a good article regarding #7...

[wildbilln864]

snips/
"For those of us with an engineering or physics background this juvenile explanation of the collapse of WTC 7 is pure fiction. What bothers me more than anything else is the symmetrical collapse of the building at nearly free-fall speed. Again, we see a common thread in all of the collapses of that day – the main supporting steel columns, some of them massive, gave absolutely no resistance to the collapse of the respective buildings. For WTC 7, this implies that all 25 central steel columns and 58 peripheral steel columns failed within 1 second of each other."

"In other words, the law of conservation of momentum would cause the side of the building most damaged by the fires to collapse first, and so on. However, we see a uniform symmetrical collapse that is the epitome for a controlled demolition."

" Building 7 contained the offices of the CIA, the IRS, the SEC, and the Mayor’s Office of Emergency Management. All ongoing investigations of ENRON by the SEC and others were put on hold as all of the documents and computer files were destroyed in the collapse. How convenient."
link

[SDuderstadt]

1. Bill.....perhaps you could explain this comment from the author...

I have come to realize that we in America do not live in a democracy, but a rule by a small corrupt majority which happens to be filthy rich - the same people who brought us the genocide of the Native Americans, slavery, and endless perpetual wars as part of a national energy strategy for the United States by the collusion of energy corporations and the US Military.

Okay. Since when are a majority of the citizens in the USA "filthy rich". Stupid post about a stupid article.

[petgoat]

4. He didn't say "a majority of the citizens" nt

[SDuderstadt]

5. Petgoat....

read the quote again and tell me how, if we are "ruled by a small corrupt majority who are also filthy rich", that could possibly be true if a majority of americans were not also "filthy rich". Do you understand set theory at all? Do you see that if a majority of americans are NOT "filthy rich" that his claim cannot possibly be true?

[petgoat]

8. self delete

[Ghost in the Machine]

18. It's not even worth it, is it?

You can't make someone understand if they have no basic comprehension skills, can you?

The "small corrupt majority, who are also filthy rich" refers to the group of people in power, those who make laws and set policy. Hell, a "small majority" could mean that a group has one or two more votes than a very large minority... ("very large minority" *that* should make a head or two explode, huh?)

:hi:

[Realityhack]

26. LOL I think he meant minority not majority... why defend a mistake? n/t

[Ghost in the Machine]

31. Have you never heard the term "small majority" before?

You know, kind of like what we (Dems) have in the Senate right now... the reason they have to keep kissing Joe Leiberman's ass?

I guess we'll have to disagree on this, as I think he meant a "small corrupt majority" of the ruling class... you know.. a majority of the people in power... they're *all* 'filthy rich', aren't they? That's how they rose to positions of power.

:hi:

[Realityhack]

32. what?

So you honestly think that this:

I have come to realize that we in America do not live in a democracy, but a rule by a small corrupt majority which happens to be filthy rich - the same people who brought us...

Is supposed to refer to either:
Just barely over 1/2 of Americans
OR
Just over 1/2 of very rich Americans... which would make the "which happens to be filthy rich" part a bit absurd.

I think this was a typo and he meant 'rule by a small corrupt minority'. You could be correct though because judging from the rest of his article he isn't exactly a great writer.

[SDuderstadt]

33. It's amazing to me how "truthers" will defend....

the dumbest and most blatantly wrong stuff, without realizing how silly it makes them look. For example, claiming "back peddle" is an actual phrase.

[Ghost in the Machine]

34. Dude, can you read?

What part of it is so hard for you to understand? How did you *ever* conclude that I'm refering to:

"Is supposed to refer to either:
Just barely over 1/2 of Americans
OR
Just over 1/2 of very rich Americans... which would make the "which happens to be filthy rich" part a bit absurd."???????

Did you miss the part where I specifically mentioned the ruling class (there, I bolded it that time so maybe you'd notice)... you know, the people we elect to represent us in governmental affairs?

How do you think a small minority would have any power, no matter how corrupt they were? The uncorrupt large majority would put a stop to them. However, with a small majority of them being corrupt it's almost, if not totally, impossible for the large minority to stop them.

Come on man, is it *really* that hard to figure out? I guess we could always sign up as members of OpEdNews and use the "contact author" option and just ask him, right?

