How could WTC7 Possible have fallen like it did?

Status
Not open for further replies.

MikeC

Closed Account
You are suggesting the NIST report is wrong - so it is up to you to show how.

It is not "gospel" - it is "just" the most comprehensive and rational explanation of the events. There is no reason why "just computer simulations" are inaccurate in and of themselves and repeatedly saying that as if it is significant just makes you look desperate.

what will sway people here is ACTUAL EVIDENCE or repeatable experiments/studies, logical analysis and conclusions that match the known premises, etc.

the NIST has those - nothing else does. Yet.
 
Last edited:

Boston

Active Member
how could it not?

You have a poor understanding of physics - once it is no longer supported it accelerates due to gravity - any time after "0" (zero) seconds it is accelerating.

If you drop something from your hand does it wait for some period before it starts falling?? :rolleyes:

well if there is absolutely nothing inhibiting its fall then it accelerates at 33' per sec^2. But anything less than that, is due to some introduced resistance. Remove all resistance other than atmosphere and the drag inherent to the shape of the object vs mass and you end up at what should be free fall. So I'm not sure why you think lateral support should initiate free fall speeds in the vertical direction. In order for that to occur, some section of the column itself would have to virtually disappear. And the believers in NIST have yet to point out how that could have possibly happened.
 

Alchemist

Banned
Banned
You are suggesting the NIST report is wrong - so it is up to you to show how.

It is not "gospel" - it is "just" the most comprehensive and rational explanation of the events. There is no reason why "just computer simulations" in and of themselves and repeatedly saying that as if it is significant just makes you look desperate.

what will sway people here is ACTUAL EVIDENCE or repeatable experiments/studies, logical analysis and conclusions that match the known premises, etc.

the NIST has those - nothing else does. Yet.
lol @ rational. It's an explanation provided by those who stood to profit from spinning it a certain way so your corporate masters could use it to continue profiting from endless wars.

The only way a building can fall to the ground at free fall acceleration is if all of the gravitational potential energy is converted to kinetic energy .. if just some of the gravitational potential energy is used to do other work, such as crushing steel, then there is no chance it will fall at free fall acceleration.
 
Last edited:

Boston

Active Member
How can that penthouse structure fall with its supports intact? It cannot. Yet it does. Ergo its support is dropping too.

no it can't but that doesn't mean other supports failed, it just means that the pent house had a failure, did it fall all the way to the basement, no idea, there is zero physical evidence, no investigative tool was employed that might have answered that question, and seemingly deliberately so, the evidence was carted off ASAP. Your arguing that something invisible happened. Kinda a hard argument to support if you ask me.


It isn't damaged at all. It also isn't stable at all, and buckles. Buckling involves an almost instantaneous shedding of its own weight load, which means an almost instantaneous downward acceleration of G.

You don't know that it buckled, you have no evidence of buckling, how exactly the building failed was not recorded from the evidence before that evidence was carted off, once again, your arguing that something invisible to us happened and "that must be it" Your also arguing that this mythical buckling somehow happened instantaniously within every single column of the exterior ( visible part ) of the building, unlikely in the extreme particularly due to asymmetrical damage or a progressive internal failure.


A 47 story rectilinear shell, with no internal bracing? Not like a cylindrical shell, with no internal bracing?

you don't know there was only a shell remaining, your don't know there was no internal bracing, we do know it was not a cylindrical shell, and again you don't know there was no internal bracing


The top of the slinky falls immediately, at a rate faster than G, as the tension within it adds to the acceleration..

a 47 story building is not a slinky


Sorry but nothing you've said is based on a single verifiable bit of evidence, its pure conjecture and some wildly implausible conjecture at that.
 

MikeC

Closed Account
lol @ rational. It's an explanation provided by those who stood to profit from spinning it a certain way so your corporate masters could use it to continue profiting from endless wars.

you keep saying stuff like this without providing anything in eth way of credible evidence - so I'm going with troll.

The only way a building can fall to the ground at free fall acceleration is if all of the gravitational potential energy is converted to kinetic energy .. if just some of the gravitational potential energy is used to do other work, such as crushing steel, then there is no chance it will fall at free fall acceleration.

The only part of the building that fell at "free fall" rate was the exterior once all the support had previously collapsed. This is well known by anyone who bothers to actually study what happened rathe than just believes the sensationalist hoax mongers.

thanks you for allowing me to categorise you and justify adding you to ignore.

Bye.
 

