Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Alchemist

    Alchemist Banned Banned

    The recent NIST report admits that WTC 7 fell at free-fall speed. So you have a brick with nothing beneath it being dropped from 47th floor reaching the ground AT THE SAME TIME as a brick with 40,000 TONS of STEEL resistance beneath it...

    How did a FEW pocket fires trigger this kind of free-fall structural collapse?
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Dec 23, 2016
  2. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    It's quite complicated.

    Let's say you have a long steel beam. One end is rigidly attached by multiple welded and bolted plates to a strong rigid frame. The other end rests on a shelf against a column with just a couple of bolts in place, and it's at an angle to the column. A fire below the beam makes the beam expand several inches lengthwise. The beam breaks the two bolts at one end, and falls off the shelf.

    Does that sound reasonable so far?
     
  3. Alchemist

    Alchemist Banned Banned

    Somewhat. I don't see how it relates to WTC 7 in anyway yet but go on...
     
  4. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    I'm asking because it's part of the official hypothesis. So I want to know if it sounds (to you) like something that might happen.
     
  5. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    Assuming it does. Picture a vertical steel column, one under the penthouse. It's carrying a lot of weight. Now if you removed a few floors from around this beam, then could that individual column fail by buckling?

    Here's what I mean by buckling:
     
    • Like Like x 2
  6. Alchemist

    Alchemist Banned Banned

    Not when these steel beams are interconnected to a network of such inner vertical core columns with the fires burning at relatively mild temperatures and isolation in comparison to fires such as those in Madrid/Chechnya.
     
  7. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    But I'm asking you were to remove a few of the connections, so there's say a 50+ foot length of the column with no lateral support. Could the column fail? I'm just asking if it's possible.
     
  8. Alchemist

    Alchemist Banned Banned

    The conditions for that to occur are VERY unlikely given the mild and isolated fires.. but even if that DID occur .. a small local failure of just one element in a NET of interconnected steel would trigger a global failure only in a movie, not in real life. They're trying to insinuate that a tiny, single initiating event can VERY EASILY lead to progressive collapse. Yeah, right...

    There's something called redundancy which ENSURES that a single local failure DOES NOT LEAD to the destruction of the entire structure.
     
  9. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    What about multiple failures?
     
  10. Alchemist

    Alchemist Banned Banned

    You have 24 vertical steel core columns in the center interconnected to a network of steel beams every floor, with wall columns and other elements which are designed to share the load if there was just a compromise in the integrity of the structure. I'm not sure you realize how over-engineered this building was. Here's a full description: http://sites.google.com/site/wtc7lies/Salvarinas-1986.pdf to give you a better picture.

    The conditions were IMPOSSIBLE (the fires were MILD and ISOLATED) for there to be ANY threat to the integrity of this mammoth web of steel to cause a SINGLE column failure, let alone multiple failures.
     
  11. Landru

    Landru Moderator Staff Member

    Any proof the fires were mild. The NIST report and other evidence presented on this site prove otherwise.
     
  12. MikeC

    MikeC Closed Account

    that is arrant nonsense if not an outright lie.

    Column 79 was a CRITICAL support structure - a single point of failure.

    [​IMG]
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 20, 2013
  13. Alchemist

    Alchemist Banned Banned

    NIST report claims that a collapse of a single unit within this web can trigger a progressive collapse which is COMPLETELY FALSE due to things like redundancy which ensures this never happens.

    NIST is no different than Warren Commission claiming that a bullet was able to make turns in mid-air and cause 12 different wounds. They don't care about the facts, they have an AGENDA to uphold the official story (no matter HOW impossible it is) so the corporations can continue making more money from the war machine at your expense.
     
  14. Alchemist

    Alchemist Banned Banned

    I live in Brookyln, NYC and I don't know ONE SINGLE PERSON who believes in the official story of WTC 7. If you're naive enough to believe that kind of a lie, you might as well believe in Santa Clauss.
     
  15. Soulfly

    Soulfly Banned Banned

    You should get out and meet more people.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  16. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    So that seems to be the critical disagreement here. Is this something we could discuss?
     
