The Uniqueness of the WTC7 Collapse

Oh and having read the entire thread I'd like to point out that the NIST hypothesis that an internal collapse led to a symmetrical external collapse is even more unlikely than that an simple global collapse might occur symmetrically. It just adds one more variable to the statistical unlikely hood.

asymmetrical fire = asymmetrical interior failure of the highly complex structure = symmetrical failure of the exterior shell ? Vs asymmetrical fire = symmetrical global failure. The later is more likely than the former. NIST does have some film evidence of a partial collapse preceding the global symmetrical failure, but that evidence is mostly hypothetical. The only visual evidence of any structural failure preceding the symmetrical global failure is of the pent house disappearing behind the roof parapet wall. There would have to be an overhead film of the entire central roof structure collapsing into the basement of the building before this scenario would present itself as the most likely cause of failure. Anyone got that view ?

What I see is an asymmetrical failure of the pent house followed by a symmetrical failure of the entire remaining structure. What I don't see is a systematic response of the exterior structure in response to the gradual failure of the pent house, not even windows blowing out. Although I do see in conjunction with the global symmetrical failure is a near instantaneous structural failure along vertical lines, of as many as four points on any given face of the building. Not something I would expect in a progressive collapse such as what NIST is postulating.

 
It is getting late so I am posting some links and things to read.

http://www.debunking911.com/pull.htm


http://www.911myths.com/html/wtc7_damage.html

Chris Boyle expands on what he saw when he viewed the south side, not just the corner.

Captain Chris Boyle
Engine 94 - 18 years

Boyle: ...on the north and east side of 7 it didn’t look like there was any damage at all, but then you looked on the south side of 7 there had to be a hole 20 stories tall in the building, with fire on several floors. Debris was falling down on the building and it didn’t look good.

Firehouse: When you looked at the south side, how close were you to the base of that side?

Boyle: I was standing right next to the building, probably right next to it.

Firehouse: When you had fire on the 20 floors, was it in one window or many?

Boyle: There was a huge gaping hole and it was scattered throughout there. It was a huge hole. I would say it was probably about a third of it, right in the middle of it. And so after Visconti came down and said nobody goes in 7, we said all right, we’ll head back to the command post. We lost touch with him. I never saw him again that day.
Content from External Source

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



Another fireman reported damage that progressed as the day wore on.

Deputy Chief Peter Hayden
Division 1 - 33 years

...also 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.

Firehouse: Was there heavy fire in there right away?
Hayden: No, not right away, and that’s probably why it stood for so long because it took a while for that fire to develop. It was a heavy body of fire in there and then we didn’t make any attempt to fight it. That was just one of those wars we were just going to lose. We were concerned about the collapse of a 47-story building there. We were worried about additional collapse there of what was remaining standing of the towers and the Marriott, so we started pulling the people back after a couple of hours of surface removal and searches along the surface of the debris. We started to pull guys back because we were concerned for their safety.
Content from External Source
http://www.firehouse.com/terrorist/911/magazine/gz/hayden.html



http://www.debunking911.com/firsttime.htm




http://articles.chicagotribune.com/...1_mccormick-place-fire-equipment-chicago-fire

The scope of the disaster was hard to fathom. Tribune reporters and photographers who raced to the scene that bitterly cold January night in 1967 sent word that McCormick Place was ablaze, engulfed in flames, raging — destroyed. Back at Tribune Tower, the night editor said, "It can't be."

But it was. The gleaming white convention center, which had opened in November 1960 and was the centerpiece of the city's dominant trade show business, was gone.

The building that was supposed to be fireproof and "outlast Rome's glories" was consumed frighteningly fast. Smoke was reported by janitors at 2:05 a.m. on Jan. 16. By 2:30 a.m., when Fire Commissioner Robert Quinn arrived, he upgraded it to a five-alarm fire. Eighteen minutes later, he ordered the first special alarm.

Firefighters wasted time trying to thaw four of seven hydrants before discovering they actually weren't frozen, they just weren't hooked up. Contractors building the interchange of the Stevenson Expressway and Lake Shore Drive had disconnected them. Firefighters drew water from the lake; the city's three fire boats also pumped water onto the fire. Later, Quinn said working hydrants wouldn't have made a difference: "That fire was out of control when the first units arrived."

It took just 45 minutes for two-thirds of the building to be engulfed. Before the fire was struck at 9:48 a.m., the roof had collapsed, though the Arie Crown Theater was damaged but not destroyed. About 2,000 firefighters using 65 percent of the city's fire equipment battled the blaze, the Tribune reported.
Content from External Source



http://www.interfire.org/res_file/pdf/Tr-097.pdf


One thing to note, both of these buildings had long unsupported steel spans. Neither of them were tall buildings with heavy floors. But the roof collapses show that the steel weakened and failed.

Now instead of fairly light roof, make the supported areas to weigh tons and to have tons of material on them.
 
Captain Chris Boyle

vested interest

testimony does not match photographic evidence, or lack of visual confirmation.

granted I only did a cursory review of the two sites provided however I saw no damage consistent with that described by the Captain. Maybe you could be more specific than just two websites and provide that visual evidence, there's always chance I have just missed it.

