1. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    The following is a parody:

    It is plainly understood that free-fall of a building can only be achieved if there is no structural resistance. WTC7 was observed to fall straight down at free fall speeds. This is only possible if all the columns on every floor were simultaneously cut. Any uncut column would provided resistance and hence free fall would have been possible.

    Furthermore, every columns would have to be cut on every floor, because if the columns we just cut at the base, then when the next floor hit the ground, it would offer resistance, and a noticeable jolt. Since the columns are designed to carry more than the weight of the building, they would have instantly arrested the downward motion of the building.

    However this is clearly not the case, as in all images and video the falling WTC7, the exterior is entirely undamaged. Since the exterior contains half the columns, this would mean that the building would fall at at the very most half free-fall speed, which it clearly did not.

    Hence explosives could not have been used directly on the columns, and could not have cause WTC7 to fall.

    Since the exterior is undamaged as it falls, the only possible explanation is that a large hole was secretly dug below WTC7 in the months below the attack. After the collapse of WTC1, the cover of the hole was gradually removed by a series of small explosions, or possibly some other method, until WTC7 suddenly fell straight down into the hole.

    The slight slowing of WTC7 as the roofline approached the ground is explained by a tapering of the base of the hole.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  2. Soulfly

    Soulfly Banned Banned

    Did WTC7 sit over the existing hole that was the subway system?
     
  3. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    It could well have simply been an old alien underground base they wanted to get rid of.

    Seriously though. My attempt here is to try to use reductio ad absurdum to demonstrate that apparent namefree-fall does not mean zero resistance. I was pondering today how to get across the debunking of some of the more physics challenged arguments on AE911, and it seemed to me that extending those arguments to their logical conclusion might work.

    I'm thinking of creating a web site to spread this important message. I'd call it "WTC7 - The Hole Truth"
     
    • Like Like x 1
  4. Soulfly

    Soulfly Banned Banned

    It must be the lizard people tunneling up from the hollow earth.
     
  5. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    Who are you, Cass Sunstein? I'm trying to create a serious hypothesis here, and you try to twist it into something silly. Cognitive infiltration.

    Later today I plan to make some cardboard models to test out the physics.

    [/parody]
     
    • Like Like x 1
  6. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    Here's a rough cut of my Cardboard WTC7 Parody.

     
    • Like Like x 3
  7. FreiZeitGeist

    FreiZeitGeist Senior Member

    Thanks, Laugth of the day (or the night :)

    ... but with this and with your website "The hole truth", you will confirm the "Nuclear-Demolition"-Theory of a russian Truther, claiming to be a nuclear-demolition-expert, claiming that a 150-KT-thermonuclear bomb was placed under every single building that collapsed at 9/11.

    So, this is how your hole was made. A underground nuclear bomb!

    WTC_demolition_damages_distribution.


    ... remember HE didn´t mean this as parody!

    His Website:
    http://www.nuclear-demolition.com/index.html


    (I´m Wondering that there seems to be no thread on metabunk about this guy and his 3-4 hours-videos. They are very popular by the german 9/11-Truthers)

    Edit:
    Link presented as "his website" changed, ´Ive had catched the wrong link. sorry.
     
  8. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    Well.... That's a bit bizarre. Looks like I was right! :)

    Does he really have a lot of followers? It almost seems like the Flat Earth Society, where people just join because they like arguing, and not because they actually believe it.
     
  9. Cairenn

    Cairenn Senior Member

    I read one guy that claimed the nukes were planted when the buildings were built so they could be imploded later.
     
  10. FreiZeitGeist

    FreiZeitGeist Senior Member

    His Videos (the first was an 4-hour interview with him, the second a 3-hour selfmade-documentary) where spreaded widely in german Truther-blogs and forums. By that kind of truthers who want to believe anything that show how evil US-Gouvernment is ;)

    In our ATS-Like forum, his Nuclear-demolition-claims are the running gag if a hardcore-truther appears

    That was him! :)
     
  11. hiper

    hiper Active Member

    You think you are in position to be funny about this. A letter to NIST complaining about their ignorance towards the physical evidence would probably be more appropriate.
     
  12. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    Too soon?

    I'm actually making a serious point here (not so much with the alien bases). The physical arguments for controlled demolition are wrong. I'm demonstrated it using a technique called "reductio ad absurdum" (reduction to the absurd).

    If reasoning leads to an obviously absurd conclusion, then that reasoning must be wrong. In this example it's Gage's cardboard box models.

