Debunked: AE911Truth's WTC7 Explosive Demolition Hypothesis

Status
Not open for further replies.
I wrote an article a few years ago on the limits of computer simulations, and how you can't ever simulate things exactly - just model the type of thing that might happen.
http://cowboyprogramming.com/2007/01/05/shattering-reality/

Of course the problem with the above wall of text is that it's hard to explain to non-technical people, like:

roughly O(N(N-1)/2) over single-regime models

Means that the since every element needs to potentially interact with every other element, then for any given type of interaction there are N*(N-1)/2 potential interactions (or just proportional to N^2 for simplicity). But even that's still gobbledygook to most people.
 
and the computer simulation lol
Content from External Source


As explained above, the computer simulations cannot be perfectly accurate, they are just models giving you a range of things that could happen. The collapse fits in that range - it's irrelevant that it does not match exactly.

Consider a break in pool. No matter how carefully you measure the initial positions of the balls, it's impossible to duplicate what happens with a computer simulation. However you can get a very good idea of the the type of thing that might happen, and you could answer questions like "is it possible to pot three balls off the break"
 
So basically the only evidence that the building collapsed due to fire is based on computer simulations which are never accurate anyway.
Perhaps the evidence was that it was observed to be alight, on fire, in an incendiary state, for seven hours? Just guessing, of course...

I have nothing else to say that isn't covered by "[…]", and so I'll say it...

[…]

.
 
Last edited:
So basically the only evidence that the building collapsed due to fire is based on computer simulations which are never accurate anyway.
You just established that you do not understand what an FEA is for.

In the case of WTC7, you have a structure that did not have permanent identifiers on the structural steel elements.
That would make positive identification of the original location of steel from the rubble not possible.
Much of the rubble underwent heating in the rubble fires.
That would make it impossible to determine the heating effect on samples caused by the fires during which the building was still standing.

OTOH we do have the recorded observable collapse sequence.
This definitely indicates that col 79 failed low down in the structure, followed by a progressive east to west failure along the line of the core of the building.

The FEA predicts that a progression to east - west core failure is consistent following a column 79 failure and that a failure of the core would lead to global collapse.

To further check on the validity of this sequence NIST also ran the FEA as a fully whole structure, without the south side structural damage. Again the simulation predicted that ba column 79 failure would progress through and east west core failure to global collapse. The major difference between starting with or without south side damage is the amount of twisting the structure would undergo at the global collapse phase.

The only thing that recovery and identification of steel could do for the above investigation, is confirm that column 79 failed and that specific of the collapse sequence is quite well bolstered by the observations of the collapse. Having physical evidence of a column 79 failure would not aid investigators in determining what progressed from that failure and in fact having a great deal more of the steel would not be able to illustrate what sequence they failed in any better than, ( if it could do so at all) than the FEA.

This also demonstrates that there is most certainly no requirement to invoke unobserved explosive demolitions of a large number of columns.

Secondary to all of that is the cause of column 79 failure. To that end one looks for an input that would drive such an event, and the only observable mechanism for that is fires in the building, specifically those occurring in the vicinity of column 79.

Research determined that heating of column 79 could not directly lead to column 79 failure. For instance it was not enough to cause column creep under axial load. It was enough however, to cause horizontal members to expand and deliver lateral forces and indeed calculations show that the girder between column 79 and 44 would be moved very close to being fully past its seat on column 79. A failure would see this girder fall and cause floor failure over several levels along col 79, the very same column that had been established as having failed.
Interestingly the report shows that calculations of the expansion of the beam between column 79 and 76 would exert enough force to shift column 79 half an inch east. This shows that saying that expansion shoving the girder between 79/44 is not the whole story and that the small amount of difference between calculated lateral "walk" and the width of the seat would be easily accounted for by the complexity of the real life situation.

IMHO, AE911T would be much further ahead if they simply said that column 79 was demo's. Instead, they chose to disregard all research done into the collapse, all observed sequence before the final six seconds of collapse, and declare a comical fantasy demolition for which there is no evidence at all other than bald assertions and made up contentions about demolitions.
 
Last edited:
Hamish has been given a one month ban for repeatedly being unconstructive (argument from personal incredulity, "lol", etc.).
 
Your so-called "debunking" is not only shockingly amateurish, but shamefully disingenuous. It's patently obvious that your mission is to defend the official story, come hell or high water, and that ISN'T SCIENCE. Your approach shows no apprehension of scientific methodology or of the most basic principles of high-rise construction or even of demolition.

Anyone who is sincerely interested in learning the truth about the WTC collapse should actually go to the AE911truth.org website and look over the detailed evidence. It's all there for anyone to evaluate: unlike NIST, which still refuses to release their collapse model data for scientific review.

