Debunked: AE911Truth's WTC7 Explosive Demolition Hypothesis

Status
Not open for further replies.

Cube Radio

Member
The absence of models of the towers' total collapse shows that either a) after 12+ years structural engineering institutions have still not attempted to experimentally demonstrate a simple understanding of how the most comprehensive building failures in history occurred to two of the most famous buildings in history, or b) experimental validation of gravity-driven total collapse is impossible as models of the towers never reproduce it; the op's "debunking" of points 2&3 amounts to the laughable claim that he can see inside the building while AE911 can't, and a mere denial that what is called symmetrical is in fact symmetrical.

 

Melbury's Brick

Senior Member.
The op's "debunking" of points 2&3 amounts to the laughable claim that he can see inside the building
The op makes no claim that he or anyone else could see indide the building. To suggest that he is alluding to such is a lie. You seem somewhat obsessed by "models". After the building collapsed the remains were spread across an area far beyond it's "footprint" The claim to the contrary is also a lie. The remainder of AE911's assertions are rendered pointless by this one simple fact.
 

Jazzy

Closed Account
The vid shows less of WTC7's collapse than any I have ever seen. It shows only the descending fascia of the building.

For your information, visual and recordable signs of the collapse of WTC7 began with a puff of smoke from the west face, which was followed by signs of the descent of the interior through the windows of the east face, followed by the collapse and disappearance of the penthouse.

After that your sequence above begins.

With your present posture, presenting this video isn't a wise thing to do. We must ask ourselves questions which the politeness policy doesn't allow us to ask you.

Where do you go from here? Considering you are going to be asked why you are trying to mislead us?
 
Last edited:

Cube Radio

Member
There is as much visual evidence for "descent of the interior through the windows of the east face" as there is visual evidence for flashes and charges detonating as the building begins to fall: without evidence for the "descent of the interior" the assertion that what is seen falling is only the fascia is unsupported speculation; the most misleading claim that has been made on this thread so far is the claim that models reproducing the total collapse of the towers are available: the individual who made this claim is plainly unable to support their miserable lies.

 

WeedWhacker

Senior Member
...as there is visual evidence for flashes and charges detonating as the building begins to fall...

The "flashes" are the result of air being forced to go somewhere to escape as the internal components are collapsing. This same effect was observed on Towers 1 and 2.

The video posted above has no sound, since it's been modified to 'slo-mo'.

Similar view with the soundtrack intact:

Compare to these examples of known CD (with sound):
 

Cube Radio

Member
You're the one who posted lies about the existence of models reproducing the total collapse of the towers, so why do you expect your claims of "air being forced to go somewhere" to be taken seriously as debunking anything?
 

Melbury's Brick

Senior Member.
So why do you expect your claims.........
What, exactly, would your claims be? Thus for you have made none. I say that WT7 did not collapse in it's own "footprint". The claim that it did is fundamental to Gage's theory.
If you believe it did, explain how the remains of the building were spread far beyond the boundary. If you believe it didn't, explain how the AE911Truth claims have any credibility whatsoever.
 

Landru

Moderator
Staff member
What, exactly, would your claims be? Thus for you have made none. I say that WT7 did not collapse in it's own "footprint". The claim that it did is fundamental to Gage's theory.
If you believe it did, explain how the remains of the building were spread far beyond the boundary. If you believe it didn't, explain how the AE911Truth claims have any credibility whatsoever.

As explained here.
 

Cube Radio

Member
I have challenged the specific claim that models which reproduce the towers' total collapse exist; the only way the individual making that claim could fail more profoundly to support it would be for them not to post further.
 

WeedWhacker

Senior Member
I have challenged the specific claim that models which reproduce the towers' total collapse exist; the only way the individual making that claim could fail more profoundly to support it would be for them not to post further.

The WTC Tower 7 'model' for collapse was posted in #47. That is the topic of this thread.

Asked and answered.
 