[Grateful for Hope]

37. Another strategy uncovered

semantic nitpicking. Works every time to derail a thread. Except it really doesn't work as those who read these threads can see right through it.

[SDuderstadt]

39. I think you need to look up the definition of "semantics"....

there is no way "majority" can be construed to mean "minority". If you're going to try to call someone on something, at least get the term correct.

[Realityhack]

40. Well I sortof agree...

There are a lot of silly symantic debates here. But in this case the poor writing is about the only thing to discuss. The article was complete garbage.

[William Seger]

52. WHAT "rail"?

The entire "good article" appears to be an attempt to derail logical thinking, to protect a preconceived conspiracy theory, written by someone who doesn't even know what's in the NIST report and who apparently has a very poor grasp of physics but expects YOU to be impressed if he just says "the law of conservation of momentum".

Are you? Why don't you put the discussion back on track by explaining what the hell that paragraph is supposed to mean?

[Realityhack]

38. I could... but I don't see any reason to talk to him.

He is clearly not a smart man.

Anyway, he doesn't mention the ruling class the way you do.
He *could* mean a small majority of the ruling class... but I imagine he is more likely simply defining the ruling class.

[Ghost in the Machine]

41. Who does he say we're ruled by?

"I have come to realize that we in America do not live in a democracy, but a rule by a small corrupt majority which happens to be filthy rich -...."

Who are we ruled by, if not the 'ruling class'?

[Realityhack]

42. Ug. I think this is about it for me on this topic. It has gotten out of hand IMO...

The way I read that sentence he is saying:
Rather than rule by democracy we have rule by:
a small corrupt majority
That group happens to be filthy rich.

A small corrupt majority doesn't make much sense. But then I didn't think a lot of the article made much sense.

You could be right. I can't know for sure, I can only explain the way I read it. How about we agree that it was a poor choice of words because one way or the other it is clearly something that can be misunderstood and we go get another cup of coffee.

[Ghost in the Machine]

44. Ok, we'll just let it go and agree to disagree....

You read it and interpreted it your way and I read it my way... it's of no importance in the grand scheme of things anyways, right?

Peace,

Ghost

[Realityhack]

45. Yep peace ghost... wait...

this is DU and the 9-11 forum to boot. Are we allowed to agree that this is of little importance and just agree to disagree? ;)

[Ghost in the Machine]

47. Good point....

should we check with the mods about it?? :rofl:


I've been known to bend some rules... and completely shatter the hell out of some other ones. :evilgrin:

[Realityhack]

53. LOL

I had a lot of fun on the shill thread. I may disagree with some of your positions but you can be quite funny.

[Ghost in the Machine]

56. Yeah, that thread was fun... too bad it got locked...

I always say that "just because we disagree on one issue, doesn't mean well disagree on every issue"...

I honestly think it's beneficial to this forum to have a thread like that once in a while, where we can cut up with each other and have a little fun.

So, how's the raccoon training coming along?

[Realityhack]

57. Well...

it is having trouble remembering not to wash sugar cubes ;-)

Yeah I thought it was a rather civil thread that let some people cool off a bit. It was off topic and I won't post more here on it (past this post) because I don't want to become a pain to Lithos.

[subsuelo]

15. obviously meant to say 'minority' not 'majority'

[SDuderstadt]

16. And didn't proofread such an important document for clarity....

which could be true and obviously makes more sense than another poster who tried to defend the mistake.

[Realityhack]

27. He could just be as bad at proofreading as he is at engineering n/t

[Ter]

97. What are you talking about?

He said we are ruled by a small majority who are filthy rich. Meaning the rulers are rich (Bilderburgers), not me and you.

[SDuderstadt]

98. If it were any size "majority"....

it means it would encompass most people. Duh.

[Subdivisions]

99. Who cares? The rest of us know what he meant. n/t

[SDuderstadt]

100. Ummm....

read the post I responded to.

[wildbilln864]

2. #1, you're on the ignored list so ...

:shrug:

[SDuderstadt]

3. Yet you responded anyhow....

You've also responded to other posts I've made, so your faux "ignore" is comical.