Deputy Chief Peter Hayden

vested interest

testimony does not match visual evidence, or lack of visual confirmation.

granted I only did a cursory review of the two sites provided however I saw no damage consistent with that described by the Deputy Chief. Maybe you could be more specific than just two websites and provide that visual evidence, there's always chance I have just missed it.

Both these mens testimony is exactly the type of anecdotal evidence I feel is controversial and open to interpretation. There is zero physical evidence to support these claims. Minor asymmetrical damage does not lead to global symmetrical collapse, or at least the probability of it occurring is infinitesimally small.

On the contrary, assuming these mens testimony is accurate, we have an even lower likely hood of a symmetrical collapse resulting from the reported, extremely asymmetrical damage. The failure rate of each individual piece of the structure would require time to propagate throughout the building, ergo, the virtual instantaneous failure of all four corners at once in response to a symmetrical "kink" given the reported asymmetrical damage and therefor asymmetrical progression of failure among the structural members makes it extraordinarily unlikely that a global symmetrical collapse could have resulted from one corner of the building being allegedly damaged.
 
It was NOT symmetrical. One side bulged out first.

You seem to be discounting the damage done by the wires and the way the building was built.
 
This is what I mean when I say some people would rather insist that black is white instead of accepting what is most obvious and remarkable about the video evidence.
But just below that line we can read:


WTC 7's collapse, viewed from the exterior (most videos were taken from the north), did appear to fall almost uniformly as a single unit.
....
The symmetric appearance of the downward fall...
Content from External Source
And we all know not everything is what it looks like. So indeed sometimes black looks like white, but still is black, or maybe even grey...
 
As I said earlier, this thread seemed to be stuck on the question of whether or not what is symmetrical is indeed symmetrical. Now we have reached the point where it is a question of whether or not something that appears to be symmetrical is indeed symmetrical.

Miss VocalCord: I would ask you, how is one to judge symmetry except by appearance? Can anything meaningfully be described as asymmetrical if it in fact appears to be symmetrical? Are there any useful examples you can offer of something that appears to be symmetrical when is in fact asymmetrical, to illustrate your point about WTC7?

You are in effect telling people not to believe their eyes, as if the collapse of WTC7 was an enormous natural sleight of hand performed by nature herself, using only the power of gravity and fire. It is an extraordinary claim and, as Hitchens would say, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

Or perhaps you would simply like to assert that black was indeed white in this case, and quibble with semantic details or rhetorical devices to justify the absurdity.
 
Miss VocalCord: I would ask you, how is one to judge symmetry except by appearance? Can anything meaningfully be described as asymmetrical if it in fact appears to be symmetrical? Are there any useful examples you can offer of something that appears to be symmetrical when is in fact asymmetrical, to illustrate your point about WTC7?
The building didn't fall symmetrical, first the interior fell down (noticable by the penthouse), then the exterior fell, this can be seen on most videos. This is what is stated in the NIST report, this is what I think the (a)symmetrical talk is all about:

The symmetric appearance of the downward fall of WTC 7 was primarily due to the greater stiffness and strength of its exterior frame relative to the interior framing.
Content from External Source
So the symmetry is about the in/exterior, I think you are talking about the downward direction as being symmatrical.

You are in effect telling people not to believe their eyes,
I know a lot of situations where it is indeed better not to trust your own eyes. Just a slightly offtopic optical illusion:
http://langabi.name/blog/wp-content/images/blog/optical illusion.jpg

Do you trust your own eyes in this picture (and I don't mean by reading the text at the top :) ).
 
someone wanted that building in a nice neat pile on the ground.

Did they also want the other 3 buildings in a nice neat pile on the ground? How did they coordinate 3 hijackings to coincide with the day they wanted the building/s in a nice neat pile on the ground? Why did they arrange to have that building empty yet kill @2000 others in WTC 1 and 2?
 
The building didn't fall symmetrical, first the interior fell down (noticable by the penthouse), then the exterior fell, this can be seen on most videos. This is what is stated in the NIST report, this is what I think the (a)symmetrical talk is all about:

The symmetric appearance of the downward fall of WTC 7 was primarily due to the greater stiffness and strength of its exterior frame relative to the interior framing.
Content from External Source
So the symmetry is about the in/exterior, I think you are talking about the downward direction as being symmatrical.
Boston has comprehensively rebutted this unlikely official explanation -- it can only be described as speculation -- at post 81 (top of page). If this is really your belief, address those points.
I know a lot of situations where it is indeed better not to trust your own eyes. Just a slightly offtopic optical illusion:
http://langabi.name/blog/wp-content/images/blog/optical illusion.jpg

Do you trust your own eyes in this picture (and I don't mean by reading the text at the top :) ).
So to be clear, you are suggesting that the symmetry of the collapse of an enormous building is in fact an optical illusion, not unlike an Escher drawing.
 
