×

Announcing: Slashdot Deals - Explore geek apps, games, gadgets and more. (what is this?)

Thank you!

We are sorry to see you leave - Beta is different and we value the time you took to try it out. Before you decide to go, please take a look at some value-adds for Beta and learn more about it. Thank you for reading Slashdot, and for making the site better!

NIST Releases Report On WTC 7 Collapse

Soulskill posted more than 6 years ago | from the play-nice dept.

United States 1331

photonic writes "After three years of study, the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) finally released its report on the collapse of World Trade Center building 7. The main conclusion is that the building came down due to fire, not due to debris damage or some conspiracy demolition team. The fire started pretty small after the collapse of WTC 1, but was left to burn several floors out completely. The important finding is that the collapse was triggered by thermal expansion of beams, which could detach asymmetrically loaded girders from the main columns. Some limited pancaking of floors then caused a lack of lateral support and buckling of a single column. This triggered the failure of the entire core of the building, which finally fell down as a single piece. Crackpot theories can be discussed elsewhere; please limit the discussion to the science here. All documents can be found at NIST's WTC page, which read like a porn magazine for finite element junkies. Simulation movies are also available. And yes, they used Beowulf clusters to do the simulations, some of which lasted for several months."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

nooo (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24727209)

And yes, they used Beowulf clusters to do the simulations, some of which lasted for several months."

No! You stole my +5 funny!!

Re:nooo (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24727233)

you stole my first post!

Re:nooo (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24727533)

You got peanut butter in my chocolate!

Waiting for one of the crazies to deny it. (0, Redundant)

TheSovereign (1317091) | more than 6 years ago | (#24727219)

I guess 2 minutes.

Re:Waiting for one of the crazies to deny it. (1)

edcheevy (1160545) | more than 6 years ago | (#24727285)

1 minute [slashdot.org] , but thanks for playing!

Re:Waiting for one of the crazies to deny it. (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24727359)

As soon as it is Slashdotted, someone will come along with, "hey, they are blocking access to the report - what are they hiding?"

You've GOT to be kidding! (5, Funny)

cmacb (547347) | more than 6 years ago | (#24727221)

Crackpot theories can be discussed elsewhere; please limit the discussion to the science here.

Re:You've GOT to be kidding! (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24727249)

I think he meant to say

Science can be discussed elsewhere; please limit the discussion to the crackpot theories here.

Re:You've GOT to be kidding! (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24727317)

Right, but rest assured there is no science in this document.

But I take it it's impossible to discuss that with you as you are brainwashed to reply with 'conspiracy theory' accusations (such as the one above) as are most of the American people.

Re:You've GOT to be kidding! (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24727501)

Yeah, building engineers don't ACTUALLY know how fire safety works.

Re:You've GOT to be kidding! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24727331)

The problem with that statement is that people who support crackpot theories believe that those theories ARE supported by science; it's just that the science has been suppressed by "the man" or just not understood by the public.

It's obvious that... (1)

dreamchaser (49529) | more than 6 years ago | (#24727335)

...he must be new here.

Re:You've GOT to be kidding! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24727373)

Some of the simulations last for months? I don't have that kind of time.

Why is the crackpot theory not debunked yet? (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24727399)

If someone left a crackpot burning, couldn't that have started the fire in the first place?
Ipso diabolico facto nonsensicalico.

These guys have resources. It could be quite damaging to be caught with a smoldering crackpot.
Ergo, they crash a plane into the building to cover it all up.

Sheeple, the answers are RIGHT IN FRONT OF YOU, just light them up and breathe deeply.

tr00f (0, Redundant)

TheSHAD0W (258774) | more than 6 years ago | (#24727227)

Crackpot theories can be discussed elsewhere; please limit the discussion to the science here.

Hah! What an optimist.

Re:tr00f (1, Funny)

pilgrim23 (716938) | more than 6 years ago | (#24727379)

I am sure it was the gay space aliens under comander Elvis what done it. Oh, and superglue took care of MY pot thank you!

Imposter! (5, Funny)

cpt kangarooski (3773) | more than 6 years ago | (#24727231)

Crackpot theories can be discussed elsewhere; please limit the discussion to the science here.

What site is this, and what has it done with Slashdot

Re:Imposter! (4, Insightful)

photonic (584757) | more than 6 years ago | (#24727397)

Crackpot theories can be discussed elsewhere; please limit the discussion to the science here.

