[asedra] Ed Asner on 9/11 - Building 7

[madd0ct0r]

found the damn report. it's here: http://www.nist.gov/manuscript-publicat ... _id=861610

i need to look at some actual strucutal drawings for this...

[asedra]

Sure but they do contribute to the building being not completely dead typical like truther raving idiots insist. That was the point. Truthers lie like crazy before they even begin suggesting alternative theories. That's usually how the conspiracies theories nonsense goes, try to cast doubt on stuff and then hope everyone will swallow down the first load of bullshit they see instead.

I'm not even sure what you were trying to say here, but boy, the only thing you know about 911 truthers is the caricature that the mainstream media has painted for you. You need to start exposing yourself to the work of actual experts who have strayed away from the official theory, and not the online videos of college kids. Do you really imagine that dylan avery and jason bermass are the golden fleece of the 911 truth movement? And how dare you assume that anyone who has their doubts about the bullshit official explanation is automatically a conspiracy theorist?! My friend (a professional ceramist, who probably knows more about materials science than both of us combined) doesn't believe the official story, so by your reasoning, that means he agrees with everything that alex jones, and david icke say? Fool. There is no line in the sand like you have arbitrarily drawn, no 'in or out.' You really ought to read a treatment on the september 11th attacks by a guy named genady cherepanov (who is a world expert on fracture mechanics, not an average joe like myself), his idea for the collapse of the twin towers holds neither with the official nor the conspiracy theorys. And what is with you peoples fallacy that government can do no wrong? It doesn't exist to serve the people, it exists to further its own ends. You can throw around as much rhetoric about the 'stupidity' of truthers as you want, but until you are able to back up your claims with proof, a claim is all that it shall remain. P.S: It isn't me saying all these things, you idiot. You can go straight to their website, Questions and Answers about the NIST WTC 7 Investigation, and verify what I'm saying.

No but once more, not a normal building, and it could easily have contributed to easing its ability to fall down on top of its self once the collapse began.

LOL. You claim that the con ed substation played a role in building 7s collapse without saying how or why that is so, and with no proof from any official sources (which is all I have been working from so far: I don't need independent research, I can hang you with your own noose) to back you up. In other words, a worthless bluff.

You might recall a rather large area of the building was on fire, and when vertical girders buckle over a considerable height a pancaking effect is exactly what you'd expect.

Small fires were observed in a few different parts of the building prior to its collapse. Most of them were barely visible, and not hot enough to cause window breakage (which throws significant doubt onto NISTs claim about 400 degree temperatures reached by column 79), at least on the north side of the tower, of which there are photos shortly before the collapse. The largest observed fires were the ones visible on the southeast wall. So your statement about a large portion of the building on fire is certainly not true: They spread organically throughout tower 7, burning up the combustibles that were available, never staying in the same spot for more than 20 minutes. 20 minutes was all the time your fire had to heat up column 79 to the point of failure, and it was not enough time.
Furthermore, your pancake collapse has been discredited: It could not explain how the core columns fell, and despite computer animations, entire floors collapsing was not what was actually observed. Also, NIST findings do not support the pancake collapse theory which is premised on the progressive failure of the floor systems in the WTC towers. Again, just visit their website if you don't believe me.

Most steel buildings are designed so no one column is that important, but they also don't design them to burn with zero fire fighting for unlimited periods. In fact one of the major points the NIST report made was that the building's fire resistance was never evaluated as a complete unit. Each piece was evaluated independently so the whole thing MAY have been flawed from the get go.

First, thank you for agreeing with me. Second, the obvious predicate in your statement is the MAY: It MAY have, and it MAY not have. Either way, this claim cannot be verified, so its worthless speculation, and irrelevant to the point I just made! LMFAO.

No many other cases of millions of tons buildings falling down after being hit by 125 ton missiles to look at, you know.

Yeah, just the empire state building, you know. Sure, a B-25 bomber is smaller and slower than a 767, but the WTCs were larger than the ESB, too: Whats more, these towers were specifically built to withstand such an impact event. It was admitted by WTC construction engineer, frank demartini, and head structural engineer, john skilling, that the towers both should have been able to survive the impact of a 707 at 600 MPH, which would have had more kinetic energy than either of the 767-200s. Very suspicious indeed that they collapsed the way they did.

You want to reject the report completely.

No, only the parts that violate the laws of physics, which is a desire you obviously don't share.

[Broomstick]

No many other cases of millions of tons buildings falling down after being hit by 125 ton missiles to look at, you know.

Yeah, just the empire state building, you know. Sure, a B-25 bomber is smaller and slower than a 767,

Fuck yes they are - a B-25's maximum take-off weight is 15,910 kg, a B767's maximum take-off weight is 142,880 kg and 204,120 kg depending on exact model and whether or not it's an extended range version. That's actually a huge difference. The B-25's maximum speed is 438 kph, the B-767's is 913 kph. Again, a rather significant difference.

In other words, the B-25 is, at most, 11% the mass of a B767, and only 47% of the speed.

but the WTCs were larger than the ESB, too:

And built in a very different manner as well. For the WTC, the outer walls were major weight-bearing components. The ESB is much less dependent on the outer wall retaining structural integrity to hold it up.

Whats more, these towers were specifically built to withstand such an impact event. It was admitted by WTC construction engineer, frank demartini, and head structural engineer, john skilling, that the towers both should have been able to survive the impact of a 707 at 600 MPH, which would have had more kinetic energy than either of the 767-200s. Very suspicious indeed that they collapsed the way they did.

A couple of points here:

First, the WTC towers DID, in fact, survive the impact. They unquestionably remained intact for an easily observed period after hit by the airplanes. The collapse came later, after fires had burned uncontrolled. When the towers were designed in the 1960's modeling for such disasters was far less sophisticated than at present, and while they calculated the effects of an impact the effect of extended, uncontrolled fires after such an incident were not accounted for.

Second, a B707's maximum take off weight 100,800 kg and 151,300 kg, again depending on exact model, and I can only assume the earlier and lighter models were used in the structural estimates in the 1960's because those are what was flying back then. As previously mentioned, a B767's MTOW is between 142,880 kg and 204,120 kg. A B707's maximum speed is comparable to the B767, but with the smaller weight it does NOT have more kinetic energy than a B767 it has LESS

Wow, that took me 10 minutes on the internet. Please try again with actual facts.

[FSTargetDrone]

Fuck yes they are - a B-25's maximum take-off weight is 15,910 kg, a B767's maximum take-off weight is 142,880 kg and 204,120 kg depending on exact model and whether or not it's an extended range version. That's actually a huge difference. The B-25's maximum speed is 438 kph, the B-767's is 913 kph. Again, a rather significant difference.

