3 ms·

I expect I'll get thoroughly thrashed and branded an idiot for daring to ask, but since you studied structural engineering, I really want to take the opportunit

by eth0up 5y ago

I expect I'll get thoroughly thrashed and branded an idiot for daring to ask, but since you studied structural engineering, I really want to take the opportunity. Is your comment exclusively for the two main towers, or tower 7? I have spoken with engineers who have reluctantly expressed confusion over tower 7. I'd appreciate a reply if you can bear it. To others: I know to even touch the subject will have many sharpening their axes. Please save them for something other than honest curiosity, if you can.

shadowgovt 5y ago
Confusion is likely as far as we're ever going to get with tower 7. Not because there was a grand conspiracy in play, but because we lack information about what happened in tower 7, period. That's generally what people who disbelieve the official consensus misunderstand... Absence of evidence is not evidence of conspiracy. The Alaska conclusions are correct as per their model. But their model is making assumptions about the spread of the fire and the damage that we lack concrete information to confirm or deny. It's easy to forget that on the day WTC 7 fell, we don't know how much of that building was on fire. A significant percentage of New York first responders had just died... There wasn't enough fire management on scene at WTC 7 to gather reasonable amounts of information, much less fight the fire. It might have fallen due to thermal expansion of the main structural elements. It might have fallen due to controlled demolition. It might have fallen due to a sudden upsurge of the mole people from Hollow Earth. Too few people had eyes on for us to ever really know. (Personal opinion: I don't know that we have any good models of what happens to a building close to but under 50 stories when two of the tallest buildings on the planet collapse immediately next to it. What earthquake-magnitude-equivalent force did the foundation of WTC 7 experience, and what effect would that have? The mole people model might be more accurate than I want it to be. ;) ).
3pt14159 5y ago
Yes, my comment is only in regards to the two main towers. I didn't study tower 7 in detail, but from what I understand it was a building that had an interior backup generator with enough fuel for a week or two and that is what caused the large fire. But when the 9/11 truth movement was in its prime, most of the focus was on towers 1 & 2 and once I was satisfied with the explanations for those I didn't bother looking into the secondary claims about tower 7. Mostly because once you have the first two towers collapse all the heat and debris from the pyroclastic cloud it makes doing the math much harder. The heat calculations for the two planes were relatively straightforward, other than the degree of fireproofing displacement during impact.

by eth0up 5y ago

shadowgovt 5y ago

Confusion is likely as far as we're ever going to get with tower 7. Not because there was a grand conspiracy in play, but because we lack information about what happened in tower 7, period. That's generally what people who disbelieve the official consensus misunderstand... Absence of evidence is not evidence of conspiracy. The Alaska conclusions are correct as per their model. But their model is making assumptions about the spread of the fire and the damage that we lack concrete information to confirm or deny. It's easy to forget that on the day WTC 7 fell, we don't know how much of that building was on fire. A significant percentage of New York first responders had just died... There wasn't enough fire management on scene at WTC 7 to gather reasonable amounts of information, much less fight the fire. It might have fallen due to thermal expansion of the main structural elements. It might have fallen due to controlled demolition. It might have fallen due to a sudden upsurge of the mole people from Hollow Earth. Too few people had eyes on for us to ever really know. (Personal opinion: I don't know that we have any good models of what happens to a building close to but under 50 stories when two of the tallest buildings on the planet collapse immediately next to it. What earthquake-magnitude-equivalent force did the foundation of WTC 7 experience, and what effect would that have? The mole people model might be more accurate than I want it to be. ;) ).

3pt14159 5y ago

Yes, my comment is only in regards to the two main towers. I didn't study tower 7 in detail, but from what I understand it was a building that had an interior backup generator with enough fuel for a week or two and that is what caused the large fire. But when the 9/11 truth movement was in its prime, most of the focus was on towers 1 & 2 and once I was satisfied with the explanations for those I didn't bother looking into the secondary claims about tower 7. Mostly because once you have the first two towers collapse all the heat and debris from the pyroclastic cloud it makes doing the math much harder. The heat calculations for the two planes were relatively straightforward, other than the degree of fireproofing displacement during impact.