WeedWhacker

Senior Member
The WTC Tower 7 'model' for collapse was posted in #47. That is the topic of this thread.

Asked and answered.

But, at the risk of going OT (and this might need its own thread) here's the latest:

http://www.livescience.com/16179-twin-tower-collapse-model-squash-9-11-conspiracies.html

Many 9/11 conspiracy theories revolve around explosions that were seen and heard in the World Trade Center's Twin Towers prior to their collapse. Despite scientific investigations that have explained the processes that brought down the skyscrapers, some conspiracy theorists suggest the plane impacts were just red herrings, to distract from the fact that 9/11 was an "inside job" — that explosives had been implanted earlier in the World Trade Center buildings and were what really brought them down.

Now a materials scientist has come up with a more scientific explanation for the mystery booms, and says his model of the Twin Towers collapse leaves no room for conspiracies.
Content from External Source
Read on at the link............
 

Pete Tar

Senior Member.
the most misleading claim that has been made on this thread so far is the claim that models reproducing the total collapse of the towers are available:

NIST retained Simpson Gumpertz & Heger Inc. (SGH) to develop computer models that would simulate the structural response of the towers to aircraft impact and subsequent fires. Several existing studies, conducted by NIST and its consultants, provided input for the SGH study, including aircraft impact analysis, fire dynamics and heat transfer models. NIST also conducted tests on structural steel recovered from the WTC site to determine its mechanical and metallurgical properties including temperature-dependent thermal expansion, modulus, plastic flow, and creep properties.

SGH first developed models of components, connections, and subsystems of the WTC towers and studied their structural response to the fire-induced temperatures over time. Using the results of such studies, SGH then developed computationally efficient global models of the towers and performed FE analyses from initial impact through the collapse of each tower. http://www.structuremag.org/article.aspx?articleID=453
Content from External Source
and

The scientific simulation, the completion of which was announced last September, required several test runs before the researchers were satisfied; the final test run required more than 80 hours of high-performance computing. The simulation depicts how a plane tore through several stories of the World Trade Center north tower within a half-second and found that the weight of the fuel acted like a flash flood of flaming liquid, knocking out essential structural columns within the building and removing fireproofing insulation from other support structures. The simulation used lines and dots to show the aircraft and building during the event.

To develop the new animated visualization, Voicu Popescu, an assistant professor of computer science, developed a translator application that creates a link between computer simulations and computer visualization systems to automatically translate simulation data into a 3-D animation scene.

"This translator is scalable and can be used in other simulations," Popescu says.

The animation (122 MB) can be seen online at http://www.cs.purdue.edu/cgvlab/papers/
popescu/popescuWTCVIS07.mov


A faster-loading version (9 MB) of the video can be found at http://news.uns.purdue.edu/mov/2007/HoffmannWTC.mov
http://www.purdue.edu/uns/x/2007a/070612HoffmannWTC.html
Content from External Source
But the topic is wtc7 not towers 1 and 2.
 

jaydeehess

Senior Member.
As pointed out though, NIST also had fea conducted to model that structure and that too illustrated global collapse.

Cube is wrong.
 

Cube Radio

Member
The NIST WTC7 model is not relevant to the towers but is in any case suspect because it is a computer simulation that omitted key elements and is not available for scientific verification; Simensen's theory is absurd even to someone like Eager, but in any case does not seek to model the towers' total collapse; the Structure article does not even approach a model of towers' total collapse; Purdue does not attempt to model the towers' collapse: this is pathetic.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
This thread is about AE911's WTC7 hypothesis. Not the towers.

The "omitted key elements" likely refers to the stiffener plates which wee discussed in other threads.
 

