Mystery of WTC 7 - Conspiracy

[Babylon]

One Meridian Plaza, Mandarin Oriental Hotel, Parque Central, First Interstate Bank, The Empire State Building among others were perfectly comparable to those sizes.

Fair enough, do you know what the structural differences were between all the buildings? Whether sprinker systems were working, whether fire crews were fighting the fires, whether these buildings had multiple fires start over several floors at once (like WT7), or did they start in only one place as per the the norm with fires.

Plenty of information here that attempts to answer many of the questions.

http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/factsheet/wtc_qa_082108.cfm

[Houdini Logic]

'This report describes how the fires that followed the impact of debris from the collapse of WTC 1 (the north tower) led to the collapse of WTC 7'

The first line of the report from NIST.

You can't just make stuff up ffs

[Babylon]

watch this building , it didn't collapse and neither have any others suffering massive infernos

Mandarin Oriental Hotel beijing

A building designed in the 60's, compared to a relatively new one, with different designs, materials, technology, fireproofing etc. Are they really Comparable? It's probably similar to asking why a building built in 2010 stands up better to earthquakes compared to one from 1960.

Unless you had two identical buildings to compare with each other, all the "this one didn't, that one did" is absolutely pointless. It means very little.

[Houdini Logic]

A building designed in the 60's, compared to a relatively new one, with different designs, materials, technology, fireproofing etc. Are they really Comparable? It's probably similar to asking why a building built in 2010 stands up better to earthquakes compared to one from 1960.

Unless you had two identical buildings to compare with each other, all the "this one didn't, that one did" is absolutely pointless. It means very little.

Especially when these examples are quite badly on fire. I'm still reading through the NIST report and it says that a lot of the upper floor sustained little thermal damage, which worsened the situation because floors 8 - 14 were badly on fire and incredibly hot - meaning they were trying to support the weight of an in tact building.

Also an interesting point saying the amout of explosives required to take down this building would be 10 times louder than standing in front of speakers at a rock concert. Strange noone heard that?

[coale39]

Especially when these examples are quite badly on fire. I'm still reading through the NIST report and it says that a lot of the upper floor sustained little thermal damage, which worsened the situation because floors 8 - 14 were badly on fire and incredibly hot - meaning they were trying to support the weight of an in tact building.

Also an interesting point saying the amout of explosives required to take down this building would be 10 times louder than standing in front of speakers at a rock concert. Strange noone heard that?

I can sell you quiet explosive, tis very good, it folds into itself like a black hole and can fit into one suitcase. I got it from Roswell.

[Houdini Logic]

I can sell you quiet explosive, tis very good, it folds into itself like a black hole and can fit into one suitcase. I got it from Roswell.

Do they come with a suitcase?

[coale39]

Do they come with a suitcase?

Yes, it comes free with a magic undetectable suitcase and a Acme Incredible Supproting Wall Hideaway.

[Houdini Logic]

Yes, it comes free with a magic undetectable suitcase and a Acme Incredible Supproting Wall Hideaway.

Any idea how many would be needed for this building?

*obviously out of pure curiousity*

[fleckneymike]

I don't know why anyone should take your patronising drivel seriously. You're just being a jerk about it. Your arguments are based on nothing else than your intuition, which makes you no better than the wild conspiracy theorists. I'm sure you STILL haven't even had a look at the NIST reports. I wish Babs, l444ry or marko would take time off the El Empty and Zingari bashing and tell you where to go...

Edit: And apologies for the strong reaction, you're just starting to get on my nerves

It's hard not to be patronising when the posters I'm responding to use the defence of not understanding the science involved so they don't know which side to choose. There has not been one shred of evidence to support a single assertion made by truthers, not one yet we're supposed to respect their opinions. We get theories where even when the science disproves it (Thermite) that keep on cropping up. Large Al is kind enough to offer the scientific equations for everyone to check and double check yet that is ignored.

[shen]

Fair enough, do you know what the structural differences were between all the buildings? Whether sprinker systems were working, whether fire crews were fighting the fires, whether these buildings had multiple fires start over several floors at once (like WT7), or did they start in only one place as per the the norm with fires.

Plenty of information here that attempts to answer many of the questions.

http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/factsheet/wtc_qa_082108.cfm

Yeah, I've used that link a lot in this thread already, but it's only good that it gets linked again. It attempts to answer the questions you are raising too. Basically it boils down to the structure of the building according to NIST. Even so, they acknowledge it was an extraordinary sequence of events, not only because one single column initiated a global collapse, but also because it was caused by simple thermal expansion (not even due to loss of strength or bending of steel). I assume that the reason that particular column buckled while no other did is because of the longer-span floors in that corner, but still, I find it absolutely baffling.

