"Heating of floor beams and girders caused a critical support column to fail... video and photographic evidence combined with detailed computer simulations show that neither explosives nor fuel oils played a rule in the collapse of that brought the building down."
Surely, the conspiracy theorists will pack up their fantasies and subside now.
August 21, 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
80 comments:
Mr Barret--call your office
But Ann--that report is part of the coverup!
"Rosie O'Donnell, pick up the white courtesy phone"
Surely, the conspiracy theorists will pack up their fantasies and subside now.
Please, Dear Lord, let it be.
PS kudos to stever
It's safe to say that most of America's architects and engineers and (obviously now) the NY Times are under the control of their paymasters at Bushco.
Bush lied, buildings fried.
Another post on faith-based politics?
Althouse is on a roll!
Fine...but WHO started the fires!?
"But national polls have shown that perhaps as many as 1 in 7 Americans believe that the destruction of the World Trade Center towers was an inside job."
We really need to cull the herd.
This was stated and determined years ago. Now they are reconfirming it.
The truthers are goning to be coming out of the wood work like cockaroaches.
Time to call the Orkin man.
Sadly, I'm afraid this won't stop them.
Perhaps mandatory tin-foil hats??
Surely you are kidding, right? The government itself publishes a report seven years later and you think that will (or even should) appease conspiracy theorists? That's laughable. No wonder coaxing the sheepish masses is so easy!
I know a guy whose secretary has a cousin whose best friend’s daughter used to work in an architect’s office in Cleveland, and she said that one day she answered a phone call for her boss, and when she asked who was calling, the guy said “It’s Karl Rove.”
So that pretty well seals it for me, we know the architects were in on the conspiracy. Anybody know any engineers?
Surely you are kidding, right?
Duh.
The government set the fires to cover up their secret frozen Bigfoot costume research facility.
Fine...but WHO started the fires!?
Well it certainly couldn't have been Bush since being the stupidest President we ever had, would still be rubbing two sticks together.
Shocking.
Has any interviewed Jerome Corsi regarding this report?
By the way he is ugly and fat.
I don't think the Towers fell at all.
That's the conspiracy.
They're still there.
A secret training center for Bush's army of conquest in the heart of New York. That's why the whole election we're talking about is sham.
"Fine...but WHO started the fires!?"
Apologies in advance if I misread this, but I haven't been on Althouse alot lately. Please tell me this was sarcasm.
Jerome Corsi pick up the same white courtesy phone as Rosie O'Donnell.
Tibore, yes it was sarcasm. Oh, and welcome back. Hugs.
Your first assignment: To break the news to Jesse Ventura. Good luck!
Cheers,
Victoria
Jerome Corsi pick up the same white courtesy phone as Rosie O'Donnell.
Hmm. Corsi. O'Donnell. Ventura. Are chubbs prone to Trutherism?
Folks, the "geniuses" over at Architects and Engineers for 9-11 Truth were already talking about the errors in the report:
"In our AE911Truth response we will be documenting major flaws in the NIST report as well as the most serious omissions such as the collapse features of WTC 7 and the scientific forensic evidence of its explosive controlled demolition."
Keep in mind that the final draft of the report is still not released yet, even though it's obviously finalized. And that this statement was made before todays briefing. Yes, the AE911T Mensa members [/sarcasm] knew what to criticize ahead of time. Granted, some of them had access to leaked early drafts, but still... they knew ahead of time that they weren't going to agree with it. There's gotta be a name for this; confirmation bias doesn't quite fit.
Thanks Victoria! *Hugs back*
The fire that melts lead tempers steel.
*sidebar*
Ann, I'm beginning to thing your KFC ad is nsfw... makes your blog look pornish
I agree with Fen... but I think it's a good thing.
*Ducks*
But the thermite!?!?!?
(in memory of Sipp)
Tibore, unlike Victoria, I'm not so sure that was sarcasm.
Surely, the conspiracy theorists will pack up their fantasies and subside now.
If only
There's no way ZPS is that dumb, guys.
Way!
We didn't start the fire
It was always burning
Since the world's been turning.
We didn't start the fire
No we didn't light it
But we tried to fight it.
We didn't start the fire
But when we are gone
Will it still burn on, and on, and on, and on...
Well it certainly couldn't have been Bush since being the stupidest President we ever had, would still be rubbing two sticks together.
I'm with Hoosier on this one.
