jomper
Inactive Member
Yes, loads. But every single one of them fell straight down like a jenga toy!
I don't like to mention them, though, because it doesn't fit in with my conspiracist worldview.
The Uniqueness of the WTC7 Collapse
- Thread starter Josh Heuer
- Start date
I don't like to mention them, though, because it doesn't fit in with my conspiracist worldview.
JRBids
Senior Member.
Yes he was criticized for doing that. People told him to put it in Brooklyn. What does that have to do with the thread?
jomper
Inactive Member
It was an aside. Is that allowed? I suppose I'm just observing that a building which collapsed in a unique manner, apparently partly because of its unique construction, housed a unique, self-contained, bomb-proof emergency center which should surely have been sited in a uniquely strong, rather than uniquely weak, structure. And definitely not next to an enormous target.
Giuliani was even more stupid than W., I guess.
jomper
Inactive Member
Evidence of what? The building's uniqueness or the uniqueness of the event? You think that the fact that no other steel framed high rise in history has suffered sudden, total and near-symmetrical collapse due to damage and fire actually supports your case?
Cairenn
Senior Member.
I was quite pointed in what I said. A building, that suffers structural damage and that has fires on multiple floors that are not fought. Find us one that stood.
The collapse was 'near symmetrical' either.
What is your explanation for why it fell, if you disagree with the report from the NIST one.
Yes that day was unique, and what happened was also.
I for one am getting sort of tired of folks that want to compare a fire started by an electrical short in a building with a sprinkler system to what happened on 9/11. Why shouldn't a unique event have unique results?
There is a well researched study of why it fell. One that makes sense to the majority of experts. I would like to know why we should discount that.
The collapse was 'near symmetrical' either.
What is your explanation for why it fell, if you disagree with the report from the NIST one.
Yes that day was unique, and what happened was also.
I for one am getting sort of tired of folks that want to compare a fire started by an electrical short in a building with a sprinkler system to what happened on 9/11. Why shouldn't a unique event have unique results?
There is a well researched study of why it fell. One that makes sense to the majority of experts. I would like to know why we should discount that.
jomper
Inactive Member
The collapse was near-symmetrical to me, judging by all the video evidence I've seen. If you're going to say black is white or quibble about fractional deviations from the perpendicular, I'm not going to waste my time in discussion with you.
You seem to be arguing that the uniqueness of the collapse means there should be no verification possible. There are countless examples of youtube of buildings catching fire, eg Madrid tower, that did not collapse. Most of the youtube comments are full of troofers going, "Gee, why didn't it collapse like WTC7 roffle roffle." And the occasional person like you going, "Gee, but WTC7 was just different."
Verification is not:
A computer model that is inaccurate to the evidence, and can't be independently verified.
A "forensic" investigation that examined no physical steel from the building at all.
Failures of verification are not excused if they are observed without an alternative hypothesis being advanced. Make another appeal to authority and go to the back of class. Claim that the building did not collapse with remarkable symmetry for an event that was allegedly caused by fire and random damage and as I said, I won't be wasting any more time on someone with such a skewed perspective of reality.
You seem to be arguing that the uniqueness of the collapse means there should be no verification possible. There are countless examples of youtube of buildings catching fire, eg Madrid tower, that did not collapse. Most of the youtube comments are full of troofers going, "Gee, why didn't it collapse like WTC7 roffle roffle." And the occasional person like you going, "Gee, but WTC7 was just different."
Verification is not:
A computer model that is inaccurate to the evidence, and can't be independently verified.
A "forensic" investigation that examined no physical steel from the building at all.
Failures of verification are not excused if they are observed without an alternative hypothesis being advanced. Make another appeal to authority and go to the back of class. Claim that the building did not collapse with remarkable symmetry for an event that was allegedly caused by fire and random damage and as I said, I won't be wasting any more time on someone with such a skewed perspective of reality.
Cairenn
Senior Member.
I have been over this nonsense with others in other threads.
How is their computer model inaccurate to the evidence?
It was not symmetrical, and if you would be willing to look at pictures other than the ones the sites you favor, you would know that. A building that falls symmetrically does not have it's facade draped over it's rubble.
I have a solid grip on reality, and physics and the chemistry of steel.
You seem to have a poor grasp on the politeness policy.
I notice that you can not offer a single example that matches what happened before the collapse. I also notice that you are unwilling to propose a REASONABLE alternative reason.
How is their computer model inaccurate to the evidence?
