If the new 7 OCT says one column failed due to "thermal expansion," whither the bulge, the transit,

[dailykoff]

the hole, the lean, and all the other laughable crap claimed by lying sack of shit FDNY chiefs, for example Deputy Chief Peter Hayden in this interview from the April 2002 Firehouse Magazine:

. . . we were pretty sure that 7 World Trade Center would collapse. Early on, we saw a bulge in the southwest corner between floors 10 and 13, and we had put a transit on that and we were pretty sure she was going to collapse.

You actually could see there was a visible bulge, it ran up about three floors. It came down about 5 o'clock in the afternoon, but by about 2 o'clock in the afternoon we realized this thing was going to collapse.

http://www.firehouse.com/terrorist/911/magazine/gz/hayden.html

I haven't heard anything about the transit or the bulge lately, so was Hayden was tripping on acid during the 911 "attacks" or are we not supposed to notice?

[Bolo Boffin]

1. Someone claiming that nukes took down the buildings...

..really has no business mocking FDNY personnel of tripping on acid.

[SDuderstadt]

2. Why would the thermal expansion explanation....

be inconsistent with a "bulge"? As a matter of fact, I don't recall anyone claiming the "bulge" was the cause of the collapse. It was cited as proof that there was 1) damage to the building and 2) that FDNY had good reason to be suspicious that the building was not stable.

As usual, Dailykoff...you shoot and miss.

[William Seger]

3. "laughable crap" is a good description of your fuzzy thinking

If there was a bulge -- and you've given no reason to think there wasn't -- then it was the result of the structural damage that Hayden knew was there. If he knew about the damage and saw a bulge, then he was exactly right to be concerned the building might collapse. He didn't have 2 years to run a computer simulation. When the building did collapse, of course he (and others) would assume that the structural damage was at least involved, as it was in WTC1&2. But NIST spent a great deal of time and effort actually studying it and found that the structural damage was not the root cause, and indeed was not necessary to explain the collapse.

Calling Hayden a "lying sack of shit" because your tiny little brain can't process the information in the above paragraph is obnoxious and despicable.

[dailykoff]

4. Oh please. Hayden was obviously lying just like assclown Larry was

when he said he told them to "pull it." You'd think the neocons could afford better liars with all the loot they're stealing from us. If there was really a "bulge," "hole" or any other irregularity you can bet the NIST would have been on it like flies on dogshit.

[Junkdrawer]

5. Par for the course. Remember NOVA's original program on the collapse of WTC 1&2?

They interviewed the building's original architect and everything. Heat buckled the floors and the whole thing collapsed.

Just one problem. They forgot about all the central support pillars. Oops. So...

We get a completely NEW NOVA official explanation.

[Realityhack]

6. That is in fact how science works n/t

[dailykoff]

12. Talking heads shilling on teevee?

Neocon pseudoscience, maybe.

[Realityhack]

16. I meant... modifying theories with new information...

Science admits it may be wrong and as new information comes in scraps or modifies old ideas and comes to a better understanding.

You seem to think that just because engineers put forth one scenario previously and now with more study have a different one that they are both bullshit (at least that is what came across).

[petgoat]

29. The ludicrous zipper/pancake theory was tolerated for three years.

Every expert in the world seemed to be afraid to point out its obvious
absurdity. Its claim that the perimeter column floor fastenings
were flimsy but the core column floor fasteners were so freaking strong
the floors tore down the cores is ridiculous on its face.

[SDuderstadt]

31. If it was "obviously absurd", why would....

"every expert in the world" be "afraid to point (it) out"? Your post makes no sense.

[petgoat]

32. Don't try to rewrite reality to fit your notions of making sense.

Why were they afraid? I'll suppose they lacked the courage to
buck the NOVA-MIT-Scientific American-Popular Mechanics-FEMA-ASCE
mafia.

[SDuderstadt]

33. Maybe they weren't afraid, as you claim....

more likely, they reject your bullshit.

[petgoat]

34. The zipper-pancake theory was absurd on its face, as is obvious to everyone now.

But for three years it was conventional wisdom, and only the
tin-foil crowd dared to criticize it.

[SDuderstadt]

35. So, experts don't arrival at provisional conclusions...

and shouldn't keep searching for better answers?

[petgoat]

60. stop putting dumb inferences and dumb paraphrases in my mouth nt

[SDuderstadt]

66. I certainly will....

as you do that well enough on your own, without any help from us.

[Realityhack]

37. I will be honest petgoat

I didn't follow every development of the theories at the point when that was proposed.