Did they also want the other 3 buildings in a nice neat pile on the ground? How did they coordinate 3 hijackings to coincide with the day they wanted the building/s in a nice neat pile on the ground? Why did they arrange to have that building empty yet kill @2000 others in WTC 1 and 2?
Is it your intention to drive the thread off topic with bursts of incredulity simply because you are perversely unable to acknowledge the symmetry of the collapse, or is this merely an aside like my noting the fact of Giuliani's execrable stupidity?
 
Is it your intention to drive the thread off topic with bursts of incredulity simply because you are perversely unable to acknowledge the symmetry of the collapse, or is this merely an aside like my noting the fact of Giuliani's execrable stupidity?


I'm just asking questions, jomper. Boston said it looked like someone wanted the building to fall in a neat pile on the ground. I think the questions I asked make perfect sense. Regarding Guiliani, YOU drove the thread off topic with that one, and I see you're still flogging that dead horse. WHy don't you just MYOB and let Boston answer?
 
I'm just asking questions, jomper. Boston said it looked like someone wanted the building to fall in a neat pile on the ground. I think the questions I asked make perfect sense. Regarding Guiliani, YOU drove the thread off topic with that one, and I see you're still flogging that dead horse. WHy don't you just MYOB and let Boston answer?
Excellent. So you do acknowledge, then, that WTC7 finished in a neat pile on the ground? Entirely what would be expected after a symmetrical descent, wouldn't you agree?
 
Excellent. So you do acknowledge, then, that WTC7 finished in a neat pile on the ground? Entirely what would be expected after a symmetrical descent, wouldn't you agree?


Obviously you have a reading comprehension problem. Care to try again?
 
Boston has comprehensively rebutted this unlikely official explanation -- it can only be described as speculation -- at post 81 (top of page). If this is really your belief, address those points.
You mean the one which he concludes with a video which doesn't even show the penthouse collapse for the full first minute, and leaves it out in most other shots?

..not even windows blowing out.
I do see windows been blown on the left side even before the penthouse fully disseapered:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=XrnmbUDeHus#t=10s

Also the exteriour is clearly twisting on the same side the penthouse was, how is this possible with the interiour still there?


So to be clear, you are suggesting that the symmetry of the collapse of an enormous building is in fact an optical illusion, not unlike an Escher drawing.
No, but was the question too hard to answer; do you still trust your own eyes?
 
You mean the one which he concludes with a video which doesn't even show the penthouse collapse for the full first minute, and leaves it out in most other shots?
Yes, that's the one. As if the penthouse falling first changes the fact of the symmetrical descent that follows... it's not exactly evidence of the complete internal collapse of the structure, is it? That would be pure speculation, wouldn't it. You should probably consider the second paragraph of Boston's post.
was the question too hard to answer; do you still trust your own eyes?
I've seen some of the best sleight-of-hand magicians in the business. I've seen a man turn a lotto card into a fistful of money with a snap of his fingers, right under my nose. I did not believe my eyes but I knew it was a trick, brilliantly done. Optical illusions are also a kind of trick.

Are you really trying to say that the multiple angles of the symmetry of the collapse that we have as video evidence are in fact a kind of visual trick? Or do you think that the mere fact optical illusions exist somehow proves a point that is relevant to the collapse of a 47-storey building?
 
Yes, that's the one. As if the penthouse falling first changes the fact of the symmetrical descent that follows...
So we agree on the fact that the penthouse didn't fall symmetrical with the rest of the building?
And what would have made the penthouse collapse just by its own in this way?

Boston is basing his speculations on the fact he didn't see any windows been blown out, what do the black spots showing up before/during the penthouse collapse appear to be to you?

Also the exterior is clearly twisting on the same side the penthouse was, how is this possible with the interior still there?

Are you really trying to say that the multiple angles of the symmetry of the collapse that we have as video evidence are in fact a kind of visual trick?
Nope
 
So we agree on the fact that the penthouse didn't fall symmetrical with the rest of the building?
Yes. Unlike others on this thread, I'm not the sort of person that denies what can be seen in the video evidence. Do we agree that there is a remarkable degree of symmetry to the descent of the exterior that follows?
And what would have made the penthouse collapse just by its own in this way?
I don't know. The first thing I'd do to look for answers, if I was leading an investigation, would be to analyse the structural steel. The structural steel from the building was ignored by NIST, though. I think that in itself calls the final report into question.
Boston is basing his speculations on the fact he didn't see any windows been blown out, what do the black spots showing up before/during the penthouse collapse appear to be to you?
Again, I don't know. The first thing I'd do to look for answers, if I was leading an investigation, would be to test for explosive residue. Testing for explosive residue was not done by NIST, though. I think that in itself calls the final report into question. However, we should let Boston answer for his own comments.
Also the exterior is clearly twisting on the same side the penthouse was, how is this possible with the interior still there?
Some twisting is also evident in videos of things like, oh I don't know, controlled demolition of buildings. I certainly haven't claimed the symmetry of the fall was perfect.
Well then, you've wasted my time and yours.
 
