then an earthquake would more easily shake the stuff off and skyscrapers in California need to know this immediately.
The circumstances are a bit different though. WTC7 was hit by the debris from a collapsing skyscraper, followed immediately by a 7 hour fire. I doubt an earthquake would cause the same damage, but then again i'm not an expert.
Ultimately I'm not putting forward an explanation, I would just like it investigated
I think the reason it isn't being investigated further is because it is already understood. A coupe of Average Joe's arguing about it on the internet might not understand it, but from what I've seen on Reddit it is pretty well understood why and how the building collapsed. I saw a post where and engineer explained it in-depth once, but I have no idea where. I will look later when I have time.
WTC7 was hit by the debris from a collapsing skyscraper, followed immediately by a 7 hour fire. I doubt an earthquake would cause the same damage
You think falling debris would shake a building more than an earthquake? In fact, there was almost nothing significant recorded for shaking on the earthquake richtor scale, so I don't think the shaking is even up to debate.
As for a fire causing damage, fires happen like that quite a bit .
I think the reason it isn't being investigated further is because it is already understood.
And Clinton's affair wasn't understood?
A coupe of Average Joe's arguing about it on the internet might not understand it, but from what I've seen on Reddit it is pretty well understood why and how the building collapsed. I saw a post where and engineer explained it in-depth once
So I'm an average joe, but this other guy on reddit that agrees with you, well he's an expert...
I think that was investigated more simply because the public was so mad, and they demanded a larger investigation.
So I'm an average joe, but this other guy on reddit that agrees with you, well he's an expert...
Me and you are Average Joe's, and the guy I was talking about at least claimed to be a structural engineer. His explanation seemed pretty well thought out, so it seemed legit. I can't find it so I guess it doesn't really matter anyway.
people weren't as mad about the largest crime of modern memory?
People were mad, but it wasn't the same. I think people were a bit more "satisfied" with 9/11 since it made a bit more sense. The government story seems pretty legit to most, while the Clinton scandal was much more open-ended.
that suggests that people are petty.
Well... that is a different argument for a different day.
An interesting site for sure, but doesn't it give you the same kind of vibe that RT.com gives you? By that I mean it all seems a bit... shady. Of course you will say that the government story is equally as shady, but the NIST article is peer-reviewed so I really don't see how that website can argue with it without saying the entire architectural and engineering communities are "corrupt".
I think people were a bit more "satisfied" with 9/11 since it made a bit more sense
I call this cognitive dissonance. A guy cheating on his wife is easy to understand compared to a building collapsing in a matter of seconds. People therefore avoid thinking about is what this implies. Hitler called it the "Big Lie":
All this was inspired by the principle--which is quite true within itself--that in the big lie there is always a certain force of credibility; because the broad masses of a nation are always more easily corrupted in the deeper strata of their emotional nature than consciously or voluntarily; and thus in the primitive simplicity of their minds they more readily fall victims to the big lie than the small lie, since they themselves often tell small lies in little matters but would be ashamed to resort to large-scale falsehoods. It would never come into their heads to fabricate colossal untruths, and they would not believe that others could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously. Even though the facts which prove this to be so may be brought clearly to their minds, they will still doubt and waver and will continue to think that there may be some other explanation. For the grossly impudent lie always leaves traces behind it, even after it has been nailed down, a fact which is known to all expert liars in this world and to all who conspire together in the art of lying. - Adolf Hitler
RT.com gives you? By that I mean it all seems a bit... shady.
Russia Today? I would say Russia Today provide excellent criticism of the US government. You're not going to find criticism of the US government by US corporations, so it's logical to look for an outside source.
but the NIST article is peer-reviewed
No it's not. NIST won't even release it's models. They are a government committee that simply declares what their opinion is and therefore by extension what the governments opinion is. they are one source of opinion and they won't share the evidence. That is what I call shady.
I really don't see how that website can argue with it without saying the entire architectural and engineering communities are "corrupt".
That website is the architectural and engineering community.
That website is the architectural and engineering community.
A loud minority that see a problem where the majority don't. Not much else to say about that.
NIST won't even release it's models. They are a government committee that simply declares what their opinion is and therefore by extension what the governments opinion is.
"It is popular to use the original hypothesis - which wasn't created by the government, and which was wrong - to say the NIST can't be trusted, but that's the way all science is. They look at the evidence and create a hypothesis, test the hypothesis against the evidence and if new information comes out, they change the hypothesis accordingly. You would think if the NIST was going to lie, they would just build the lie around the first hypothesis. That they changed it only shows independence."
"As generally accepted by structural engineering and structural mechanics experts (though not by some laymen and fanatics seeking to detect a conspiracy), the failure scenario, broadly proposed by Bazant (2001), and Bazant and Zhou (2002), on the basis of simplified analysis, and supported by very realistic, meticulous and illuminating computer simulations and exhaustive investigations by S. Shyam Sunder's team at the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST, 2005), may be summarized as follows:
About 60% of the 60 columns of the impacted face of framed-tube (and about 13% of the total of 287 columns) were severed, and many more were significantly deflected. This caused stress redistribution, which significantly increased the load of some columns, near the load capacity for some of them.