    Do you think Gage is correct in this video?



    If so, then why am I incorrect? If any resistance would result in slow descent, then does than not imply a hole in the ground?
     
  13. hiper

    hiper Active Member

    You seem to forget that 95% or so of the steel core of the twin towers was not damaged.
     
  14. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    I'm just talking about WTC7, not WTC1&2. The point being that most of the structural columns in WTC7 were on the outside (each red dot on the plan below is a column).

    [​IMG]

    You can see in the video they have not all been magically dissolved on every floor, so why the free fall? Must be a giant hole.
     
    Last edited: Nov 20, 2013
  15. hiper

    hiper Active Member

    162668_179947125355756_100000214085869_634426_4792446_n.

    WTC 7 collapsing had nothing to do with fire Mick.
     
  16. Oxymoron

    Oxymoron Banned Banned

    I see, you mean something like this.



    Yep your right Mick... a hole would do it or there is even a sillier idea, what about the structural supports were destroyed, allowing it to come down with minimal resistance, like in a demolition?

    Hang on a minute... that's not really very silly at all is it... it goes on all the time in real life :rolleyes:
     
  17. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    So ALL the structural supports were destroyed? On EVERY floor? Is that what it looks like?

    Did they blow them all up at the same time?
     
  18. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    I'm sorry, can you explain what those two photos are supposed to demonstrate?
     
  19. hiper

    hiper Active Member

    It shows in one half a building being blown away yet it remained standing.
    It shows in the other the complete collapse due some local fires.
     
  20. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    Think about this:

    WTC7 fell at a rate indistinguishable from free fall for at least 18 floors, correct?

    AE911 says this means there was no resistance.

    Hence, at least 18 floors must have had ALL the columns severed ON EVERY FLOOR. Right? So 82 columns, 18 floors, that's AT LEAST 1476 explosive charges.

    And what of the other floors? According to Gage if there was an intact floor, then the falling would just stop, or at least give a noticeable JOLT. So the other floors must all have been "destroyed" as well. So that's really 47*82 = 3,854 explosive charges? Correct? Plus I'd imagine you'd need another 1,000 or so to pulverize the concrete to create a pyroclastic flow?

    Is that what is being suggested here? Or a lower number of charges? How many? How does this tally with free fall?
     
  21. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    Buildings are built with different construction techniques.

    How long were the longest spans in Murrah building? What were the floors and columns made from?

    How does this differ from WTC7?

    Some reference:
    http://failures.wikispaces.com/Murrah+Federal+Building
    http://failures.wikispaces.com/World+Trade+Center+-+WTC+7
    http://www.structuremag.org/article.aspx?articleID=284
     
  22. Oxymoron

    Oxymoron Banned Banned

    I don't know, someone said they only needed one key beam to fail, is that not right?

    But anyway, I don't think it matters that much... any old random order will result in a near symmetrical collapse apparently.

    These lot got it wrong... didn't dig the hole deep enough I expect.



    I know they are incomparable as this one has red painted on it... but have I got anything other than that wrong?

    These parodies are quite fun really.
     
  23. Oxymoron

    Oxymoron Banned Banned

    Now this one... I don't know who they think they are fooling.

    They are definitely digging a hole underneath and slowly making it disappear.

    Inscrutable.

     
  24. Cairenn

    Cairenn Senior Member

    And the part of the Murrah building hit by the bomb failed totally. There were not a lot of fires either. Entirely different damage.

    I offer this: a milking stool has 3 legs and it is stable, Why isn't a chair stable if it loses a leg?
     
  25. Oxymoron

    Oxymoron Banned Banned

    I don't know... would you like to explain it. I thought a stable was where you kept horses.

    Also, do you know what butterflies get in their stomachs when they are nervous?
     
  26. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    Do you think it is right? I though the truther argument was that that was wrong?

    Yup, like with the Murrah building, this is a short span, reinforced concrete building less than half the height of the steel framed, long span WTC7. An entirely different beast.

    But let's get back to the free-fall issue. Do you agree with any of what Gage is saying in his cardboard box video? Does it apply in any way to WTC7?
     
  27. Oxymoron

    Oxymoron Banned Banned

    Well if we are going to be serious... yes, I think it is a reasonable argument in many regards although not entirely.

    Freefall can only occur where there is no resistance... we can agree that can we not?

    If there is resistance, it will either diminish the rate of descent or arrest it depending on the ratios of force vs resistance. Can we agree that?
     