It was not symmetrical, and if you would be willing to look at pictures other than the ones the sites you favor, you would know that. A building that falls symmetrically does not have it's facade draped over it's rubble.
I have a solid grip on reality, and physics and the chemistry of steel.
You seem to have a poor grasp on the politeness policy.
I notice that you can not offer a single example that matches what happened before the collapse. I also notice that you are unwilling to propose a REASONABLE alternative reason.
jomper
Inactive Member
I've looked at all the video evidence of the collapse available. Your suggestion that I have limited my research to "sites I favor" is as impolite as anything I amy have said that offends your oh-so delicate sensibilities.
It is not surprising to me that you cannot see inaccuracies in the NIST model of WTC 7 collapsing as you cannot even accept the obvious symmetry of the collapse shown in the video evidence.
I simply cannot have a discussion with someone that insists black is white. I'm sorry, it's just too idiotic.
It is not surprising to me that you cannot see inaccuracies in the NIST model of WTC 7 collapsing as you cannot even accept the obvious symmetry of the collapse shown in the video evidence.
I simply cannot have a discussion with someone that insists black is white. I'm sorry, it's just too idiotic.
jomper
Inactive Member
Your appeal to popularity is absurd, Cairenn. If you showed tens of thousands of people the footage of WTC 7 collapsing, I think only a very tiny percentage would say it was not a remarkably symmetrical descent. The video evidence is the video evidence. The evidence shows near-symmetry. It isn't my problem if you insist on turning your face away from the facts, but I don't need to have a discussion with someone who is so deeply in denial about what is so entirely self-evident.
Cairenn
Senior Member.
I am not appealing to popularity, but you are. I am discussing the experts that agree with the NIST report.
I can show you a picture of a dog and most likely, you like most folks will decide it is a mixed breed. If I show that same picture to dog show judges and show breeders, they will most likely name the breed.
Do you deny that a large piece of the facade ended up lying over the rubble of the rest of the building?
By the way, I am on to your 'baiting' trick. You are hoping I will insult you back. I won't.
I can show you a picture of a dog and most likely, you like most folks will decide it is a mixed breed. If I show that same picture to dog show judges and show breeders, they will most likely name the breed.
Do you deny that a large piece of the facade ended up lying over the rubble of the rest of the building?
By the way, I am on to your 'baiting' trick. You are hoping I will insult you back. I won't.
jomper
Inactive Member
I see: I use your reference to "tens of thousands" of people, and now it turns out you were not appealing to popularity, merely authority.
You cannot tell me, in the face of all the video evidence, that the collapse of WTC 7 was not near-symmetrical for most of the structure's descent. It really is like saying black is white.
It is like you want me to join you in occupying some bizarre alternative reality where everyone is blind to what is symmetrical and what is not.
I am not attempting to "bait" you: you flatter yourself if you imagine that is the case. I don't even know what you think you're being insulted about. However, to claim that the collapse of WTC 7 was not near-symmetrical really is an outrageous insult to reason.
This is why further discussion with you is so pointless for me.
You cannot tell me, in the face of all the video evidence, that the collapse of WTC 7 was not near-symmetrical for most of the structure's descent. It really is like saying black is white.
It is like you want me to join you in occupying some bizarre alternative reality where everyone is blind to what is symmetrical and what is not.
I am not attempting to "bait" you: you flatter yourself if you imagine that is the case. I don't even know what you think you're being insulted about. However, to claim that the collapse of WTC 7 was not near-symmetrical really is an outrageous insult to reason.
This is why further discussion with you is so pointless for me.
JRBids
Senior Member.
No he wasn't stupid at all. People disliked him for different reasons. People knowledgeable about NYC, IOW people who actually live there, know that.
JRBids
Senior Member.
I decided to read to the end of the thread before I asked what YOU think happened. I see I could have cut to the chase.
As Cariann said, there is a parade of posters to this forum who seem to have a problem with coming flat out and stating their "theories" of what they believe happened.
Spit it out, tell us, this banter is unproductive and obviously frustrating to everyone.
jomper
Inactive Member
What was clever about insisting on building an extraordinarily expensive emergency command center next to a massive terrorist target, and putting it inside a structure that was so peculiarly weak it suffered total global collapse after an office fire?
jomper
Inactive Member
Burden shifting. As Mick would say, if you want to discuss alternative theories about how WTC7 collapsed, start a thread about it and I'll be happy to contribute.
