleneck caused by the large opening at the base not matched by larger opening further up would of caused a fast flow of air and rapid heat build up. Only a release of the buildings rising temperature would of stabilised the environment.

Posted by carlos on Friday, 02 February 2007 20:18:07

I not heard anyone anywhere say it is IMPOSSIBLE that is wasn't Controlled Demo.
THIS IS A MAJOR STRAW MAN ARGUMENT PROPOSED HERE...

So when one theory CANNOT explain something, then you must look at other possibles: it is literally impossible that all supports throughout the entire floor of WTC's could have given at the exact same time to create the gravity educed collapse you espouse.

Proof: NIST did fire tests on the supports, WITHOUT any fire insulation: "All four test specimens sustained the maximum design load for approximately 2 hours without collapsing" NIST, p.143 This evidence was never used in the 911 commission report.

So that puts fire damage alone theory OUT OF THE WINDOW!!

Now for the other physical evidence...
I have not seen in any of your posts Koz, that you have tried to answer the pools of molten steel, pulled out a month later - there is nothing again in the official story that could explain this, so we must look at other possibilities - thermite charges CAN provide this explanation: but that like you say - this doesn't mean that it is MUST have been thermite, although it can explain something that the official story cannot in any way (infarct they don't even mention it)

On numerous videos "squibs" - a controlled demolition term for a explosive charge, can be seen - they look like a puff of smoke/material from the buildings. Especially noticeable at the very strong sections of the WTC's.

Or the steel girders that were thrown across to neighboring building, literally impaled within other buildings - gravity could never have thrown such weight, sideways with enough force.

Photos at ground zero show the base of some core columns can be seen to be cut at 45 degrees, completely clean cut, not a tear, or sign of weakening due to fire. This is exactly what you get from thermite shape charges (watch 911 mysteries on google video: they show controlled demo video f the rigging of a building - clearly shows how they set up shape charges at 45 degree angles so as to slice the columns, and they slip off and straight down.

So again something that CANNOT BE EXPLAINED DUE TO FIRE DAMAGE, but CAN BE EXPLAINED DUE TO CONTROLLED DEMO.

all of the above examples pull together to show that fire alone + gravity cannot explain what we saw on 911, but controlled Demo can.

i.e in other words IT IS IMPOSSIBLE THAT FIRE AND GRAVITY ALONE COULD HAVE BEEN RESPONSIBLE

- this doesn't mean it is impossible it could have been something else though... but like i said nobody has ever said that - a NEW INDEPENDENT ENQUIERY is what EVERYONE in the 911 truth movement wants!!!!!!

Posted by canvas on Friday, 02 February 2007 20:30:51

Why don't you all ask RIBA for their view on this subject?

Posted by AndrewFarnden on Friday, 02 February 2007 20:40:57

With regards to the 45 degree cut shown on the girder, if you check out sites on welding steel girders it is not uncommon to join girders with a weld at 45 degrees as it massively increases the surface area of the weld and therefore the strength. This is clearly a weld of that description that has failed.

Posted by physics911comfan on Friday, 02 February 2007 21:10:38

if you look at the film of its construction there are no diagonal welds on the steel beams

Posted by scrubsupwell on Friday, 02 February 2007 21:25:32

We all know you are not a 'plant' Kozmicstu lol ;-)

Andrew, as a fireman for 14 yrs perhaps I can bring to your attention the following:

A 9/11 toxic dust whistleblower, a ground zero hero and one of the individuals influential in the release of documents proving a government cover-up that deliberately put police, firemen and rescue personel at risk, has been raided by a New York SWAT team - who ransacked his home for three hours after he was arrested.

Mike McCormack an ex station officer and civil air patrol pilot who worked the ground zero site for eight days after the collapse of the twin towers. He is one of the real heroes of 9/11 and was the man who found the American flag that was later displayed as a token of unity atop the rubble.

Within hours McCormack was coughing up black mucus and within days he was coughing up blood as the toxic dust that was deliberately covered up by the EPA poisoned his lungs along many colleagues, policemen and rescuers who were being used in photo ops by Bush and his cronies while their very livelihoods were being endangered by a government cover-up.

McCormack now suffers from an extreme respiratory sensitivity and has a 5-millimeter metal nodule in one lung. But at least he is still alive ; a number of his friends are dead from asbestos/lung damage.

Posted by canvas on Friday, 02 February 2007 21:27:05

Andrew - I thought you worked in retail?