20 9/11 Questions Remain Unanswered over 8 Years Later

reply to post by Joey Canoli

Thank you joey for the badge of honor with the term "truther." However I'm not so sure of the, I assume derogatory, term "conspiracy theory believer," as I actually agree with exponent that another complete theory should be offered. If a complete argument, with modeling, for a different theory were to emerge, I believe that argument should be torn up, too, to see if it's valid. That's what arguments are for... to be torn up... if they survive then I'll believe it.

But anyway back to the point. I may fail to understand what I read, but I believe you may be spending too much time on Wikipedia and not enough on the parts of the NIST report you missed. Your description of the theory of the "unbraced" columns is not completely correct. If I stay away from Wikipedia and peruse the NIST report I find this:

"As the interior columns failed, the exterior columns on the west face buckled inward at the lower floors as a result of FLOOR PULL-IN FORCES due to the downward movement of the building core. THE FLOOR CONNECTIONS TO THE COLUMNS HAD NOT FAILED IN THIS REGION because there were no fires observed on the west side on Floors 10 through 14 at anytime during the day, and the INTACT FLOORS WERE ABLE TO PULL THE EXTERIOR COLUMNS inward." - pg 586, NCSTAR 1-9 Vol 2

Another thing I find interesting is they later claim these "braced" columns were the first to buckle, as opposed to the "unbraced" ones. That's odd seeing, as your saying it's a given that if a column is "unbraced" there's automatically no resistance. If that were true I believe they would have determined the buckling to have begun someplace else at one of these "unbraced" columns. So, if your theory is correct, you would then have to show how a "braced" and an "unbraced" column would both offer NO resistance.

But anyway that's all theory anyway. I actually agree with exponent that their model is not precise. I also agree with NIST on the same point when they say:

"once simulation of the global collapse of WTC 7 was underway, there was a GREAT INCREASE IN THE UNCERTAINTY in the progression of the collapse sequence, due to the random nature of the interaction, break up, disintegration and falling of the debris. The uncertainties deriving from these random processes increasingly influenced the deterministic physics-based collapse process, and the details of the progression of the horizontal failure and final global collapse were increasingly less precise." - pg 599 - 600, NCSTAR 1-9 Vol 2.

So, as I'm reviewing all this stuff, I think I'm coming to the conclusion that the answer cannot lie within NIST's "less precise" theories, but must be found elsewhere. Will a "less precise" theory be able to actually explain a well documented, highly precise, real world observed number of 32.2 ft/2^2 which shows there was NO resistance on at least 14 theoretical "braced" columns and 43 theoretical "unbraced" columns?

Originally posted by jthomas
Are you losing confidence in your claim that our "all powerful, all knowing government" that can take seven hours to "explode" WTC 7 under everyone's noses without raising suspicion...

Without raising suspicion?

Barry Jennings was trapped in WTC7 for several hours by an explosion BEFORE the towers came down. BBC and NIST twisted his timeline to make it seem like the explosion was the north tower coming down. which doesn't make sense - did he wait on the 23rd floor for an hour?

Barry died on August 19th 2008 at age 53 - there's been no official cause of death. Michael Hess, who was with him at the time, was interviewed by the BBC in september of 2008 and agreed with the official timeline
Hess is still alive

www.historycommons.org...

www.historycommons.org...

Originally posted by bsbray11
reply to post by exponent

 

I can sum up the heart of our disagreement/misunderstanding without having to go through all of the point-by-point stuff.

What I want NIST, or whatever investigative body to do, is take the building's structural documents, fire data, etc., and construct a theory that is totally self-supported, and verified not by referring back to the acceleration seen in videos (which is essentially circular reasoning), but by referring to their calculations and realistic models that reflect that this is could be expected.

So then you will accept David Chandler's measurements of 2.25 seconds of free fall from a video as meaningless, correct?

If they could take the building's structure in a model, apply the damage, apply realistic heat fires, and then just see what occurs, instead of trying to force it to conform to what we see in videos, then we would have an independent verification that this is a legitimate thing for fire and debris damage alone to do. As it stands, they constantly refer back to the very same building being investigated to justify changing certain things in their report or adjusting data a certain way to make it better fit. That's not how these kinds of reports are supposed to be done.

If you had actually read the NIST report you wouldn't be making such a statement.