Arrrrrgh! Richard Gage confirms his idiocy over and over again!
"“Seven World Trade Center is one of the key points of evidence, one of the smoking guns,” said Richard Gage, a California architect who leader a group called Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth. “There have been much hotter, longer lasting and larger fires in skyscrapers that have not fallen down.”"
And there have been buildings that survive large earthquakes or hurricanes, while others fall down for smaller storms or tremors. What the hell are you (Mr. Gage) trying to say? That all buildings react alike regardless of design? And you're an architect??
No Mike Brady you, bucko.
That all buildings react alike regardless of design? And you're an architect??
Friends of mine in civil engineering assure me that there's nothing strange about an architect not understanding what makes buildings stay up. :)
LOL... yeah, the engineers and architects at the JREF forum have occasionally indulged in good natured poking at each other over that exact divide. It's sort of like the difference between doctors and surgeons, and as fun to watch.
But all of them there agree that Richard Gage is an idiot.
WIND BREAKING NEWS: Obama says choice
made :
So, he made his choice, but he's not telling who it is.
BREAKING WIND NEWS.
Clearly the 9/11 conspiracists were in on it. This is all an elaborate plan to get them the funding needed for their real agenda.
It all makes sense now.
rhhardin --
The fire that melts lead tempers steel.
Interesting saying. What do you believe it means?
Well it certainly couldn't have been Bush since being the stupidest President we ever had, would still be rubbing two sticks together.
Agreed, Bush hasn't been a success in anything he has done. He would never be able to pull this off. But he is much better than Obama.
"Fine...but WHO started the fires!?"
Ah, maybe thousands of gallons of burning jet fuel sprayed through the neighborhood at 450 mph?
Or may Karl Rove with a Bic lighter?
"Surely, the conspiracy theorists will pack up their fantasies and subside now."
JFK was shot how many years ago? The tin foil helmet crowd is still very active on the case.
save_the_rustbelt said...
"Surely, the conspiracy theorists will pack up their fantasies and subside now."
JFK was shot how many years ago? The tin foil helmet crowd is still very active on the case.
Hey, for your information JFK is living in a nursing home outside of Memphis. Across the hall is Elvis and one floor up is Judy Garland. Jim Morrison is being kept in a room in thesub-basement because he sings too loud.
What? Forty-three posts and no kooks? Perhaps the labels are insufficient.
and no kooks?
I tried. Just didn't have the heart it takes for real, honest to goodness kookiness I suppose.
Ideas devour the ages as men are devoured by their passions. When man is cured, human nature will cure itself perhaps.
Honore de Balzac
The time and effort wasted on the WTC 'conspiracy' (other than blaming the jihadi terrorists) is proof of America's decline, now people by dolts too stupid to be considered citizens, and too ugly to be called children.
Come on, Paddy. I know you.
We need guys named realamericanpatriotvet71 to lecture us about engineering. I love that stuff. It is so fascinating, and much more fascinating than going to the various sites because you get to see the crazy mind working in real time.
The fire that melts lead is not the fire that tempers steel. Steel is enured by folding in carbon and firing followed by rapid cooling. Folding, firing, cooling, folding, firing, cooling. Much like chocolate is tempered. It lines up the molecules in a crystalline structure as stacked chairs are aligned , as opposed to chairs carelessly tossed into a closet. This concludes my pedantry for the nonce.
I thought the World Health Organization was too busy keeping DDT out of malaria's way and funding the "vaccinations make your tonker fall off" conspiracy campaign embraced by the North African Muslims to sub contract to the VWRC (Controlled Demolition Conspiracy Division)?
Man, those guys are GOOD.
Actually, Mr. Bella, JFK--whose brain had been transplanted into the body of Ossie Davis--was killed in an heroic battle with an ancient Egyptian mummy, while Elvis managed to survive the battle and fight another day.
Agreed, Bush hasn't been a success in anything he has done. He would never be able to pull this off. But he is much better than Obama.
My cat would be better than Obama and she's 17 years old and deaf.
"Seven Machos said...
What? Forty-three posts and no kooks? Perhaps the labels are insufficient."
Oh, they'll come. What they usually do is wait a few days to ensure they're at the top or bottom of a forum, therefore standing a good chance of being one of the first read. Then they'll ask their "questions" ("Hey! Did you know that jet fuel can't melt steel?"... "Did you know a respected BYU professor found proof of incendiaries in the rubble?"... "Did you know that Project Achilles proved that cell phone calls couldn't have been made from altitude?"...). Then, when someone challenges them they'll run through their playbook of claims until they run out, start in on claims of "Jews" being involved, and high tail it out.