Pete Tar

Senior Member.
What does the lack of a computer model of the tower collapse prove? They modelled all points up to that, at which point it is self-evident what happened.
 

jaydeehess

Senior Member.
The NIST WTC7 model is not relevant to the towers but is in any case suspect because it is a computer simulation that omitted key elements and is not available for scientific verification;
Is it your proposal that one rebuild the WTC7 then attempt to collapse it again? Is it your proposal to build a scale model of WTC 7 and use that?
Obviously the former is ridiculous on many levels. The later however will suffer the effects of scaling in which while you may scale the model, you cannot scale gravity.

In FACT computer simulations are fully accepted in the engineering community. FEA programs are available to anyone wishing to run one. All that is needed are the input parameters. NIST will not give those parameters to AE911T. AE911T will not say what they want with that data. Will they simply plug in the data to the same FEA to see if a computer gets the same results from the same data? That is not "scientific verification', that is a witch hunt.
It is well within the ability of an organization such as AE911T to do its own research and cone up with parameters of initial conditions and purchase an FEA, the same one NIST used if they wish, and actually DO something with the money they are interminably fund raising.
 

Pete Tar

Senior Member.
And a model can be words, it doesn't have to a physical or virtual reproduction of an event.

An explanatory model is a useful description and explanation of why and how a thing works or an explanation of why a phenomenon is the way it is.

Explanatory models do not claim to be a complete description/explanation of the absolute reality about the thing/phenomenon, nor does it even claim to, necessarily, be fully accurate. The description/explanation does, however, need to fit well enough to a sufficient portion of all the knowledge, observations and theoretical circumstances known about the thing/phenomenon, so that the explanatory model becomes useful.
Content from External Source
 

Cube Radio

Member
The data used in computer models must be available for independent verification if it is to be acceptable from a scientific or legal perspective, and the NIST WTC7 "model" does not begin to approach this standard of transparency: it is quite ridiculous to ask independent professionals to reverse-engineer results from a publicly-funded research project merely for them to be able to verify input data which can never be credibly concealed from peers; I am in any case not claiming that computer "models" do not exist, but that there are no physical models reproducing the effect by which the towers were totally destroyed: only physical models that fail to reproduce this effect.
 

Pete Tar

Senior Member.
am in any case not claiming that computer "models" do not exist, but that there are no physical models reproducing the effect by which the towers were totally destroyed: only physical models that fail to reproduce this effect.
Then that is a correct assertion. Glad we got that straightened out.
 

Cube Radio

Member
I am also glad we agree that not a single structural engineering faculty or phD student has been able to create a real-world model that reproduces in simplified form the phenomenon that totally destroyed the towers in the 12+ years since the most significant and catastrophic structural failures in history; similarly I am glad we agree that all other real-world models that have been created to date in an attempt to reproduce the effect of the towers' total destruction have failed entirely to do so.
 

Jazzy

Closed Account
The data used in computer models must be available for independent verification if it is to be acceptable from a scientific or legal perspective, and the NIST WTC7 "model" does not begin to approach this standard of transparency: it is quite ridiculous to ask independent professionals to reverse-engineer results from a publicly-funded research project merely for them to be able to verify input data which can never be credibly concealed from peers
That sounds like a righteous cry of indignation. But it is neither righteous in the first place, and also it is ridiculously indignant. The information to exactly re-simulate WTC7 no longer remains. It wasn't available to NIST either. The approximate information is publicly available. So it would be just as hard, but no harder for present-day real engineers. What it would be like for AE911T I have no idea of.

But even if your information were to be exact, you still couldn't exactly simulate a fire visible only from outside. Not exactly. For all you or anyone else knows, there were countless small preconditions that could have differed, ending with a beam distorting in just that direction, or a snapping floor waiting just so long before it let go.

It isn't ridiculous (nor is it necessary) to ask someone else to do it, except perhaps when it has already been done. The same effort will be expended for the same result.

I am in any case not claiming that computer "models" do not exist, but that there are no physical models reproducing the effect by which the towers were totally destroyed: only physical models that fail to reproduce this effect.
That is duckspeak for not liking the results. Explain yourself. Explain why.

