Please note: I said last night that as of 10:30 pm (Pacific) this thread was closed, and all subsequent comments would be deleted by me, unread. I have just deleted two. Please do not waste your time posting here. As soon as I see it, I will delete it.

Insist all you want, but like everybody else here, I’m under no obligation to submit to your demands. It must be frustrating to you, and I can tell you it’s frustrating on my end as well. You’re not alone; I have a friend who makes similar points to yours, and thankfully we respect each other’s beliefs enough to not let it devolve into mutual insistence or counter accusations.

I can’t make you stop talking about it, but seeing that this is Mr. Z’s blog, I hope you recognize that it’s well within his rights to insist that you stop posting about it here, if he so chooses. For my part, I’m not going to answer in the future, and I recognize that perhaps some of my responses were too sarcastic. I’ll do better in the future, and I hope you come to terms with this issue.

Commodude: I am done as well. Cotour, and others, you have three hours to post to this thread. It will then be closed, and I will delete all comments, unread.

I am sure Cotour will find a way to insert his off topic and absurd conspiracy theories in another post, but I want this thread ended, now. I’ve had enough.

Understand it, see it, know it.

I am rarely this insistent about anything. Stop taking sides and be objective.

https://archinect.com/forum/thread/127485298/the-first-and-only-steel-skyscraper-in-the-world-to-have-collapsed-due-to-fire

This is the subject of is Architecture discussion forum, read some of their posts.

So why are we obligated to read what you want us to, yet you seem to think that just owning your book is sufficient?

The book sounds like fundamental info that will help you understand dynamics of building collapse, as opposed to a hodgepodge of videos that have collected artifacts in their various transformations and about which you and others have come up with unconventional theories.

I own several magazines in foreign languages that I can’t read. I apparently get more out of them than you get out of your book, because I’ve taken the time to look at the pictures.

As such, I’m done here.

If you can not find the supporting evidence for Common then no one can find it and it does not exist and so there must be a reformulation. Go ahead Wayne, do your thing.

https://youtu.be/j4MjsVnasLA

Show me where the organization due to fire is revealed in this example. The building burned through the night, lots of chaos, some of the building fell of and its all twisted up. As one would expect. No falling to the ground, no total destruction. What we see is a burned out hulk of a steel framed building, again, as expected.

I will wait for your example of a building in free fall due to fire. And if you can not find an example what does that say about your reasoning? If there is no example then where do you get your position from? Just making contrary statements has no meaning without you providing real world proof.

“When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible, he is almost certainly right. When he states that something is impossible, he is very probably wrong.” Guess who? (No apology.)

You have to understand it, I can only point it out to you, I can not understand it for you.

Q; Why are you apologizing? Do you think what you pasted is so outrageous that it would injure me or upset others? I assume we are all adults here.

Please find me an example of another building that falls at free fall speed to demonstrate your proposal.

Cotour: We are not in any way “obligated” to accept your poorly documented, incoherent theory about the World Trade Center being taken down by explosives, set on each floor (with no one noticing their installation or no one ever finding any evidence of these explosives afterward) and timed to explode shortly after the building was hit by a plane. Nor are we “obligated” to accept your theory, based on your utter lack of understanding of engineering and physics, as very carefully documented by a number of real engineers commenting on this site.

I really hope you do a better job selling your products in retail sales. If you do the same there as you have here, you will go bankrupt quite quickly. I suspect however that you do do a better job, because in the case of retail sales, you actually understand the product you are selling. In the case of 9/11 and the engineering involved, however, you come off as someone who hasn’t the slightest understanding of engineering or construction and refuses to learn from those who do it professionally. Worse, you then compound that bad impression with a terribly condescending attitude.

And as Edward said, this impression is hurting your often very cogent analysis of politics. Why should anyone take that analysis seriously, since it comes from someone who looks so foolish here?

You are using very, very imprecise language to describe something which is readily understandable in the world of physics. Until you become conversant with the basics of mechanics, physics, and engineering, it will continue to elude you as an explainable event.

(I apologize to other readers in advance for the following comment, however, it is needed…)

To quote Arthur Clarke,

Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.

Evidently physics, mechanics, and engineering are in the realm of magic for some.

This is a generally correct statement, although entirely incorrect related to the subject at hand. Fire may be fairly predictable in certain instances and environments, except its not “fire” that that is collapsing, its the buildings. The effects of fire / heat on the complexities of, in this case steel framed buildings is chaos and not order. I am very sorry but your internal model that explains this is incorrect.

You and everyone else here is obligated to understand this. If it can not be understood here at B2B then it is truly a lost cause and we are captive. Just like in due time Hillary must be brought to justice so this subject must also be understood and resolved in some manner. If not, just like Hillary and her making everyone who surrounded her and who judges her guilty by association this situation is exponentially politically much more powerful.