Just wait a few days.
What? Forty-three posts and no kooks? Perhaps the labels are insufficient.
Althouse doesn't have a lot of plain-ol'-kooks as commenters.
Trolls, malcontents, schizos, OCDs, flame-throwers, flaming gays, flamingos, and just garden variety harrumphers.
But few kooks.
You know, the kind that thinks the world will end on December 12, 2012 just because it ends in "12" and sh*t.
Ah well.
Plus shut-ins, drifters, and loners.
VB: I claim schizo. And sometime-loner (all externals, IRL, notwithstanding) and sometime-shut-in.
; )
Et vous-all?
Oh, and maybe drifter.
Et vous-all?
OCD!
Have you noticed that sometimes when I get into a rhythm, I post all day -- then I go missing with the same ferocity?
I'm interested in knowing why a great intellectual - and supposed law professor - like Althouse thinks the various WTC7 claims are just a conspiracy theory. Has she examined the claims? Is she a structural engineer in addition to being an alleged law professor? Is she relying on the claims of those she trusts (such as PopMechanics and Insty), and what if we don't trust them? Is she aware of the many past instances of the government not telling us the whole truth for one reason or other?
All I know is Althouse called something else a "wacko conspiracy theory" when there's plenty of evidence that it's something that very establishment people are pushing.
Whatever your position on WTC7, hopefully it's based on logical reasoning and not just on what certain authorities have said. And, hopefully no one trusts Althouse's judgment on anything.
And when is Ann going to admit that Hilary's "NIG" ad was just as much a crazy conspiracy theory?
I stand by my "NIG" ad post.
You're allowed to, but its still a crazy conspiracy theory.
I think the conspiracy theory that the people involved with the anthrax attacks used it as a way to get us into war with Iraq is vastly more interesting. I don't believe them, but it should be investigated.
The whole 7 World Trade Conspiracy theory was just dumb in the first place. Nobody in New York even cared when 7 World Trade came down. It was an anti-climax. What was the point?
They should have rebuilt the World Trade Center exactly as they were. Then we could have heard conspiracy theories 20 years hence about how they were never destroyed in the first place.
There's nothing conspiratorial about Ann's position on the "NIG", if I recall it correctly: She maintained that it was either deliberate or a gross oversight.
You could argue that the placement being deliberate would require a conspiracy, but that's not necessarily the case.
Plus, it was the greatest post since the onion rings and carrot sticks.
Hmm... Damn, the cool kids conspiracy theory is on the ropes. Oh, I know, hey fellas the moon landings were faked on a hollywood studio lot. Yeah, let's get'em!!!
Rabble!!! Rabble!!! Rabble!!! Rabble!!!
Rabble!!! Rabble!!! Rabble!!! Rabble!!!
Rabble!!! Rabble!!! Rabble!!! Rabble!!!
And, hopefully no one trusts Althouse's judgment on anything.
Assy knoll.
"Whatever your position on WTC7, hopefully it's based on logical reasoning"
Can't speak for anyone else, but in my case it's based on my education. Apparently there are engineers and architects out there who never took any classes in materials science. I guess my engineering school was very progressive.
"Has she examined the claims?"
I can't speak for the professor, but I have. The conspiratorial claims are devoid of accuracy, depend on misrepresentations, misinterpretations, or logical fallacies, and do not reflect reality.
"Whatever your position on WTC7, hopefully it's based on logical reasoning and not just on what certain authorities have said."
Again, I can't speak for the professor, but in my case, yes, it is. It's based on the complete lack of evidence of any malicious activities, and on the gaping holes and logical fallacies the conspiratorial fantasies are based on.
Oh, no! Instapundit got it wrong!
"CONTRA ROSIE O'DONNELL, apparently fire can melt steel. The new NIST report on the World Trade Center is out, and while it won't silence the yammerheads (apparently, nothing does) it's worth noting."
Fire didn't melt steel. The steel columns thermal expansion is what caused the instability in 7 World Trade.
*Sigh*... I know he means well, but still... it's a mistake.
1. The circumstances surrounding WTC7 seems suspicious enough. Combine that with the fact that I'm not a structural engineer, I'm not privy to the documents involved, and I haven't looked into all the claims and I'm willing to maintain an open mind. Althouse isn't willing to maintain an open mind, and I don't think her reasoning to have a closed mind about this would stand up.