Boston

Active Member
If NIST's simulations are supposed to "accurately" reflect what happened to WTC 7, then why did it collapse vertically with it's roof line remaining essentially horizontal through the first 5 seconds of its downward motion, when NIST's simulations show the eastern side of the building starting to collapse 4 seconds before the western half?

Bingo

A point I've been trying to get across from the word go. They continuity in that roof line defines the symmetrical nature of the failure of every vertical column involved. It is a virtual impossibility for that symmetry to exist without there being some controlling factor. IE a controlled demolition, particularly when its supposed to be due to some asymmetrical influence
 

Boston

Active Member
The only part of the building that fell at "free fall" rate was the exterior once all the support had previously collapsed.

t
Bye.

You don't know that, you only have the photographic evidence which does not show any evidence of an internal collapse. What we have is a number of films that show the penthouse collapse in a highly asymmetrical fashion, somewhere behind the parapet wall. Then we see a kink develop, followed immediately by all four corners letting go at once and the building accelerates at free fall speed for most of its descent to the ground. Any claims beyond that are pure conjecture and have no place within a factual based conversation
 

MikeC

Closed Account
You don't know that, you only have the photographic evidence which does not show any evidence of an internal collapse.

And what else can the claims of "fee fall" be about if not what was visible??

Are you suggesting that somehow someone knows that the internal columns, which were not seen, fell at free fall??

Throughout this discussion the point has been made that the exterior fell when the internal support was removed.
 

Jazzy

Closed Account
this was an over-engineered, highly secure building
No, actually. It had been "reworked" for various reasons. None of these rewordings appeared to have been properly reintegrated into the structure. At a quick glance, admittedly.

Such buildings are adequately engineered. The Empire State Building could be described as "over-engineered".

well if there is absolutely nothing inhibiting its fall then it accelerates at 33' per sec^2. But anything less than that, is due to some introduced resistance. Remove all resistance other than atmosphere and the drag inherent to the shape of the object vs mass and you end up at what should be free fall. So I'm not sure why you think lateral support should initiate free fall speeds in the vertical direction. In order for that to occur, some section of the column itself would have to virtually disappear. And the believers in NIST have yet to point out how that could have possibly happened.
The above shows you don't understand vertical column buckling collapse at all. Mick's simple video demo makes the essential point. Enter the emboldened text into a search engine (or WIKI) and see what you find.
When a vertical column buckles it immediately sheds its load, and very little energy is required to continue buckling down the column, so in essence its load falls freely.

no it can't but that doesn't mean other supports failed, it just means that the penthouse had a failure
If the penthouse had a failure it would end up as a pile of wreckage on the roof.

Your arguing that something invisible happened. Kinda a hard argument to support if you ask me.
Science and engineering were created to deal with invisible events. Your computer is full of them.

You don't know that it buckled, you have no evidence of buckling, how exactly the building failed was not recorded
Buckling is an event well-researched, recorded, and enumerated since 1745 AD. Instead of denying its existence, perhaps you should get your head round it.

Your also arguing that this mythical buckling somehow happened instantaneously within every single column of the exterior
Wind loadings were designed to be resisted by the exterior, which was specially-stiffened, not by internal cross-bracing, so when the interior disconnected the exterior stood alone. However it relied on the interior to provide stability against its own weight compressing it vertically downwards, and buckled as a plane surface will. What happens when you stand a sheet of paper on its edge?

unlikely in the extreme particularly due to asymmetrical damage or a progressive internal failure.
The interior played no part in the fascia collapse, except maybe to push it outwards as a pile of collapsing floors toppled.

you don't know there was only a shell remaining, your don't know there was no internal bracing, we do know it was not a cylindrical shell, and again you don't know there was no internal bracing
You can see the interior disappearing through the fascia windows before the fascia falls. The penthouse couldn't have fallen first without its supporting columns buckling. Technically it was a trapezoidal prismatic shell.

a 47 story building is not a slinky
That was someone else's interjection. Even so, they both possess mass and are both accelerated by the force of gravity once released.

You don't know that, you only have the photographic evidence which does not show any evidence of an internal collapse.
I think the fact that the exterior lies on top of the interior is CLEAR evidence of an internal collapse.

Any claims beyond that are pure conjecture and have no place within a factual based conversation
That is itself a conjecture based on your ignorance of vertical column buckling collapse. Are you going to maintain this?
 
Last edited:

Alchemist

Banned
Banned
Here is a hypothesis from a physicist who isn't affiliated with any government agency that profits from upholding the official story... and who analyzes ACTUAL data rather than controlled computer simulations.