"September 11th: The New Pearl Harbor" is on youtube and on DVD. It features arguments by both AE911 members and debunkers who have their arguements MUCH MORE TOGETHER than "metabunk".

A brief sampling of the flawed arguments presented by metabunk:

1) The collapse DOES begin at the bottom, not at the top: the top comes straight down into it's footprint, at free-fall AFTER the base collapses. It physically CANNOT be otherwise. The top can't come down unless the bottom has given way first. (duh!) Also, the interior and exterior cannot move as separate parts, as claimed here. If that were true, we'd be seeing floor collapses all the time. The floor structure is locked together with the outer walls. Check your high-rise building codes.

Metabunk's claim is beyond ridiculous; they are playing on cognitive dissonance, catering to the perceptively challenged simply to defend the official story with no interest in providing scientifically provable information.

2) Symmetrical descent is observed in every single video of WTC 7's collapse. You are making a specious argument that
uneven damage AROUND WTC 7 is in any way indicative of how it collapsed in 6.5 seconds. To suggest that the building collapsed to the north AND south at the same time is a wild invention - something that no one, not even NIST ever claimed. Your photo of the surrounding buildings in the aftermath has no bearing at all on how WTC 7 actually came down.

3) It was 2 AE911 members who forced NIST to re-write their report on WTC 7 and to acknowledge free-fall, which had not been mentioned in the first edition of NIST's official report. They pointed out the fraudulent use of data, NIST did a little song and dance, then slunk away and re-wrote their official report, having been caught red-handed.

I will not respond to specious arguments. Your claims above are foolish and unprovable.
 
1) The collapse DOES begin at the bottom, not at the top: the top comes straight down into it's footprint, at free-fall AFTER the base collapses. It physically CANNOT be otherwise.

So why does the penthouse vanish and the building sag before the visible exterior collapses?
 
A response to #4:

"4. Free-Fall acceleration thru path of greatest resistance.
False. As long as the resistance provided by the building is less than load of the falling structure, then the path of least resistance is always straight down."

Oh... my ... gosh. Building codes REQUIRE a resistance factor of 3x to 5x the maximum load. That is plenty of resistance, so the path of LEAST RESISTANCE must be to the side; it cannot be not straight down.

Go back to school!!
 
REQUIRE a resistance factor of 3x to 5x the maximum load.

The static load, not dynamic load. A soda can will support a static load of 100 pounds, but if you drop 100 pounds of concrete on it, it will crush with no visible resistance. It will not push the concrete off to the side.
 
So why does the penthouse vanish and the building sag before the visible exterior collapses?


The center or core columns of the building are taken out by explosives first, so that the outer walls will cave into the center. This prevents debris from landing outside the perimeter walls. The penthouse, located in the center of the roof, is the first part to go down, revealing that the core has been removed. The outer walls follow by caving inward as they descend. Thank you for your question.
 
The center or core columns of the building are taken out by explosives first, so that the outer walls will cave into the center. This prevents debris from landing outside the perimeter walls. The penthouse, located in the center of the roof, is the first part to go down, revealing that the core has been removed. The outer walls follow by caving inward as they descend. Thank you for your question.

So it's consistent with the interior collapsing first, you just think the interior would not have collapsed without explosives?
 
The static load, not dynamic load. A soda can will support a static load of 100 pounds, but if you drop 100 pounds of concrete on it, it will crush with no visible resistance. It will not push the concrete off to the side.

There is no dynamic load involved with WTC 7: nothing landed on it to produce acceleration from above. The bottom structural support was blown out, the top followed.

I mean, maybe there WAS some "invisible jolly green giant" who just stepped on WTC 7, and we just couldn't see him. Is that what you are suggesting?
 
So it's consistent with the interior collapsing first, you just think the interior would not have collapsed without explosives?

The simultaneous failure of the core columns, possible only through explosive demolition, brought the entire structure down symmetrically at free-fall speed.
 
There is no dynamic load involved with WTC 7: nothing landed on it to produce acceleration from above. The bottom structural support was blown out, the top followed.

After the columns buckle, the structure above them starts to descend, so it becomes a dynamic load.

In this case "buckle" is functionally equivalent to "blown out". A buckled column offers essentially zero resistance. Like here - notice there is no dynamic load until the walls buckle:
 
The simultaneous failure of the core columns, possible only through explosive demolition, brought the entire structure down symmetrically at free-fall speed.

That would certainly do it, the problem is there's no evidence that it happened, and lots of evidence that the fire did it. Not to mention the lack of audible explosions on the tapes.
 
"September 11th: The New Pearl Harbor" is on youtube and on DVD. It features arguments by both AE911 members and debunkers who have their arguements MUCH MORE TOGETHER than "metabunk".