2. My primary concern is with her calling this a "wacko conspiracy theory". That's something I'm familiar with, and her claim that it's "wacko" won't stand up to scrutiny. If she tried to defend that claim, it would rest on things like trusting the word of Bush admin officials or corrupt members of the MSM rather than a review of the statements various powerful forces have made. For instance, the CFR promoted the scheme, as did a WaPo columnist. See who's linked to another group that's promoted the scheme here.
A lot of powerful people are pushing the scheme that Althouse calls a "wacko conspiracy theory".
Fire didn't melt steel. The steel columns thermal expansion is what caused the instability in 7 World Trade.
*Sigh*... I know he means well, but still... it's a mistake.
Are you being funny? What caused the "thermal expansion"?
LoneWacko--
The reason it's "wacko" is because it doesn't make any sense. There's no motive. Too many people would have to be involved. There were thousands of witnesses to what happened.
Compare with, say, JFK's assassination. Lots of people had reason to want him dead. Only a couple of people would have to be involved. And thousands of witnesses disagreed on major points (like where the shots came from). Also, since most of us aren't familiar with the intricacies of shooting someone in the head, we don't know how a body would react.
Or, the moon landing: We had a good motive for wanting to appear to have succeeded; most people don't realize how many hundreds of people were intimately involved (so it's easy for them to believe that it's possible); since the moon is not an environment we know well, people's expectations are easily disrupted by simple artifacts seen in the pictures. (In other words, things don't look like people think they should in the moon photos. Same as with being shot in the head, really, but on an even more alien level.)
In the abstract, there's nothing wrong with debating what caused a particular building to come down. In the non-abstract case here, it's insane.
I think the Truthers' main theory is that, yes, the airplanes crashed into it, but, no, the buildings were brought down with explosives. So, the government was not only capable of arranging the crashes--but didn't even need them, except for window dressing, since they could've blown the buildings all along.
All this instead of the less elaborate, entirely more plausible angle of "The government hired hijackers to crash planes into the WTC." That can't even be disproven! (See Oswald, Lee Harvey.)
"Are you being funny? What caused the "thermal expansion"?"
What do you mean "am I being funny"? The fire caused the thermal expansion. The fire started by the flaming debris from from the main towers falling on it. My point is that the fires never had to get hot enough to make the steel melt before thermal creep started the chain of failures leading to the collapse. Steel's coefficient of thermal expansion is 0.00000645in/in/deg F, and when you're talking about fires like what was seen on 9/11, you're talking about creep on the order of inches. NIST's model suggests that the initial failures happened at 400 degrees celsius (over 700 degrees fahrenheit), and that wasn't even the hottest part of the fire, just the initiating event.
The big, blooming fires caused the thermal creep. But it didn't have to make the steel melt to do so. The WTC fires, whether in the main towers or 7 World Trade, never got hot enough to melt steel.
Oh, you're being technical.
What you're saying, then, is that the fire didn't melt the steel, but that it created the conditions that caused the steel to attain a state of squishiness at which point it could no longer perform its function of supporting weight?
What are you getting at, Blake? I was pointing out that Insty made a mistake in saying that the steel melted, when in fact it didn't have to in order to explain the collapse. No steel had to melt to explain any of the towers collapses.
If you think I'm a truther, go back and look at my previous posts here on the subject.
No, Tibore, I just think you're being overly technical.
The fire caused the steel to lose the properties that we associate with it being able to do its job.
In the vernacular, that's called "melting". It doesn't actually have to turn into a liquid.
I mean, I see your point in that, since it didn't actually melt, he's feeding the trolls, but, let's face it, they eat everything. That's how conspiracy theorists operate: Everything is more proof that they were right all along.
LonewackoDotCom,
What is suspicious about the circusmstances surrounding WTC7? From all the accounts of the fires:
http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/eyewitnessaccountsofwtc7fires
... to all the accounts of the damage:
http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/accountsofwtc7damage
... to all the obvious steps the FDNY and other agencies were taking to remove their personnel from harm:
http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/eyewitnessaccountsofthewithdrawalfromwtc
... it seems to me that the collapse was in fact well known and discerned from the state of the building and the fires within. I don't think you need to be a structural engineer to recognize that.