If you want to discuss it, it might be helpful to post a few links to the history of how that idea was presented and who made the claims.

[petgoat]

62. 911research is a good place to start. nt.

[Realityhack]

74. I am not interested in researching every theories development...

if you want to talk about a specific one I think it would be helpful to provide specific links to who said what when.

[William Seger]

8. What a pantload

The only "official explanation" for WTC 1 and 2 is the one in the final NIST report, which was the result of actually studying the available evidence -- a concept that seems foreign to paranoid conspiracists. They seem to prefer to save time and (apparently scarce) brain power by promoting their own paranoid speculations to be "truth," giving them more time to sift through the evidence looking for validation, discarding or discrediting anything that doesn't fit or proves them wrong, which requires very little brain power.

Consider the difference between paranoid conspiracists and rational people trying to deal with the real world: Immediately after 9/11, experts began to speculate about what might have caused the towers to collapse. Several hypotheses were advanced, but the one that most experts considered to be the most likely was Bazant's "zipper theory" (a.k.a. "pancake theory"). That hypothesis was that heat-buckled floors which contracted when they cooled pulled one or more floor joists off of their seats on the perimeter column spandrels, which pulled adjacent joists off of their seats, eventually "unzipping" the floor around the entire perimeter. That floor then "pancaked" on the floor below, according to the hypothesis, triggering a total collapse.

That hypothesis was NOT advanced as the "official explanation" (much less "the truth"); it was discussed by the NOVA program only in the sense of "many experts believe this was the most likely cause," which was indeed the case, because at that point in time it was a perfectly reasonable hypothesis and it hadn't been disproved.

"Truthers" immediately started crying, "Bullshit! That can't happen because it just can't happen!" -- simultaneously demonstrating the inescapable trap of paranoid conspiracism (i.e. Bazant and anyone who agreed with him must be in on the conspiracy), their own inability to form a logical argument, and their own complete ignorance of structural engineering. There was absolutely no way anyone could say the "zipper" collapse definitely could or couldn't happen without quantitatively studying the specific details of those joist and those connections, and then actually studying what would happen if a floor did fall. "Truthers" who say they "knew" the zipper theory was bullshit are simply talking out of their asses; engineers are the only people qualified to undertake that kind of study.

Which NIST did. And they found that indeed the joist seat connections were very strong, so the zipper theory became much less likely. In fact, they found that the connections were so strong that the heat-buckled and contracting floors would probably pull the perimeter columns inward before they would break free from their seats. Putting that knowledge together with the videos that showed perimeter columns bending inward 10 to 20 minutes before the collapse and then completely buckling inward at the beginning of the collapse gave NIST a promising new hypothesis that was supported by both solid analysis and very strong evidence. Then, using a very sophisticated and detailed physics-based computer model, they found that they could accurately reproduce the collapse initiation.

So, that theory and the analysis behind it is what went into the "official explanation" of the collapse -- i.e. the "most probable cause," nothing more and nothing less, as judged by a fairly large group of fairly competent engineers. Anyone who had staked their egos on the zipper theory being "the truth" was out of luck, but rational people were more than happy to accept a better theory. There is no guarantee that it's "the truth" -- something that rational people trying to deal with the real world are obliged to get used to -- it's simple the most rational explanation available, given the available evidence. Anyone who thinks they can offer a better explanation is perfectly free to do so, but they have no right to expect that explanation to be taken seriously unless they have a better analysis and/or better evidence to support it. Wankers yammering about the Lawz o' Fizzics don't cut it.

And with WTC 7, the paranoid conspiracists give us a repeat performance. "Ha, ha, ha, the liars changed their lie!" But sorry, despite the limitations of evidence-based reasoning in searching for "the truth," it beats the holy crap out of whatever method is in second place.

[petgoat]

61. The WTC1 & 2 reports studied the available evidence after the crime scene was scrubbed

and lacked the basic intellectual honesty to express regret that the
physical evidence was destroyed.

The WTC7 report, does point out that the physical evidence was destroyed--
which validates my objection that the other didn't.

The zipper theory was absurd on its face because it necessitated weak
zippers on the perimeter and strong zippers at the core. That hypothesis
was advanced in the FEMA report and was thus the official story.

The point is that nobody in the engineering world dared to criticize it,
but only tinfoil hatters.

In the current context, "liars changed their lie" applies to Dr. Sunder's
claim that there were no witnesses to explosions. That's a lie.