What site is this, and what has it done with Slashdot

Well, for sure Digg [digg.com] is one of the places where this is happening, some idiots over there get +100 for the most ridiculous comments. What this has done to Slashdot? I hope they drew away some of the trolls from here...

Emma Watson did 9/11! (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24727477)

Proof here [ytmnd.com] and here [http] .

Re:Imposter! (3, Funny)

tinkertim (918832) | more than 6 years ago | (#24727625)

Crackpot theories can be discussed elsewhere; please limit the discussion to the science here.

What site is this, and what has it done with Slashdot

I think the submitter meant to say:

Please limit the science to the discussion.

oh ok (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24727235)

more whitewashing, make sure you never watch the actual footage of that building coming down either, looks pretty symmetrical to me

Re:oh ok (5, Insightful)

hedwards (940851) | more than 6 years ago | (#24727289)

And your point is? It's a common misconception that random events don't or can't look very neat and tidy. One of the common mistakes people make when faking random data is to make it look too random. Meaning they don't have enough places in the data which appear to be non-random.

The way that a skyscraper is designed and built favors it falling more or less straight down rather to one side or the other. The reason being that if it were to topple, as remote a possibility as that is, the building shouldn't be allowed to hit other buildings. Nobody wants a set of dominoes that large.

Re:oh ok (5, Insightful)

canadian_right (410687) | more than 6 years ago | (#24727395)

Another big reason large buildings tend to fall straight down is that is the direction gravity is pulling them. Anything much bigger than three or four stories is going to come apart very soon after leaving vertical, and the pieces come straight down.

Re:oh ok (5, Insightful)

hey! (33014) | more than 6 years ago | (#24727443)

It needn't be as subtle as seeing patterns where there are none, although we know that happens all the time.

In simple terms, things tend to fall down. Surely, if it were easier to get a building to topple over sideways, a team of terrorists isn't going to go through the trouble of averting what would surely be a larger and more spectacular catastrophe.

People whose experience with construction is limited to building models tend to imagine buildings are much lighter relative to the strength of materials in them then they are.

Wake up sheeple! (4, Funny)

neoform (551705) | more than 6 years ago | (#24727239)

Zombies obviously did it.

Re:Wake up sheeple! (5, Funny)

maxume (22995) | more than 6 years ago | (#24727491)

Let's leave McCain out of this one.

Re:Wake up sheeple! (1)

nurmr (773394) | more than 6 years ago | (#24727511)

A wizard did it!

Really? (-1, Troll)

mrbcs (737902) | more than 6 years ago | (#24727245)

Let's just get this out of the way first. BULLSHIT!

The rest of the world knows something suspicious went on, but America has their head in the sand. Not long after this shit, there was a building in Europe, where the fire was so intense, it burned everything off. The steel structure was still standing but oxidizing flame was enough to melt or buckle steel in the trade center? The sheer ignorance of the American populace astounds me.

Re:Really? (1)

Shados (741919) | more than 6 years ago | (#24727271)

YOU GOT IT! Thats exactly it!!! I couldn't I notice myself... It is so obvious now that you mention it...

Europe has better engineers than America!

Re:Really? (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24727405)

Not really. Just better government.

Re:Really? (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24727301)

Let's just get this out of the way first. BULLSHIT!

The rest of the world knows something suspicious went on, but America has their head in the sand.
Not long after this shit, there was a building in Europe, where the fire was so intense, it burned everything off. The steel structure was still standing but oxidizing flame was enough to melt or buckle steel in the trade center? The sheer ignorance of the American populace astounds me.

Interesting. Then I am curious as to what temperature would be required to melt and/or buckle the structure of your aluminum foil hat?

Re:Really? (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24727543)

what temperature would be required to melt and/or buckle the structure of your aluminum foil hat?

Fahrenheit 9/11, of course!

Re:Really? (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24727307)

The sheer ignorance of the American populace astounds me.

Yes, you have several PhDs in the related subjects do you? Thought not. Blame the media and those that control what the masses get to see. There are plenty of people in the US that are not accepting the given "facts". You have no technical skills, you have no science background, you think you're "kewl" because you download pirate software and know what sites give you keys and no-CD patches. But you are a wuss, you are a faggot, you don't even link to the scientific papers contradicting these papers, but you're prepared to dismiss over 300 million people. Now do us all a favor and piss off with your homos.

Re:Really? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24727315)

Let's just get this out of the way first. BULLSHIT!