At the moment, this thread seems to be stuck on the question of whether or not something that's symmetrical is indeed symmetrical. This is relevant to the topic at hand.
Do you think the collapse of WTC7 was remarkably, not to say uniquely symmetrical, given that it was an event apparently precipitated by random damage and fire?
JRBids
Senior Member.
I'm just floored. YOU are the one with the alternative theory. You start the thread. At the moment the thread is stuck on what you think happened.
But JFTR the fall was not "symmetrical" any more than it was "in its own footprint."
JRBids
Senior Member.
People make mistakes. Do you think it was done purposefully? If so by whom? I do not think you will answer those direct questions.
jomper
Inactive Member
So "JFTR": you do not observe anything symmetrical in the collapse of WTC7 in the video evidence...? Nothing at all...?
jomper
Inactive Member
No, I think it was profoundly stupid. Incredibly stupid. "Giuliani" should be slang for being a total idiot. It's not like the towers weren't an obvious target that had been attacked before.
And then putting the OEM in a building a that could fall down as catastrophically as WTC7? The man is an utter fool.
JRBids
Senior Member.
It didn't fall UP or SIDEWAYS, no. So if by DOWN and in the general area of where it used to be standing means "symmetrical" to you I can see where you would use the word. Symmetrical to me means a mirror image of something else, So I don't know what your def is.
From the NY times: "The memorandum, which has not been previously disclosed, cited a number of “significant points of vulnerability.” Those included: the building’s public access, the center’s location on the 23rd floor, a 1,200-gallon diesel fuel supply for its generator, a large garage and delivery bays, the building’s history as a terrorist target, and its placement above and adjacent to a Consolidated Edison substation that provided much of the power for Lower Manhattan."
....
Mr. Giuliani has said in the past that one of the reasons for choosing the location was that several federal agencies with which city officials needed to be in contact during emergencies, including the Secret Service, had their offices there. Other federal agencies in the building included the Defense Department and the C.I.A.
But the Police Department took the opposite position in the memo, saying the presence of those agencies made the building a more likely target.
Now that you have proved Guiliani was an "utter fool", which many NYers would agree with and many would not, do you have an further reason to beat that dead horse?
"JFTR" any building can fall down, or collapse to an extent depending on the damage.
jomper
Inactive Member
Nope. It was an aside in the first place: a dead horse you seemed to want to ride, so feel free continue to attempt to do so. Roffle
Cairenn
Senior Member.
Before we go any further, what do you think caused the collapse? We need to know, in order to address your constant comments of symmetry.
The building had a noticeable BULGE in one side before it fell, that is evidence against symmetry. So is the several stories of facade that was draped over the rubble. The rubble arrived first, then the facade did. The penthouse collapsed first, again another non symmetrical event.
The building had a noticeable BULGE in one side before it fell, that is evidence against symmetry. So is the several stories of facade that was draped over the rubble. The rubble arrived first, then the facade did. The penthouse collapsed first, again another non symmetrical event.
JRBids
Senior Member.
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.
Do you have any evidence that that is what happened, other than NIST imagining that is what happened. Anything substantive in the way of evidence to back up the theory/claim?
Yep, the NIST report... have you read it?
Do you have any evidence that it is not simply a work of imagination?
Testing? What testing was that?
Ask for specifics? You should get a job with NIST, they could use someone like you.
MikeC
Closed Account
If you read the report your would know
Here's a short summary from the FAQ:
However, NIST’s WTC 7 investigation did follow the core tenet of NFPA 921, which is the application of the scientific method. The investigation was carefully planned, sources of information were identified and contacted, the building fire and collapse event and the investigation were documented, available evidence was obtained (including documents about the design and construction of the structure), and the origin of the fire was determined based on images, laboratory testing (conducted for the towers, but applicable to WTC 7), and mathematical analyses.
Additionally, in its study of WTC 7, NIST considered all available data and evaluated a range of possible collapse mechanisms: uncontrolled fires on the tenant floors, fuel oil fires, hypothetical blast events, and fires within the Con Ed substation. NIST developed a working hypothesis, modeled the fires and the building, and then used the models to test the hypothesis against the observed behavior of the building. This approach is fully consistent with the principles of scientific inquiry.
Boston
Active Member
I have some fairly significant questions with the events of 9/11. I've never liked the explanations given and I've never been impressed with the investigative process that both took so long to enact and failed so completely to treat this building collapse like the mechanical failure it was.