  17. MikeC

    MikeC Closed Account

    I agree that redundancy SHOULD have coped with the failure of 1 column - but the point is that there was NOT adequate redundancy - and hence the failure of 1 column was a single point of failure - it was a design flaw.

    See here for the full text of Scheuerman's analysis (1.7mb pdf)

     
    Last edited: Aug 4, 2013
  18. Pete Tar

    Pete Tar Moderator Staff Member

    You're not sticking with the scenario Mick is trying to walk you through and are instead resorting to default rhetorical points. Just stick with the thought experiment, anything else like belief in Santa Claus, magic bullets, corporations and the war machine is irrelevant, for now.
    You can understand the need for this right?
     
  19. Landru

    Landru Moderator Staff Member

    Yet you provide no proof.
     
  20. Boston

    Boston Active Member

    Does except you forgot the corrugated deck with about 3 inches of light weight concrete that was welded down to each and every beam, The expansion and contraction of that masonry sub-floor is about zilch, You've also got some serious uneven heating which would tend to dissipate only through individual members which were directly in contact with a heat source, so again a problem with the concept. In a nut shell, sure you can take one beam, heat it and measure just how far it expands. Off the top of my head, for steal I think its 1/8 per 8' every 100°F, so its far more likely that beam develop a bow, than snap off at the connection plate. Did NIST do any construction sample fire tests ? or did they just test using the single beam over a heat source method ?
     
  21. Boston

    Boston Active Member

    well they would be multiple times unlikely, so the odds of a series of unique failures gets slimmer and slimmer with each successive expectation of that exact type of failure. And there were how many columns in that building that all let go in an exactly symmetrical manor resulting in a building going straight down at free fall speed directly into its own footprint ?
     
  22. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    All good questions. Let's figure it out.
     
  23. Boston

    Boston Active Member

    I guess the Architects and Engineers for 9/11 truth were able, after years and years of effort to sue whoever for a set of prints minus a few details for building 7. Rumor has it there's a major effort to analyze those prints underway now and write a report of the findings.

    Baring any new evidence coming to light, fall pattern of the beams, analysis of each beams failure points, measurements of each beams deformity, stuff like that, I don't see how we can figure much out. Which is why I'm inclined to only go with the photographic evidence. Its pretty irrefutable.

    I know you keep mentioning folding at the base, or buckling is another term I keep hearing, but there is no photographic evidence of such unique movements, let alone that type of failure globally. Building fell straight down is what I see without any obvious deviation of the wall structure. My personal take is there's just no explaining it with what little information there is available. We are left with, "what are the odds"? I think we know what each others answer to that one is.

    Anyway I don't think there's really enough data available, and seemingly deliberately so, to really say what exactly happened.
     
  24. Pete Tar

    Pete Tar Moderator Staff Member

    [​IMG]
    Sagging in middle, right side falls out.
    [​IMG]
    Sagging, left side falls in.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 20, 2013
  25. MikeC

    MikeC Closed Account

    I don't think you can weld concrete! :)

    However you are right - concrete wouldn't expand much - but the steel has to - it cannot be otherwise - so what gives?

    It is the connections that give - bolts, or welds to plates or similar.

    That depends where the stress is concentrated and which connections are weakest - the connections holding straight or the connections at the end.

    IIRC they modeled it on computer - which is completely adequate since the actual behavior of such construction elements is pretty well known.

    -source
     
  26. Boston

    Boston Active Member

    The kink is a very good example of a conformity in the wall structure, I see a near perfect symmetry of collapse up until resistance from the rubble pile would normally be expected to begin to influence that fall. IE you get a pile big enough and no amount of controlled collapse can be expected to NOT fall off the pile eventually.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 20, 2013
  27. Boston

    Boston Active Member

    Beating a dead horse people. I just don't see much benefit in going round and round on this one again. I was just kinda pointing out that there are significant flaws in the logic
     
    Last edited: Aug 4, 2013
  28. Soulfly

    Soulfly Banned Banned

    How ironic!
     