There was no symmetry in the collapse of WTC 7.

http://www.nist.gov/el/disasterstudies/wtc/faqs_wtc7.cfm


10. Some people have said that a failure at one column should not have produced a symmetrical fall like this one. What is NIST’s answer to those assertions?
WTC 7's collapse, viewed from the exterior (most videos were taken from the north), did appear to fall almost uniformly as a single unit. This occurred because the interior failures that took place did not cause the exterior framing to fail until the final stages of the building collapse. The interior floor framing and columns collapsed downward and pulled away from the exterior frame. There were clues that internal damage was taking place prior to the downward movement of the exterior frame, such as when the east penthouse fell downward into the building and windows broke out on the north face at the ends of the building core. The symmetric appearance of the downward fall of WTC 7 was primarily due to the greater stiffness and strength of its exterior frame relative to the interior framing.
Content from External Source


Really this post by Landru should have been all that is needed here. And in particular:

"The symmetric appearance of the downward fall of WTC 7 was primarily due to the greater stiffness and strength of its exterior frame relative to the interior framing."

Arguing about how to describe what it looked like is just arguing about the meaning of words. We all know what it looked like, as we have all seen the videos, and we have all seen the photos of the rubble pile. So let us take that as a given.

Then let us try to understand the NIST explanation above. You can't dismiss it if you don't understand it.

Boston, Oxy, Jomper. Would you agree that the exterior frame had greater stiffness and strength than the interior framing? Do you know why? (moment resisting vs. none moment resisting)
 
actually if I were leading an investigation the first thing I'd do is demand criminal charges be brought on whoever is responsible for the failed mapping of field marks on the structural components, which makes it impossible to answer any further questions as to the exact nature of the collapse. We can dredge up a plain from thousands of feet below the ocean and reassemble it in a hanger, spending millions of dollars to determine exactly the point of origin of the failure and understand how that failure propagated throughout the structure, but these guys couldn't record a few marks on a pile of steel beams right smack in front of them ? Seems like about the most grossly negligent investigation of a structural failure I've every even remotely heard of.

to answer your question

Did they also want the other 3 buildings in a nice neat pile on the ground? How did they coordinate 3 hijackings to coincide with the day they wanted the building/s in a nice neat pile on the ground? Why did they arrange to have that building empty yet kill @2000 others in WTC 1 and 2?

Assuming its was a manufactured event, we don't know who "they" are. We can safely assume if it was a manufactured event that "they" intended the result. We don't know how "they" coordinated the event, nor do we know why these events occurred or why so many people died.

Actually I'm not the one speculating here. I'm willing to consider any and all video evidence that we can agree isn't manipulated or otherwise altered. I would like to consider evidence based argument only and avoid what has traditionally been found to be highly unreliable, eye witness accounts, many of which conflict with other eye witness accounts or film evidence.

I'd still like to see some film evidence that supports either the Captains or the Deputy Chiefs testimony. Without such evidence and without a map of the fall characteristics of the structural components of the building, the only reasonable way to determine the nature of the fall, is to observe it within the video evidence.

Speaking of which. This buildings failure is entirely different than the towers, this one is a classic removal of the base structure in a systematic manor, virtually exactly synonymous with a manufactured event. The base of every structural component was removed in perfect sequence in order to first "kink" the structure, and then drop that energy inward in a free fall pattern. Which is why those outward facades eventually fell inward onto the rubble pile. Exactly what happens in a manufactured event. My bet is you guys haven't reviewed enough controlled demolitions or you'd have noticed that.

The visual evidence does show the asymmetrical failure of the pent house. It then shows an incredibly symmetrical failure of the rest of the building. What occurred within the structure is unknown, we have no record of the fall pattern and there is zero video evidence from within the building. What happened to the penthouse after it disappeared behind the roofs parapet wall must be admittedly unknown if we are to remain honest in our review.

But to clarify my use of the term symmetrical. And not to be rude or anything, but a woman can be beautifully symmetrical, which doesn't mean all straight lines and no bounce. The term can and IMHO does refer to a condition in which a pattern emerges, one dependent on the performance of the surrounding elements. Kinda like what happens in a controlled demolition. The series of explosions must remain symmetrical in order to develop the inward pull against the outside facade required to produce a rubble pile not much larger than the footprint of the original building. The interior structure is used to generate this pull, ( thus the term "pull" in the industry ) typically secondary floor connections.

What I observe in the video evidence is the exactly required simultaneous failure of the strongest portions of this structure, its base, in exactly the symmetrical pattern required to bring the building down into its own footprint. Is any drop a perfect drop, no, but this one is as near perfect as you could want. Assuming someone wanted it, and I think its a safe assumption.

Oh and thats another thing to consider. This building clearly failed at its base, not in the middle where I see minor fires and not at the edge where I see minor damage. Not only did it fail at its base ( or at least at a point below the camera view ) but in a manor so precise as to preserve the angle of the roof line once the "kink" was established. IE every supporting columns resistance to collapse systematically disappeared in perfect symmetry. In response to what NIST suggests is the interiors asymmetrical natural collapse caused by asymmetrical influences.