As to the lack of resistance, when a steel fastener exceeds its shear rating by many times the rated force, they snap, and do so in a very predictable manner. There is no APPARENT resistance, apparent being the key word.

The collapsing floors collapse in unison all the way to the ground indicated by the synchronized ejections. The signature of fire is chaos not symmetry, period, that is an incorrect theory you are working under. Watch the second video (as many times as you need), it is only orderly because of the organization that has been loaded into it. Watch the bulk of the building tip over, it did not stay centered to produce this “orderly” event as you state.

And there is nearly zero resistance from the remaining entirely intact building. ZERO. Think about that. Does that make sense to you? Really? Please explain that to me how that happens. You are creating a model in your head that does not match the observable facts nor the physics nor the mathematics.

From a human POV it seems to be chaos, from the world of physics, it’s very orderly.

https://youtu.be/qhyu-fZ2nRA

Sorry to be a pest about this but we all have an obligation to understand it. Watch these videos as many times as it takes until you see the symmetry that should not be there. Watch the top of the building tilt to one side thereby creating an asymmetrical weight on the unmolested remaining building as it symmetrically falls to the ground as if dropped as if nothing was supporting it for 30 years.

https://youtu.be/iiwpj7aa9c8

This video once again illustrates some very fundamental points. And I want to point out something that becomes very obvious, the symmetry of how the collapse initiates on the successive floors below the event. Each successive floor blows out at exactly the same time, boom, boom, boom, boom as it descends, you can plainly hear the synchronization. As you watch the ejections oh so exactly timed together, does that appear to be normal in such a chaotic environment?

Like I have stated on this issue I have no idea what either might be if indeed they are true recordings. Both are “interesting” from either perspective, whether true or manipulated, if manipulated maybe that’s why they are not understandable?

No, it doesn’t show what it shows. I’ve done photo editing, and it’s incredibly easy to accidentally introduce artifacts into a picture or video accidentally in the simple process of, for instance, doing an unsharp mask on a photo or converting to higher resolution. The major issue with conversions is that once the artifact is introduced, it is tough to remove unless you go back to the original file. Moire pattern errors become actual things in the video or picture, and as files are transposed, they just get worse.

Not having the original media isn’t “not ideal” it’s absolutely laughable given the artifacts and errors which get introduced.

The flash appears to me not centered on the nose and the flash seems too fast. You want to throw it then throw it our, I have no problem with that. I am unable to understand with a certainly what it is. There is plenty more.

And the planes were traveling probably upwards of 480 mph or so. I think at 180 they would have bounced off.

Common:

As to the video quality of anything on the web from 2001, yes the quality is not as good as it could be, but it still shows what it shows. If we were in a court of law you would absolutely want the best and most original version to view. But we have what we have, that does not mean that you dismiss what ever information that is able to be reasonably gathered. If you don’t have the original version of something you just ignore what the degraded version reasonably indicates? Its just not ideal, not laughable.

Analysis of video from the web is beyond laughable. Every time you convert video to another format, change the resolution, or increase/decrease frame rate, artifacts are introduced. The videos in theory are from 2001, which means no HD video, and the formats have been changed repeatedly to keep in step with the changes of formatting on the web.

Unless you have access to an unaltered copy of original digital video file played with the original codec, analysis is impossible.

If anyone wants to discuss training failures, failures of discipline and other issues relating to the original article, I’d be more than happy to join in that discussion.

As far as the flash being “too bright” “too specific” and “too fast,” let’s break those down.

What standard are you using to judge whether it’s “to bright”? Have you studied high-energy collisions? Are you 100% confident that it appears on video at the same brightness it appeared in person, after all that processing? Sometimes materials give off flashes upon high-speed collision (I know from editing papers on experiments on high-speed collisions).

What does “too specific” even mean? Do you mean it happens at a precise time, location, or with surprising brightness or speed?

What do you mean by “too fast”? Assuming the plane is going 180 mph (I’m just pulling that out of the nether regions as the slowest speed I think might be reasonable), that’s 264 feet per second. Why would the flash not appear right away?

Or do you mean that the flash disappears fast?

I really don’t know what you mean by your questions, and they seem to rely on instinct rather than deep knowledge.

Like I said, I can not honestly figure out what they might have been, the flashes appear to me to be external and not internal.

This is a pretty good shot of the first one slowed down a bit https://youtu.be/BfrMx8JAlIE it appears to be external to my eye and it appears to happen in advance of the nose contacting the building. Put your curser on .03 sec let the video play and click it back and forth to see if you can see better. (?)

Again, from the beginning I have stated that I have no reasonable explanation as to what that is. It does not look normal to me. The flash seems too bright and specific and too fast to be any part of the plane contacting the building. Its still and unknown to me.