I am glad we agree that all other real-world models that have been created to date in an attempt to reproduce the effect of the towers' total destruction have failed entirely to do so.
Then you are incorrect just one more time.

.
 
Last edited:

Melbury's Brick

Senior Member.
Question is...........why?
Why bring down WTC7? Surely the the two big boys were enough?
The best conspiracy theorists come up with was that it housed sensitive documents/info. in government offices.


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...s-Rare-footage-shows-WTC-7-consumed-fire.html

Office space: Building 7 housed offices of the CIA, Department of Defence, utility company ConEd, and bank Salomon Smith Barney which was the largest tenant
Content from External Source

So, are we to believe it was easier to spend days or weeks surreptitiously implanting explosives and tie in (presumably as an afterthought) the collapse to the twin towers destruction, than simply remove the material and destroy it elsewhere?
(Perhaps they forgot to order a third plane?...."Mr. President, I seem to have made a small error......")

What if 7 hadn't been damaged by debris? Did they prepare the demolition in the vague hope that it would be justifiable?

There is simply no viable reason for the deliberate destruction of WTC7. Even If 9/11 was an "inside job" (it wasn't), the demolition of the already evacuated building 7 would serve no purpose other than to raise suspicion.

 

Jazzy

Closed Account
the demolition of the already evacuated building 7 would serve no purpose other than to raise suspicion.
You missed out the word undetectable before the word demolition.

It was because of the fact that there was no evidence of demolition that makes it so damned suspicious, don't you see? How devilishly this crime was carried off! The blighters.

We are fortunate indeed we have such warriors for truth.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
I am also glad we agree that not a single structural engineering faculty or phD student has been able to create a real-world model that reproduces in simplified form the phenomenon that totally destroyed the towers in the 12+ years since the most significant and catastrophic structural failures in history; similarly I am glad we agree that all other real-world models that have been created to date in an attempt to reproduce the effect of the towers' total destruction have failed entirely to do so.

The topic is not the towers. It's wtc7.
 

jaydeehess

Senior Member.
The data used in computer models must be available for independent verification if it is to be acceptable from a scientific or legal perspective, and the NIST WTC7 "model" does not begin to approach this standard of transparency: it is quite ridiculous to ask independent professionals to reverse-engineer results from a publicly-funded research project merely for them to be able to verify input data which can never be credibly concealed from peers; I am in any case not claiming that computer "models" do not exist, but that there are no physical models reproducing the effect by which the towers were totally destroyed: only physical models that fail to reproduce this effect.
All the data you would require is in the public record. All one need do is collect it.
There are fea programs available.
So 'verification' is possible.

,,,, and ,,,, get on with it.
 

Melbury's Brick

Senior Member.
You missed out the word undetectable before the word demolition.

It was because of the fact that there was no evidence of demolition that makes it so damned suspicious, don't you see? How devilishly this crime was carried off! The blighters.

We are fortunate indeed we have such warriors for truth.
Clearly it was demolished by an invisible explosive that hasn't been invented yet. When it is invented, it will be that which was used.
 

NoParty

Senior Member.
I never took the position that FOIA would compel NIST (or any gov agency) to make public everything they know
--with no regard for public safety--since someone here evidently suggested otherwise, good on you for producing this.

You probably erred in including the Young letter (unless you don't know Young's rebel history)...at his advanced age,
he was just having fun annoying a bureaucrat...he obviously was not being honest about his using those 3,370 files to design buildings... :p
 

Pete Tar

Senior Member.
I am also glad we agree that not a single structural engineering faculty or phD student has been able to create a real-world model that reproduces in simplified form the phenomenon that totally destroyed the towers in the 12+ years since the most significant and catastrophic structural failures in history
Wouldn't verinage demolition be 'a real-world model that reproduces in simplified form the phenomenon'?

And don't say we agree to things that no-one has.
 