[SDuderstadt]

68. More gumnastics, Petgoat....

Of course, you omit the fact that it was not possible to identify very much of the steel as having come from WTC7, so you just tell the reader that the "crime scene was scrubbed" to create the impression that they deliberately went out of their way to knowingly destroy imcriminating evidence. Is honesty not a big thing to you?

[petgoat]

7. The bizarre thing about Chief Hayden's story about the bulge

is that if the NYPD aerial photo is to be believed, there was no SW corner
at the 13th floor!

The FDNY reports of structural damage were mutually contradictory, which
is probably why FEMA ignored them in its report.

Speculating wildly, I'll offer this scenario


The Chiefs believed that the towers had been blown up, and they feared
that WTC7 was wired to blow up too.

Thus they were reluctant to send men into the building.

After 9/11, talk about explosions was verboten. The Chiefs thus lied
about the structural damage, but they were honest enough to make their
lies obvious.

[William Seger]

9. Thanks, petgoat

Imaginative fiction writers are the heart and sole of the "movement."

[Realityhack]

24. Petgoat...

"The Chiefs believed that the towers had been blown up, and they feared
that WTC7 was wired to blow up too."

Do you have ANY evidence that they thought that? Are the cheifs part of the CD crowd?

[petgoat]

30. 115 first responders reported explosions. Many reported flashes of light.

Chief Downey believed there were bombs in the buildings. More than one
news reporter described explosions, and Chief Turi was quoted on his
belief that there were secondary devices in the buildings.

Belief that the towers had been blown up was widespread.

And then suddenly it was an "outrageous conspiracy theory"
that could not be tolerated.

[Bolo Boffin]

36. None of which appeared on seismographs sensitive enough to detect cutting charges.

The "suddenly" is not a mystery. Once there was no physical evidence of the explosives was found, and once positive evidence was found that ruled explosives out, and once the collapse of the towers was adequately explained, then it lost any aura of respectibility (due to another bombing in 1993), and became simply a silly conspiracy theory.

Your ability to leave out crucial, documented steps is only one reason not to take your posts seriously.

[petgoat]

40. No physical evidence of explosives was found by the officials because none was sought.

That investigators didn't arrive on the site until October gave
plenty of time to clean it up.

What positive evidence was found that ruled explosives out?

Gordon Ross and Craig Furlong claim the seismographic evidence
shows basement bombs going off before the planes hit each tower.

Seismographic signals would be damped if the columns were cut
by thermate lower down and blasted higher up. A broken bell
doesn't ring.

[Realityhack]

42. Furlong...

I do not know how accurate this is as I do not have time to fact check it. but...

http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/theyoughtaknowbetter:critiquesoftheinept

"Update: As of April, 2008, Mr. Furlong agrees that there were no explosions before the aircraft hit and does not believe that "9/11 was an inside job," as reported by Ryan Mackey in his "On 'Debunking 9/11 Debunking,'" pp. 79-81"

[petgoat]

44. Yeah well, I'm not surprised. He impressed me as a real idiot. Born again. nt

[Realityhack]

45. Could it possibly be...

that he was actually mistaken and when shown this altered his views?

[petgoat]

46. Certainly it's possible. Very likely he believed 9/11 was an inside job because

some angel told him so, and when he found out that the angel was
actually a devil, he changed his mind.

[Realityhack]

47. That's just fucking stupid. n/t

[SDuderstadt]

49. What do you expect from Petgoat? n/t

[petgoat]

50. That's what I said. He impressed me as an idiot. nt

[Realityhack]

75. That is irrelevent to the fact that your post was stupid. n/t

[petgoat]

77. You can't distinguish an opinion from a fact and you think I'm stupid. nt

[Realityhack]

38. oh my...

It would appear your understanding of events is incapable of incorporating new information or even critical evaluating existing information.

heard explosions =! explosives
explosions =! bombs or secondary devices

The buildings did not in fact collapse from the ground floor up. Seismographic data did not indicate large explosions, etc.

I don't doubt they heard explosions. But I seriously doubt there where any secondary devices.

[petgoat]

39. That the buildings didn't collapse from the ground up--so what?

Buildings can be domolished from the top down. It's the only way to
demolish a 110-story building with a 6.5-to-1 aspect ratio. Starting
at the bottom risks toppling. Even starting at the 81st floor risks
toppling.

I never said explosions=explosives. That's NIST-style reasoning.

I mentioned the the 115 witnesses to explosions to support the theory
that the FDNY chiefs thought the towers had been blown up. Try to
stick to the point.