Sorry. The various and sundry claims made by the group "AE911" have been soundly dismissed for many years.

Please recall AE911 member Richard Gage's "demonstration" video:

 
After the columns buckle, the structure above them starts to descend, so it becomes a dynamic load.

In this case "buckle" is functionally equivalent to "blown out". A buckled column offers essentially zero resistance. Like here - notice there is no dynamic load until the walls buckle:

@Whoville
Notice also when buckling takes place there's always a dynamic lateral displacement. You can see it here.
Buckling never takes place without it, and the lateral displacement provokes further buckling.
When ever such a a structure approaches such a buckling state it closely approaches its destruction.
The initial buckling was at Floor 13, where the column involved was already supporting its part of the dead weight of 31 floors above it. When everything it supported began to move downwards, this "everything" wasn't going to be stopped easily. In fact, it wasn't going to be stopped at all.
The lateral forces dislocated the interior columns off their bridge truss and the center was gone.
The periphery remained while this happened, allowing some people to believe that the building was yet to fall.
It buckled because it had lost all its lateral support. And fell at near free fall.
 
Last edited:
If I understand correctly, NIST ran an FEA where an intact WTC 7 had columns 79, 80, and 81 (the ones supporting the East Penthouse) taken out by demolition charges. The building completely collapsed, but it looked somewhat different from the actual collapse. (It certainly would have sounded different!)

But as long as I'm here, let me ask our new member a question that no truther has ever answered: Given that the East Penthouse collapsed first, indicating a failure of its supporting columns 79,80, and 81, how did the conspiracy manage to surreptitiously plant demolition charges around them, given that these columns were right in the middle of rentable space/work area?
 
The simultaneous failure of the core columns, possible only through explosive demolition, brought the entire structure down symmetrically at free-fall speed.

Welcome to Metabunk, people are polite here and robust debate can be had....

What is your evidence of explosives being a factor, seeing as not a single speck of evidence of explosives has been recovered from the site?

What would you define as the onset of the collapse of WTC7?

What would you define as 'free-fall speed'?

What would you define as 'footprint'?

This last one is an opinion question, but why do you think that A&E does not have a single contributor that is a member of the Institute of Explosive Engineers?
 
A response to #4:

"4. Free-Fall acceleration thru path of greatest resistance.
False. As long as the resistance provided by the building is less than load of the falling structure, then the path of least resistance is always straight down."

Oh... my ... gosh. Building codes REQUIRE a resistance factor of 3x to 5x the maximum load. That is plenty of resistance, so the path of LEAST RESISTANCE must be to the side; it cannot be not straight down.

Go back to school!!
Static load, all structural members in place, everything at room temp.

If any vertical structural member buckles , it then has essentially zero load carrying capacity. Whatever load was on that member must then be transfered to others. Its that simple,, except,,, that would be the case if David Copperfield caused said member to suddenly vanish. In reality that is not the case and there will be a debris fall. That falling debris will impact other parts of the structure in a dynamic fashion.
A building is a system, a structured collection of parts and connections. The functioning of the building depends greatly on the continuance of the connections. Simplest example is the three legged stool that can easily support a 100 Kg man. Buckle one leg and despite to remaining two legs it will not support a 66 Kg person.
Steel does funky things at elevated temperatures. It expands for instance, and while it does so at about the same rate( expansion vs. Temp) as concrete, concrete does not heat up as fast (temp vs. time). Unlike concrete, steel becomes more plastic as it heats up. A vertical member under load will suffer creep deformation. Think of a couple of steel bars separated by a piece of frozen plasticine, forming a column. As the plasticine heats up it deforms under the weight of the steel. However its not likely to settle evenly, instead there will be a change in keeping the long axis aligned. In a hot steel column this can easily lead to buckling at the hot zone.
In a horizontal member the initial expansion will create a force along the long axis. That can cause things to move about. Get it hot enough though and the plasticity will then cause the beam to sag.
 
Last edited:
Not true. WTC 7 was all over the street, and did not fall in it's own footprint. Why repeat false information from 911 truth; it proves your source did not study WTC 7.
Keith was being generous. The western 2/3 of the building fell to the south and into the street. The eastern 1/3 twisted and fell to the NE impacting the Fitterman building hard.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/11/Fiterman_hall_damage.jpg
That structure was later torn down. Whatever hit WTC6 would not be particularly obvious since that ediface had already been structurally compromised in the extreme due to impacts from WTC1. In addition WTC6 is further from WTC7 than is the Fitterman building..
So, is the bugaboo more that the buildings to the short sides of WTC7 got off easy? With initial failure deep in the interior why would anyone be surprised that the collapse had debris not go east or west?
 