In other words, the B-25 is, at most, 11% the mass of a B767, and only 47% of the speed.

Incidentally, the B-25D (converted to a VIP transport) flown by Lt. Col. Smith that struck the ESB was estimated to have been moving at about 320 km/h and not at its takeoff weight:

The B-25 departed on its fateful mission just before 9 AM headed south for New Jersey. Less than an hour into the flight, however, Smith received warnings from the New York Municipal Airport in Queens (now called LaGuardia Airport) that thick fog had enveloped the city. The field's control tower ominously reported, "We're unable to see the top of the Empire State. Suggest you land here." Though Smith acknowledged the message, he apparently ignored it and requested clearance to continue to Newark.

The plane was only minutes from LaGuardia but lost in a dense fog that limited visibility. Flight rules of the time required aircraft to maintain an altitude of at least 2,000 ft (610 m) over the city, but Smith dropped to less than half that height hoping to regain sight of the ground. That he surely did, but the pilot had misjudged his location and soon found his plane bounding through the concrete canyons of the city's skyscrapers. The bomber soon attracted attention from alarmed citizens as its roaring engines echoed off the facades of buildings below. Those working in the upper stories of office buildings raced to windows to watch in amazement as a plane flew beneath them, turning and banking rapidly as its wingtips barely missed some structures. One observer was Army Air Force Lt. Frank Covey who spotted the doomed B-25 from his room in the Biltmore Hotel. Covey watched in disbelief as the plane barely missed the New York Central Office Building and was no higher than its 22nd floor.

The bomber raced west roughly following 42nd Street before turning south near the intersection with 5th Avenue. This turn proved a fatal mistake as it brought the lumbering plane directly towards the north face of the world's tallest building. Stan Lomax, a local sports announcer for radio station WOR, was driving to work when he first noticed the sound of propeller engines of the approaching B-25. As he looked up, he yelled, "Climb, you fool, climb!" from his car window.

At the last moment, Lt. Col. Smith must have seen the profile of the Empire State Building looming out of the fog. He tried to pull up while banking away, but the distance was too short and the bomber's velocity too great. At approximately 9:49 AM, the B-25 plunged into the 78th and 79th floors of the skyscraper some 975 ft (295 m) above ground level. The plane impacted at an estimated speed of 200 miles per hour (320 km/h) making the building shake under the force of the collision. The high-speed crash also caused the plane's fuel tanks to explode, sending a fireball 100 ft (30 m) high and releasing blazing gasoline down the facade of the building. Sheets of flame also raced through the maze of hallways and stairwells inside the building, reaching at least as far down as the 75th floor.

The crash tore a hole about 18 ft (5.5 m) wide by 20 ft (6 m) tall in the 34th Street exterior of the Empire State Building. While the 78th and 79th floors bore the brunt of the damage, one of the B-25's engines fell down an elevator shaft and set off a major fire in the basement. The other engine hurtled across the building and tore through seven walls before emerging from the 33rd Street side of the tower. The debris crashed through the roof of a thirteen-story building across the street where another fire erupted. Other heavy wreckage, including the landing gear, also caused damage to the Empire State and nearby buildings while Stan Lomax reportedly saw part of a wing catapulting towards Madison Avenue.

<snippage>

...The crash caused $1 million in damages but workers were reportedly able to repair the building within just three months. Workers had to repair or replace bent girders, seal the walls, and restore the two most heavily damaged floors.

Yet the disaster could have been far worse. The low number of casualties is mostly due to the fact the accident occurred on a Saturday when only a few businesses and relief organizations were open, and roughly 1,500 people were in the building at the time of the crash. On a normal weekday, the Empire State Building housed over 15,000 workers and stood at one of the busiest street corners in the world. The intersection of 34th Street and Fifth Avenue would normally see the passage of over 40,000 vehicles and 200,000 pedestrians in an average day. The death toll might also have been much higher had the B-25 been carrying a bomb load and more fuel since a heavier plane would have done considerably more structural damage. As it was, the bomber was about to land and near its minimum weight.

We will go into greater detail documenting the collapse of the World Trade Center in a future article, but a number of factors explain why the Empire State Building suffered relatively minor damage while the twin towers were catastrophically destroyed. First, the energy of impact sustained by the buildings differed by orders of magnitude. The B-25 that struck the Empire State Building weighed approximately 21,500 lb (9,760 kg) and was traveling around 200 mph (320 km/h). The kinetic energy it created in the collision was about 30 million ft-lb (40 million Joules).

The twin towers of the World Trade Center, by comparison, were struck by Boeing 767 airliners traveling over twice as fast and weighing nearly 15 times as much as a B-25. The energy of impact for the two planes ranged from 2 billion ft-lb (2.6 billion Joules) to 3 billion ft-lb (4.1 billion Joules), some 60 to 100 times greater than that absorbed by the Empire State Building. This estimate is also conservative since it does not account for the energy released by the exploding jet fuel, which greatly exceeded the energy released by the much smaller B-25 fuel supply as well. The greater kinetic energy allowed the 767 aircraft to penetrate much further into the twin towers than the B-25 was able to do at the Empire State Building. Most of the B-25 impact was absorbed by the building's exterior wall leaving very little to damage the interior structure. The 767 impacts, however, not only produced gaping holes in the WTC exterior but also destroyed much of the structural core at the center of each tower.

Even so, the impact alone does not fully explain what doomed the World Trade Center towers. A fatal contributing factor was the fires ignited by the exploding fuel tanks. A 767 has a maximum fuel capacity 35 times greater than that of a B-25D. The aircraft that struck the Empire State Building was nearly out of fuel when it crashed while each 767 still carried approximately half of its maximum fuel load at impact. The Empire State Building fire exhausted its supply of fuel rapidly while that at the World Trade Center ignited the office contents across several floors and burned much longer. The type of fuel carried may also be a significant factor. The B-25 burned avgas, a high-octane version of gasoline still used aboard piston engine aircraft today. The 767 instead uses Jet-A, a derivative of kerosene that fuels all commercial jetliners. Jet fuel tends to reach higher temperatures than gasoline causing the fires in the WTC to burn more intensely than that in the Empire State Building.

Aggravating the situation further was the size of the holes torn in the building exteriors. Fires in office buildings generally consume the oxygen available in the enclosed space rapidly limiting the growth and strength of the fire. The exterior holes, however, allowed fresh air to be pulled into the buildings helping the fires to move through the building and consume additional combustible material. Since the damage to the facades of both WTC towers was far more extensive than at the Empire State Building, more air was available to encourage the fires. The air at the Empire State Building was also damp because of the foggy conditions and may have played a role in limiting the extent of the fires in that structure.