[Realityhack]

25. Technically he responded to his own OP... So bill has himself on ignore ;-)

[SDuderstadt]

28. LOLOLOLOLOL.....

one of the funniest posts ever.

[biermeister]

6. thanks bill for the info

[LARED]

7. I don't know about a "good article"; perhaps a funny article is more appropriate

For those of us with an engineering or physics background this juvenile explanation of the collapse of WTC 7 is pure fiction. What bothers me more than anything else is the symmetrical collapse of the building at nearly free-fall speed. Again, we see a common thread in all of the collapses of that day – the main supporting steel columns, some of them massive, gave absolutely no resistance to the collapse of the respective buildings. For WTC 7, this implies that all 25 central steel columns and 58 peripheral steel columns failed within 1 second of each other."

Interestingly Mr. Helbig states that he has a couple of degrees from the University of Pennsylvania. Not surprisingly he makes no indication that any of them are in engineering or physics. If they were he would not be making such ignorant statements as seen above.

[wildbilln864]

9. Sad that people are ignorant enough to believe...

or is it arrogance that makes them believe that people who didn't get engineering degrees can't understand physics. Your posts show that anyone is capable of ignorant statements.

[LARED]

10. That's not what I said, get it right willbill864

I said if he was degreed in engineering or physics he would not make the idiotic statements he is making. There are many people without degrees the understand what happened that day.

[Flatulo]

11. With all due respect, Bill, engineering is an acquired skill.

I work with some very bright people who do not hold engineering degrees. They cannot analyze the same kinds of problems that their degreed colleagues can.

I could design a simple truss that you could ponder for years yet never be able to cipher the loads in the various members. It doesn't mean that you're dumb - it means that you have not learned the techniques used in engineering that have evolved over several hundred years.

I've spent years in classrooms, analyzing hundreds if not thousands of truss designs. I find it amusing when people with no such background sneer at this experience and claim that thus and so is impossible from a position of total ignorance.

[AZCat]

13. Probably thousands, not hundreds.

Don't forget the enormous contributions the Romans and Greeks made to engineering.

[Flatulo]

17. Yeah, even the ancient Egyptians and Babylonians were pretty sharp...

The Ancients sure knew some engineering, although the pyramids were designed somewhat by trial and error over the millenia. Archimedes was just frightenengly brilliant. Ever see the special on the Antikythera mechanism?

I was thinking more along the lines of Castigliano, who introduced energy techniques to structure analysis. But you're right, the lineage of the engineering process goes way back.

[petgoat]

48. The pyramids were designed? Come off it! They're piles of rocks! nt

[Realityhack]

58. Did you miss the sarcasm tag?

It's hard to tell sometimes.

[Realityhack]

24. To be fair...

SOME parts of engineering and physics can be understood without an actual degree *IF* the person studies in much the same way someone would to get a degree.
Of course that is fairly uncommon and it is silly to think their are large numbers of people out there with that degree of knowledge and no degree.

[Flatulo]

29. There are a lot of great intuitive designers in our business. They

have an amazing ability to make complicated mechanisms fit together and work correctly. They have the engineering gene, if there is such a thing. They're all in their 40s and 50s.

The surprising thing is that you would not even get in the door today without a MS degree. I have a BS (although I have accumulated enough credits for an MS, I never pursued the piece of paper).

We'll always need the non-degreed people to do the less esoteric tasks that the Ph.Ds will not deign to do, like making drawings and creating ECRs.

My only point in mentioning this to Bill is that some engineering work is non-intuitive and the processes used to carry out that work was created by geniuses and handed down to the rest of us mortals through the process of an engineering education.

[Realityhack]

30. I completely agree with your point.

I hope I didn't come across as disagreeing with it.

[Flatulo]

43. No, not at all. Plenty of geniuses had no university education. nt.

[LARED]

46. It's an interesting point about ability verse taught skills

I used to use this company http://www.scientific-management.com/stm.html to test applicants for mechanical aptitude. The device you see at the link is a well validated testing device that can predict with great validity a persons mechanical aptitude. The man that scored the highest ever was a man that was a near savant, barely able to function in society. Very limited schooling, but absolutely brilliant when it came to figuring out how mechanical devices work and interact.

He would put many a highly educated mechanical engineer to shame in the raw skill department.