The rest of the world knows something suspicious went on, but America has their head in the sand.
Not long after this shit, there was a building in Europe, where the fire was so intense, it burned everything off. The steel structure was still standing but oxidizing flame was enough to melt or buckle steel in the trade center? The sheer ignorance of the American populace astounds me.

Actually not the American populace. There are countless amounts of people here that don't buy this bull. Many people, regardless of where they live are fed crap everyday and take it as gospel. Any opposing view points are shrugged off as "conspiracy theories".

Re:Really? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24727333)

Wow, thank God we got that out of the way!

For a second I thought people might actually try and follow that no crackpot theories line. As long as I can come to Slashdot to hear some crazy kooks yelling, I'll know the terrorists haven't won yet.

Re:Really? (5, Insightful)

CaptainPatent (1087643) | more than 6 years ago | (#24727347)

Let's just get this out of the way first. BULLSHIT!
The rest of the world knows something suspicious went on, but America has their head in the sand. Not long after this shit, there was a building in Europe, where the fire was so intense, it burned everything off. The steel structure was still standing but oxidizing flame was enough to melt or buckle steel in the trade center? The sheer ignorance of the American populace astounds me.

How about if we get this out of the way:

A statement that one building somewhere at sometime didn't collapse under certain conditions is no grounds (in fact it's a logical fallacy) for saying a building couldn't collapse under the same conditions... and worse, it's also no grounds to subsequently stereotype an entire group of people and flame them.

Thank you and have a nice day.

Re:Really? (5, Informative)

Cl1mh4224rd (265427) | more than 6 years ago | (#24727425)

Not long after this shit, there was a building in Europe, where the fire was so intense, it burned everything off. The steel structure was still standing [...]

I'm pretty sure you're talking about the Windsor building in Madrid.

I've got news for you, buddy: It actually works against you.

First, the Windsor building had a concrete core and two concrete technical floors. A very different design from that of the Twin Towers.

Second, the steel portions of the building exposed to the fire did in fact get all melty and collapsey [911myths.com] . The only reason the building is still standing is because of the features I mentioned above.

http://www.911myths.com/html/madrid_windsor_tower.html [911myths.com]
http://www.debunking911.com/madrid.htm [debunking911.com]

Re:Really? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24727427)

Re:Really? (-1, Troll)

mrbcs (737902) | more than 6 years ago | (#24727481)

Wow, that's gotta be a record... +2 to -1 troll in 14 seconds. ;-)

This has to be the best hot-button topic ever!

Re:Really? (0, Troll)

glitch23 (557124) | more than 6 years ago | (#24727489)

Let's just get this out of the way first. BULLSHIT!

The rest of the world knows something suspicious went on, but America has their head in the sand. Not long after this shit, there was a building in Europe, where the fire was so intense, it burned everything off. The steel structure was still standing but oxidizing flame was enough to melt or buckle steel in the trade center? The sheer ignorance of the American populace astounds me.

Let's just get this out of the way first. BULLSHIT!

The rest of the world knows something evil went on, but America has been the target of fundamentalists for a long time. Not long after this shit, there was a building in Europe, where the fire was so intense, it burned everything off. The steel structure was still standing but oxidizing flame was enough to melt or buckle steel in the trade center? The sheer paranoia of the non-Americans populace astounds me.

Now to be a little more creative with my response. Do you care to give a reason that you think the U.S. gov't (or whoever you think actually did it) caused these buildings to collapse? By the way, let me remind you that 2 of these buildings were over 2x bigger than WTC7 and were hit by commercial airliners prior to their collapse. Also, do you have evidence that the building in Europe you speak of was built exactly the same way as WTC7 to use it as a fair comparison in showing off your....um...structural engineering prowess?

Re:Really? (0, Troll)

JebusIsLord (566856) | more than 6 years ago | (#24727595)

Look, something crooked DEFINITELY went on, but it wasn't in how the buildings were brought down. It's in how the government knew exactly who was responsible, the minute it happened, and flew them the hell out of the country. WE KNOW THIS. Why doesn't anyone focus on it?? Seems important to me. The conspiracy theorist in me believes it is perfectly possible the government hired these men to do it. But I still believe the planes took the buildings down.

Re:Really? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24727639)

http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/wtc1_core.html?q=wtc1_core.html [whatreallyhappened.com]

1. Sodamn Insane caused the terrists to destroy America.
2. He's buddies with Bin Laden, bin Hidin or somethin like that.
3. We (USA) needs to kick his (Sodamn Insane)ass... cause he's also got lots of oil.

