How could WTC7 Possible have fallen like it did?

Status
Not open for further replies.

Alchemist

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

How did a FEW pocket fires trigger this kind of free-fall structural collapse?
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
It's quite complicated.

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

Does that sound reasonable so far?
 

Mick West

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

Here's what I mean by buckling:
 

Alchemist

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

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Not when these steel beams are interconnected to a network of such inner vertical core columns with the fires burning at relatively mild temperatures and isolation in comparison to fires such as those in Madrid/Chechnya.
But I'm asking you were to remove a few of the connections, so there's say a 50+ foot length of the column with no lateral support. Could the column fail? I'm just asking if it's possible.
 

Alchemist

Banned
Banned
But I'm asking you were to remove a few of the connections, so there's say a 50+ foot length of the column with no lateral support. Could the column fail? I'm just asking if it's possible.
The conditions for that to occur are VERY unlikely given the mild and isolated fires.. but even if that DID occur .. a small local failure of just one element in a NET of interconnected steel would trigger a global failure only in a movie, not in real life. They're trying to insinuate that a tiny, single initiating event can VERY EASILY lead to progressive collapse. Yeah, right...

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

Alchemist

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

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

Landru

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

The conditions were IMPOSSIBLE (the fires were MILD and ISOLATED) for there to be ANY threat to the integrity of this web network of steel to cause a SINGLE column failure, let alone multiple failures.
Any proof the fires were mild. The NIST report and other evidence presented on this site prove otherwise.
 

Alchemist

Banned
Banned
Any proof the fires were mild. The NIST report and other evidence presented on this site prove otherwise.
NIST report claims that a collapse of a single unit within this web can trigger a progressive collapse which is COMPLETELY FALSE due to things like redundancy which ensures this never happens.

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

Alchemist

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

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
NIST report claims that a collapse of a single unit within this web can trigger a progressive collapse which is COMPLETELY FALSE due to things like redundancy which ensures this never happens.
So that seems to be the critical disagreement here. Is this something we could discuss?
 

MikeC

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

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

 
Last edited:

Pete Tar

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

Landru

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

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

Boston

Active Member
It's quite complicated.

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

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

Boston

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

Boston

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

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

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

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

Pete Tar

Senior Member.
...Building fell straight down is what I see without any obvious deviation of the wall structure......

Sagging in middle, right side falls out.

Sagging, left side falls in.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

MikeC

Closed Account
Does except you forgot the corrugated deck with about 3 inches of light weight concrete that was welded down to each and every beam, The expansion and contraction of that masonry sub-floor is about zilch,
I don't think you can weld concrete! :)

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

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

You've also got some serious uneven heating which would tend to dissipate only through individual members which were directly in contact with a heat source, so again a problem with the concept. In a nut shell, sure you can take one beam, heat it and measure just how far it expands. Off the top of my head, for steal I think its 1/8 per 8' every 100°F, so its far more likely that beam develop a bow, than snap off at the connection plate.
That depends where the stress is concentrated and which connections are weakest - the connections holding straight or the connections at the end.

Did NIST do any construction sample fire tests ? or did they just test using the single beam over a heat source method ?
IIRC they modeled it on computer - which is completely adequate since the actual behavior of such construction elements is pretty well known.

-source
 

Boston

Active Member

Sagging in middle, right side falls out.

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

Boston

Active Member
I don't think you can weld concrete! :) Obviously I menat the corrugated decking typical of high rise construction, its almost always welded down to the trusses which are in turn welded down to the beams to provide sheer strength to the floor of the structure.

However you are right - concrete wouldn't expand much - but the steel has to - it cannot be otherwise - so what gives? Well thats kinda the whole point, the concrete soaks up whopping huge amounts of heat bu doesn't deform, or at least nothing like the steel ( :oops: ) So in the end it would take some direct testing of this combination in conjunction with the corrugated material being welded to beams in order to determin exactly what "gives". Which as we all know, didn't happen. So its kinda hard to just take it on faith that the beams would dissociate from such a robust system and suddenly, all at once, spring there connections.

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

You don't know that, we may never know that even with direct testing of similar combination's because we don't have the proper data from the rubble pile to analyze.



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

It depends on a lot of stuff, so much so that without the proper data there is no really telling exactly how the building came down other than by the photographic evidence. Which to my eye represents a controlled demolition.



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

None of the models I've seen even remotely match the photographic evidence

And again, the computer analysis does not match what is seen in the photographic evidence.

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

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Anyway I don't think there's really enough data available, and seemingly deliberately so, to really say what exactly happened.
No there isn't. But what we have here are competing hypotheses. There's a vague "maybe some kind of secret silent explosive, somehow", and the "progressive collapse initiated by multiple connection failures due to thermal expansion".

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

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

Boston

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

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Oh I wouldn't cause something thats a virtual impossibility a plausible hypothesis, I'd call the gubments story a classic example of agnotology, rather than a viable competing hypothesis. Unlikely in the extreme to have occurred, but the motion of the building can be easily reproduced through the mechanisms of controlled demolition.
Really? How did they get the penthouse to collapse, and how did they do it all silently?

And how did you work out how unlikely it was?
 

Boston

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

And how did you work out how unlikely it was?
If a tree falls in the woods ?

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

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

Thats how I estimated the odds.
 