Also one (genuine) question about the fires, where does it say that the multiple fires started at the same time? I only found that they started separately with single points of origin on multiple floors.

'This report describes how the fires that followed the impact of debris from the collapse of WTC 1 (the north tower) led to the collapse of WTC 7'

The first line of the report from NIST.

You can't just make stuff up ffs

You're just confirming what I said ('[The debris] apparently started the fires in the building albeit at the opposite end of the impact. The fires alone allegedly made the building collapse.')

My point was that 'b]damage by falling debris had no significant effect on the collapse of WTC 7[/b]'. You can find the relevant paragraphs on page xxxvii and 47-48. I'm not making anything up here.

If you're not bothered, I'll paste this bit from the link in Babs' post:

"Would WTC 7 have collapsed even if there had been no structural damage induced by the collapse of the WTC towers?

Yes. Even without the structural damage, WTC 7 would have collapsed from the fires that the debris initiated. The growth and spread of the lower-floor fires due to the loss of water supply to the sprinklers from the city mains was enough to initiate the collapse of the entire building due to buckling of a critical column in the northeast region of the building."

Especially when these examples are quite badly on fire. I'm still reading through the NIST report and it says that a lot of the upper floor sustained little thermal damage, which worsened the situation because floors 8 - 14 were badly on fire and incredibly hot - meaning they were trying to support the weight of an in tact building.

Also an interesting point saying the amout of explosives required to take down this building would be 10 times louder than standing in front of speakers at a rock concert. Strange noone heard that?

Care to give a page number? All I remember about temperatures is that they were below those required to considerably weaken the steel structure, even in the East penthouse.

[Legend_in_blue]

I might just point out that in this case, F=ma might not be of any use. The planes would most likely be moving at constant velocity at the point of impact, giving an acceleration of 0 ms² which would immediately give F=0 no matter the mass, however the velocity at which the plane was travelling, combined with the mass would still produce a big force.

The principle to consider is Newton's third law of motion, "when one object applies a force on a second object, the second object applies a force on the first that has an equal magnitude but opposite direction", The overall net force will be 0 but the net force on each object will not, the plane will apply force on the building and vice versa.

The fact that the plane burst into the building may suggest that the opposing forces are not equal but at the exact point of impact they are as the building temporarily stops the plane, much like how a fly hitting a train head on will momentarily (and we're talking nanoseconds) stop the train.

Basic physics can be used to calculate the force though. If I take the speeds in the video babylon posted (approx 850 f/s) and apply the momentum equations P=mv & P= Fnet * Delta t (time)

then rearrange we get mv = Fnet * time or Fnet = mv / time.

mv is mass * velocity. If we assume that the 757 was at half max capacity (and it was probably more) then we're looking at 90 metric tons (based on the figures in the link in breadandcheese's post below), which is equal to 90,000 kilograms. 850 feet is 259 metres hence mv = 90,000 * 259 = 23,310,000

Now if we also assume that the time period of the collision was 0.4 seconds then the Net Force = 23,310,000 / 0.4 which would equal 58,275,000KJ

I'll do some further calculations later with regard to the tolerance of concrete but I'm sure that we can all agree that over 58 million KJ of force applied (before we even factor in the effect of the jet fuel) will do sufficient damage to even the re-enforced walls of the pentagon.

edit: Re-calculated using different weights as I suspect the weight conversion I used originally may have been a tad wrong.

I think this is a really good post. The science behind your reasoning is good but a lot of the discussion on this thread has not touched the scenario(s) which led to each event occurring. For all of your Physics to occur, the plane would have been travelling at roughly 400 mph, 20 feet above the ground (in the case of the Pentagon) having been hijacked at an altitude of roughly 30,000 feet where initially there would have been little in the way of assistance to a Cessna trained pilot to make sense of what to do next and what course correction to make - all whilst travelling at over 400mph.

It's difficult to get your head round. 400mph, target hit 20 feet above the ground having descended through roughly 30000 feet, with initially little clue on how effect a course change with only limited Cessna aircraft training. Much of which was criticised by the aircraft instructors themselves.

Amateurs? Professionals? Or just lucky?

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/february2006/210206impossibility.htm

Continue to debate what hit the Pentagon and then question yourself 'who really has the skill to pull something like that off?'