Furthermore, the Empire State Building is a reinforced masonry structure in which the structural steel beams are encased within limestone walls or slabs of concrete 8 inches (20 cm) thick. This heavy mass provides exceptional fire protection that insulates the steel within from excessive heating. Many modern skyscrapers like the WTC towers have eliminated this extensive use of stone and concrete to reduce cost. The World Trade Center instead relied on lightweight spay-on coatings for insulation. This insulation was simply blown off the WTC structure by the 767 collisions exposing the steel beams and floor trusses to the raging fire.

The Empire State Building is also a heavily compartmented structure. Each floor is self contained with its own independent heating and cooling ducts, elevator and utility shafts are surrounded by thick masonry walls, fire partitions separate each floor and rooms within each floor, and the fireproof stairway prevents smoke from rising to upper stories. These features make it very difficult for fire to spread beyond a limited area. The World Trade Center instead offered vast open floor spaces that appealed to tenants but allowed fires to spread far more easily. Moreover, the fire suppression system in both towers lacked redundancy and the 767 collisions cut off the water supply to the sprinklers. For these reasons, the Empire State Building is still considered one of the world's safest skyscrapers in a fire.

The Empire State Building crash of 1945 also offers insights into the Pentagon attack on September 11. Both buildings are reinforced masonry structures built using similar methods and materials, although the Pentagon has been considerably upgraded to survive impact damage. One topic often used to promote conspiracy theories is the size of the hole in the exterior wall of the Pentagon created by the Boeing 757 that struck it. The 757 has a wingspan of almost 125 ft (38 m), yet most conspiracy sites suggest the impact hole is only 15 to 65 ft (4.5 to 20 m) wide. The same can be said of the Empire State Building where a plane with a wingspan greater than 67 ft (20.5 m) created a hole no more than 20 ft (6 m) across.

Both aircraft caused damage consistent with the size of the plane and the structural materials used in the facade. Most of the mass of a plane is contained within the fuselage, inner wing structure, and engine nacelles. These portions of the aircraft have the greatest power to penetrate a wall upon impact, and the sizes of the impact holes at both the Empire State Building and the Pentagon are consistent with the dimensions of the fuselage and nacelles of the B-25 and 757, respectively. The outer wings and tail surfaces are much lighter structures consisting mostly of a thin skin enclosing empty space. Upon colliding a thick wall composed of a dense material like stone or concrete, these light aerodynamic structures simply disintegrate. The impact often produces surface gouging and perhaps small, localized holes, but the lighter aircraft structures generally cannot penetrate a reinforced masonry wall. Close examination of both buildings shows gouges extending outward from the central impact hole as would be expected from the collision of wings.

[FSTargetDrone]

By the way, that's a B-25J in my signature (^^^), a later but dimensionally-similar variant of the B-25. You can see how relatively small of an aircraft it is--there are people standing between the main landing gear with their upper body in the bomb bay.

[Sea Skimmer]

I'm not even sure what you were trying to say here, but boy, the only thing you know about 911 truthers is the caricature that the mainstream media has painted for you. You need to start exposing yourself to the work of actual experts who have strayed away from the official theory, and not the online videos of college kids. Do you really imagine that dylan avery and jason bermass are the golden fleece of the 911 truth movement?

No just some among many fools.

And how dare you assume that anyone who has their doubts about the bullshit official explanation is automatically a conspiracy theorist?!

How dare I? It’s a fact of fucking life in my experience, and you sure aren’t changing it.

My friend (a professional ceramist, who probably knows more about materials science than both of us combined) doesn't believe the official story, so by your reasoning, that means he agrees with everything that alex jones, and david icke say?

No it means you are making a vague appeal to authority which means nothing, typical of conspiracy theory believers. Want to prove me wrong, then get a published paper out of that guy on the topic. Until then your friend could be imaginary for all I know, and we’ve had quite a few fakers in the past. The internet you know, is kind of know for that.

Fool. There is no line in the sand like you have arbitrarily drawn, no 'in or out.' You really ought to read a treatment on the september 11th attacks by a guy named genady cherepanov (who is a world expert on fracture mechanics, not an average joe like myself), his idea for the collapse of the twin towers holds neither with the official nor the conspiracy theorys.

Yeah I just looked into him, he says that nobody believes him, including people in foreign countries hostile to the United States such as Russia; and that he’s being actively suppressed by the scientific community. That normally means someone is spreading garbage work. So since your not even going to provide a link to this work, not going to waste anymore time on it.

And what is with you peoples fallacy that government can do no wrong? It doesn't exist to serve the people, it exists to further its own ends.

And it’s own ends are furthered by this how exactly? It keeps thousands of people silent how exactly? It has what to gain by making buildings less safe and preventing future improvements? Unless you do believe in a grand conspiracy the government didn’t gain anything, September 11th cost the nation at least 600 billion fucking dollars and endless new problems.

You can throw around as much rhetoric about the 'stupidity' of truthers as you want, but until you are able to back up your claims with proof, a claim is all that it shall remain.

This from a person with making appeals to ‘friends’. Yeah you keep doing that and thinking its proof.

P.S: It isn't me saying all these things, you idiot. You can go straight to their website, Questions and Answers about the NIST WTC 7 Investigation, and verify what I'm saying.

It’s your job to cite for your arguments, not mine. I did glance at that page though and they respond to various questions and explain why they believe the analysis is correct, they do not conclude ‘and thus we are wrong’. Anyone can ask any question they want, the fact that someone may reply to it does not mean the question was correct or not. The fucking flagship conspiracy theory thermite question is in that list for gods sakes. In fact the Q&A section simply concludes with a summary of recommendations for improving fire safety of large buildings.

LOL. You claim that the con ed substation played a role in building 7s collapse without saying how or why that is so, and with no proof from any official sources (which is all I have been working from so far: I don't need independent research, I can hang you with your own noose) to back you up. In other words, a worthless bluff.

Yeah the substation was a mistake on my part. I was recalling earlier reports before the final analysis. This of course, does nothing to change the actual final analysis, which you meanwhile claim is all bullshit. It’s funny that you say you don’t need independent research though, while pointing to a page which says you are wrong. Seriously, what was your point with doing that?

Small fires were observed in a few different parts of the building prior to its collapse. Most of them were barely visible, and not hot enough to cause window breakage (which throws significant doubt onto NISTs claim about 400 degree temperatures reached by column 79), at least on the north side of the tower, of which there are photos shortly before the collapse. The largest observed fires were the ones visible on the southeast wall. So your statement about a large portion of the building on fire is certainly not true: They spread organically throughout tower 7, burning up the combustibles that were available, never staying in the same spot for more than 20 minutes. 20 minutes was all the time your fire had to heat up column 79 to the point of failure, and it was not enough time.