Yes, true, you're correct about the trolls. They will. But unfortunately, I'm rather touchy about the "melting" issue for two reasons:
1. The fires in WTC 7 did not get hot enough to get to the point where any reasonable softening occurred. NIST comes out and says this.
"The connection, beam, and girder failures in the floor systems, and the resulting structural responses, occurred at temperature(sic) below approximately 400 C, well below the temperatures at which structural steel loses significant strength and stiffness."
(NCSTAR 1A Draft, sec. 4.3.4, p. 49)
The entire argument is about thermal creep unseating connections and causing cascading failures. Unlike the main towers, there is nothing about WTC 7's failure where the steel lost significant load bearing capacity due to softening. It's all about thermal expansion, if I'm reading the draft report correctly. Sure, maybe I'm being picky and overly technical, but it is actually wrong to state that the NIST theory says the steel in WTC 7 even softened. They say the opposite, that the first failures happened at temperatures lower than the point where you'd expect steel's loss of capacity due to thermal softening to be an issue.
2. Unfortunately, when you talk about melting with truthers, they take it all the way and think "liquified". They then use that "concession" as a wedge to insert their fantasies about molten pools of steel, and flowing "waterfalls" coming out of one of the towers to buttress their arguments about thermite or explosives (not that explosives have ever melted steel in those quantities, but I digress...). On top of that, the only melting that could have occurred at the WTC had to have occurred in the rubble piles; the only solid pieces of evidence these conspiracy theorists ever produce point at events in the rubble pile, not the towers prior to their collapses. And even further on top of all of that, it's technically incorrect to say melting even if you are only talking "softening", because it's not really applicable to WTC 7; any softening that could have occurred happened after the first of the failures started, or affected non-critical areas of the structure. In the case of the the main towers, though, there is a "softening" argument there; the bowing due to truss sag noted in the towers is proof of that.
So I apologize if I jumped too hard and fast, but a couple of years butting heads with these folks have taught me that saying "melting" is like throwing a steak to a hungry pack of wolves. Next thing you know, you're hearing all sorts of junk about thermite and/or explosives and/or molten pools of metal, etc., so I launch pretty fast and hard when I see that term used. Didn't mean to jump all over you for it.
Myself, I appreciate the precision.
Whoops. Speaking of precision:
"The fires in WTC 7 did not get hot enough to get to the point where any reasonable softening occurred."
Lemme rephrase: The fires at the point of the start of the progressive failures weren't hot enough. After that it may indeed have been. But the failures started at lower temperatures than that, temperatures that actually fall below what current standards account for.
That last is actually a very important point to NIST and anyone involved in structural engineering, architecture, fire safety, etc. What NIST is saying is that the there are important lessons to learn from this fire, and they impact current construction codes:
"Current practice for the fire resistance design of structures... is deficient since the method was not designed to include key fire effects that are critical to structural safety.
... Current practice also does not require professionals to possess the qualifications necessary to ensure adequate passive fire resistance of the structural system."
And the whole damn problem with these dips(*censored*) conspiracy theories is that they obscure that fact. This latest NIST report actually ends up being a warning to the construction industry to pay more attention to what fires do to structures, and while NIST doesn't go this far, others (James Quintiere, Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl) have have in the past brought up serious and current problems in construction codes and practices that, in the light of this report, gain more traction. The point of my rant is that there's a perfect and established genuine issue that may need fixing right here, but these idiot conspiracy peddlers breeze right by those. They're more intent on improperly framing NIST's work in order to implicate the US government in some silly conspiracy. Yet, there's a real, tangible issue that potentially affects anyone entering a tall building built from here on out, and it's screaming in everyone's face, but it's such technical and specialized issue that only a small number of people are paying attention to it.
If there's a reason to rebut 9/11 conspiracy peddlers, that's it right there. They're distracting from a real issue affecting how tall buildings are built in the US from now on. And potentially the rest of the world, since so many foreign governments are paying attention to NIST's findings (several EU nations have already adjusted their construction regulations based on the first NIST report).
I appreciate the precision, too. I certainly didn't have an inkling of the depth of Tibore's knowledge on the subject.
But I also know when people's eyes glaze over.
Like talking about the midnight ride of William Dawes.
Or how "classical" music isn't.
Or the distinction between what we call "object-oriented" and what, in fact, the guy who invented the term meant.
But these are good discussions to have, with sane, interested people. To have them with people whose being is tied up in their correctness is madness.
Post a Comment