The only thing the NIST story has accurate in regards to bldg 7 is that a progressive collapse is obvious in the penthouse structures failure. Which makes a symmetrical response to that failure even less likely. Oh and speaking of which again, that progressive failure ( IE takes time to propagate throughout a structure ) is "always" evident in a natural collapse. At no point that I've ever seen at least does one end of a structure simultaneously "let go" in sympathy to the other end suffering failure.

Think tree falling in the forest, does it fall over, or does it fall straight down through itself ? In this case it would have to fall with all branches moving in toward the center in order to mimic what happened to building 7.
 
Hi Mick

I gotta disagree completely with the NIST explanation. Assuming the failure of the pent house structure continued into the basement of the structure in a pattern sufficiently uniform to prevent any obvious physical damage to the exterior of the building, it would have removed considerable stress ( weight ) from the remaining supporting structure. Granted lateral support would have been compromised but gravitational loading would have been significantly reduced. If the facade had fallen randomly "over" that would be one thing, it didn't. It fell straight down directly through the greatest point of resistance. At least until the rubble pile itself became a factor, at which point we see that some of the facade remained intact atop the pile.

I think a rational look at the result of removing any significant portion of the buildings interior would show that it reduces the vertical stress placed on the rest of the structure. Any subsequent failure should result in a reflection of a lack of lateral support, rather than a lack of vertical support, what the video evidence shown is clearly, the symmetrical vertical failure of every supporting column in perfect unison. Which is, IMHO the least likely response to the asymmetrical influences we can observe.

If the NIST scenario is to be believed, there would have to be some observational evidence of the exterior of the building responding to the type of support removed by the progressive failure of the interior of the building. I would expect the top middle of the exteriors two longest or in this case longest wall, to bow inwards or outwards and initiate a fall predominantly in that direction propagating towards the corners of the building. I'd further expect these corners to remain intact or at least partly so with there being an obvious progression of failure evident in the remaining structure

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Think tree falling in the forest, does it fall over, or does it fall straight down through itself ? In this case it would have to fall with all branches moving in toward the center in order to mimic what happened to building 7.


No, no, no! Do not think "tree falling in a forest", because it's utterly unlike that. I think there's just some failure to understand thing here, this again:

"The symmetric appearance of the downward fall of WTC 7 was primarily due to the greater stiffness and strength of its exterior frame relative to the interior framing."

Let's try a thought experiment. If the interior of the building just magically vanished, then how do you think the exterior would collapse?
 
Barring any additional forces being placed on the building, I don't think it would collapse at all. Particularly if the exterior was inherently stronger/stiffer as you suggest and particularly not in all four corners at once, the area with the greatest structural integrity.

Now if the interior was supporting the exterior with it having the greater stiffness, rather than the outside, things might be different. But again the nature of the collapse would be substantially different than what we see in the video evidence.

If the interior were magically removed and the exterior wall suddenly became an unsupported wet noodle, it would again not have fallen through itself towards the ground. It would likely have suffered some dynamic folding assuming it fell at all, but it wouldn't have come straight down. Most likely if our hypothetical wet noodle fell it would have folded in the approximate middle resulting in a pancake of at most two or three components. I'd never suspect vertical acceleration along the point of greatest resistance.

Your example shows a clear application of force/energy in order to effect the desired result. I believe in order to mimic the collapse we see in bldg 7 there needs also be an external application of force/energy
 
If the interior were magically removed and the exterior wall suddenly became an unsupported wet noodle, it would again not have fallen through itself towards the ground. It would likely have suffered some dynamic folding assuming it fell at all, but it wouldn't have come straight down. Most likely if our hypothetical wet noodle fell it would have folded in the approximate middle resulting in a pancake of at most two or three components. I'd never suspect vertical acceleration along the point of greatest resistance.


Why don't you take a wet noodle, hold it vertically, then let go. See what happens.

Or imagine a 10 foot rope held vertically, with the bottom touching the ground. Let go of the top.

There's a problem of scale here. WTC7 is entirely unlike a tree, yet you compare it to one. When you take the scale into account, a wet noodle is actually more accurate in some regards.
 
You'd get that dynamic folding I mentioned earlier, what you wouldn't get is the rope imploding upon itself and it self annihilating. The problem with both analogies is that both are single structural components whereas bldg 7 was a complex structure. So your right the analogies don't work very well, but they can be used to show that these materials do not self destruct, nor to they fall through themselves, which is my whole point about dynamic folding.

The natural consequence of a falling object is that if follow the path of least resistance, even if that means it must deflect in order to do that, thus, folding.

There is no folding evident in the video record of bldg 7. If someone had thought to map the fall pattern maybe this folding would become evident, but as it is, the only hint of folding is a few pieces the facade that landed atop the rubble pile. Looks like maybe six stories, and we don't know which six. I don't think, does anyone know what floors that recognizable debris came from ? I'd suspect it was of the uppermost areas of the building.
 