You can have whatever pet definition of ‘large portion’ you want, but guess what, people present that day thought it was heavy and dangerous fire and saved countless lives by treating it as such.

http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/ny ... Daniel.txt

The most important operational decision to be made that
afternoon was the collapse had damaged 7 World Trade
Center, which is about a 50 story building, at Vesey
between West Broadway and Washington Street. It had very
heavy fire on many floors and I ordered the evacuation of
an area sufficient around to protect our members, so we
had to give up some rescue operations that were going on
at the time and back the people away far enough so that if
7 World Trade did collapse, we wouldnít lose any more
people.

We continued to operate on what we could from
that distance and approximately an hour and a half after
that order was giver., at 5:30 in the afternoon, World
Trade Center collapsed completely I continued to operate
at the scene until probably somewhere around

That is a quote from Dan Nigro Chief of the New York City Fire Department, now retired. He says you are full of crap trying to downplay the fires.

Furthermore, your pancake collapse has been discredited: It could not explain how the core columns fell, and despite computer animations, entire floors collapsing was not what was actually observed. Also, NIST findings do not support the pancake collapse theory which is premised on the progressive failure of the floor systems in the WTC towers. Again, just visit their website if you don't believe me.

Again, it is not my job to make arguments for you. Read the forum rules.

First, thank you for agreeing with me. Second, the obvious predicate in your statement is the MAY: It MAY have, and it MAY not have. Either way, this claim cannot be verified, so its worthless speculation, and irrelevant to the point I just made! LMFAO.

Since your point was to speculate that the NIST is wrong, while claim you have no independent research on the manner the real fact is you never made a point in the first place.

Yeah, just the empire state building, you know. Sure, a B-25 bomber is smaller and slower than a 767, but the WTCs were larger than the ESB, too:

The proportional difference between a B-25 and a 767 is vastly greatly the difference between the World Trade Center towers and the Empire State Building. The empty weight of the B-25 is about the same as the weight of the engines alone on a 767. The 767 is much heavier, much faster, has a much larger diameter, larger wingspan, which make a big difference to the size of the initial damage area. 15 tons class, to be optimistic about how much that B-25 probably weighed at time of impact, against 125 ton class. The 767 is about eight times heavier, never mind the speed difference or vast difference in scale of fires.

Whats more, these towers were specifically built to withstand such an impact event. It was admitted by WTC construction engineer, frank demartini, and head structural engineer, john skilling, that the towers both should have been able to survive the impact of a 707 at 600 MPH, which would have had more kinetic energy than either of the 767-200s.

Actually the 767 is heavier. But in fact while several designers said a 707 impact was taken into account, the only one who could provide any details, as no detailed records are to be found and everyone is more or less going from memory, was Leslie Robertson, also one of the top engineers of the building and soon after one of the named members of the design firm. He said that in fact the study was for a plane with limited fuel and low speed trying to land. His belief is that the buildings held up well to an impact above the design, and allowed many people to escape. He has also said the massive fires simply weren’t very well understood at the time. We already know the building was NOT well designed for an aircraft impact, because nothing protected the damn stairways ensuring that people above the impact would likely be cut off and die.

His makes some comments on the matter in the following file, which includes diagrams showing the difference in energy between a B-25, 707 and 767. See page eight specifically
http://www.nae.edu/File.aspx?id=7345

Very suspicious indeed that they collapsed the way they did.

Thanks for admitting you are a truther. Boy, I was willing to bet this wasn’t really just about possible problems in the building 7 report, and here you go off on the main towers too.

No, only the parts that violate the laws of physics, which is a desire you obviously don't share.

[/quote]

In favor of ‘suspicions’ of a deliberate cover-up right?

[asedra]

Fuck yes they are - a B-25's maximum take-off weight is 15,910 kg, a B767's maximum take-off weight is 142,880 kg and 204,120 kg depending on exact model and whether or not it's an extended range version. That's actually a huge difference. The B-25's maximum speed is 438 kph, the B-767's is 913 kph. Again, a rather significant difference. In other words, the B-25 is, at most, 11% the mass of a B767, and only 47% of the speed.

Yes, your right. My figures had the B-25s weight somewhat higher than what wikipedia listed, they must have been including its ordnance.

And built in a very different manner as well. For the WTC, the outer walls were major weight-bearing components. The ESB is much less dependent on the outer wall retaining structural integrity to hold it up.

You underestimate the world trade centers sheer resilience: They would still be able to withstand a 100-mile-per-hour wind even after ALL the perimeter columns on one face, and some of the columns on each adjacent face, had been cut. Also, john skilling is cited by the engineering news record for the claim that "live loads on these perimeter columns can be increased more than 2000% before failure occurs." Ooops.

First, the WTC towers DID, in fact, survive the impact.

Yes, and with only 3% and 12% of their core columns (north and south towers, respectively) severed. Not surprising, considering that at least 50% of the core columns must be destroyed before a collapse can even begin to take place.

Second, a B707's maximum take off weight 100,800 kg and 151,300 kg, again depending on exact model, and I can only assume the earlier and lighter models were used in the structural estimates in the 1960's because those are what was flying back then. As previously mentioned, a B767's MTOW is between 142,880 kg and 204,120 kg. A B707's maximum speed is comparable to the B767, but with the smaller weight it does NOT have more kinetic energy than a B767 it has LESS.

Is that so? The two planes that hit the towers was a 767-200, and a 767-200ER, so the max takeoff weight would be 142,000 - 179,000 KG, respectively. They were not topped up to full capacity, in terms of both fuel, passengers, and cargo, so that estimate must be reduced. We can go with the weight of the 707-320 (150,000 KG), since that was the latest model of the 707 line at the time skilling made his report, IIRC.
The 707 cruises at 965 KMH, whereas the 767-200 cruises at 860 KMH. Its only a slight difference, but still worth noting. In any case, skilling assumed that the 707 would be at max takeoff weight, cruise speed (not at takeoff or landing speed, as is commonly asserted), and full fuel load. That was the thing that mainly concerned me. Given the differences in cruise speeds, a 707 in normal flight would actually have more kinetic energy than a 767. Note the similar fuel capacities of both aircraft. The 767s used on september 11th were estimated to be carrying about 10,000 gallons of fuel each at the time of impact, only about 40% of the capacity of a 707.

'Wow, that took me 10 minutes on the internet. Please try again with actual facts.' Please do not insinuate that I am lying again.