NoParty

Senior Member.
The data used in computer models must be available for independent verification if it is to be acceptable from a scientific or legal perspective, and the NIST WTC7 "model" does not begin to approach this standard of transparency: it is quite ridiculous to ask independent professionals to reverse-engineer results from a publicly-funded research project merely for them to be able to verify input data which can never be credibly concealed from peers; I am in any case not claiming that computer "models" do not exist, but that there are no physical models reproducing the effect by which the towers were totally destroyed: only physical models that fail to reproduce this effect.
What are you basing this on?

Does America have a rich tradition of verifying filmed events by creating computer simulations and then
providing all that ask everything the gov knows to aid skeptics re. their own re-creation computer simulations?

Which amendment set all that up?
 

jaydeehess

Senior Member.
That NIST is denying access to input data is uncontested fact and to claim otherwise is to lie http://cryptome.org/wtc-nist-wtc7-no.pdf ; the claim that real-world models reproducing the collapse of the twin towers exist is dismissed as it is a claim without evidence.
Is anyone denying that NIST is not cooperating with AE911T?

If AE911T wishes to verify the behavior of WTC7 due to loss of column 79 then all of the data they require to run an fea is available in the public record.
 

Cube Radio

Member
External peer review was not conducted on the NIST "model" as critical data was withheld from independent experts under the terms of the NCST Act 2002 (using the absurd argument that it would "jeopardize public safety" if independent structural engineers are allowed to check NIST's conclusions); however analysis has been made of NIST's model and with the inclusion of critical elements that NIST omitted it has been shown that column 79 could not trigger the collapse, a conclusion discussed elsewhere in this forum.
 