You'd get that dynamic folding I mentioned earlier, what you wouldn't get is the rope imploding upon itself and it self annihilating. The problem with both analogies is that both are single structural components whereas bldg 7 was a complex structure. So your right the analogies don't work very well, but they can be used to show that these materials do not self destruct, nor to they fall through themselves, which is my whole point about dynamic folding.

The natural consequence of a falling object is that if follow the path of least resistance, even if that means it must deflect in order to do that, thus, folding.


The path of least resistance is straight down if the upwards force is less than that of gravity.

Let's try another thought experiment. Let's say the interior was vanished, and then the bottom ten feet of the exterior vanished. Then how would the exterior collapse?
 
ah but the upward force or more accurately the structural integrity of the vertical columns must be greater than the gravitational force or the building would never have stood in the first place

great analogy, thats exactly how controlled demolitions are conducted. If the base of virtually every single column was removed in a precisely symmetrical pattern, then you would see exactly what the video evidence shows.

So are you suggesting that the Asymmetrical failure of the pent house, somehow translated symmetrically to the exact base of each and every column in the precise pattern required to initiate the perfect collapse ?

Cause I'm suggesting that, thats extremely unlikely bordering on a virtual statistical impossibility, calculate the total number of structural components in the building and calculate out the likelihood of of this occurring.
 
Why don't you take a wet noodle, hold it vertically, then let go. See what happens.

Or imagine a 10 foot rope held vertically, with the bottom touching the ground. Let go of the top.

There's a problem of scale here. WTC7 is entirely unlike a tree, yet you compare it to one. When you take the scale into account, a wet noodle is actually more accurate in some regards.
It would need to be self supporting noodle in the first instance, Mick. How can you overlook that?

I respect you for moderating and running this site. There's one word that should never be applied to you, though, and that word would be: skeptic.

Peace.
 
ah but the upward force or more accurately the structural integrity of the vertical columns must be greater than the gravitational force or the building would never have stood in the first place
The "upward force" would be equal to the "gravitational force", the question would be how much force can the columns take? Obviously it's going to be a bit more than the weight of the building, to allow a margin of error.

great analogy, thats exactly how controlled demolitions are conducted. If the base of virtually every single column was removed in a precisely symmetrical pattern, then you would see exactly what the video evidence shows.
Yes you probably would. But then what about if the interior of the building collapse, and then the building exterior buckled on the lower floors. Why would you not also see exactly the same thing?

So are you suggesting that the Asymmetrical failure of the pent house, somehow translated symmetrically to the exact base of each and every column in the precise pattern required to initiate the perfect collapse ?

Cause I'm suggesting that, thats extremely unlikely bordering on a virtual statistical impossibility, calculate the total number of structural components in the building and calculate out the likelihood of of this occurring.


No, I'm not suggesting that at all. Have a look at what I post here:

https://www.metabunk.org/threads/debunked-ae911truths-wtc7-explosive-demolition-hypothesis.1727/

I'll quote it so you can discuss it here:

AE911Truth is an organization founded by Richard Gage where people with some Architectural and Engineering background discuss the events of 9/11, and generally promote the idea that the destruction of the two towers and WTC Building 7 were controlled demolitions. They are a big budget organization, spending nearly half a million dollars a year (and with $85,000 just on Gage's salary). They have produced some glossy info-graphics to promote those theories. Here's the one for WTC7, which they like to focus on because people are not familiar with it, and they think it's the best way of convincing people that there was a controlled demolition.



Now this is bunk. Each of the ten points on the left is either bunk, or it does not mean what they think it means. You can generally just look them all up, but I thought it would be useful to go through all ten here (and some of the other points in the image), and provide a concise single-stop debunking.

1 Sudden Onset of destruction near base of structure

False. The visible destruction starts at the TOP of the building, as the east mechanical penthouse sinks into the interior, and then proceeds down though the middle of the building. The collapse of the EXTERIOR of the building happens several seconds after this. AE911 present the collapse of the exterior as the "destruction", when the building was destroyed by the interior structure collapsing, and the the exterior was the LAST thing to collapse.





2. Straight-Down, Symmetrical Collapse into Building Footprint

False. The collapse was highly asymmetric inside. The east half of the interior collapsed gradually, and several seconds before the west half, and that was a few seconds before the exterior collapse. It did not collapse into the building footprint, it fell mostly to the North and South, and in fact badly damaged several nearby buildings, including massive damage to the building to the north.



And the following shows the debris pile fallen across the North street (Barclay) between the two buildings:


3. Patterned Removal of column supports.

False. And nonsensical. If there was a "sudden onset" then all the columns would have been removed at once. This particular point is a little odd to include in a list of evidence, because they could not even see the columns collapsing. Their reasoning is "The overall building mass fell suddenly, uniformly, and nearly symmetrical through what should have been the path of greatest resistance – some 40,000 tons of structural steel. According to structural engineer Kamal Obeid, PE, this requires a precisely-timed, patterned removal of critical steel columns" Thus they are using their own conclusions as evidence. A circular argument.