[madd0ct0r]

if you're not lying, you're being decidedly economical with the truth.

I'm about 2/3 of the way through that report. it wasn't a floor beam expanding that pushed col 79 off it's bearing you nitwit.

It was a hanger beam theat pushed a main floor beam off it's bearing on col79, with the resultant floor collapse leaving the column unrestrained for something like 6 floors and basically reducing it's strength by some huge factor that i'd have to sit down to double check, but 5*24 is springing to mind.

I will finish the report, I will go back through the thread and find your concrete (hah) assertions and explore them.

oh, and as for the differential expansion between the beam and slab all you had to say to me was 'composite steel panels'. You didn't, so i can conclude you know pretty much nothing about structual engineering, and from the post above, nothing about kinetic energy either.

[asedra]

No it means you are making a vague appeal to authority which means nothing, typical of conspiracy theory believers.

My statement could easily be misconstrued as an appeal to authority, but that was not its intent: I only meant to imply that people knowledgeable in the sciences can DECIDE FOR THEMSELVES what happened during these attacks, that there is not unanimous consensus among 'experts' supporting the official conclusion (so thus, my example is an inverse authority appeal), and that some even disagreements with it directly, to refute your claim that only idiots or ignoramus will do so (which is, again, an inverse authority appeal). In any case, an appeal to authority, and other such logical fallacys, is something that the weaker party uses: Since I'm thoroughly kicking your ass, why would I have need of it?

Yeah I just looked into him, he says that nobody believes him, including people in foreign countries hostile to the United States such as Russia; and that he’s being actively suppressed by the scientific community. That normally means someone is spreading garbage work. So since your not even going to provide a link to this work, not going to waste anymore time on it.

Wow, that was a long pull. I make an oblique reference to someone (who agrees with neither side) whos work you can look into as a hobby, and now I'm citing his work directly to back me up, and guilty of not providing a link? Is this all you have for me, little sea skimmer? Nitpicks and anal retentive whining? Enough of your grand standing and displaying, either defend your erroneous statements about falling debris, diesel fuel, and the con ed substation, or get out of madd0ct0rs way so we can have a real argument. Seriously, take your brave noises elsewhere, they'll do you no good here.

This from a person with making appeals to ‘friends’. Yeah you keep doing that and thinking its proof.

I think we already went over this. But whatever, strawman. My argument in no way depended on the knowledge of this 'authority' figure, so your suggestion is a pointless one anyway: As I said, I can hang you with your own governments research on the collapse of WTC 7, and you haven't proven able to stop me. Show me a factual argument, or admit you had none to begin with

I did glance at that page though and they respond to various questions and explain why they believe the analysis is correct, they do not conclude and 'thus we are wrong!'

You need them to actually admit that in order to come to the conclusion that the official story is an impossibility? How sad. Apparently, you aren't aware of the fact that NIST removed all references of their theory being consistent with the laws of physics in their final report. That should have been a tip off, captain obvious.

It’s funny that you say you don’t need independent research though, while pointing to a page which says you are wrong.

Your stupidity is astonishing: NIST can claim whatever they want, but when their own research does not support their claims, THEY are wrong. So, to dumb it down to your level... Everybodys got a story: The question is, whos story fits the facts?

This of course, does nothing to change the actual final analysis, which you meanwhile claim is all bullshit.

I DO NOT claim it is ALL bullshit: In fact, I use their own, actual statements to refute what you have said (as long as those statements can be verified as accurate).

In favor of ‘suspicions’ of a deliberate cover-up right?

No, in favour of one that accounts for free fall speed, molten steel, pulverisation of 70% of the towers structure into a fine cloud of dust, and furness like temperatures in the foundations of the WTC. Something neither the NIST nor the FEMA reports did.

[Sea Skimmer]

So you ignore everything including the fact that I admitted the substation didn't matter for the cause of the collapse, present nothing new and conveniently ignore the fact that you just made some blatantly preposterous claims about the very nature of the attack and everyone knows it. I see you are also rolling out more of the truther claims about the main towers. Great job. I love the one one '70% dust' BTW. That's totally what that jagged mountain of debris was; I really honestly would love to see what on earth you pulled that one out of.

[Edi]

I only meant to imply that people knowledgeable in the sciences can DECIDE FOR THEMSELVES what happened during these attacks, that there is not unanimous consensus among 'experts' supporting the official conclusion (so thus, my example is an inverse authority appeal), and that some even disagreements with it directly, to refute your claim that only idiots or ignoramus will do so (which is, again, an inverse authority appeal). In any case, an appeal to authority, and other such logical fallacys, is something that the weaker party uses: Since I'm thoroughly kicking your ass, why would I have need of it?

There is a unanimous consensus among those who actually understand the material science behind the reports and the 911 Truther morons are not included in that. The only thing you are doing here is making a laughingstock of yourself, but that's fine by me, we can all use a good laugh or two at your expense. You're just like every other Truther moron we've seen: All bluster, no credible sources and the sources that you do produce are either all lies or something that directly refutes your own arguments but which some scientifically illiterate moron took to mean something else.

[asedra]

I only meant to imply that people knowledgeable in the sciences can DECIDE FOR THEMSELVES what happened during these attacks, that there is not unanimous consensus among 'experts' supporting the official conclusion (so thus, my example is an inverse authority appeal), and that some even disagreements with it directly, to refute your claim that only idiots or ignoramus will do so (which is, again, an inverse authority appeal). In any case, an appeal to authority, and other such logical fallacys, is something that the weaker party uses: Since I'm thoroughly kicking your ass, why would I have need of it?

There is a unanimous consensus among those who actually understand the material science behind the reports and the 911 Truther morons are not included in that. The only thing you are doing here is making a laughingstock of yourself, but that's fine by me, we can all use a good laugh or two at your expense. You're just like every other Truther moron we've seen: All bluster, no credible sources and the sources that you do produce are either all lies or something that directly refutes your own arguments but which some scientifically illiterate moron took to mean something else.

Whatever, loser. You aren't engaging in the debate, and your certainly not putting your dick on the chopping block like the rest of your buddys are. No guts, no glory. Have fun sitting up in your ivory tower and looking your nose down at me.

"It is not the critic who counts: not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles or where the doer of deeds could have done better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood, who strives valiantly, who errs and comes up short again and again, because there is no effort without error or shortcoming, but who knows the great enthusiasms, the great devotions, who spends himself for a worthy cause; who, at the best, knows, in the end, the triumph of high achievement, and who, at the worst, if he fails, at least he fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who knew neither victory nor defeat." -FDR

[PeZook]

Already posting famous quotes by historical figures, I see...

[weemadando]

You've never been one for academia have you?