Let me educate you once again. The only observations were the videos of the collapse of exterior of WTC 7, as well as the observations of those people, particularly firemen who had been inside the building and all around the outside from the time of the collapse of WTC 1 till the collapse of WTC 7, around a seven-hour time span. They also had the architectural designs and a wealth of material science data on the performance of structural steel under many different heating scenarios over time.

With all this data, NIST modeled the probable collapse sequence of the structure's interior to match as closely as possible the observable collapse sequence from the videos. They did so by modelling four different scenarios:

Deriving the Probable Collapse Sequence
NIST NCSTAR 1A, p.38-39

Four simulations were performed with the global LS-DYNA model.

• The first was based on NIST's best estimate of both the debris impact damage from WTC 1 and the fire-induced damage as developed using the ANSYS modeling. This occurred at 4 h in the ANSYS computation.

• The second simulation differed only in the input of a lesser degree of fire-induced damage, which occurred at 3.5 h in the ANSYS computation. The purpose of this LS-DYNA simulation was to determine whether a lesser degree of fire-induced damage could lead to the collapse of WTC 7.

• The third simulation was the same as the first, except that no debris impact damage was included. The purpose of this analysis was to determine the contribution of debris impact to the WTC 7 global collapse sequence and whether WTC 7 would have collapsed solely due to the effects of the fires.

• In the fourth simulation, the building experienced no debris or fire-induced damage. A section of Column 79 between Floors 11 and 13 was removed. The purpose of this analysis was to determine the potential for a classic progressive collapse, i.e., disproportionate structural damage from a single failure, regardless of the cause of that failure.

Again, you need to read the NIST report and demonstrate why you insist against all reason that there is no validity to the evidence, methodologies, computer simulations, and conclusions of the NIST report. You can't just keep going around post after post like a spoiled kid demanding this and that to get your way and claiming "controlled demolition" is the only way that WTC 7 came down if you cannot understand the NIST report nor refute it nor back up your claims.

You really need to join us in the real world, bsbray11. Your ranting and inability to demonstrate anything or refute NIST is just getting more convoluted by the moment.

Originally posted by jthomas
So then you will accept David Chandler's measurements of 2.25 seconds of free fall from a video as meaningless, correct?

It's only needed to compare the final outcome of NIST's theory as per calculations using the structural documentation and modeling (which should be shown, of course) to reality. But NIST didn't do that. They simply assumed it was normal. Thus my question is not answered in the NIST report.

In other words, you have yet to answer question 6, despite all your rhetoric claiming the contrary.

Let me educate you once again. The only observations were the videos of the collapse of exterior of WTC 7, as well as the observations of those people, particularly firemen who had been inside the building and all around the outside from the time of the collapse of WTC 1 till the collapse of WTC 7, around a seven-hour time span.

Yes, and those people very well could have witnessed a controlled demolition, not what NIST is claiming, so this "evidence" is moot until you/they validate the theory independently, using known laws of physics, not just assuming they are automatically right and not even bothering to do the work to prove that the acceleration measurement matches their model. An assumption doesn't work for me.

With all this data, NIST modeled the probable collapse sequence of the structure's interior to match as closely as possible the observable collapse sequence from the videos.

Exactly. Which is perfectly ass-backwards of doing the real work to prove their theory before comparing it to reality. Not just taking direct measurements of reality (ie suspected demolition) and, without doing the work to prove it, claim everything is normal about them. Unless you would like to post the specific calculations I am referring to.

They did so by modelling four different scenarios:

And applying the above fallacious reasoning to each and every one of them.

[edit on 5-11-2009 by bsbray11]

Originally posted by NIcon

So, if your theory is correct, you would then have to show how a "braced" and an "unbraced" column would both offer NO resistance.

it isn't all that hard to understand. It really isn't.

The west side ext columns are braced by the int columns.

Once the int columns buckle and fail, the ext columns are no longer braced.

Do you understand this point?

reply to post by Joey Canoli

Joey, I saw what you were saying and I did not totally disagree. I however thought your description was way too simplistic to be applied. When NIST says "As the interior columns buckled across the building, the exterior columns were left laterally unsupported normal to east, south, and north faces." That point I say you got correct. But notice it does not say "West face." So NIST is saying the the west face was still "braced" with their adjacent interior columns. So technically you can not say "that the exterior columns were unbraced over that same distance" as applied to the West face exterior columns. You perhaps could say the West interior columns were unbraced with the other interior columns. The exterior column and interior column would still be influencing each other through this lateral "brace" between them, thus the pull-in. Now if the exterior and interior column with this "brace" between them acted in complete unison all through the collapse then there would be no problem. But I find that highly unlikely and at some point the exterior column will decide it wants to go one way and the interior would decide to go another and the "brace" between them will have to had been broken. Which just complicates the model.... and the pondering.