4. Free-Fall acceleration thru path of greatest resistance.

False. As long as the resistance provided by the building is less than load of the falling structure, then the path of least resistance is always straight down. The initial interior collapse (ignored by AE911) was at far less than free-fall acceleration. The initial fall of the exterior was also at less than free fall, as was the last half. There were a few seconds at near free-fall during the exterior collapse. But that is to be expected from a very tall structure with very little lateral support. The exterior columns had buckled near the base, and once buckled would offer only a tiny fraction of their initial resistance. The building exterior crushed itself not unlike a soda can being crushed.

5. Total Dismemberment of Structural Steel Frame.

Largely. Which is what you would expect when a tall steel frame collapses. The connections between beams are not designed to withstand such loads, so they get ripped apart. You will notice that in all the photos of steel after the collapse the ends of the beams are simply ripped and twisted apart, or bolts are simply ripped out our snapped. This is evidence of a collapse. It's not evidence of beams being cut by explosives.

AE911's image that they chose to use for their current fund-raising drive actually shows part of the exterior frame, not dismembered at all, and instead draped over the pile.


6. Limited Damage to Adjacent Structures

False: See #2. Also:


7. Sounds of explosions heard by credible witnesses

But not recorded on the audio of the video of the collapse. Or the audio of people very close to WTC7. Or even from a significant number of the thousands of people there. Controlled demolition charges are incredibly loud, as they are releasing a lot of energy. What people reported hearing was most likely things falling (including initially from the two towers), or just things blowing up in the fires. You would expect people to hear some bangs. If there was a controlled demolition then you would hear a series of closely spaced very loud bangs.

Listen to what ACTUAL controlled demolition sounds like:



In addition, the explosion reported were heard throughout the day. This is entirely at odds with AE911's notion of "sudden onset", or "a precisely-time, patterned removal of critical steel columns".

8. Pyroclastic-like Clouds of pulverized concrete

Does not even make any sense. Yes there was a huge clouds of dust when the building fell. This would be from concrete, but also the hundreds of tons of wallboard in the building, as well as smoke and ash from the fire. It is entirely expected. It looks exactly like the cloud of dust you get when building are collapsed either with or without explosives. Calling it "pyroclastic" makes no sense at all.

The following shows a "pyroclastic" cloud from a much small building collapsed with NO explosives.


9. Pools of molten steel/iron seen by witnesses.

We don't know what they saw. Very few people claimed they saw anything like this. No photos were taken. Nobody found large solidified pools of metal. Probably they just saw some regions of underground fire in the days after the collapse. But unfortunately all we have a few anecdotal accounts. People also sometimes use the word "molten" to mean "very hot", rather than "liquid".

10. Evidence of thermite incendiaries in steel samples.

False. They found nothing that you would not expect to be there. The most touted "evidence" is iron microspheres, which are formed both in fires, and in violent scraping of steel. The collapses of the WTC towers (the dust from which covered WTC7) was guaranteed to produce these spheres. In fact investigators used iron microsphere as a "signature" when examining the extent of the spread of the WTC dust. In addition, thermite is made from iron oxide and aluminum - vast amounts of were would be found in the towers, so obviously would also be found in the dust.

Debunking 9/11 conspiracy theorists part 3 of 7 -Thermate, thermite and glowing aluminium

Debunking 9/11 conspiracy theorists part 2 of 7 - Nano-thermite found in the WTC dust
 
Last edited:
It would need to be self supporting noodle in the first instance, Mick. How can you overlook that?


It would need to be self supporting until it collapsed. Once it has started to collapse it is no longer self supporting.

Like if you take a tape measure, extend it vertically, it's self supporting until it start to collapse (usually around about ten feet of extension, but the more you can do, the more accurate the analogy. Once the tape measure starts to collapse, then it becomes a floppy noodle.

Or look at the can


It's supporting several thousand times its own weight! (14 grams supporting over 60,000 grams). Yet it's just super thin flexible aluminum. When it starts to collapse it's a floppy noodle.

You can't really have a fully accurate physical analogy here because of scale. But these things are still illustrative of the general principles.
 
Last edited:
Really this post by Landru should have been all that is needed here. And in particular:

"The symmetric appearance of the downward fall of WTC 7 was primarily due to the greater stiffness and strength of its exterior frame relative to the interior framing."

Arguing about how to describe what it looked like is just arguing about the meaning of words. We all know what it looked like, as we have all seen the videos, and we have all seen the photos of the rubble pile. So let us take that as a given.

Then let us try to understand the NIST explanation above. You can't dismiss it if you don't understand it.

Boston, Oxy, Jomper. Would you agree that the exterior frame had greater stiffness and strength than the interior framing? Do you know why? (moment resisting vs. none moment resisting)

All that's needed is a link from NIST, the organisation that falsified their report by observing what happened and back-engineering their 'report' to match the visuals? Bad science, science done backwards - it's ever so simple - amazing some people can't see it.

Arguing about how to describe what it looked like is just arguing about the meaning of words. We all know what it looked like, as we have all seen the videos, and we have all seen the photos of the rubble pile. So let us take that as a given.

Well, that's because there's plenty here not fully understanding what symmetrical means. Was it symmetrical or not?