[Realityhack]

55. Very cool. Thanks for the link n/t

[William Seger]

12. Jeez, if that's a "good" article

... please don't link to the bad ones. :eyes:

The first sentence is hilarious, and it becomes just pathetic when it becomes apparent that the guy hasn't even read (or doesn't understand) even the report summary; that he likes to pull numbers like "1 second" out of his ass; that he uses "law of conservation of momentum" in a bizarre non sequitur; and that he can't understand why a progressive collapse that starts with interior columns would have the same effect as a controlled implosion that starts with interior columns. (Since this "engineer/physicist" doesn't say why he thinks only a CD can be an implosion, one has to wonder if he thinks that explosives are used to suck the building inward.)

[wildbilln864]

14. splain rucy..

"why a progressive collapse that starts with interior columns would have the same effect as a controlled implosion that starts with interior columns. "
what made the interior columns collapse? Office fires? Bullshit! Keep trying.

[William Seger]

19. You're the one who's got some splainin to do

I think I have a reasonably good understanding of the NIST theory, and it makes sense to me. Tell me which specific part of the NIST theory you disagree with, and why. (Even making an attempt to do that would be an improvement over the "good article" you linked to.)

[Realityhack]

22. And that assumption is based on what exactly?

Have you even read the FAQ for the NIST report? Watched the computer simulations?

Can you point out ANY flaw in the NIST report's progressive collapse model? Do you even know what their model is?

[wildbilln864]

35. what assumption are you talking about? nt

[Realityhack]

36. Well...

"what made the interior columns collapse? Office fires? Bullshit! Keep trying."

If you answered the rest of my post you might realize what I was getting at. The statement you made is a half truth form of straw man.
Yes office fires -> heated beams -> that expanded -> that caused a failure -> that progressed vertically and horizontally -> making the interior columns collapse.

Now about my other questions.
Have you read the NIST report?
The FAQ?
Can you point out a single error in the NIST report?

[petgoat]

49. The flaw in NIST's progressive collapse model is that they assume it, rather than demonstrate it. nt

[AZCat]

50. They assume WHAT?

Please explain what you mean by "it".

[petgoat]

59. The assume that collapse initiation equals total progressive collapse. nt

[Bolo Boffin]

65. No, they have the calculations to show that collapse initiation = total collapse, petgoat. n/t

[petgoat]

68. I don't believe you. Partial, local, asymmetrical collapse can not make total symmetrical collapse.

Bazant's piledriver model does not hold because the top of the
building was coming apart before the impact zone started to collapse.

[Realityhack]

69. Ah. You are talking about a different building. RTFT Petgoat. Everyone else is discussing wtc7. n/t

[petgoat]

70. When you referenced the FAQs in post 22 I assumed you were talking about the twin towers.

I was not aware of any WTC7 FAQs.

[SDuderstadt]

72. LOLOLOLOL....

which only proves that Petgoat hasn't even read the report. Amazing.

[Realityhack]

73. Honest mistake I guess...

I am posting from my phone so I can't post the link or check to see if it technically says FAQ I think it might just say questions.

[Bolo Boffin]

75. It does just say questions and answers.

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

[Bolo Boffin]

80. It doesn't matter if you don't believe me, Petgoat.

Facts remain facts though you refuse to believe them.

[petgoat]

81. It is not a fact that NIST provided calculations and analysis to support its contention

that collapse initiation made total collapse inevitable.

Bazant's piledriver model is a complete fantasy.

[AZCat]

83. Your continued willful ignorance...

of both engineering principles and the specifics of the collapse mechanisms is in no way validation of your arguments. The facts exist outside your fantasy world, petgoat (and I for one am happy about that).

[petgoat]

84. Your continued wilful pretending to expertise you don't demonstrate does your cause no favors.

Give it up, AZ. The NIST studies are as bankrupt as you are.

Bazant's piledriver thesis is completely given the lie by the video
evidence that shows that the piledriver came apart before the
impact zone even started to fail.

[AZCat]

91. I don't have to pretend anything.

Your willful ignorance is on display for everyone to see. Why don't you post some of your wonderful "diagrams" again? We could all use a laugh.