Last I saw over 50% of American population thought that Saddamn Hussein was behind the terrorists that brought down the towers.

Look up the reichstag that GERMANY burned down to start world war 2. It's called a false flag operation. http://www.historyplace.com/worldwar2/riseofhitler/burns.htm [historyplace.com]

Re:Really? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24727665)

Why is a post which beats down a troll modded troll itself? Both sides of the debate can't be trolls. Idiots.

Re:Really? (1)

ScentCone (795499) | more than 6 years ago | (#24727541)

there was a building in Europe, where the fire was so intense, it burned everything off

Uh huh. And that steel structure has also been peppered with large hunks of high-energy flying debris? You know, like one of the tallest buildings in the world collapsing right next to it? Oh.

Re:Really? (1)

MobileTatsu-NJG (946591) | more than 6 years ago | (#24727651)

Not long after this shit, there was a building in Europe, where the fire was so intense, it burned everything off. The steel structure was still standing but oxidizing flame was enough to melt or buckle steel in the trade center? The sheer ignorance of the American populace astounds me.

I hear ya, man. When my Ford Pinto went up in flames, nobody in America would believe it was because the gubment put a bomb in my car!!! Stoopid ign'rant country.

Re:Really? (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24727667)

Hey cunt,

Still having your ass reamed by your daddy Osama Bin Laden? You must enjoy being his bitch fucktoy.

9/11 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24727253)

is sooo 2001

Like ISO before (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24727259)

A standards organization whitewashes some more.

Still looking for answers to why George Bush ignored the August 6, 2001 presidential daily briefing. Or funneled $40 million dollars to Afghanistan in May 2001.

Re:Like ISO before (1)

colfer (619105) | more than 6 years ago | (#24727383)

Good political arguments which you ruin by accepting BS on the collapse.

obligatory comment. (1)

scenestar (828656) | more than 6 years ago | (#24727275)

And yes, they used Beowulf clusters to do the simulations

Yes, But did they run linux?

Re:obligatory comment. (5, Funny)

Skiron (735617) | more than 6 years ago | (#24727303)

"Yes, But did they run linux?" No, XP/Vista - that's whay it took 3 years to do the graphics.

Re:obligatory comment. (4, Funny)

jrothwell97 (968062) | more than 6 years ago | (#24727537)

no, that was because the technician downloaded Smiley Central.

So... Umm... (1)

vertinox (846076) | more than 6 years ago | (#24727283)

Its a reasonable conclusion that a tower would collapse it it caught on fire, but how did the impact debris catch the tower on fire?

Re:So... Umm... (3, Informative)

EdZ (755139) | more than 6 years ago | (#24727329)

It didn't. The hundreds of tons of flaming debris ignited by hundreds of gallons of aviation fuel did.

Re:So... Umm... (5, Informative)

colfer (619105) | more than 6 years ago | (#24727515)

About 23,000 gal. of diesel fuel was stored in the bldg, mainly on the bottom floors but some as high as the 7th. "Several months after the WTC 7 collapse, a contractor recovered" the fuel from the tanks and, "unaccounted fuel totaled... somewhere between 0 and 2,000 gallons..." And "The worst-case scenarios associated with fires being fed by ruptured fuel lines-or from fuel stored in day tanks on the lower floors-could not have been sustained long enough, could not have generated sufficient heat to weaken critical interior columns, and/or would have produced large amounts of visible smoke from the lower floors, which were not observed."
http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/factsheet/wtc_qa_082108.html [nist.gov]

Anyway, steel bends in fires, that's why it has to be insulated and why steel bldg's must have sprinkler systems. I doubt the fire dept. was able to respond effectively in time.

Re:So... Umm... (1)

vertinox (846076) | more than 6 years ago | (#24727341)

Can't type today... There should be an if where one of those extra "it" are.

This is a serious question. I'm curious to what kind of debris and how much fire it was on as it seemed to enter the lower floors of the other building.

Re:So... Umm... (4, Informative)

Martin Blank (154261) | more than 6 years ago | (#24727521)

The fire in the North Tower was still burning and spreading when the tower collapsed. While it was obscured somewhat by dust and smoke during the fall, flaming debris did spread out over considerable distances, some of it striking WTC7, breaking through the windows and setting aflame material in the lower floors, which spread rapidly as the collapse of the Twin Towers had done considerable damage to the water systems in the area, and water pressure for the firefighting systems was very low.