Originally posted by exponent
The post yesterday linked to a measurement using the moire effect, and if I remember correctly it was measuring lateral motion. I do not believe this is applicable to their analysis of the descent of WTC7.

Here's the wikipedia article on it, but if I did look at the wrong portion of your post or something like that please let me know: en.wikipedia.org...

Sorry exponent I missed your post earlier today. I wasn't saying it was an exact correlation. I was just demonstrating how precise they could be. Two points stood out for me in this test however:

First is the section on Conversion of Magnitude from Vertical Pixels to Distance. I was very interested in how they determined the width of the entire building (329 ft.) equaled 301 +-4 pixels. And since we know that the pixel width was 0.9 times the pixel height we have a pretty good start knowing the approximate height represented by a pixel. Granted they still would need to account for the "vertical" perspective of the image but I would assume they had done this, maybe not with as much certainty as the horizontal, but I assume something very close.

Second would be the amount of data points they took for their measurements. In figure C-8 I counted about 68 points within a 2.5 second period. To be totally precise with the free fall measurement I would assume they would have done the same.

So from these two things I assume their measurements from video can be very precise and if they had a problem with believing 32.2 ft/s^2 they could have found something like 32.19 ft/s^2 and reported it.

Originally posted by NIcon

When NIST says "As the interior columns buckled across the building, the exterior columns were left laterally unsupported normal to east, south, and north faces." That point I say you got correct. But notice it does not say "West face."

Of course it doesn't. To the west of the west wall is open air. Therefore, no bracing is possible.

Do you understand?

So NIST is saying the the west face was still "braced" with their adjacent interior columns.

Ok. But I'm not sure if column-column counts as bracing.

So technically you can not say "that the exterior columns were unbraced over that same distance" as applied to the West face exterior columns.

Ok, you're correct. I should have said that they were certainly unbraced over that 8 story distance in the E-W direction. N-S remains unclear to me. What you would have had, even if the floor connections to the int columns had broken and DIDN'T pull in the west wall, would be an unsupported wall that was onbraced over nearly its entire length. With the exception being the corner column, which would be braced by the adjacent ext walls/columns. Agree?

But I find that highly unlikely and at some point the exterior column will decide it wants to go one way and the interior would decide to go another and the "brace" between them will have to had been broken.

Agreed.

But the important thing that is getting lost is the main issue - namely. how much resistance could an 8 story buckling column give to the falling structure, and could this be seen on a video?

I was on another, non-conspiracy board around the time of the report on 7 was released, where this was discussed, by real structural engineers. I believe it was physorg or some such. They all agreed that once the initial phase of the collapse was over - 7 feet? - that the buckling columns would give something like .5% of their former "resistance", due to the estimated 8 story unbraced length. Combine that with the absence of the int columns, and overall resistance was thought to be around .2% of the expected weight.

Then they went off on a discussion of how much a .2% resistance would slow the descent,and extreme physics/hilarity ensued. It was agreed that it wouldn't be discernable though.

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by jthomas
So then you will accept David Chandler's measurements of 2.25 seconds of free fall from a video as meaningless, correct?

It's only needed to compare the final outcome of NIST's theory as per calculations using the structural documentation and modeling (which should be shown, of course) to reality. But NIST didn't do that. They simply assumed it was normal. Thus my question is not answered in the NIST report.

According to you but without a single piece of evidence to support your claim. Once again.

In other words, you have yet to answer question 6, despite all your rhetoric claiming the contrary.

Yes, I have many times, despite your continued denial.

Let me educate you once again. The only observations were the videos of the collapse of exterior of WTC 7, as well as the observations of those people, particularly firemen who had been inside the building and all around the outside from the time of the collapse of WTC 1 till the collapse of WTC 7, around a seven-hour time span.