  28. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    Absolutely! I agree entirely.

    So does that then mean that the structural columns in the exterior of WTC7 offered no resistance?
     
  29. Oxymoron

    Oxymoron Banned Banned

    As I understand it, NIST state the initial collapse was slower than freefall, which therefore shows resistance.

    7 also collapsed symmetrically which says the resistance was as near as damn it uniform across the visible elevation.

    There was a few seconds of freefall, which says there was no resistance offered. Again this was symmetrical so again it must be across the whole visible elevation.

    Are we still agreed so far?
     
  30. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    Pretty much, some minor points:

    - The interior collapse of the building as not symmetrical, but let's ignore that for now, as we are just talking about the collapse of the exterior.
    - The free fall segment was from 1.75 to 4.0 seconds, so 2.25 seconds long
    - The building kinks a bit at the start of the exterior collapse, but after that it all seems to fall at the same rate, indicating, as you say, the resistance was fairly uniform across the visible elevation (at least in the portion in the most common video, other videos show it leaning over later into the fall, from a different angle)
    - Can we say "negligible resistance", rather than "no resistance"?

    Still agreed? Or would you alter the above?
     
  31. Cairenn

    Cairenn Senior Member

  32. Oxymoron

    Oxymoron Banned Banned

    Still agreed.

    So the final part of the collapse is somewhat obscured by buildings and dust but it is assumed that it remains pretty much symmetrical and therefore the resistance is uniform.

    If we can agree that, then we can safely say we are pretty much seeing the same thing.

    All that would be left is the dynamics of how that transpired?
     
  33. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    Yes, so let me cut to the chase here.

    We agree that there is negligible resistance during the 2.25 seconds of apparent free-fall.

    Would you also agree that the columns at the bottom of the building are designed to support the full weight of the building above it. The static load?

    So you could say that the resistance of the bottom columns is equal to (or greater than, for safety) the weight of the entire building.

    So, based on how you understand things, say we were to blow up every single column on the bottom floor, but nothing on any other floors. The building drops until the second floor impacts the ground. At that point how much resistance can the bottom columns offer, and what is the load they have to resist against? How would the collapse progress from that point?

    Pick one.

    A) The building would stop
    B) The building would collapse, but with visible jolts as each bottom floor collapses when it reaches the ground
    C) The building would fall fairly smoothly, but at measurably less than free fall speed
    D) The building would fall at nearly free-fall speed, not measurable in video footage.
     
  34. Oxymoron

    Oxymoron Banned Banned

    Agreed but allowing a very significant safety factor. I don't know enough to suggest what that safety factor may be but I would say there are many occasions where (as in the video I posted), it is more than sufficient to arrest the collapse.

    Now we know about verinage and how gravity is used to demolish not only the lower section but also the upper section. What I would say about that (and other more conventional demolitions), is that they are not comparable because in every last case, there has been extensive work carried out previously, removing key supports so that the force to resistance ratio is sufficient, (where it is successful), to crush both sections.

    Even with all the months of preparation these do go wrong and the building fails to disintegrate.

    This is not the case in 7 or indeed with 1 and 2 in the main, i.e. apart from the noted impact damage by planes and debris etc.

    Therefore, in order for a successful collapse to happen, the key structural supports must have been removed by some other method. Agreed?

    You, NIST and other supporters of the OS, suggest fire did this.

    CTists suggest some form of exotic explosive, (thermite), did the same job.

    Something must have done it otherwise the collapse would not have happened. Agreed?

    In answer to your A-D scenarios, I cannot give an opinion because there are an incalculable number variables due to the chaotic damage scenario.

    What I can say is, IMO the chances of such a uniform collapse resulting from a random weakening of random columns and beams from random fires of different intensities and durations at different times and rates of cooling, combined with a random impact damage at exactly the right place and degree to bring about such a uniform collapse is so unlikely as to be equivalent to finding little green men living on Mars.

    And that is not even taking into account that the temperatures attained by the fires should not have structurally damaged any of the steel work, (as was the case in the 1975 WTC1 fire, where not even the lightweight trusses needed changing).

    Now if the key supports were to be seriously weakened or taken out by blowing bolts or even cutting them, then yes I would expect to see that which we both agree we did see.

    But if by some miracle some beams were structurally damaged by fire, (which I do not accept), then I would expect a non uniform partial collapse at worst.
     