[Realityhack]

41. Using special jetliner impact proof explosives? n/t

[petgoat]

43. There you go again. Stick to the point.

You're saying "No, the FDNY chiefs could not have thought the towers
were blown up--because there is no such thing as jetliner-proof
explosives"?

There are any number of ways to make jet-liner proof explosives, and
if you blew up the towers above and below the impact zone (which is
what appears to have happened in the case of tower 1) you wouldn't
need jetliner proof explosives.

[SDuderstadt]

48. Yet NO ONE recalls anyone bringing explosives into the Towers....

Explain that, Petgoat.

[petgoat]

51. Oh you think they would have been in boxes marked "ACME Explosives--DANGER!!!!" nt

[SDuderstadt]

52. Have you done the calculations to show how much would be needed?

Do you think security would not have been curious about materials being moved into the building? Why don't you try doing something to a similarly sized building and see how far you get? You also must think the prep to bring down a building just amounts to inobtrusively placing the explosives in the general vicinity of the columns.

[petgoat]

53. Security couldn't care less about file cabinets, desks, and computer cabinets being moved in.

One person said here she had personal knowledge that the vending machine guy used to
drive his van into the freight elevator.

[SDuderstadt]

54. And you know this how, Petgoat?

Are you now claiming intimate knowledge of security procedures for skyscrapers? You do know that security at the WTC was provided by the NY Port Authority, right? If you're now claiming that the explosives were brought in inside file cabinets, are you claiming the perps just nestled the file cabinet up to the coulmns? If so, did any witnesses note anything like that? If not, are you claiming the file cabinet just had to be in the general vicinity of the columns? How many file cabinets full of how much explosives do you calculate were necessary?

[petgoat]

55. Please stick to the point.

You said the issue was whether people would notice someone bringing explosives
into the building. I said if it was smuggled into the building in office
furniture or in boxes of product (some tenants used the WTC space for warehouse
space) nobody would notice.

[SDuderstadt]

56. Even if they got them into the building....

how in the fuck do you think they would prep the building and no one would notice it? Your theories are absolutely absurd.

[petgoat]

57. How often do office workers inspect the elevator shaft or the plumbing

raceways behind the bathrooms or the duct space above the hanging
ceilings? How often does security inspect those areas?

Your belief that people would notice radio-controlled thermate charges
and explosives is absurd.

[SDuderstadt]

58. Do you even know one thing about how CD works?

How would placing thermite in "raceways behind bathrooms" or in the "duct space above the hanging ceilings" bring down a building????? Your fantasies just get more and more absurd.

[petgoat]

59. If the raceways or the duct space gave access to core columns, that would allow placement of charges

that could bring down a building, yes.

Do you live in Canalou?

[Realityhack]

64. I think your idea of how CD works is highly oversimplified. n/t

[petgoat]

65. I suspect you invent non-existent impediments to try to justify your complacency nt

[SDuderstadt]

67. And you know that they did from looking at?

Or, is this just more of your gumnastics? You have no idea what kind of access would be possible from anything.

[petgoat]

70. I've looked into office suspended ceilings and highrise bathroom plumbing raceways before, yes.

I don't live in Canalou.

[SDuderstadt]

72. So, you've concluded it's "possible"...

your problem remains that you can't sum it up in a coherent alternative hypothesis, then prove it. That's why you're such a joke here.

[petgoat]

73. You don't demand proof from the gov't. Why demand it of me? nt

[Bolo Boffin]

10. The column failed because it was unsupported over nine floors, btw.

Not thermal expansion. Read the report.

[dailykoff]

11. Columns are not cantilevered over floors.

They rest on other columns, beams, or foundations. Read your dictionary, although I doubt if it will help.

[Realityhack]

13. What? Who said anything about cantilevered? n/t

[dailykoff]

14. That's the only way bolo's otherwise random comment could make sense.

I was giving him the benefit of the doubt, which is rarely worth the trouble.

[Realityhack]

15. No it isn't.

Once the lateral support provided by the floors falls away over a 9 floor section the column is unstable and fails.
He didn't say anything about the column being cantilevered over anything... which is a nonsensical concept anyway.

Out of curiosity have you read any of the NIST report on building 7?

[dailykoff]

17. If nine floors collapse under a column, the column didn't initiate the collapse.

I'll refrain from saying DUH.

[Realityhack]

18. Not UNDER the column

9 floors that attach to the column and provide it with lateral support. Which IIRC is where the thermal expansion comes in.