Melbury's Brick

Senior Member.
External peer review was not conducted on the NIST "model" as critical data was withheld from independent experts under the terms of the NCST Act 2002 (using the absurd argument that it would "jeopardize public safety" if independent structural engineers are allowed to check NIST's conclusions); however analysis has been made of NIST's model and with the inclusion of critical elements that NIST omitted it has been shown that column 79 could not trigger the collapse, a conclusion discussed elsewhere in this forum.
Analysis by whom?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Thread starter Related Articles Forum Replies Date
Oystein Debunked: AE911T: CNBC Anchor Ron Insana claims Building 7 a Controlled Implosion 9/11 13
Oystein Debunked: "WTC7 Sound Evidence of Explosions" by Chandler/AE911T 9/11 31
Mick West Debunked: AE911Truth's Analysis of Slag Residue from WTC Debris 9/11 20
Oystein Debunked: Gibraltar cancels Christmas Coronavirus COVID-19 5
Mythic Suns [Debunked] Viral internet meme indirectly claiming that Greenland has already fully melted. Science and Pseudoscience 6
T AiG Debunked: Fossils Fail to Find Major Transition From Dinosaurs to Birds Science and Pseudoscience 10
Rory Debunked: UK undertaker's claim that Covid vaccine is responsible for spike in deaths Coronavirus COVID-19 7
Marc Powell Debunked: 9/11 truth experts are knowledgeable professionals and their judgments are to be trusted 9/11 195
Marc Powell Debunked: Explosions preparatory to demolition of the WTC North Tower are visible as Flight 175 crashes into the South Tower 9/11 7
Mick West Debunked: Pfizer Developing a Twice-Per-Day COVID Pill, Taken Alongside Vaccines Coronavirus COVID-19 0
Marc Powell Debunked: Demolition “squib” is visible at top of WTC North Tower before Flight 11 crash 9/11 67
Marc Powell Debunked: Construction worker Philip Morelli experienced an explosion in the sub-basement of the North Tower 9/11 0
Marc Powell Debunked: ABC News correspondent George Stephanopoulos reported an explosion in the subway 9/11 1
Marc Powell Debunked: Debris from twin towers was projected upward by explosives 9/11 13
Marc Powell Debunked: Government officials revealed having foreknowledge of Building 7’s collapse 9/11 58
Marc Powell Debunked: NIST computer simulation of Building 7 collapse is inaccurate 9/11 22
Marc Powell Debunked: FEMA reported finding evidence that steel had melted. 9/11 47
Marc Powell Debunked: VP Dick Cheney ordered a standdown of jet fighters on 9/11 9/11 16
Oystein Debunked: Claim that Bobby McIlvaine's injuries ("lacerations") are best explained as result of glass shards and debris from bombs 9/11 22
Marc Powell Debunked: World Trade Center should not have collapsed due to 9/11 fires 9/11 3
Marc Powell Debunked: Firefighter reports of secondary explosions 9/11 3
Marc Powell Debunked: Steel was hurled hundreds of feet by explosives 9/11 4
Marc Powell Debunked: Demolition Explosion Before Collapse of South Tower 9/11 8
Marc Powell Debunked: Explosion in South Tower Lobby 9/11 7
Marc Powell Debunked: Mysterious Explosion Before the Flight 11 Crash 9/11 48
J.d.K Debunked: Marx: "The classes and the races too weak to master the new conditions must give way... They must perish in the revolutionary Holocaust" Quotes Debunked 0
dimebag2 Poll : Which DOD Navy video do you consider debunked ? UFO Videos and Reports from the US Navy 74
Mick West Debunked: Diving Triangle UFO Photos from Reddit [Fake] UFOs and Aliens 37
Theferäl [Debunked] Object Seen From Airplane Above Canberra: 04 Apr 2012 Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 5
TEEJ Debunked: Claim that Joe Biden's hand passes through microphone during White House press gaggle, 16th March 2021 Election 2020 9
bird_up Debunked: "Interdimensional being" caught on CCTV in Neza, Mexico Ghosts, Monsters, and the Paranormal 6
M Debunked: Atmospheric pressure on Mars is 9 PSI, not 0.09 PSI as claimed by NASA Science and Pseudoscience 76
Patrick Gonzalez Debunked: missing cable on Perseverance landing footage proves it is fake. General Discussion 3
TEEJ Debunked: Biden's Oval Office "Coming Apart at the Seams" [It's a Door] Election 2020 19
derrick06 Debunked: UFO over California Highway (TMZ) UFOs and Aliens 1
P Debunked: 7 Alleged photos of aliens UFOs and Aliens 9
Mick West Debunked: Biden signing "Blank" Executive Orders Election 2020 5
Mick West Debunked: Biden in "Fake" Oval Office Election 2020 27
P Debunked: UN hidden camera: the first UFO contact happened [Deep Fake] UFOs and Aliens 3
Mick West Debunked: 94% of Fulton County Ballots Manually Adjudicated [It's a Process all Batches go Through] Election 2020 0
Mick West Debunked: "Missile Strike" caused Nashville Explosion General Discussion 3
Mick West Debunked: Nashville Explosion was "Across the Street" from the RV General Discussion 0
Mick West Debunked: "Error rate of 68.5% Allowable is .0008%" [Neither is True] Election 2020 4
Mick West Debunked: Claim that the Electoral College Count On Jan 6 will Change the Election Election 2020 136
Rory Debunked: Einstein wrote "blind belief in authority is the greatest enemy of truth" Quotes Debunked 12
Mick West Debunked: Navid Keshavarz-Nia's Claims of "A Sudden Rise in Slope" as Election Fraud Evidence Election 2020 5
Mick West Debunked: Trump's Claim of "1,126,940 votes created out of thin air" in PA Election 2020 9
Mick West Debunked: Crowder's "Fraud Week" Title Graphic (and Why it Matters) Election 2020 1
JFDee Debunked: Democratic senators complained about 'vote switching' by Dominion voting machines in 2019 Election 2020 2
Mendel Debunked: The Democrats are trying to take away freedom of religion Election 2020 6
Related Articles


















































Related Articles

Top