I'm going to ignore the towers for the time being, other than to say, asymmetrical damage is highly unlikely to lead to symmetrical failure, particularly within an asymmetrical system.
WTC7. Also fell as nearly perfectly and symmetrically as I've ever seen a building come down. I worked my way through school as a contractor and I grew up in a family that owned and operated a major construction firm, we both erected and demolished steel framed structures regularly. My chores as a kid was sometimes to collate papers on some of the largest projects on the east coast. I won't go into a list of buildings I've worked on, but I"m very familiar with high rise construction and particularly steel framed structures.
The first thing that should be noted with building 7 is that the blue prints are unavailable. So any special construction that may have been used is pure conjecture, and cannot be verified as far as I know. I could always be wrong on this one and if so feel free to provide the structural prints, but as of yet no one has ever coughed up the prints.
There are conflicting reports of explosions within the building, there are also conflicting reports of just how extensive the fires were in the building. Therefor I think its necessary to simply ignore that area of evidence due to its tenuous nature. From what I can see there were minor fires that at no time encompassed more than say 25% of any one floor at a time. There are reports of diesel fuel in the buildings, but I see no evidence of a large fuel fed fire erupting in a manor consistent with fuel tank eruptions. So I'm inclined to ignore that evidence as well, also diesel fuel has a life span, it looses a significant portion of its energetic characteristics over a relatively short period of time, about 30% in 6 months if I remember. Its also an organic molecule, so it is subject to growing all kinds of contaminants over time, unless it is constantly polished and periodically treated with chemical preservatives and extenders.
I think its safe to say that the visual evidence is about the most reliable source of evidence we've got to go with. From what I can see, the fires were relatively minor, and certainly not of the character I would expect outside of the normal office building fire. Therefor I have no reason to believe the fires where in any way hotter than a normal office building fire. The fires were also extremely asymmetrical in nature, at no time were all four corners of the building alight and at no time was there any significant structural deformation evident that might lead me to believe that temperatures had reached a critical state that might be effecting the structural integrity of the building.
I've yet to see a single picture of building 7 that showed any major structural damage due to falling debris from the towers plane impacts. I've seem smoke filled pictures that show a few broken windows and I've seen a small gash in one corner of the building, all other corners of the building were completely intact. I'd also estimate the total damage to the building, based on the visual evidence, to be minor, IE less than 5~10% of the whole, and asymmetrical in nature.
Yet the building came down, all four corners at once and at free fall speed. Oh and no, I'm not going to time it from the first window that blew out, nor am I going to time it from the symmetrical collapse of the pent house, which disappeared from view previous to the measurable area of building displaying free fall symmetrical collapse.
Barring all opinion based evidence as well as conflicting eye witness accounts, and instead going with only film and still picture data, I don't see how it couldn't have been manufactured collapse. Asymmetrical damage does not yield symmetrical results.
I'm all ears and I'm open to altering my opinion, however, other than some extremely tenuous eye witness accounts, some of which may have a vested interest in not offending the departments which they depend for there lively hood, there is little to no evidence that the buildings symmetrical reaction to minor asymmetrical fires was not a manufactured event.
IE
someone wanted that building in a nice neat pile on the ground.
I'd also point out that any of the collapses that day could have been easily reconstructed by merely recording the fall pattern of the structural members. Something that would have been done and has been done in virtually all major transportation disasters and something that is commonly done in bridge collapses. Every single piece of steel in that frame is coded and even a cursory look at the prints will show exactly where it was in the building. Recording the pattern of collapse is about the easiest and least time consuming element of demolition, its also the kinda study companies who do explosive demolitions conduct regularly so as to minimize the amount of explosives used. There is zero excuse for carting all the debris off without making this kinda study, as the pieces are cut away from the wreckage, guaranteed the guy with the torch had more than enough time to notice the field marks on the beams.
I'm inclined to think either the level of incompetence was so desperately high that no one thought to conduct such a study or that someone didn't want to conduct such a study. Given the resistance field investigators met when trying to access the sight, I'm far more inclined to believe the latter than the former.
In a nut shell I've yet to hear a rational explanation as to how bldg 7 could have possible fell in the manor it did under the circumstances evident in the film record.
Please provide picture or blue print evidence to support any claims to the contrary
PS
I'm not really a conspiracy nut but having worked my way through college in this exact field, I'm really not impressed with the party line on this one.
Occams razor in this case is leaning towards something very very fishy.