Otherwise you'd realise that quotes in isolation are worthless and should be given context and meaning by their use, not to mention that they only really count if you're using them in such a way as to support your positions.

By enlarging your knowledge of things, you will find your knowledge of self is enlarged.
~ Charles de Lint ~

BOOM. Wow. Front page of Wikiquote quote of the day. Just as relevant as what you posted.

But onto serious matters. If you truly believe this was an inside job, please answer me one thing - how was this controlled demolition kept quiet? What happened to the tens if not hundreds of workers who had to have been involved in setting this up? How did no one notice this happening while the building was occupied up to the point of demolition? And why has nothing leaked about this? Are you asking us to believe that a government that couldn't manage to even fake a WMD find in Iraq was somehow capable of running such a massive operation in the middle of one of the largest office complexes in one of the largest cities in the world and NO ONE NOTICED IT? Especially given that for a project of this scale it requires full time work for UP TO SIX MONTHS.

[Edi]

I only meant to imply that people knowledgeable in the sciences can DECIDE FOR THEMSELVES what happened during these attacks, that there is not unanimous consensus among 'experts' supporting the official conclusion (so thus, my example is an inverse authority appeal), and that some even disagreements with it directly, to refute your claim that only idiots or ignoramus will do so (which is, again, an inverse authority appeal). In any case, an appeal to authority, and other such logical fallacys, is something that the weaker party uses: Since I'm thoroughly kicking your ass, why would I have need of it?

There is a unanimous consensus among those who actually understand the material science behind the reports and the 911 Truther morons are not included in that. The only thing you are doing here is making a laughingstock of yourself, but that's fine by me, we can all use a good laugh or two at your expense. You're just like every other Truther moron we've seen: All bluster, no credible sources and the sources that you do produce are either all lies or something that directly refutes your own arguments but which some scientifically illiterate moron took to mean something else.

Whatever, loser. You aren't engaging in the debate, and your certainly not putting your dick on the chopping block like the rest of your buddys are. No guts, no glory. Have fun sitting up in your ivory tower and looking your nose down at me.

"It is not the critic who counts: not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles or where the doer of deeds could have done better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood, who strives valiantly, who errs and comes up short again and again, because there is no effort without error or shortcoming, but who knows the great enthusiasms, the great devotions, who spends himself for a worthy cause; who, at the best, knows, in the end, the triumph of high achievement, and who, at the worst, if he fails, at least he fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who knew neither victory nor defeat." -FDR

I don't need to engage you, because the Sea Skimmer, madd0ctor and others have already eviscrated your pitiful excuses for an argument. The quote you chose, by the way, perfectly illustrates exacly how and why you and the rest of the Truther movement are utter morons. The NYFD and other authorities did a huge amount of work investigating the causes of the WTC collapse analyzing the structural issues involved and then published those findings and allowed us to understand what happened and why after the planes impacted on the towers.

Then along come you and the other fucking morons like you, looking at a couple of visuals, ignoring all the other evidence, lying your arse off and picking gnatshit out of pepper and you have the gall to quote that at me? When YOU are the critic in the quote?

You really are fucking riot!

[Broomstick]

Fuck yes they are - a B-25's maximum take-off weight is 15,910 kg, a B767's maximum take-off weight is 142,880 kg and 204,120 kg depending on exact model and whether or not it's an extended range version. That's actually a huge difference. The B-25's maximum speed is 438 kph, the B-767's is 913 kph. Again, a rather significant difference. In other words, the B-25 is, at most, 11% the mass of a B767, and only 47% of the speed.

Yes, your right. My figures had the B-25s weight somewhat higher than what wikipedia listed, they must have been including its ordnance.

No, you fucking moron - maximum take-off weight just that, MAXIMUM weight. There is not some MTOW+ordinance weight. EVERYTHING is included in MTOW. Not that I expected you to have any real aviation knowledge, even that acquired in beginning flight school. Now that we've established that one of your "facts" and sources is in error how about you run along and check the rest while the grown ups are talking?

Second, a B707's maximum take off weight 100,800 kg and 151,300 kg, again depending on exact model, and I can only assume the earlier and lighter models were used in the structural estimates in the 1960's because those are what was flying back then. As previously mentioned, a B767's MTOW is between 142,880 kg and 204,120 kg. A B707's maximum speed is comparable to the B767, but with the smaller weight it does NOT have more kinetic energy than a B767 it has LESS.

Is that so? The two planes that hit the towers was a 767-200, and a 767-200ER, so the max takeoff weight would be 142,000 - 179,000 KG, respectively. They were not topped up to full capacity, in terms of both fuel, passengers, and cargo, so that estimate must be reduced. We can go with the weight of the 707-320 (150,000 KG), since that was the latest model of the 707 line at the time skilling made his report, IIRC.
The 707 cruises at 965 KMH, whereas the 767-200 cruises at 860 KMH. Its only a slight difference, but still worth noting. In any case, skilling assumed that the 707 would be at max takeoff weight, cruise speed (not at takeoff or landing speed, as is commonly asserted), and full fuel load. That was the thing that mainly concerned me. Given the differences in cruise speeds, a 707 in normal flight would actually have more kinetic energy than a 767. Note the similar fuel capacities of both aircraft. The 767s used on september 11th were estimated to be carrying about 10,000 gallons of fuel each at the time of impact, only about 40% of the capacity of a 707.

American Airlines Flight 11 was a 767-223ER, and United Airlines Flight 175 was a 767-222. Both of those planes were flown into the towers NOT at normal cruise speeds but with the greatest speed the hijackers could obtain at that low of an altitude.

As already noted, when calculating a B707 impact the assumption on the part of the WTC designers was NOT that some deranged assholes would deliberately slam airplanes into the towers at highest possible speed, shortly after those airplanes took off fueled for a cross-continental flight, but that such an impact would be accidental, presumably while attempting to land at a nearby airport and therefore slower than cruise and lighter than take-off weight. Thus, yes, for the calculated scenario on the part of the designers it would, in fact, have LESS kinetic energy due to those two factors.

Your assumptions drive the weight/speed/energy of AA Flight 11 and UA Flight 175 downward, while tweaking the hypothetical B707 impact upward. Cherry pick much? The actual reality is the opposite - the B707 numbers were tweaked downward, and the actual impacts had greater energy than your assumptions.

Also, please provide a cite for your "estimate" of 10,000 gallons of fuel each. There shouldn't be a need to "estimate" fuel on board for either of those two airplanes as fuel load numbers are a matter of record, as they are required to calculate take off weight as well as weight and balance. If you really wanted to run the calculations the precise figures should be out there. I have to wonder if that is more of your shit sources tweaking numbers to fit their pet theories rather than using actual real figures.