  35. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    (Sorry, got to go, will continue this later).
     
  36. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    I don't think I've ever seen a Verinage demolition go wrong. Not to say it can't, just an observation.

    No. And here we get to the cruz of the matter (the actual disagreement). The structural supports do not have to be removed. They simply have to no longer be able to support the building.

    You suggest this is done by cutting them in multiple locations with thermite.

    I suggest it is done by buckling, due to loss of lateral support.

    The fire does basically nothing to the columns in WTC7. All it does is cause some floors to collapse, due to thermal expansion of the longest spans pushing the end off the column seat. Then you've got some long spindly columns trying to carry the load designed for much shorted columns.

    Take a tape measure
    [​IMG]

    Now extend the tape vertically. At two feet it's pretty stable. At six feet it's fine, but you'd not want to wave it around. At 12 feet it's tricky to keep it from falling, and at 25 feet, there's no way it's not coming down.

    The instant it buckles the tape measure goes from being able to support a few pounds to not being able to support its own weight. It's resistance drops to zero.

    Remove the floors from around a loaded column, and it's eventually going to buckle. When it buckles the resistance is about zero, and so you'll get free fall.

    Then when the next floors hit the ground, even though they have lateral support, they now have this huge dynamic load which is hundreds of times higher than the static load, so they just instantly buckle.

    And that's what I think happened.
     
    Last edited: Nov 20, 2013
    • Like Like x 4
  37. hiper

    hiper Active Member

    All these discussions prove one point... that there is reasonable doubt regarding NIST's collapse by fire theory and the investigatory techniques it used to come up with it.
    All this trouble you have defending the official explanation on WTC7 pretty much prohibits you from denying the need for a new investigation.
     
  38. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    Perhaps they just show that math and physics are quite difficult to explain?

    Hiper. Do you follow the "buckling" part of the argument here? Can you demonstrate you follow it?
     
  39. Oxymoron

    Oxymoron Banned Banned

    I think that's fair comment.

    But I would say, as far as I am aware verinage has never been used on steel core/framed building and I believe this is because the ductility levels in the steel make it entirely unsuitable.

    We are discussing 7 here yes?

    I would say, not only is there the need to no longer be able to support the building,... it has to happen pretty much instantaneously, across the board in order to preserve the symmetry and acceleration of the collapse event.

    Agreed, that is our respective positions.

    I agree entirely with that statement but this has been a hotly disputed issue in the past. I say, steel columns and beams are structurally unharmed by such fires, (as demonstrated by the uniqueness of the collapses), and as demonstrated by the 1975 wtc fire where all beams were structurally undamaged inc even lightweight struts which would be by far the most susceptible to any heat damage. No steel needed to be replaced.

    AFAIK, there is no actual evidence which corroborates that except for NIST simulations. the data for which, they will not release, even to accredited bodies which have a need to know. Not one piece of actual evidence.

    Note again in the 1975 fire there was no collapse of concrete and steel floors due to expansion as is being suggested here.

    Yes it is a nice little scenario but it has no basis in reality.

    The only actual evidence that anything collapsed prior to the main collapse was the penthouse. Now this is only a few seconds prior to the total collapse and as far as anyone can determine may simply have collapsed due to it being of relatively flimsy construction. But no, there is no evidence that floors collapsed leaving a shell or the beams came of their seats. No one saw any floors collapsing prior to the total destruction. As previously noted, it can only be imagined by NIST.

    It is not from around 'a column' though is it. It is from around multiple columns on multiple floors and there is no evidence that it happened

    You like making video's, how about making a video with say fifty, 6" nails, (representing 50 columns), sticking out of a solid lump of wood and compare how difficult it is to crush them all down together, as opposed to crushing one or two at a time?

    Only if they all fail together or else you will get a partial or chaotic collapse

    There is no evidence for that. Even 'primed', (i.e. structural supports removed/weakened) demolitions fail, there are lots on yt. If they do not crush down, why should wtc 7 with all those massive fireproofed columns intact?

    In all fairness, you only think that because NIST said so and produced a Disneyesque sim. It has never happened before.

    If you think that is how it happened, you really need to get into testing how difficult it is to crush a column/s, especially when there are about 90 of them all interlinked and braced against each other and acting in unison.

    Crushing 2 nails 'at the same time', requires much more energy than 'twice the amount of one'.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 20, 2013
    • Like Like x 2
  40. Cairenn

    Cairenn Senior Member

    On the 1975 fire