The immediate evacuation of WTC7 (among others) as soon as the evacuation of the main towers was ordered saved a great many lives.

Ever hear of jet fuel? (4, Informative)

jordandeamattson (261036) | more than 6 years ago | (#24727461)

Let's see...hmm...full tanks of aviation grade fuel.

The 767-200ER, the UA plane which went into one of the towers, has a fuel capacity of 23,980. The flight was a few hundred miles from it origin at Logan International Airport in Boston.

Let's assume that the plan had only 15,000 gallons onboard.

The flash point of jet fuel is 100.4 ÂF (38 ÂC). Many surfaces - including the engines of the plane - would be well above this point.

In addition, there were numerous electrical connections which could have sparked causing the fuel to ignite.

Jet fuel has between 127,000 and 135,000 BTUs per gallon.

Therefore, at the point of impact we had between 1,905,000,000 and 2,025,000,000 BTUs of energy being released in a highly concentrated area (3-5 floors).

Even without the energy generated by the burning of other materials, this is sufficient to inflame the entire area and to cause the required heat damage to the tower.

Jordan

Re:Ever hear of jet fuel? (2, Insightful)

Martin Blank (154261) | more than 6 years ago | (#24727579)

Your explanation works for the Twin Towers, but not for WTC7, which is what vertinox was asking about. The jet fuel was probably burned off by the time the north tower collapsed, but debris ignited by it (directly or indirectly) did hit WTC7, starting the fires there.

Re:Ever hear of jet fuel? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24727611)

Well, he kinda asked how the fire then spread to the OTHER building, the one this article is about. WTC 7.

Erm... (4, Funny)

jez9999 (618189) | more than 6 years ago | (#24727287)

Crackpot theories can be discussed elsewhere; please limit the discussion to the science here.

You must be new here.

Controlled Demolition, of course (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24727323)

Remember how they said it was "pulled"? And just look at the way it fell down, only a controlled demolition could have done that. If fire actually caused WTC7 to fall, then the engineers who designed it have a lot to answer for: somebody screwed up big time if fire did it. So why isn't there a scandal and enquiries about the incompetent design?

Re:Controlled Demolition, of course (3, Interesting)

Martin Blank (154261) | more than 6 years ago | (#24727433)

No one ever expected a fire to burn out of control for several hours. There was always an anticipation that fire units would be dispatched and undertake steps to control the fire.

Civilian structures are designed based on the expectation that emergency services will be available. They are not constructed as bunkers, for the most part, as the expenses are simply too high to do that. Nevertheless, NIST made a recommendation to evaluate those buildings that use similar construction methods and suggests several possible cost-effective ways of mitigating the risk of collapse under similar circumstances.

Unpossible! (5, Funny)

mrbah (844007) | more than 6 years ago | (#24727339)

Do they mean to say that a fire can cause a building to collapse? Next they'll be telling us damage to structures following earthquakes isn't manmade.

Re:Unpossible! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24727535)

Actually, this is weird still, as the fire they say was in this building was not the kind of superheated fueled fire from engine fuel, rather just the paper and office materials burning from secondary fires. If this building could not stand up to he heat of some normal fires, even without fire suppression working, what does this mean for the safety of other buildings? Seriously, a normal office fire should not be able to bring down a building, thermal expansion should be accounted for considering extended temperatures of normal fires. If not, then every building is capable of easy collapse from fires that are actually pretty common in apartment buildings.

"Crackpot Theories" (0, Troll)

mlwmohawk (801821) | more than 6 years ago | (#24727343)

The use of language is interesting, don't you think? I'm not prepared to entertain any real conspiracy theories, but I have been fairly curious about one point I can't quite understand: Why are there so many similarities to the way the buildings fell to a controlled demolition?

Almost everyone that watches the collapse of the world trade center buildings and compares them to films of controlled demolitions sees that they look the same.

There are probably many plausible and well researched reasons for this, but no one has addressed them, but merely use language to attempt to discredit any such questions. That's what I find most interesting about the whole thing.

Re:"Crackpot Theories" (4, Insightful)

mrbah (844007) | more than 6 years ago | (#24727375)

Why are there so many similarities to the way the buildings fell to a controlled demolition? Because there are only so many ways a building basic physics allows a building collapse, controlled or not?

Re:"Crackpot Theories" (4, Insightful)

MrLizard (95131) | more than 6 years ago | (#24727437)

How many skyscrapers have people seen collapse which are NOT controlled demolitions?