Alchemist

Banned
Banned
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Mick West

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

Alchemist

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


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

What energy is required to produce all these failures?
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Mick West

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

Might as well make some money if you're going to attempt to prove the impossible.
The biggest challenge in debunking 9/11 myths is that the physics is a bit complicated, and yet the believers think they understand it. There's several concepts that are difficult to convey, but the biggest two are:

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

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

Alchemist

Banned
Banned
I didn't scroll down or read, but you might as well take his challenge given he's that so mentally inept bases his ideas on nonsense.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Thread starter Related Articles Forum Replies Date
Oystein Final Report: Hulsey/AE911Truth's WTC7 Study 9/11 24
Joe Hill WTC7: Does This "Look Like" a Controlled Implosion? 9/11 45
Mick West TFTRH #25 - Jason Bermas: Producer of Loose Change, Shade, Invisible Empire Tales From the Rabbit Hole Podcast 1
Oystein Debunked: AE911T: CNBC Anchor Ron Insana claims Building 7 a Controlled Implosion 9/11 13
Mick West Sept 3, 2019 release of Hulsey's WTC7 draft report: Analysis 9/11 183
Pepijn van Erp WTC7: Determining the Accelerations involved - Methods and Accuracy 9/11 41
Mick West A wider perspective on the WTC7 collapse 9/11 2
Mick West Some New-ish WTC7 Photos (and video?) Corner Damage 9/11 6
Mick West Debunked: NIST's Lack of Explanation for WTC7 Freefall [They Have One - Column Buckling] 9/11 38
Jedo Debunked: WTC7 was the only building not on the WTC block that had a fire on 9/11 9/11 0
Mick West WTC7 South Side Photos 9/11 2
Mick West WTC7 Smoke Movement Before and After Penthouse Collapse 9/11 7
John85 How could the interior collapse in WTC7 Move West Without More Visible Exterior Damage 9/11 63
Mick West WTC7: Is AE911's (and NIST's) Focus on A2001 Justified if it Was Not "Key" in NIST's Global Model? 9/11 181
Mick West WTC7 Penthouse Falling Window Wave 9/11 65
Jeffrey Orling The Role of Diesel Fuel in WTC7 9/11 12
Mick West First Interstate Tower Fire - Comparison with WTC Towers and WTC7 9/11 5
Mick West Kai Kostack's WTC7 Collapse Simulation using BCB and Blender 9/11 10
Mick West Have You Actually READ the NIST Report on Building 7? 9/11 12
Mick West How Hot Could The WTC7 Fires Burned, and How Hot could the Steel be? 9/11 2
gerrycan Did NIST examine Steel from WTC7? 9/11 16
gerrycan Movement of Column 79 as Expressed in WTC7 UAF Presentation 9/11 13
Mick West Debunked: UAF Study Shows WTC7 Could Not Have Collapsed from Fire 9/11 43
Mick West Debunked: CIA Agent Confesses On Deathbed: ‘We Blew Up WTC7 On 9/11’ [HOAX] 9/11 12
Whitebeard Tehran Plasco Highrise Fire And Collapse - 9/11 WTC7, WTC1&2 Comparisons 9/11 84
Cube Radio What is this woman hearing as WTC7 collapses behind her 9/11 40
Mick West How Buckling Led to "Free Fall" acceleration for part of WTC7's Collapse. 9/11 127
benthamitemetric Other WTC7 Investigations: Aegis Insurance v. 7 World Trade Company Expert Reports 9/11 39
Oystein Debunked: "WTC7 Sound Evidence of Explosions" by Chandler/AE911T 9/11 31
Oystein AE911 Truth's WTC7 Evaluation Computer Modelling Project 9/11 1340
Cube Radio Sulfur at WTC7: how could it come from gypsum as the BBC claimed? 9/11 75
jaydeehess Why little to no analysis of steel from WTC7? 9/11 45
gerrycan AE911 Letter to Inspector General Claims NIST WTC7 Report is Provably False 9/11 161
Ron J WTC7 Firefighting 9/11 48
gerrycan WTC7 - Can YOU Spot The Difference? 9/11 52
Cairenn The plausibility of demolishing WTC7 with explosives on 9/11 9/11 429
Oxymoron How much of the Smoke Around WTC7 actually from WTC7? 9/11 20
Mick West What would a new WTC7 Collapse Investigation look like? 9/11 127
mynym WTC7 and other Buildings, the Significance of Sheer Studs 9/11 1
Representative Press WTC7 Fire Temperatures and effects on the East Floor System 9/11 58
Representative Press Significance of WTC7 9/11 36
ColtCabana FDNY Chief Daniel Nigro's statement on WTC7 9/11 135
gerrycan Critical Errors and Omissions in WTC7 Report Uncovered 9/11 841
Josh Heuer The Uniqueness of the WTC7 Collapse 9/11 528
Oxymoron WTC4 fire photo labeled as WTC7 on 911 memorial timeline site. 9/11 60
Mick West Debunked: WTC7 vs. Chechnya's Tallest Building Fire (Grozny-City Complex) 9/11 24
Mick West Does NIST not testing for explosives and not testing WTC7 steel invalidate everything 9/11 246
Mick West Debunked: AE911Truth's WTC7 Explosive Demolition Hypothesis 9/11 175
Tazmanian Debunked: 9/11 Melted cars near WTC7 9/11 79
Oxymoron WTC7: Did the fires burn long and hot enough? 9/11 340
Related Articles


















































Related Articles

Top