[petgoat]

92. You certainly do. It's only your pretense to engineering knowledge

that lends any weight at all to your lazy and useless expressions of contempt.

Of course if you had any engineering knowledge you might deign to show me where
I'm wrong. But all you can do is name the titles of the Big Fat Books you
claim to have studied, and sigh bemusedly and shake your head.

[AZCat]

94. Any argument I might provide...

would necessarily rest on concepts of which you have repeatedly shown an almost irrational adherence to ignorance. "Contempt" doesn't even begin to express my feelings for someone like you.

[William Seger]

51. Wrong. They DID demonstrate the progressive collapse

... with a physics-based finite element analysis. Those crackerjack engineers over at AE911truth either have or can get the exact same software and do their own analysis. The world is anxiously awaiting for them to prove that the NIST engineers blew the conspiracy wide open by faking the sim.

Not.

[petgoat]

60. They provided no calculations and no analysis of the collapse after the moment of inception. nt

[William Seger]

67. Baloney. See Chapter 12

(Edit to add excerpt from introduction)

This chapter presents the description and analysis results of the global model, which was developed to determine the collapse sequence of World Trade Center (WTC) 7 building and to test the leading collapse hypothesis presented in Chapter 8. This model analyzed the response of the full 47 story structure to initial failure events due to fire to determine the events that led to the global collapse of WTC 7. The results of the fire-induced damage from the 16 story ANSYS analysis (Chapter 11) were used as an input into the global model in LS-DYNA to analyze the collapse propagation.

The nonlinear dynamic collapse analysis were performed using LS-DYNA, which was capable of explicitly modeling sequential failures, falling debris, and debris impact on other structural components.
...

[Realityhack]

54. No they didn't. They demonstrated a specific progressive collapse

You can watch the animation of the computer model if you like. It's not like they stop when one beam fails and throw up their hands and say 'gee now the building collapses'.

So what assumption are you talking about?

[petgoat]

61. They didn't demonstrate the collapse. They assumed it.

Basically they said "You can see it on the videos, so there's no question
that it happened, so there you are."

Any collapse should have been asymmetrical and local.

[Bolo Boffin]

64. Your inability to understand the modeling process isn't their assumption, petgoat.

A local, asymmetrical collapse left column 79 unsupported over nine floors

It buckled, leading to another asymmetrical collapse in the eastern third of the building.

That left the core unsupported to the east, leading to another asymmetrical collapse in the rest of the core, which dragged the rest of the building down behind it.

[petgoat]

63. They didn't demonstrate the collapse. They assumed it.

Any collapse should have been asymmetrical and local.

[Realityhack]

66. No they didn't

You can not make that statement with building 7. They modeled the full progression of the collapse because they wanted to know how the local failure could progress to a complete failure.

Have you even looked at the analysis at ALL?

http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/releases/wtc_videos/wtc_videos.html

Please play the video in the lower right hand conner of the page and then tell me again if they modeled the behavior that would cause the entire building to collapse.

[petgoat]

93. I was talking about the towers. nt

[AZCat]

95. No one else was.

Hence the title of the thread, the topic of the OP, and the subject of every other fucking post besides yours.

[Realityhack]

20. Some interesting garbage from that article.

The NIST claims that the destruction of the North and South Towers severed a water main that supplied the fire protection system in WTC 7.

emphasis added

UM. WTF? Implying they were lying about the watter main? Even IF that were the first thing in the article displaying bias it is a pretty damming statement about where the author was coming from in approaching this report. I am pretty sure he hasn't even read it.

In the next paragraph we have virtual proof he did not read it:

If the building were truly brought down by a raging fire that weakened all of the steel columns...

That was not the mechanism NIST sited. It appears he may be attacking a straw man. Probably because he has not read the report and may not have an engineering background.

Note that this guy seems to have spent most of the article being a nut on other topics and does not in any way address the NIST report.

[Bolo Boffin]

21. Pretty much.

A great way to prove the NIST report wrong would be evidence that the main wasn't cut. That's part of what makes the NIST theory falsifiable.

[Realityhack]

23. Something makes me think that...

either he has gone totally insane and needs some strong meds... or is not a physicist or engineer. I can't imagine someone with that bad logic passing the courses required for those degrees.