In other words, how many data points do you have on "What does a skyscraper collapsing on its own look like"?

In other other words, how do you know that "falling straight down" is an artifact of controlled demolition, and not an artifact of being a skyscraper?

I venture quite a few in scale models (1)

davidwr (791652) | more than 6 years ago | (#24727631)

Granted, scale models don't tell the whole story.

There have also been a number of major earthquakes that knocked down "smallish" buildings, say, them 3-20 stories. These data points can be combined with scale models to predict how larger building will fare under a given kind of stress.

Re:"Crackpot Theories" (5, Insightful)

1u3hr (530656) | more than 6 years ago | (#24727385)

Why are there so many similarities to the way the buildings fell to a controlled demolition?

Both are afected by gravity, which exerts a downward force.

Re:"Crackpot Theories" (1)

ShadowRangerRIT (1301549) | more than 6 years ago | (#24727401)

What else do you have to compare it to? How many buildings have you seen destroyed in some way *other* than controlled demolition?

People say it looked like a controlled demolition, but the central buildings did a lot of damage to the surrounding buildings as well. Perhaps the difference between controlled and uncontrolled isn't how it looks at a macro scale, but how much collateral damage is done by the smaller bit of debris coming off it?

Re:"Crackpot Theories" (3, Informative)

Spad (470073) | more than 6 years ago | (#24727403)

The principles of demolitions are pretty similar - you destroy the supports of the building causing it to collapse down on top of itself. The WTC towers suffered a similar failure only the primary cause was a combination of damage, stress and weight of material from above that caused the supports to fail, rather than controlled explosions.

Re:"Crackpot Theories" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24727419)

When you suppress these theories instead of destroying them for all to see, you cause them to go underground and fester.

Look at holocaust denial, the people who don't believe that it happened have been routinely denied a forum to state their case and then get torn to shreads because of all of the contrary proof. So what's happened? They've gone underground, they whisper about how the truth is being suppressed. To someone who has no idea about the subject matter it seems like it just might be that they're being persecuted.

Intelligent Design is another example of this. They feel as though they've been denied access to mainstream debate and as such they've reached the point of a whisper campaign. Ben Stein's new movie is a result of this.

When these "911 Truth" people start talking their nonsense, let them. Then on a point by point basis disprove them. Let other see that they're not being suppressed, they're wrong and you can prove it.

Re:"Crackpot Theories" (2, Insightful)

clt829 (820534) | more than 6 years ago | (#24727463)

Because gravity pulls straight down? Which way would you expect a building of that size to fall?

Which direction should a building fall? (2, Funny)

davidwr (791652) | more than 6 years ago | (#24727653)

Which way would you expect a building of that size to fall?

Toward Osama bin Laden's massive ego.

Re:"Crackpot Theories" (1)

donaggie03 (769758) | more than 6 years ago | (#24727467)

Here's a question for you: how many buildings have you seen collapse that were not due to a controlled demolition? How many buildings have you seen collapse due to earthquake? Unless you've seen quite a few of these, then you have no basis for comparison between the controlled and non-controlled demolitions. These buildings are designed to collapse a certain way, regardless of the cause of the collapse. Maybe this is to limit the damage to surrounding areas?

Crackpot theories can be discussed elsewhere (5, Funny)

fotoguzzi (230256) | more than 6 years ago | (#24727349)

but you can still publish goatse links here.

Fire? Gimme a break. (3, Funny)

hivebrain (846240) | more than 6 years ago | (#24727351)

Everyone knows the CIA hired the mob and anti-Communist Cuban militants to bring it down.

Yes, but... (1)

davidwr (791652) | more than 6 years ago | (#24727593)

They brought it down with fire. I know because the report said the building was brought down by fire.

Re:Yes, but... (4, Funny)

hivebrain (846240) | more than 6 years ago | (#24727627)

That's just one of many theories. Some say it was done with Pop Rocks and Soda. I happen to believe it was done with Mentos and Diet Coke.

Re:Fire? Gimme a break. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24727619)

JFK detonated charges which were placed by Princess Diana.

How ignorant of the facts can you possibly be?

Huh? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24727363)

Crackpot theories can be discussed elsewhere; please limit the discussion to the science here

Where the hell do you think you are? If I want science I'll read a journal. I come here to watch armchair scientists duke it out. Kind of like that TV show, you know, Bumfights.

it must be that (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24727367)

i blame niggers and faggots for the problem.