Yes, and those people very well could have witnessed a controlled demolition, not what NIST is claiming, so this "evidence" is moot until you/they validate the theory independently, using known laws of physics, not just assuming they are automatically right and not even bothering to do the work to prove that the acceleration measurement matches their model. An assumption doesn't work for me.

That's categorically wrong as you well know. NIST has yet to be refuted by you or anyone else. You are incapable of refuting NIST and you know it. We all know it.

Unless and until YOU bring positive evidence of controlled demolition to the table, your "controlled demolition claim remains up a creek.

It's time you show a modicum of integrity and admit you have not a stitch of evidence to support your claims, bsbray11. You've lost.

reply to post by jthomas


There isn't anything in your post to refute. It's just you saying I'm wrong over and over again with no basis.

If you're going to respond at all at least come back with some kind of reason or evidence that what I'm saying isn't true.

I know this has probably been asked, but if the planes that hit the towers etc were not comercial, what happened to the passengers?

Originally posted by bsbray11
reply to post by jthomas

 

There isn't anything in your post to refute. It's just you saying I'm wrong over and over again with no basis.

I've shown clearly that you have not supported your claims

If you're going to respond at all at least come back with some kind of reason or evidence that what I'm saying isn't true.

Your dodges still don't work, brsbay11. You're the one making the claims, you can't support them, and you constantly try to shift the burden of proof to others.

PM me if and when you decide to back up your claims. It's crystal clear that that you're incapable of giving us any reason whatsoever to reject the NIST report on WTC 7. It's crystal clear what I've said from the beginning, that you couldn't even demonstrate the validity of your "question." You've killed your own thread.

Here's a good book to show you where you went wrong and why. It's changed many a "Truther" from an illogical "believer" into a real skeptic of 9/11 "Truth":

www.amazon.com...

reply to post by Joey Canoli

No I'm not sure if I understand exactly what your saying. What I'm reading from NIST and seeing in their diagrams is the following:

East face exterior columns: unbraced from interior columns to the west, braced to the north and south to adjacent exterior columns, not braced to east as this is outside the building perimeter.

North face exterior columns: unbraced from interior columns to the south, braced to the east and west to adjacent exterior columns, not braced to north as this is outside the building perimeter.

South face exterior columns: unbraced from interior columns to the north, braced to the east and west to adjacent exterior columns, not braced to south as this is outside the building perimeter.

West face exterior columns: braced to the east to adjacent interior columns, braced to the north and south to adjacent exterior columns, not braced to west as this is outside the building perimeter.

This is what I'm getting when I read the text and look at Figure 4-46, 4-47 and 4-48 in NCSTAR 1-9A. Or when I watch the video of the North east corner after the east penthouse collapsed in the building; the interior bracing theoretically was removed but the bracing (running east to west) between the exterior columns was still there. (This is shown in Figures 4-50 thru 4-55 in NCSTAR 1-9A)

So what I'm getting from it is each exterior column had bracing in three directions before the collapse; when the interior collapsed all the exterior columns then had bracing on only two, except for the West enders. But the interior columns on the West were buckling at the time but they had to deal with the exterior columns as they didn't break free totally, which caused the pull in, which slowed that buckling down and "held up" the west penthouse until 9.3s.

But I think you're right and we're arguing minutiae of a theoretical model, when:

Originally posted by Joey Canoli
I was on another, non-conspiracy board around the time of the report on 7 was released, where this was discussed, by real structural engineers. I believe it was physorg or some such. They all agreed that once the initial phase of the collapse was over - 7 feet? - that the buckling columns would give something like .5% of their former "resistance", due to the estimated 8 story unbraced length. Combine that with the absence of the int columns, and overall resistance was thought to be around .2% of the expected weight.

Then they went off on a discussion of how much a .2% resistance would slow the descent,and extreme physics/hilarity ensued. It was agreed that it wouldn't be discernable though.

This is exactly the type of argument I believe NIST should have included in their report.

Originally posted by jthomas
Here's a good book to show you where you went wrong and why. It's changed many a "Truther" from an illogical "believer" into a real skeptic of 9/11 "Truth":

www.amazon.com...

Check out the part of the book that discusses Negative proof.

A negative proof is a logical fallacy which takes the structure of:

"X is true because there is no proof that X is false."

The NIST report has anomalies and contradictions.

You keep trying to get other people who recognize these problems to explain some kind of alternative theory.

You are the one who accepts the official story so why would anyone else be obligated to explain the inconsistencies?