[shen]

It's hard not to be patronising when the posters I'm responding to use the defence of not understanding the science involved so they don't know which side to choose. There has not been one shred of evidence to support a single assertion made by truthers, not one yet we're supposed to respect their opinions. We get theories where even when the science disproves it (Thermite) that keep on cropping up. Large Al is kind enough to offer the scientific equations for everyone to check and double check yet that is ignored.

It's all fair to point out scientific fact. Obviously the science is going to be limited to recreating virtual scenarios based on the available facts and qualified guesses. I think it's great that people are contributing with actual calculations that show the impact a plane would have, instead of all this 'I believe/don't believe a plane could do this' talk back and forth.

Now, if we're talking about science and the WTC 7, I think that Zingari is completely within his right to criticise the sale/disposal of the steel debris from the buildings. Especially in the case of WTC 7, the lack of physical is lamented by NIST themselves, and with the visual collapse evidence being the same video as we've seen numerous times in this thread, I think it's not unreasonable to question the reliability of the results and the scenarios they've presented.

My objection was that you dismissed Ground Zero as a crime scene, saying the crime had already been 'solved' when that's clearly a very silly thing to say. I don't endear to your trifling of the execution and planning of the attacks either

[fleckneymike]

It's all fair to point out scientific fact. Obviously the science is going to be limited to recreating virtual scenarios based on the available facts and qualified guesses. I think it's great that people are contributing with actual calculations that show the impact a plane would have, instead of all this 'I believe/don't believe a plane could do this' talk back and forth.

Now, if we're talking about science and the WTC 7, I think that Zingari is completely within his right to criticise the sale/disposal of the steel debris from the buildings. Especially in the case of WTC 7, the lack of physical is lamented by NIST themselves, and with the visual collapse evidence being the same video as we've seen numerous times in this thread, I think it's not unreasonable to question the reliability of the results and the scenarios they've presented.

My objection was that you dismissed Ground Zero as a crime scene, saying the crime had already been 'solved' when that's clearly a very silly thing to say. I don't endear to your trifling of the execution and planning of the attacks either

My dismissal of it as a crime scene is because it really was never a crime scene and can never be considered so. In terms of semantics it clearly is and always will be a crime scene because a crime occurred there but 911 isn't about semantics, semantics didn't collapse those buildings. The WTC towers fell as a direct result of the impact of the planes. Whether not treating the site as a crime scene was the right thing to do procedurally or ethically is of course open to debate, what hit those Towers really isn't.

The conspiracy begins and ends there and were left with the terrifying thought that our Governments can't protect us and that nothing more than a stanley knife and a fanatical desire can reap untold pain and suffering.

[Rincewind]

Inspector Dumber: Well Seargent Dumb how did the victim die?

Seaargent Dumb: Well sir, going by the six stab wounds in his chest and a knife sticking out of his back I would say that he was stabbed to death.

Inspector Dumber: Wrong seargen he was shot.

Seargent Dumb: Shot but what about the....

Inspector Dumber: Planted. The woman next door heard a gun being fired so it was murder by a gun of some sort.

Seargent Dumb: But sir her husband said it was his car backfireing.

Inspector Dumber: Lies he must be in on the cover up so do not remove anything from the scene until it is proven that it was a gun.

Sorry I couln't resist. I'm a bit of a story teller

[shen]

My dismissal of it as a crime scene is because it really was never a crime scene and can never be considered so. In terms of semantics it clearly is and always will be a crime scene because a crime occurred there but 911 isn't about semantics, semantics didn't collapse those buildings. The WTC towers fell as a direct result of the impact of the planes. Whether not treating the site as a crime scene was the right thing to do procedurally or ethically is of course open to debate, what hit those Towers really isn't.

The conspiracy begins and ends there and were left with the terrifying thought that our Governments can't protect us and that nothing more than a stanley knife and a fanatical desire can reap untold pain and suffering.

So am I wrong to think that a crime scene is "Strictly speaking, a [...] location wherein evidence of a crime may be found." (wiki); and that investigation of such a scene includes "The use of physical evidence at the scene of the crime and the use of deductive and inductive reasoning to gain knowledge of the events surrounding the crime" ? Physical evidence that could give information about the supposed perpetrators and the reason for the collapse (which, against common belief, was not mainly down to the impact of the planes. If it was, they would've collapsed instantly or shortly after impact). But enough pointless arguing here...

I trust the conclusions about the fire-induced collapse of the Twin Towers were made on a sound basis. However, reading the second paragraph of page xxxvii in the NIST report of the WTC 1 & 2 collapses, I don't blame people for questioning the results and the disposal of the physical evidence that would've made the results a lot more robust and reliable.