Last edited:
Hey Mick,

A friend of mine just posted this on Facebook. I have long since tried to ignore the 9/11 Truthers. However, I had not seen this video before. The fact of me ignoring them for years may be why. Anyways, I cannot find where it originated from. I also looked through to see if it has already been addressed and could not find that it has.

So here is the link to Facebook to the video.

">

https://www.facebook.com/jerry.koehler.9
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Not true. WTC 7 was all over the street, and did not fall in it's own footprint. Why repeat false information from 911 truth; it proves your source did not study WTC 7.
Actually, this photo makes it obvious that the other debris described in this thread by "debunkers" as being "north" or "south" came from other building damage.

All videos show WTC 7 dropping straight down, and this post-demolition photo shows clearly that WTC 7 was left in a neat pile, in the EXACT MANNER of a controlled demolition: http://rememberbuilding7.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/wtc-building-7-map_22.jpg
 
Static load, all structural members in place, everything at room temp.

If any vertical structural member buckles , it then has essentially zero load carrying capacity. Whatever load was on that member must then be transfered to others. Its that simple,, except,,, that would be the case if David Copperfield caused said member to suddenly vanish. In reality that is not the case and there will be a debris fall. That falling debris will impact other parts of the structure in a dynamic fashion.
A building is a system, a structured collection of parts and connections. The functioning of the building depends greatly on the continuance of the connections. Simplest example is the three legged stool that can easily support a 100 Kg man. Buckle one leg and despite to remaining two legs it will not support a 66 Kg person.
Steel does funky things at elevated temperatures. It expands for instance, and while it does so at about the same rate( expansion vs. Temp) as concrete, concrete does not heat up as fast (temp vs. time). Unlike concrete, steel becomes more plastic as it heats up. A vertical member under load will suffer creep deformation. Think of a couple of steel bars separated by a piece of frozen plasticine, forming a column. As the plasticine heats up it deforms under the weight of the steel. However its not likely to settle evenly, instead there will be a change in keeping the long axis aligned. In a hot steel column this can easily lead to buckling at the hot zone.
In a horizontal member the initial expansion will create a force along the long axis. That can cause things to move about. Get it hot enough though and the plasticity will then cause the beam to sag.

You're entire quote is pseudo-science jargon, chock-full of disinformation:
1) "If any vertical structural member buckles , it then has essentially zero load carrying capacity."
Softened steel beams still retain a minimum of 50% of their load-bearing capability.

I'm not wasting my time with the rest of this BS.
 
Actually, this photo makes it obvious that the other debris described in this thread by "debunkers" as being "north" or "south" came from other building damage.

All videos show WTC 7 dropping straight down, and this post-demolition photo shows clearly that WTC 7 was left in a neat pile, in the EXACT MANNER of a controlled demolition: http://rememberbuilding7.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/wtc-building-7-map_22.jpg

False. Debris from WTC 7 impacted Fiterman Hall, north of WTC 7. Do you have another explanation as to where it came from?

More WTC 7 wreckage and Fiterman Hall:

WTC 7 framing embedded in the Verizon Building:
 
You're entire quote is pseudo-science jargon, chock-full of disinformation:
1) "If any vertical structural member buckles , it then has essentially zero load carrying capacity."
Softened steel beams still retain a minimum of 50% of their load-bearing capability.
Buckling is not softening. Buckling means the weight is suddenly shifted to a point where it is not supported. The softening allows that to happen.
I'm not wasting my time with the rest of this BS.
Just as well.
 
and this post-demolition photo shows clearly that WTC 7 was left in a neat pile, in the EXACT MANNER of a controlled demolition

No, no it wasn't.

Further: This seems to be needing pointing out time and again...a controlled demolition, by the very definition, involves explosive charges be detonated (except for the verniage style). These make very loud noises (as can be observed and heard in any number of actual CD example videos).

Yet, no "explosions" were recorded when WTC 7 collapsed (nor, 1 & 2, for that matter)... :cool:
 
The center or core columns of the building are taken out by explosives first, so that the outer walls will cave into the center. This prevents debris from landing outside the perimeter walls.

Didn't do a very good job then did it? I'm not sure "prevents" means what you think it does given the significant damage to buildings around 7WTC.
 
False. Debris from WTC 7 impacted Fiterman Hall, north of WTC 7. Do you have another explanation as to where it came from?

More WTC 7 wreckage and Fiterman Hall:

WTC 7 framing embedded in the Verizon Building:
This photo also shows how WTC7 fell over (somewhat) not like one would image with a steel reinforced building, but it fell backward to the south east and you can see the damage it made across Barclay St on the white building in the back ground

I also remember reading that there are seismographs from that day that showed about 18 seconds of activity, proving parts of the building were hitting the ground well before we witnessed the north wall ollapse. NIST has the slow sinking of the penthouse at 8.2 seconds before the north wall collapse.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top