I'm going to ignore the towers for the time being, other than to say, asymmetrical damage is highly unlikely to lead to symmetrical failure, particularly within an asymmetrical system.
WTC7. Also fell as nearly perfectly and symmetrically as I've ever seen a building come down. I worked my way through school as a contractor and I grew up in a family that owned and operated a major construction firm, we both erected and demolished steel framed structures regularly. My chores as a kid was sometimes to collate papers on some of the largest projects on the east coast. I won't go into a list of buildings I've worked on, but I"m very familiar with high rise construction and particularly steel framed structures.
The first thing that should be noted with building 7 is that the blue prints are unavailable. So any special construction that may have been used is pure conjecture, and cannot be verified as far as I know. I could always be wrong on this one and if so feel free to provide the structural prints, but as of yet no one has ever coughed up the prints.
There are conflicting reports of explosions within the building, there are also conflicting reports of just how extensive the fires were in the building. Therefor I think its necessary to simply ignore that area of evidence due to its tenuous nature. From what I can see there were minor fires that at no time encompassed more than say 25% of any one floor at a time. There are reports of diesel fuel in the buildings, but I see no evidence of a large fuel fed fire erupting in a manor consistent with fuel tank eruptions. So I'm inclined to ignore that evidence as well, also diesel fuel has a life span, it looses a significant portion of its energetic characteristics over a relatively short period of time, about 30% in 6 months if I remember. Its also an organic molecule, so it is subject to growing all kinds of contaminants over time, unless it is constantly polished and periodically treated with chemical preservatives and extenders.
I think its safe to say that the visual evidence is about the most reliable source of evidence we've got to go with. From what I can see, the fires were relatively minor, and certainly not of the character I would expect outside of the normal office building fire. Therefor I have no reason to believe the fires where in any way hotter than a normal office building fire. The fires were also extremely asymmetrical in nature, at no time were all four corners of the building alight and at no time was there any significant structural deformation evident that might lead me to believe that temperatures had reached a critical state that might be effecting the structural integrity of the building.
I've yet to see a single picture of building 7 that showed any major structural damage due to falling debris from the towers plane impacts. I've seem smoke filled pictures that show a few broken windows and I've seen a small gash in one corner of the building, all other corners of the building were completely intact. I'd also estimate the total damage to the building, based on the visual evidence, to be minor, IE less than 5~10% of the whole, and asymmetrical in nature.
Yet the building came down, all four corners at once and at free fall speed. Oh and no, I'm not going to time it from the first window that blew out, nor am I going to time it from the symmetrical collapse of the pent house, which disappeared from view previous to the measurable area of building displaying free fall symmetrical collapse.
Barring all opinion based evidence as well as conflicting eye witness accounts, and instead going with only film and still picture data, I don't see how it couldn't have been manufactured collapse. Asymmetrical damage does not yield symmetrical results.
I'm all ears and I'm open to altering my opinion, however, other than some extremely tenuous eye witness accounts, some of which may have a vested interest in not offending the departments which they depend for there lively hood, there is little to no evidence that the buildings symmetrical reaction to minor asymmetrical fires was not a manufactured event.
IE
someone wanted that building in a nice neat pile on the ground.
I'd also point out that any of the collapses that day could have been easily reconstructed by merely recording the fall pattern of the structural members. Something that would have been done and has been done in virtually all major transportation disasters and something that is commonly done in bridge collapses. Every single piece of steel in that frame is coded and even a cursory look at the prints will show exactly where it was in the building. Recording the pattern of collapse is about the easiest and least time consuming element of demolition, its also the kinda study companies who do explosive demolitions conduct regularly so as to minimize the amount of explosives used. There is zero excuse for carting all the debris off without making this kinda study, as the pieces are cut away from the wreckage, guaranteed the guy with the torch had more than enough time to notice the field marks on the beams.
I'm inclined to think either the level of incompetence was so desperately high that no one thought to conduct such a study or that someone didn't want to conduct such a study. Given the resistance field investigators met when trying to access the sight, I'm far more inclined to believe the latter than the former.
In a nut shell I've yet to hear a rational explanation as to how bldg 7 could have possible fell in the manor it did under the circumstances evident in the film record.
Please provide picture or blue print evidence to support any claims to the contrary
PS
I'm not really a conspiracy nut but having worked my way through college in this exact field, I'm really not impressed with the party line on this one.
Occams razor in this case is leaning towards something very very fishy.
Similar threads