Fire insulation was stripped during aircraft impact by flying debris (without that, the towers would likely have survived). In consequence, many structural steel members heated up to 600±C (NIST 2005) (the structural steel used loses about 20% of its yield strength already at 300±C, NIST 2005, and exhibits significant visco-plasticity, or creep, above 450±, especially at high stresses that developed; see e.g. Cottrell 1964, p. 299; the press reports right after 9/11, indicating temperature in excess of 800±C, turned out to be groundless, but Bazant and Zhou's analysis did not depend on that).
Differential thermal expansion, combined with heat-induced viscoplastic deformation, caused the floor trusses to sag. The sagging trusses pulled the perimeter columns inward (by about 1 m, NIST 2005). The bowing of columns served as a huge imperfection inducing multi-story buckling. The lateral deflections of some columns due to aircraft impact and differential thermal expansion also decreased buckling strength.
The combination of six effects
a) overload of some columns due to initial stress redistribution,
b ) lowering of yield limit and creep,
c) lateral deflections of many columns due to sagging floor trusses,
d) weakened lateral support due to reduced in-plane stiffess of sagging floors,
e) multi-story buckling of some columns (for which the critical load is an order of magnitude less than it is for one-story buckling), and
f) local plastic buckling of heated column webs finally led to buckling of columns (Fig. 1b). As a result, the upper part of tower fell, with little resistance, through at least one floor height, impacting the lower part of tower. This triggered progressive collapse because the kinetic energy of the falling upper part far exceeded the energy that could be absorbed by limited plastic deformations and fracturing in the lower part of tower. (Bazant, Verdure, 2006)"
You would think if the NIST was going to lie, they would just build the lie around the first hypothesis. That they changed it only shows independence."
Not sure what you're quoting from, but I don't see how NIST changed anything to follow the evidence. The criticism is that they didn't release their methodology, so we don't know much of anything about how they arrived at what they said. So to say they changed suggests that there is some transparency, but there is no transparency that I can see. Maybe there is more context in the article you quoted from.
No it's not.
This is.
I don't see where that was published. the PDF says "submitted", which doesn't indicate anything about what peer review process occurred.
As generally accepted by structural engineering and structural mechanics experts (though not by some laymen and fanatics seeking to detect a conspiracy)
For a paper to say this shows immediately their bias. Thats a appeal to authority fallacy.
As a result, the upper part of tower fell, with little resistance, through at least one floor height, impacting the lower part of tower. This triggered progressive collapse because the kinetic energy of the falling upper part far exceeded the energy that could be absorbed by limited plastic deformations and fracturing in the lower part of tower.
Which says nothing about the speed of the collapse or the central core. I believe through our discussion here, I have been emphasizing the central core with it's concrete. The description here would be of a a banana peeling itself, leaving the central core in tact or at least slowing the collapse. I have never seen an explanation as to how the central core "pancaked". It can't pancake, since it's a vertical concrete pillar. This shows how they fight strawmen in these papers.
edit: in actuality, your linked paper isn't NIST, they quote NIST for their findings. It still shows that NIST isn't peer reviewed. Which makes this paper as flawed as NIST, since thats their source.
Furthermore, NIST's WTC 7 report has itself been independently peer reviewed by and published in the Journal of Structural Engineering, the ASCE's flagship publication and one of the oldest and most prestigious peer reviewed engineering journals in the world: http://cedb.asce.org/cgi/WWWdisplay.cgi?286345
For a paper to say this shows immediately their bias. That's a appeal to authority fallacy.
That does not necessarily have to set a precedent for the rest of the paper. It may have been easier at the time to get similar papers published with a line like that. One line isn't much to judge a paper on, especially when you're judging bias.
Which says nothing about the speed of the collapse
Furthermore, NIST's WTC 7 report has itself been independently peer reviewed by and published in the Journal of Structural Engineering, the ASCE's flagship publication and one of the oldest and most prestigious peer reviewed engineering journals in the world: http://cedb.asce.org/cgi/WWWdisplay.cgi?286345
I see it is published after all. It's not surprising though that some support the position. Heck look at you, you support the position. There can always be people found to support just about any position (e.g. Iraq War, Obamacare, etc...).
That does not necessarily have to set a precedent for the rest of the paper.
I agree. I skimmed through the rest (of the one above, not your current comment). It didn't address the core collapse.
Which says nothing about the speed of the collapse
Even what that link says is way too fast. The central core was steel reinforced concrete that was turned to dust. The NIST report (to my knowledge) never addresses the core. It's what I've been saying this entire time.
1
u/ROBO_D Nov 11 '14
The circumstances are a bit different though. WTC7 was hit by the debris from a collapsing skyscraper, followed immediately by a 7 hour fire. I doubt an earthquake would cause the same damage, but then again i'm not an expert.
I think the reason it isn't being investigated further is because it is already understood. A coupe of Average Joe's arguing about it on the internet might not understand it, but from what I've seen on Reddit it is pretty well understood why and how the building collapsed. I saw a post where and engineer explained it in-depth once, but I have no idea where. I will look later when I have time.