  29. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    No there isn't. But what we have here are competing hypotheses. There's a vague "maybe some kind of secret silent explosive, somehow", and the "progressive collapse initiated by multiple connection failures due to thermal expansion".

    I've looked extensively into the evidence for and against both of these, and the second one seem to be by far the best fit.

    We don't know what happened. But there's a quite plausible hypothesis.
     
  30. Boston

    Boston Active Member

    Oh I wouldn't cause something thats a virtual impossibility a plausible hypothesis, I'd call the gubments story a classic example of agnotology, rather than a viable competing hypothesis. Unlikely in the extreme to have occurred, but the motion of the building can be easily reproduced through the mechanisms of controlled demolition.
     
  31. Boston

    Boston Active Member

    NIST forced to admit free-fall speeds did exist at WTC 7 collapse


     
  32. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    Really? How did they get the penthouse to collapse, and how did they do it all silently?

    And how did you work out how unlikely it was?
     
  33. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    They were not forced to admit it. They simply described the motion in depth. A portion was essentially at free fall rates.
     
  34. Boston

    Boston Active Member

    If a tree falls in the woods ?

    http://www.google.com/url?q=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CIIF6P8zBG8&sa=U&ei=tO3_UYzdHqemygGcqoD4Dg&ved=0CB4QtwIwAQ&sig2=zpymkzoC5Roz_ARp8wMMmg&usg=AFQjCNF-4Q_yTwIEeo4ON2fbCNsDsSx_jA

    as for how unlikely is it for a building made up of tens of thousands of separate structural components to simultaneously fail and fall without resistance for any period of time let alone for multiple seconds, would be some multiple of the number of total components vs the chance each might shatter leaving zero resistance to the collapse of the overlying structure. There is one more factor ( OK so there's actually lots of mitigating factors ) which is the manor of failure in steel. Stuff bends, it doesn't shatter, so the chances of all exterior columns failing in perfect unison and in a manor inconsistent with the material itsenf and in the exact order to maintain sufficient continuity in the collapse such that any period of free fall speed of the entire structure at once is encountered, is virtually zero.

    Thats how I estimated the odds.
     
  35. Alchemist

    Alchemist Banned Banned

     
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 20, 2013
  36. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    Did you read and understand all that? Maybe you could pick the question in it you think is hardest to answer, and I'll give it a go.
     
  37. Alchemist

    Alchemist Banned Banned

    And if you TRULY want to claim that redundancy was NO FACTOR in WTC 7, here's a €1,000,000 challenge for you: http://heiwaco.tripod.com/chall.htm

    Might as well make some money if you're going to attempt to prove the impossible.
     
  38. Alchemist

    Alchemist Banned Banned

    [​IMG]

    The report includes figures 3.10-13 showing the right side collapse below floor 16 (?) at 0.5, 2.5 (shown above), 4.5 and 6.5 seconds, while the left side remains intact. Apparently everything above Column 79 drops down due to vertical failures' progression - there are free-flying parts. But the remainder of the structure below floor 16 is just locally damaged during 6.5 seconds. Nothing drops down from below = there is no free debris there. You would then expect the upper, intact part to tilt to the right!. The horizontal failures' progression is not clear.

    What energy is required to produce all these failures?
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 20, 2013
  39. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    The biggest challenge in debunking 9/11 myths is that the physics is a bit complicated, and yet the believers think they understand it. There's several concepts that are difficult to convey, but the biggest two are:

    1) scale and square-cube law
    2) static vs. dynamic loading

    Unfortunately because it can take some time to understand these two concepts, then nonsense like in your link will always sound enticing. Although perhaps you failed to notice the writer of the page also thought that all the video and photos of the collapse were fake, and that the towers were destroyed from the bottom up, and hence is perhaps not to be taken entirely seriously?
     
  40. Alchemist

    Alchemist Banned Banned

    I didn't scroll down or read, but you might as well take his challenge given he's that so mentally inept bases his ideas on nonsense.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.