[fleckneymike]

So am I wrong to think that a crime scene is "Strictly speaking, a [...] location wherein evidence of a crime may be found." (wiki); and that investigation of such a scene includes "The use of physical evidence at the scene of the crime and the use of deductive and inductive reasoning to gain knowledge of the events surrounding the crime" ? Physical evidence that could give information about the supposed perpetrators and the reason for the collapse (which, against common belief, was not mainly down to the impact of the planes. If it was, they would've collapsed instantly or shortly after impact). But enough pointless arguing here...

I trust the conclusions about the fire-induced collapse of the Twin Towers were made on a sound basis. However, reading the second paragraph of page xxxvii in the NIST report of the WTC 1 & 2 collapses, I don't blame people for questioning the results and the disposal of the physical evidence that would've made the results a lot more robust and reliable.

The second paragraph is merely as disclaimer stating that NIST did not know how the office on that floor was arranged, what damage was done internally to that floor etc. Basically all common sense uncertainties (not to be confused with Rumsfeld esq know unknowns and unknown unknowns) which they are obliged to admit. The only steel they would have been interested in would have been the floors hit by the airliners, finding those in the wreckage of the towers would not have been incredibly time consuming and most likely futile.

[The Doctor]

I think this is a really good post. The science behind your reasoning is good but a lot of the discussion on this thread has not touched the scenario(s) which led to each event occurring. For all of your Physics to occur, the plane would have been travelling at roughly 400 mph, 20 feet above the ground (in the case of the Pentagon) having been hijacked at an altitude of roughly 30,000 feet where initially there would have been little in the way of assistance to a Cessna trained pilot to make sense of what to do next and what course correction to make - all whilst travelling at over 400mph.

It's difficult to get your head round. 400mph, target hit 20 feet above the ground having descended through roughly 30000 feet, with initially little clue on how effect a course change with only limited Cessna aircraft training. Much of which was criticised by the aircraft instructors themselves.

Amateurs? Professionals? Or just lucky?

http://www.prisonpla...possibility.htm

Continue to debate what hit the Pentagon and then question yourself 'who really has the skill to pull something like that off?'

It is difficult to believe that someone could remain in control at those speeds that close to the ground but if we consider the physics, theoretically they don't need to be travelling that fast.

Using the other equation I posted, F=mv² /2, which will be more accurate as it considers velocity rather than the momentum or acceleration of the plane, we can rearrange to find v, which would be the root of 2F/m.

The empty mass of a Boeing 757 is 57,840kg according to this site, and the force needed to break through the pentagon walls would be about 15-20 thousand joules, once the steel re-inforcements are considered.

therefore v = root (( 2*20,000)/57,840) = root (40,000/57840) = root (500/723) = 0.8316... m/s, which would be 2993.769... metres per hour, or 1.86... miles per hour.

So in theory a 757 travelling at about walking pace would break through the pentagon walls. Obviously the frames from security cameras would suggest it was travelling quite fast, but without knowing the frame rate of the cameras and the width of their field of view it's not possible to calculate the minimum speed to be no more than a blur on the camera.

Back to the original point, regardless of whether it was a terrorist attack or a government plot, heavy preparation would have taken place, tracking flight paths, calculating their position relative to targets at certain times and the course change needed to hit the intended target, so the course correction that occurred can easily be accounted for.

As for the descent, it's quite complex as they have to travel at quite a decline while not slowing down by much as if they were to glide towards military headquarters, planes would be scrambled to intercept the flight, assuming that there is no conspiracy. There are two possibilities here though - security is tightened as a result of the towers, or the attacks on the towers serve as a distraction and the armed forces fail to pick up on the change of course.

Assuming a terrorist attack, the second one I would think is most likely, as the first option would probably prevent much of an attack on the pentagon. The world trade centre attacks have relatively obvious motives, as their destruction would cause damage to the financial market and weaken America's position, but could also just be a distraction as the terrorists look to take down the American military, allowing for possibly easier access into pentagon airspace.

Finally the control, if the plane is out of control it's collision will still cause severe damage, all the pilot has to do is keep the plane on target to hit the pentagon and not skew off to the side. Basic flying skills would account for that, which the terrorists would have had anyway to enable them to high-jack the plane.

[shen]

The second paragraph is merely as disclaimer stating that NIST did not know how the office on that floor was arranged, what damage was done internally to that floor etc. Basically all common sense uncertainties (not to be confused with Rumsfeld esq know unknowns and unknown unknowns) which they are obliged to admit. The only steel they would have been interested in would have been the floors hit by the airliners, finding those in the wreckage of the towers would not have been incredibly time consuming and most likely futile.