Missed opportunity (1)

bigtallmofo (695287) | more than 6 years ago | (#24727417)

This story should have had banner ads for tinfoil hats instead of InterSystems Cache Post-Relational database.

They would've sold out in minutes!

To all the conspiracy nuts (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24727455)

Shut the fuck up. For fuck's sake, please just shut the fuck up.

You're ignorant, you're dumb and you're uneducated. Most of all though, you are fucking annoying.

I don't listen to your trolling. I don't pay attention to your buzzwords like "sheeple". I didn't start on 9/11 and I'm not starting today.

One more time for good measure. Shut the fuck up.

Re:To all the conspiracy nuts (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24727471)

You can't even compare two physical theories, and you're telling people to shut up? If you're so educated, you would have already done the math and come to the best explanation of the events on 9/11. Yet you didn't bother.

Ummm yeah right (1, Informative)

Norpg (689932) | more than 6 years ago | (#24727539)

http://rawstory.com/news/2008/BREAKING_NIST_%3CI%3Efinally%3CI%3E_poses_theory_on_0821.html [rawstory.com]

As federal agency declares 'new phenomenon' downed WTC 7, activists cry foul

According to a federal agency report released Thursday, a "new phenomenon" known as thermal expansion was directly responsible for the mysterious collapse of World Trade Center 7 on Sept. 11, 2001.

This study, posed by the National Institute of Standards and Technology -- a federal scientific agency which promotes technical industrial standards -- marks the first 'official' government theory on the collapse.

The building's demise occurred some seven hours after the twin towers collapsed on Sept. 11, 2001, and has been the source of numerous conspiracy theories key to the "9/11 Truth" movement, most of which argue that the symmetrical, seven-second collapse was brought about by a controlled demolition.

Dr. Shyam Sunder, director of Institute's building and fire research laboratory, oversaw the government's three-year research efforts. The report aims to disprove the controlled demolition argument.

However, Richard Gage, founder of Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth and a member of the American Institute of Architects, doesn't believe a word of the theory.

His group, which has swelled to over 400 architectural and engineering professionals, immediately responded to the Institute's claim in a press conference.

"Tons of [molten metal] was found 21 days after the attack," said Gage in an interview with a Vancouver, Canada television station. "Steel doesn't begin to melt until 2,700 degrees, which is much hotter than what these fires could have caused."

"There are holes in this story that you can drive a truck through," Gage added during the press conference. His group asserts that thermite, a steel cutting agent, was used to bring the building down.

Dr. Sunder disagreed.

"We conducted the study without bias, without interference from anyone," said Dr. Sunder. "We have only one single-minded goal in this effort."

While the Institute said it considered the possibility of a controlled demolition taking place at WTC 7, the notion was dismissed due to the absence of any recordings of an explosion sound.

Thermite, however, does not make an explosion sound. And while this was raised to Dr. Sunder in the media's Q&A session, he dismissed it as impossible.

"FEMA found it," said Gage. "Dr. Steven Jones found it, in the dust that landed in the entire area of lower Manhattan. And he finds it in the chunks of previously molten metal [from the towers]."

Specifically, in Appendix C of its World Trade Center Building Performance Study, FEMA claimed:

        Evidence of a severe high temperature corrosion attack on the steel, including oxidation and sulfidation with subsequent intergranular melting, was readily visible in the near-surface microstructure. A liquid eutectic mixture containing primarily iron, oxygen, and sulfur formed during this hot corrosion attack on the steel... The severe corrosion and subsequent erosion of Samples 1 and 2 are a very unusual event. No clear explanation for the source of the sulfur has been identified.

Yet, no study of the mysterious sulfur or melted steel was included in the NIST report.

After New York City officials cut off the water main to the tower Sept. 11, 2001, the building's sprinkler system was unable to function, Dr. Sunder said. This allowed fires across 10 floors to burn uncontrolled for nearly seven hours.

The Institute asserts that due to the lack of water supply, an "extraordinary event" occurred, and for the first time ever, steel expanding due to heat from the flames caused columns to separate from structural concrete. Column 79 was the first to fail, according to the report, which brought about a quick succession of failures in adjoining columns.

"Thermal expansion of long-span floor systems" was a critical element in the collapse, said Dr. Sunder. The "kink" seen in the building's penthouse portion in video of the collapse was in-line with the columns which failed first.

"If water had been available, it is likely that sprinklers would have operated and the building may still be here today," he said.