Originally posted by bsbray11
6) What allowed WTC7 to accelerate vertically at the rate of free-fall in a vacuum?

The relevant information in the video above starts at 2:00, and again at 5:45.

Note that:
--He acknowledges that freefall can only occur if there is no structure under the falling section of the building.
--He acknowledges that their structural modeling predicts a fall slower than freefall.
--He acknowledges that there was structural resistance in this particular case.
--He acknowledges that there was a sequence of failures that had to take place and that this process was not instantaneous.

Thus, he acknowledges that their model is at variance with the observable fact that freefall actually occurred. Their response is to hold to their model, deny that freefall occurred, and put up a smokescreen of irrelevant measurements that obscure the reality.

[edit on 7-11-2009 by Jezus]

reply to post by jthomas


Once again, nothing of substance, just saying I am wrong.

You've been dodging questions and burdens of proof since you first started posting on this thread. I have 20 unanswered questions and you've been unable to answer any of them. You just keep trying to shift the burden of proof even though the whole point of this thread is for you to try to answer any of the 20 questions.


I've already accepted that you are just trolling and will continue this behavior indefinitely, and I only respond to you now so people will not be confused by your distortions and misconstruing what this thread is about. So just keep it coming, we will make the thread infinitely long with the same repetitions over and over. It's already happening.



And STILL none of the 20 questions are resolved by anyone posting here. I must have picked some really good ones, eh?


And no, jthomas, it isn't my responsibility to answer my own questions, they are for government investigations/reports to answer. And they never did. Thus your sorry dilemma.

[edit on 7-11-2009 by bsbray11]

Originally posted by bsbray11
reply to post by jthomas

 

So just keep it coming, we will make the thread infinitely long with the same repetitions over and over. It's already happening.

And STILL none of the 20 questions are resolved by anyone posting here. I must have picked some really good ones, eh?

We showed you cannot support any of your claims, bsbray11. You were pegged long ago:

The Woolly-Thinker's Guide to Rhetoric

Claiming is Succeeding

Blur the distinction between claiming to make your case, and actually making it. If anyone notices this, act surprised and wounded. Notice someone you need to talk to across the room.

www.butterfliesandwheels.com...

And no, jthomas, it isn't my responsibility to answer my own questions, they are for government investigations/reports to answer. And they never did.

And they pegged you on that, too:

The Woolly-Thinker's Guide to Rhetoric

Develop sudden hearing loss

When your opponent makes a good point, a crushing argument, an incontrovertible case, simply fail to hear, and keep talking as if no one had spoken at all. Talk a bit louder. Lean toward your opponent with an intent, listening expression on your face, then continue to ignore what anyone else says.

www.butterfliesandwheels.com...

Thus your sorry dilemma.

Just WHEN did you say you would get a new investigation, bsbray11?



Another 9/11 "Truther's" claims go down in flames.

reply to post by jthomas


Do you post here just so you can look at these laughing faces?




Since you were unable to resolve any of the 20 questions, I guess you're just another testament to the fact that we still don't have the full story about 9/11 and won't until another investigation is kicked off. Going by history, it'll probably be so long before we actually get one, all the people really involved will already be old or dead anyway.

Originally posted by NIcon

This is exactly the type of argument I believe NIST should have included in their report.

Yeah, for the layman, it would have been good. But it was REALLY written for professionals. And it's very telling that recognized professinals, like members of CTBUH, etc, have no issues.

And keeping this in mind, you need to remember that these types of "important questions" were asked AFTER the report was finished. NIST has no way to know what hilarity will come from the TM, so they stopped at a logical place with their explanation.

To expect NIST to explain this to those without competence in the subject matter, one would have to expect NIST to be clairvoyant.

So are you "debunkers" so hard-headed that you still don't recognize the significance of being unable to resolve any of the 20 questions in the OP with actual evidence?

All you can do, is try to bait us to assuming our own conclusions, and then attacking them with your own conjecture. Ok. We still have 20 questions unresolved with actual evidence.

You all feel fine making all number of assumptions to keep the fairy tale valid in your mind, but just the fact that you have to assume these things are true for the "official story" to hold up means you are going on nothing but blind faith.

So do you like believing the "official story" based on blind faith alone, or even if you do, why in the hell do you keep trying to impede people by mocking them when we ask for another investigation?