Don't kid yourself, they're not all 'common sense uncertainties'. When they say the simulations were subject to uncertainties ... "especially the thermal insulation for fire protection of the structural steel, which is colloquially referred to asfireproofing", that's no little thing. Especially when it's a major reason for the collapse according to their calculations.

As for finding the relevant parts of the debris (it's like we're talking a few cubic metres... the affected floors amounted to the dozen or more), yes, it would've been time consuming. But had the debris just been moved to a secure palce out of harms way to be forensically investigated, who's to say what vital information would've been found. With that information, they could've ended up SAVING time instead during the simulation which they used months and months on.

[The People's Hero]

The Pentagon stuff intrigues me more. I says 'intrigues' - I more accurately mean 'intrigued'.

It's dead and gone for me, now.

[Magictv]

the force needed to break through the pentagon walls would be about 15-20 thousand joules, once the steel re-inforcements are considered.

Sorry to pick up just one individual point but you would need a lot more than that to break through the pentagon walls I think!

18000 joules are used by a 60 watt lightbulb in 300 seconds, aka 5 mins!

[The People's Hero]

Sorry to pick up just one individual point but you would need a lot more than that to break through the pentagon walls I think!

18000 joules are used by a 60 watt lightbulb in 300 seconds, aka 5 mins!

So they did it with a giant lightbulb?

Well, this has been very illuminating.

[fleckneymike]

Don't kid yourself, they're not all 'common sense uncertainties'. When they say the simulations were subject to uncertainties ... "especially the thermal insulation for fire protection of the structural steel, which is colloquially referred to asfireproofing", that's no little thing. Especially when it's a major reason for the collapse according to their calculations.

As for finding the relevant parts of the debris (it's like we're talking a few cubic metres... the affected floors amounted to the dozen or more), yes, it would've been time consuming. But had the debris just been moved to a secure palce out of harms way to be forensically investigated, who's to say what vital information would've been found. With that information, they could've ended up SAVING time instead during the simulation which they used months and months on.

That part refers to them not knowing what happened to the fire proofing when the planes hit, this is why they included the following footnote on page 20

The reader should bear in mind that the described damage to the building exterior was derived from eyewitness and photographic evidence. The described damage to the aircraft and the building interior was deemed most likely from the computer simulations and analysis carried out under the Investigation

[Legend_in_blue]

http://www.pentagonstrike.co.uk/flash.htm#Main

Everyone take a look at this and claim what we have been told is true.

The truth is no-one can. No-one can say definitively what happened. Until all the information is shared with the world to add substance to the story we have been told, there will continue to be people out there who refute such evidence no matter how convoluted their own story might be.

[fleckneymike]

http://www.pentagons.../flash.htm#Main

Everyone take a look at this and claim what we have been told is true.

The truth is no-one can. No-one can say definitively what happened. Until all the information is shared with the world to add substance to the story we have been told, there will continue to be people out there who refute such evidence no matter how convoluted their own story might be.

Oh dear. Please take some time to look beyond that video into the physical evidence retrieved from the site.

[The Doctor]

Sorry to pick up just one individual point but you would need a lot more than that to break through the pentagon walls I think!

18000 joules are used by a 60 watt lightbulb in 300 seconds, aka 5 mins!

Bone can resist forces of 25000N and bone is 40 times more resilient than concrete: Link

Feld says bone can withstand 40 times as much force as concrete, and a cylinder of bone less than an inch in diameter can withstand a force of 25,000 newtons.

The pentagon wall is 8 inches of brick, encased either side by a lattice of 1 inch concrete, with up to 6 inches of limestone. If 1 inch thick bone can withstand a force of 25,000 newtons, then 1 inch thick concrete can withstand 625 newtons. Assuming that brick is as resilient as concrete (it isn't as anyone who has done DIY with both will testify) and likewise limestone (also weaker than concrete), the a 16 inch thick block of concrete will resist a force of 625 * 16= 10,000N.

However if we take into consideration the weaker structures of limestone and brick, plus the lattice structure rather than a plain slab then the true value will be lower. Factor in the steel rods which would be less than an inch thick to be in-cased in the concrete and they will make up for the difference in my value calculated with the assumptions & the true theoretical value and then not much more given their size (bone is also more resilient than steel of the same mass) giving a high end estimate of 20,000N to break through.

1 Newton equals 1 joule/metre according to this site hence 20,000 newtons = 20,000J.