"The symmetric appearance of the downward fall of WTC 7 was primarily due to the greater stiffness and strength of its exterior frame relative to the interior framing."


It's a preposterous statement. Why not ask an engineer friend what all that actually means?

And one more thing - all this nonsense about 'the facade was draped over the rubble pile' - is just that, nonsense. The building was 47 high, the pictures I've seen show 5-6 floors of facade relatively intact - that doesn't account for the other 41 or 42 floors. It appears that some people see what they want to see.
 
Holly christ thats a long post

Ok this is going to take a while

Yes you probably would. But then what about if the interior of the building collapse, and then the building exterior buckled on the lower floors. Why would you not also see exactly the same thing?

because there was no buckling IE dynamic folding, evident in the video footage of the collapse.
 
Holly christ thats a long post
Feel free to focus on individual points.
Because there was no buckling IE dynamic folding, evident in the video footage of the collapse.

Because the video footage does not show the base of the building. The classic video only shows the top half:
 
Last edited:
#1

1 Sudden Onset of destruction near base of structure

False. The visible destruction starts at the TOP of the building, as the east mechanical penthouse sinks into the interior, and then proceeds down though the middle of the building. The collapse of the EXTERIOR of the building happens several seconds after this. AE911 present the collapse of the exterior as the "destruction", when the building was destroyed by the interior structure collapsing, and the the exterior was the LAST thing to collapse.

Then I'd be inclined to repeat my question

So are you suggesting that the Asymmetrical failure of the pent house, somehow translated symmetrically to the exact base of each and every column in the precise pattern required to initiate the perfect collapse ?

I find that possibility to be unlikely in the extreme. Yes a failure occurred in the pent house, from there we don't know what happened to the interior of the building, we then see an absolutely perfect pattern of symmetrical collapse.

I believe you are suggesting exactly what my question implies, and that that suggestion is wildly unlikely. Although I hate it when people put words into my mouth so I guess I should refrain from doing the same. But its hard to understand how your not suggesting exactly that, given that you've repeated the NIST scenario"

Oh and I'm constrained by what I can see, I can't really comment or draw any conclusions from what isn't visible in the video evidence
 
It's a preposterous statement. Why not ask an engineer friend what all that actually means?


Why not explain why it is preposterous? Here it is again, from NIST:

"The symmetric appearance of the downward fall of WTC 7 was primarily due to the greater stiffness and strength of its exterior frame relative to the interior framing."

The exterior frame was moment resisting, as it had to withstand wind loads. The interior was not, because it did not have to withstand earthquakes.

Moment resisting basically mean it withstand lateral loads (sideways loads, like the wind), and is resistant to twisting.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steel_Moment_Resisting_Frame
Moment-resisting frames are rectilinear assemblages of beams and columns, with the beams rigidly connected to the columns. Resistance to lateral forces is provided primarily by rigid frame action-that is, by the development of bending moment and shear force in the frame members and joints. By virtue of the rigid beam-column connections, a moment frame cannot displace laterally without bending the beams and columns. The bending rigidity and strength of the frame members is therefore the primary source of lateral stiffness and strength for the entire frame.
Content from External Source
The key point there is " beams rigidly connected to the columns." The exterior beams and columns were all rigidly connected to each other. The interior framing was not, as there was no expectation of a lateral load. In many cases the connection between an interior beam and column was just the beam resting on a "seat" that was welded to the column. The only significant support was vertical.

Does that sufficiently explain what it means, or could you add to the explanation?
 
2. Straight-Down, Symmetrical Collapse into Building Footprint

False. The collapse was highly asymmetric inside. The east half of the interior collapsed gradually, and several seconds before the west half, and that was a few seconds before the exterior collapse. It did not collapse into the building footprint, it fell mostly to the North and South, and in fact badly damaged several nearby buildings, including massive damage to the building to the north.

Sentence one, we do not know when or how the interior collapsed, therefor making assumptions of what occurred does not add to our conversation.
Sentence two, we do not know when or how the east half of the interior collapsed
Sentence three "it" whats "it" what fell mostly to the north, is there any field map of exactly what "it" is and how "it" fell. Without that map, we cannot understand exactly what fell where. Yes some pieces didn't remain atop the debris pile, what pieces those are and what forces left them shifted from the predominant direction of the fall evident in the video record is unknown due to the failure to map the debris field.

Damage to buildings adjacent to bldg 7 would require the same analytical process to understand as would damage to any of the other buildings, that analytical process IE mapping the debris field was not undertaken.

Do you have any pictures of these structures undamaged previous to the collapse of building 7. Even if you do, and you certainly might, I see no evidence thus far in the photographic record of the building not having fallen ( OK I'm going to qualify this one ) "substantially" into its own footprint. A feet that would require it falling through the path of most resistance.

Oh and in a typical building demolition assumed the size and shape of the debris pile has a lot to do with just how they want to bring it down. Its not unheard of for a large building to have components literally fall off the debris pile as its settling into its footprint. Thus we have pieces that regularly "escape" the fall zone.
 
Back
Top