'Wow, that took me 10 minutes on the internet. Please try again with actual facts.' Please do not insinuate that I am lying again.

I am not insinuating you are lying, I am saying that you are lazy and you are wrong.

[madd0ct0r]

actually I'm going to put my hand up and say I don't consider I've eviscerated his arguments yet, mostly cause there ain't a lot to work with and more especially because the report is 130 pages long and not simple.

I actually feel almost sorry for him since he's gone up against a structural engineer, a pilot and whatever the hell seaskimmer does (Which i've always suspected as being military intellignece...), all of whom seem to be a bad mood this close to christmas. The word chew-toy keeps drifting across my brain

How many people can he claim dogpiling for? gotta be fair. it's more fun that way.

[PeZook]

The main discussion seems to be going between him, madd0ct0r, Skimmer and Broomstick, so let's keep it that way, nice and orderly.

[Simon_Jester]

Pure side note:

Actually the 767 is heavier. But in fact while several designers said a 707 impact was taken into account, the only one who could provide any details, as no detailed records are to be found and everyone is more or less going from memory, was Leslie Robertson, also one of the top engineers of the building and soon after one of the named members of the design firm. He said that in fact the study was for a plane with limited fuel and low speed trying to land. His belief is that the buildings held up well to an impact above the design, and allowed many people to escape. He has also said the massive fires simply weren’t very well understood at the time. We already know the building was NOT well designed for an aircraft impact, because nothing protected the damn stairways ensuring that people above the impact would likely be cut off and die.

?My impression is that "able to survive jetliner impact" wasn't really in the design specifications. And that the study was done as an afterthought, at a time when the B-25 impact on the Empire State Building was well within living memory, because people honestly wanted to know about this possible disaster mode, much like they'd want to know how the building would stand up to a tropical storm or an earthquake. "Gee, what if a plane smacks into one of the towers? Will it survive for a while, or will it collapse into a pile of rubble immediately and kill everyone inside?" If they'd gotten "collapse immediately" as a result maybe they'd have reinforced the design, I don't know, but since major airplane crashes into buildings were a rare disaster and still are if sabotage is discounted, I can't blame them for not building the whole design around airplane crash-resistance.

[Sea Skimmer]

?My impression is that "able to survive jetliner impact" wasn't really in the design specifications. And that the study was done as an afterthought, at a time when the B-25 impact on the Empire State Building was well within living memory, because people honestly wanted to know about this possible disaster mode, much like they'd want to know how the building would stand up to a tropical storm or an earthquake. "Gee, what if a plane smacks into one of the towers? Will it survive for a while, or will it collapse into a pile of rubble immediately and kill everyone inside?" If they'd gotten "collapse immediately" as a result maybe they'd have reinforced the design, I don't know, but since major airplane crashes into buildings were a rare disaster and still are if sabotage is discounted, I can't blame them for not building the whole design around airplane crash-resistance.

It’s unclear if it was or not, some analysis was done in 1964 during the design phase, some was done in 1971 during construction and supposedly FEMA later looked at the topic. Nobody has any serious documentation on any of this, and it took years just to find a few scraps of paper that sort of confirmed that it ever happened at all. Whatever the conclusions of those reports, which would have all be done pen and paper, no computer simulations back then meaning lots of guess work and no ability to run numerous repetitive simulations based on different assumptions, it is clear that the building was not comprehensively designed with such an event in mind. If they were then a number of protective steps could have been taken but were not, like hardened fire stairs, foaming sprinkler systems or physical protection for fireproofing. Also just building the damn thing out of concrete would be far more survivable, and since September 11th hi rise building in concrete has greatly increased in scope. But the WTC towers were designed primarily to maximize clear rentable floor area. Many other large buildings of the era had been plagued by poor floor layouts that had made them uneconomical and unattractive to major corporations.

Since the moron is calling impact energy into question, I think this diagram is totally worth looking at showing how major pieces of debris not only went clear through the building, they had kinetic energy to flying as much as four blocks away.

[DPDarkPrimus]

DP, I also want you to provide excerpts relevant to Asedra's arguments not just post a link and expect your opponent to read everything.

It's not an especially long article and I think most people here would find at least one thing in it new or interesting - but I'm not at all demanding it be done. Here's some excerpts from the article.

How could the buildings fall so quickly? It’s been explained very well in the technical literature by Northwestern’s Zdenek Bazant, PhD, and others (see, for example, Bazant 2008). I’ve developed a simpler physics model of the progressive collapses that agrees quite well with the main points of Bazant’s more rigorous results (Thomas 2010b). Here are some of my findings:

• Each floor of the towers contained over two million kilograms of mass. The gravitational potential energy of a standing tower with twelve-foot floors extending upward 110 stories can be calculated straightforwardly; it comes to over 420 billion joules of energy, or the equivalent of 100 tons of TNT per tower. This energy, which was released completely during the collapses, is more than the energy of some of the smaller nuclear weapons in the U.S. arsenal, such as the W-48 (72 tons TNT) (Sublette 2006). This is where the energy required to break columns, pulverize concrete, and expel debris through windows came from. (Truthers often compare such expulsions of air and debris, visible several floors below the collapse fronts, to “squibs,” explosive devices often used in demolitions. However, they are readily explained by pressure changes as the towers, acting like a gigantic bicycle pump being compressed, collapsed.)
• The Twin Towers used a “tube within a tube” architectural design, which provided considerable open office space in the interiors of the Towers. Much of the structural support was provided by a dense grouping of thick central core columns in the interior and the perimeter walls on the outside. When the towers began to collapse, large parts of the inner cores (called “the Spires” in 9/11 Truth circles) were actually left standing, briefly, before they, too, toppled over. The perimeter walls were largely forced to peel outward in large sections, producing the iconic images of Ground Zero with which we’re all familiar. Between the outer perimeter and the inner core, the weight of the upper sections plowed through one floor after another, breaking the floor connection brackets and support columns, pulverizing concrete decks, and gaining momentum and mass with each additional floor failure. Had the buildings been constructed differently (the Port Authority was allowed to circumvent some existing New York buildings requirements for the Towers), the collapses might not have even happened (Young 2007).
• Even the 9/11 Truth movement’s most eminent physicists are confused about the basic principle of the difference between static and dynamic forces. A piece of paper, taped across a jar’s opening, will support a heavy coin such as a quarter indefinitely (static load). However, if the coin is dropped from just a few inches up, it will tear right through the paper (dynamic load). Given the information at hand—for example, the mass of the upper section of the north tower (fifty-eight million kilograms), the distance it fell (3.8 meters, about twelve feet), and the stiffness/rigidity of the lower structure itself, the dynamic force imparted on the lower section can be estimated as some thirty times the upper portion’s weight. This is many times the lower structure’s safety margin, which explains why it was quickly overwhelmed.
• Once progressive collapse began, there were decreasing time intervals of free fall (between floors), punctuated by very brief, incredibly violent collisions—decelerations—of the upper mass, for each floor in turn. There was resistance at every step of the collapse, as the upper section collided with and incorporated each floor below. Conservation of momentum shows that the reductions in falling speed were slight as each floor was impacted, going as the ratio of floors before to floors after (e.g. 14/15, or about 94 percent, for the first impact). Accordingly, the upper section fell from rest to about 19 mph, was slowed down to 18 mph by the first impact, continued to fall until a speed of 26 mph was reached, was then slowed down to 24 mph by another impact, and so on. While the first plunge lasted about nine-tenths of a second, the upper section took only four-tenths of a second to fall through the next floor, three-tenths of a second for the next one, and so on until the bottom floors, which were crushed at a rate of just seven-hundredths of a second each, at speeds of over 100 mph. Yes, there was resistance at every step, as many tons of structural steel was demolished; yet the entire process, like an avalanche, lasted only fifteen to twenty seconds, about 50 to 100 percent longer than true “free fall” would have lasted.
• Physics teacher David Chandler’s measurements of the first seconds of the collapse of the North Tower (WTC 1) showed that it fell with increasing speed but at only two-thirds of gravitational acceleration (g) (Chandler 2010). Chandler argues that this means the bottom section exerted a constant upward force of one-third of the upper section’s weight upon its mass, and he declares that this force should have been much larger, indicating that “some sort of controlled demolition was at work.”
• Second, Chandler argues that being a Newtonian action/reaction pair, the impact force of the upper section on the lower section was only a third of the upper part’s weight. However, I’ve found that his estimate of the downward impact force was too low by a factor of one hundred. In addition, I found that the actual process—a series of twelve-foot free falls punctuated by violent and brief collisions with each floor—would have resulted in an average acceleration of precisely what Chandler measured for the start of the collapse of WTC 1, namely 2/3 g. (By the end of the collapse, my calculations indicate an average acceleration of only 1/3 g, but this can’t be measured in dust-obscured videos.)

Claim Three:
“Tower 7, which wasn’t hit by a plane, collapsed neatly into its own footprint.”

The enigma of WTC 7 is becoming increasingly popular in Truther circles. We’re told that it wasn’t hit by a plane and was subjected to just a few “small office fires.” Yet it collapsed anyway, late in the afternoon of September 11, “falling neatly into its own footprint at freefall acceleration, just like a normal controlled demolition.” In particular, Truthers point to a brief period of freefall (2.25 seconds) that was confirmed by NIST in its WTC 7 final report (Sunder 2008; NIST 2010) as proving that the building was purposely imploded. However, WTC 7, too, fails to prove 9/11 was an “inside job”:

• What is often conveniently left out of the story are actual reports from NYFD firefighters at the scene, which describe huge, raging, unfought fires on many floors at once and visible deformations and creaking of the building prior to its collapse (Roberts 2008). Tower 7 was not hit by an airplane; however, it was struck by a 110-story flaming skyscraper, the North Tower. The fires raged for hours, and they eventually caused a critical column (#79) to fail because of thermal expansion; NIST determined that this column was crucial to the building and could even be considered a design flaw. Its failure would have collapsed the building even without the other structural damage from WTC 1’s collapse and the fires.
• WTC 7’s brief 2.25 seconds of free fall is now the Truthers’ best “smoking gun.” The claim usually goes like this: “The fifty-eight perimeter columns would have resisted and slowed the collapse to much less than freefall. The ‘freefall’ of WTC 7, admitted to by NIST, proves it was controlled demolition.” The problem is that this is a straw man argument. NIST found the collapse occurred in three stages. The first stage, which lasted 1.75 seconds, is when the fifty-eight perimeter columns were buckled; during this interval, the rooftop actually fell only about seven feet. This is because the breaking of columns saps speed, indeed making the collapse slower than free fall. In the second stage, which lasted 2.25 seconds, the already-buckled columns provided negligible support, and the north face of the structure free-fell about eight stories. (Try taking a plastic drinking straw and buckling it by folding it over and then pushing down on the bent straw with your hand. The crimped straw provides almost no resistance to vertical forces, and neither did the buckled columns of WTC 7.) The third stage described by NIST, which lasted 1.4 seconds, was again less-than-free fall, as the structure fell another 130 feet as it impacted more non-buckled structures toward the bottom of the building (NIST 2010).
• The other half of the equation is that WTC 7 resembles a “classic controlled demolition” because it supposedly “imploded, collapsing completely, and landed in its own footprint” (Gage 2011). In actuality, it twisted and tilted over to one side as it fell, and parts of the building severely damaged two neighboring buildings (the Verizon and Fiterman Hall structures). When challenged with the obvious fact that Tower 7 spilled far outside its footprint, however, Truthers will often change their tune and start saying that any resemblance to a natural collapse is part of the cover-up.

[LaCroix]

[Since the moron is calling impact energy into question, I think this diagram is totally worth looking at showing how major pieces of debris not only went clear through the building, they had kinetic energy to flying as much as four blocks away.

http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/LCSN/Eq/WTC_20010911.html
This page has seismograms of the impacts and the collapses.

You might note that the horizontal impact of the planes created a similar graph as #7 collapsing. It's fair to say that these impacts were just as bad as dropping a building on the towers.

[Sky Captain]

Weren't there also few pictures snapped from helicopter minutes before collapse showing significant inward bending of WTC outer walls pretty much confirming that collapse was caused by force exerted by bending of floor support beams? At least I vaguely remember a picture with skyscraper on fire and with it's outer walls bent inwards.

[Broomstick]

I remember that, too. You can find some of those up on YouTube.

[Thanas]

"It is not the critic who counts: not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles or where the doer of deeds could have done better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood, who strives valiantly, who errs and comes up short again and again, because there is no effort without error or shortcoming, but who knows the great enthusiasms, the great devotions, who spends himself for a worthy cause; who, at the best, knows, in the end, the triumph of high achievement, and who, at the worst, if he fails, at least he fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who knew neither victory nor defeat." -FDR

You know, the mere fact that you cannot even incorrectly attribute a quote of your own choosing is pretty much all that needs to be said here. Get your Roosevelts in order.

BTW, the correct attribution would be: Roosevelt, Theodore. Citizenship in a Republic, speech given before the Sorbonne on April 23, Paris 1910, Section 4.