[jberryhill]

62. "However, we see a uniform symmetrical collapse"

What we "see" is the north face of the building, which clearly fell back:



In order for the north facade to drape over the wreckage like that, it had to fall back toward the south.

[whatchamacallit]

71. That's wtc7? What is the source of that photo?

[jberryhill]

74. The amazing thing about inline image links...

...is that if you can right-click, you don't have to ask that question.

That picture is actually posted on a controlled demolition theory site:

http://wtc7.net/rubblepile.html

But if you simply do a Google image search, you can see a lot of pictures of how the north facade of WTC7 fell to the south.

Here's one during cleanup:



Front (north) side:



Back (south) side:



Notice the location of the north facade in this picture:



So, how does a building fall "straight down" and end up with one face of it covering the rest like a blanket draped over the debris?

I dunno.

But in everyone's favorite video, you are looking directly at the north face, and quite a few stories at the bottom are not visible.

Try this experiment.

Hold a piece of paper about midway along the side in your left hand and close one eye. With your right hand, block off the bottom portion of that piece of paper. Then rotate that piece of paper backward, so it falls behind your right hand. Look familiar?

Whatever your collapse hypothesis is - it has to keep a huge portion of the north facade intact, in order for it to wind up laying over the rest of the debris.

[whatchamacallit]

76. Funny, this group of pictures doesn't seem to support the "north face only" bull

And I'm confused about the last one; maybe I'm mistaken, but it looks more like one of the twins. Any way you look at it, the devastated "shredder" appearance of the debris screams "Not a natural, progressive, collapse!" But that's just crazy old me, as I'm sure you and your buddies will be along to tell me shortly.

[SDuderstadt]

77. Please tell us what a....

"natural, progressive collapse" is. I don't think that describes a building that burned unfought for hours.

[whatchamacallit]

79. How 'bout this

I know some steel framed buildings have burned for days. Can you post pictures of another building, where the fires resulted in collapses and debris like 911? Don't bother using the "they were hit by planes" bit; the planes caused holes, not collapse damage.




... didn't think so.

[AZCat]

82. Why does that matter?

If you're arguing that something can't happen for the first time, then I think that's a pretty stupid argument.

More importantly, are we talking about WTC 7 or the towers here? Are you going to claim that the impacts of the aircraft on the towers "caused holes, not collapse damage"? What in the world is "collapse damage"?

[whatchamacallit]

85. No, you're right

If I had *your* smarts, the fact that this "first time thing" happened 3X on the same day, to the same guy's buildings, would seem perfectly natural:think:

I was referring to the state of the collapse debris; massive piles of twisted, shredded, bits. When and where has fire caused a similar result in a steel framed structure?

[Realityhack]

86. You do know how tall the buildings were right? n/t

[whatchamacallit]

87. 47 stories for wtc7

my understanding is taller have burned longer and yet...

[Realityhack]

88. I didn't make my point very clear....

the point was, if such a building does collapse (leaving aside how for now) what would you expect the pile of debris to look like?

[whatchamacallit]

89. Large sections maintaining some integrity

I've seen pictures of natural collapses, none have looked like these...

There is another type of collapse where the debris looks more like 911, but NIST has hastily and conveniently ruled that type out.

[jberryhill]

90. Perhaps you might post these pictures then ...

I've seen pictures of teenagers. None have looked like my son. I don't know what that sort of logic implies to you, but I would be interested to see a controlled demolition of a building in which neighboring buildings do not have their windows shockproofed, and in which the building being demolished has many intact windows which do not appear affected by the demolition charges. Or, if it was "hush-a-boom" explosives, then I'd like to see the picture of any building demolished with the use of thermite, after uncontrolled fires burned for hours.

This is not "large sections maintaining some integrity" - this is the front facade of the building falling back onto the debris. That is neither "symmetric" nor "straight down".

[jberryhill]

78. Look above the remains of the WTC tower in the last photograph

What do you mean by "north face only" bull?

The collapse videos of WTC7 are of the north face. Lower Manhattan was largely evacuated by that time.

If you have a video taken from the south of WTC7, I'd love to see it.

[MinM]

96. World Trade Center 7: An Engineered Collapse

link


WTC7??

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=125x152951

[Name removed]

101. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.