"It looks like they want to wrap-up this investigation and blame [the collapse] on normal office fires," said Gage during counter-conference.

WTC 7's structural system is in "widespread use" in other buildings, he added, insisting that such effects may also be present elsewhere. The Institute's report also includes recommendations for the strengthening of building codes to avoid future thermal expansion-driven collapses.

The collapse of WTC 7 is "no longer a mystery," Dr. Sunder claimed.

The Institute's full report is available at wtc.nist.gov.

Further details from the Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth press conference are forthcoming.

First read as ... (3, Funny)

David Gerard (12369) | more than 6 years ago | (#24727545)

First read as "NIST Releases Report On Windows 7 Collapse."

yah, right (-1, Flamebait)

AeiwiMaster (20560) | more than 6 years ago | (#24727547)

To get any skeptic to believe those simulation.
They would have to open source the code,
so everyone can check that the code simulate real physics.

Also it still don't explain why bcc reported the collapse 20 min. to early.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C7SwOT29gbc [youtube.com]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6mxFRigYD3s [youtube.com]

no surprises here (1, Insightful)

IGnatius T Foobar (4328) | more than 6 years ago | (#24727557)

If the WTC 7 did come down because of a government conspiracy (and I'm not saying that it did or didn't!) then it would stand to reason that a federal agency like NIST would draw a conclusion of structural failure rather than deliberate demolition. No big surprises here.

Obligatory Beowulf Cluster post (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24727565)

Imagine a Beowulf Cluster of WTC buildings.

Now imagine it crashing.

Oh wait....

Mod -1:IN_BAD_TASTE

Wow, That Was Some Crappy Construction (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24727585)

I wouldn't hire the designers of that building to build a doll house.

Insane theories one; (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24727601)

regular theories a billion!

Wait a damn minute, here! (5, Funny)

PrimeWaveZ (513534) | more than 6 years ago | (#24727609)

Asking Slashdot readers to stick to science, refrain from discussing conspiracies, AND taking the fun out of a beowulf cluster reference?

This submitter is a black belt troll and you all know it!

How did it catch fire? (-1, Troll)

pembo13 (770295) | more than 6 years ago | (#24727621)

How did such an intense fire start in the building? I understand that there was debris from the other building, but seems like you would need a better than average fuel source for such an intense fire.

I remember on CNN, one of the researches claimed that this was the first recorded event of firing taking down such a structure. So how many unlikely events happened in that one (12 hr?) period? I often hear Occam's razor being suggested to push against ridiculously unlikely events. Any one know what is the approximate probability of that 12hr period occurring as officially stated?

Just seems to me, that if all these things did happened accidentally (aside from the actual hijacking and plane crash part), this is approaching the miraculous/"God did it"/fate level of likelihood.

Oh, and one more question, which I probably might know the answer to if I had read the full report: did the research set out to virtually replicate the collapse? Or did they model the entire environment and scenario, and threw it at a physics engine to see what would happen?

WTC owner admits to a controlled demolition (0, Flamebait)

sega01 (937364) | more than 6 years ago | (#24727641)

Larry Silverstein (owner of the WTC) admitted that they had a controlled demolition. Why is this not mentioned anywhere? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7WYdAJQV100 [youtube.com]

This is not supposed to be a restricted forum. (4, Insightful)

substance2003 (665358) | more than 6 years ago | (#24727643)

Slashdot has always been about freedom albeit in the open source world, this has always included debates on what people read and think. How can anyone on this web site stand there and demand to limit to science as if the fact that the only steel buildings in existence to ever fall from fire all did so on 9/11 (which includes WTC Building 7). This is a fact that goes against the science given which has always fueled conspiry theorists and with good reason. We live in a society that is given the freedom to discuss and this forum has until today always given it's user's the right to says anything that is on their minds. Is slashdot changing it's stance?
History was not written only once, it was written and rewritten countless times over long periods of time and came to exist as we know it because discussions continue over time and corrections and rewrites and new information that was ignored or suppressed comes out.
But this only happens because people don't just stand there and accept blindly what is told to them especially when it goes against commen sense.
I hope the person who wrote this has the curtosy to remove the comment or correct it.

NIST Releases Report On WTC 7 Collapse (2, Funny)

benjfowler (239527) | more than 6 years ago | (#24727661)

"All documents can be found at NIST's WTC page, which read like a porn magazine for finite element junkies"

Guess we should try not to get the pages stuck together huh?

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?