[Bolo Boffin]

21. Exactly. The column didn't thermally expand and fail.

It lost support when thermally expanded beams (long-span beams, something I think even Ghost noted back when we were talking about 7's structure) pushed the girder connecting 79 and 44 (a perimeter column) off of its connections on floor 13, causing a collapse of the floor systems from 13 down to 5.

After that, 79 was unsupported over the height of nine floors. It buckled and began the vertical failure of floors all the way up to the east penthouse.

[Realityhack]

22. You know I just don't understand...

how that is so complicated to comprehend. Is it just miscommunication on the board here or do people (not just daily) simply not comprehend what is in the NIST summary/FAQ (never mind the full report)?

[Bolo Boffin]

23. I can't mindread it either.

I honestly think Dailykoff wasn't trying to misunderstand what NIST was saying. S/he just got it wrong, and reacted badly (IMO) to a correction.

At the very least, even if they don't believe a single word of it, alternate theorists can take the effort to understand exactly what a different position is actually saying. Getting the other person's story straight doesn't mean you support that person at all.

[Realityhack]

25. all comes back too...

the idea of doing the homework. Understand what you are criticizing first.

[petgoat]

63. You don't have to eat the whole turd to know it's a turd. nt

[SDuderstadt]

69. Which is why most people don't read past the first or second paragraphs of your posts n/t

[Realityhack]

71. And yet you have failed to point out a single mistake so far...

Sure you think they should have considered x,y,z scenarios but you can't actually punch a hole in their theory.

Do you even consider it a POSSIBILITY that they are correct?

[Realityhack]

19. To be more clear...

Note that boloboffin was responding to the claim that thermal expansion caused the column to fail (not the building)
So while thermal expansion may be responsible for the building collapse it is not what caused the column to fail. The column failed because it was unsupported.

[William Seger]

20. IIRC...

... we already spent a great deal of time discussing your confusion and total ignorance of column buckling. The column buckled because the floors and beams that were restraining it laterally fell away.

[dailykoff]

26. Thanks, I'll put you down for tripping on acid

along with your friends above. That clears up a lot. :)

[Bolo Boffin]

27. And then comments like this let you know that dailykoff

has no intention of ever giving good faith to the other side of the debate.

And that means dailykoff's point is handicapped. Daily doesn't care enough to actually combat what NIST is saying. It's so much easier to make something up, pretend NIST said it, and fight that straw man.

[Realityhack]

28. WHAT?!?! - Quote from NIST

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

How did the fires cause WTC 7 to collapse?
The heat from the uncontrolled fires caused steel floor beams and girders to thermally expand, leading to a chain of events that caused a key structural column to fail. The failure of this structural column then initiated a fire-induced progressive collapse of the entire building.

According to the report’s probable collapse sequence, heat from the uncontrolled fires caused thermal expansion of the steel beams on the lower floors of the east side of WTC 7, damaging the floor framing on multiple floors.

Eventually, a girder on Floor 13 lost its connection to a critical column, Column 79, that provided support for the long floor spans on the east side of the building (see Diagram 1). The displaced girder and other local fire-induced damage caused Floor 13 to collapse, beginning a cascade of floor failures down to the 5th floor. Many of these floors had already been at least partially weakened by the fires in the vicinity of Column 79. This collapse of floors left Column 79 insufficiently supported in the east-west direction over nine stories.

The unsupported Column 79 then buckled and triggered an upward progression of floor system failures that reached the building’s east penthouse. What followed in rapid succession was a series of structural failures. Failure first occurred all the way to the roof line—involving all three interior columns on the easternmost side of the building (79, 80, 81). Then, progressing from east to west across WTC 7, all of the columns failed in the core of the building (58 through 78). Finally, the entire façade collapsed.

Emphasis added

So please tell me specifically what exact part of that I got wrong and what the quote was where I got it wrong.
This will help me to avoid confusion in the future because I thought I was clearly communicating the information above.

[Laurier]

76. Huh? How does one negate the other?

You seem to be accusing members of the FDNY of lying about their observations on 9/11 on the basis that the NIST report later ascertained a specific cause for the collapse of the building that did not necessarily require the damage that was actually observed.

That makes no sense whatsoever.

[petgoat]

78. Well, note that FEMA wouldn't touch the structural damage issues.

They did not report them, detail them, or consider them in their analysis.

The reports were mutually contradictory. Note FEMA says that someone did a transect
of the south face 9th floor and didn't find any damage except at the corner.

Could be Hayden's bulge was just the exterior curtain wall.

FDNY did not run into structural damage like this all the time. I think they were
making excuses not to send their guys in there. They'd just seen two buildings blown
up.