But playing the devil’s advocate for a second, what if I’m wrong, and it was an explosion within the building just before the plane hit?

What could that possibly be? Certainly it would have to be something already in the building. In that case, we can all be grateful that the pilots died in the attack; their ability to hit precisely where the explosives had been planted would be the greatest feats of precision flying I’ve ever heard of, outside of a Buck Rogers comic I read as a child.

Even if they could fly that precisely, what wold have set off the explosions? A small radar set on the explosives? Radio waves sent by the airplanes?

If these weren’t the only explosives set, thereby nullifying the requirement for ultra precision flying, how did they get in there without anybody noticing?

Or was there an accomplice in the building wearing an explosive vest that he detonated just before the plane came? If so, how did he know precisely where the plane was going to hit? I can believe that he could run side to side to adjust, but how would he move between floors in real time? How could he have been so precise in his timing?

Suppose I’m missing a logical explanation on how the supposed explosives were set off. In that case, what was the purpose of setting off the explosives at that particular time and place? Time I can rationalize; the impact of the plane would be a diversion. But place? What would an explosive do at that place, that the plane wouldn’t do on a bigger scale?

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. I see your extraordinary claims leading to extraordinary feats.

Thats the point which is evading you, three buildings of two different design types fell to the ground on the same day within minutes / hours of each other. (That in itself does not indicate some level of planning to you? One has never happened before and three happen on the same day) Think about that logically for a minute. Two fell in exactly the same manner after being struck by large planes and one to the ground after only a standard fairly unspectacular fire and the official explanation is “The discovery of a new phenomenon in building fire”s”. And they all three fell as if by demolition, very organized X’s 3. The effects of fire on steel framed buildings is chaotic not organized. This is basic.

And your lowering your self to attempt to discredit me and my “faulty” or lacking education is desperately childish. Raise the conversation, don’t lower it, you either contribute to it or ignore it, one or the other. Its probably a good idea to ask questions and not make statements about something that you obviously have not spent any real time delving into. I know most reading and participating have not looked as close as they need to, I have.

Your assumptions about the planes are very reasonable, they had significant amounts of fuel, a good proportion of which it is also reasonable to assume that burned off upon impact in the ensuing fireballs. Even so say there was significant fuel left and some of that volume poured down some of the elevator shafts besides burning on the floors breached. What ever its effects on the rest of the building was there is no evidence of any significant burning of anything below the events. (?)

And your assumption about the strength of steel is also reasonable, steel in a heated condition becomes weaker. However, again, where is the evidence of major heating below the events? There is none, the building is unmolested as one would expect. There is evidence of explosions in the lobby, and I believe there is some evidence of people being burned while riding in the elevators because of fuel dumping down it, but other than that, and it is expected and reasonable, there is no evidence of any major fire or fire at all below the events.

Your other stated fact that A-36 steel is molten (Not weakened but liquidious) you sound like so I will assume you might have some knowledge about steel, can you give me a best guess as to what this looks like in the video below?

https://youtu.be/m0qW6–1XX4

And the location is key. If you look just above it and to the left you will see the double tube steel corner of the building where the initial failure begins. What appears to be going on is that the corner is being destroyed to initiate the failure and some of the material used in that process has leaked away and has poured down to the concrete floor and then has melted its way through the facade of the building to pour out in what looks like significant amounts. What does that visual / spectral signature tell you it is?

So lets look at the numbers, A-36 melts at 2700 degrees, the best that jet fuel burning it free air with a wind blowing on it is probably in the 1400 degree range? And that is not sustained because we can clearly see that for the majority of the events there was primarily black smoke which indicates a fire in the 500 degree range or so. If you think that the material pouring out of the building could be steel, and that is what it plainly resembles to me, then where did the extra energy come from ( + 1300 or more degrees) to accomplish that? Specifically in that corner where the failure commenced. Attaining the temperatures to melt steel is unattainable in an ordinary fire.

And then we ask: What happened to the rest of the support from the unmolested building? Where is the resistance that kept the building standing? Would you expect the building to be razed to the ground floor? I would not.

Things to think about for sure, and I appreciate your contribution. One more thing, you mentioning of “The Terrorists” is distractionary, concentrate on the mathematics and physics in order to properly first understand what went on physically, after that the conversation about who and why is appropriate, but right now the physical only please.

There are a number of grades of structural steel used in the construction of the Twin Towers. The most common is A-36 or SA-36 carbon steel. A36 melts at north of 2,700 F, BUT the thing that needs to be remembered is that it loses much of its strength at temperatures far less than its melt point. Temperatures that occurred in that hell (fuel plus all the other materials burning) where more than sufficient to weaken the steel in a large enough area to a point of failure that in turn lead to the collapse of each tower.

The evil act by the terrorists was all that was needed to murder all those folks in those two buildings.

I never had a groupie before. (it feels kind of creepy)