... And when he was offered money which would be provided by Homeland Security if he was to change his hypothesis to "fire" being the causative agent of the collapse, he had the decency to turn it down.

 
Last edited:

Jazzy

Closed Account
Here is a hypothesis from a physicist who isn't affiliated with any government agency that profits from upholding the official story... and who analyzes ACTUAL data rather than controlled computer simulations.... And when he was offered money which would be provided by Homeland Security if he was to change his hypothesis to "fire", he had the decency to turn it down.
Dash it. I clicked on it before I read "Stephen Jones". I did the same with Judy Wood and Andrew Johnson. Will I never learn?
 

Alchemist

Banned
Banned
A government agency which has vested interest in upholding the official story which has been used to murder millions of innocent people gets a free pass while an unaffiliated physicist who's been smeared because he's willing to follow the data instead of collecting money gets immediately dismissed? :(

Watch just the last 20 minutes or so... He analyzes real data (dust collected from the collapse) rather than hypothetical computer simulations (bunk). NIST's conclusions are not based on any physical evidence.

Do you realize the sacrifice he made by putting his life, reputation and career on the line for the sake of helping us find the truth?
 
Last edited:

Boston

Active Member
And what else can the claims of "fee fall" be about if not what was visible??

Are you suggesting that somehow someone knows that the internal columns, which were not seen, fell at free fall??

Throughout this discussion the point has been made that the exterior fell when the internal support was removed.

Nope, not even close, you completely misunderstood what I said
 

Soulfly

Banned
Banned
That was someone else's interjection. Even so, they both possess mass and are both accelerated by the force of gravity once released.
The slinky video was not meant to represent an argument for or against this topic. It was only to illustrate that, when dropped like this the whole thing doesn't immediately begin to fall, only the part the person is holding on to.

Mostly it was just me being a smart ass!
 

Josh Heuer

Active Member
Wind loadings were designed to be resisted by the exterior, which was specially-stiffened, not by internal cross-bracing, so when the interior disconnected the exterior stood alone. However it relied on the interior to provide stability against its own weight compressing it vertically downwards, and buckled as a plane surface will. What happens when you stand a sheet of paper on its edge?

It falls over...it doesn't collapse straight downward. What are you getting at using a sheet of paper as an analogy?
 

Boston

Active Member
Actually they are slightly off in there explanation that all the columns had to be blown at once, its actually a symmetrical series of explosions designed to draw the building in onto itself, which is exactly what we see in the BLD 7 demolition.
 

Alchemist

Banned
Banned
Yeah BLD 7 has that classic kink in the middle in order to have it collapse into itself... but in order for it fall free-fall for the first 100 feet as it did in perfect horizontal alignment, wouldn't all the vertical columns need to fail simultaneously?
 
Last edited:

MikeC

Closed Account
Actually they are slightly off in there explanation that all the columns had to be blown at once, its actually a symmetrical series of explosions designed to draw the building in onto itself, which is exactly what we see in the BLD 7 demolition.

Except for the lack of any actual explosions of course......
 

Boston

Active Member
Yeah BLD 7 has that classic kink in the middle in order to have it collapse into itself... but in order for it fall free-fall for the first 100 feet as it did in perfect horizontal alignment, wouldn't all the vertical columns need to fail simultaneously?

No, in order to develop the proper fall pattern for any building to collapse exactly into its own footprint the buildings main components need to be removed in a very specific order. One thing these guys failed to argue ( mostly because they are so dead set on not admitting its a controlled demolition ) is that in order to drop a building into its footprint, in a typical demolition, the interior is cut first, which does two things, first it allows the exterior to coral the fall of the internal structure and also it controls the random movement of those pieces as they interact in a very hard to predict manor with one another, second it allows the exterior somewhere to go rather than just slide off the rubble pile as it develops. The exterior is "pulled" inward by the weight of some number of horizontal beams left connected ( for just such purpose ) to the exterior columns. That first 100' or so of free fall merely represents the initial amount of building blown in an effort to finish the reaction. The corners did all go at once, which is the smoking gun IMHO but all the columns in between had to be cut at exactly the proper time to maintain the outer walls continuity enough to keep it all going in the same direction, at the same speed, thus we see the roof line, after the kind is developed, dropping at the same speed for that 100"

The continuity you see in the roof line is there, but it begins at a point a split second after the kink is established. Really this is an absolutely beautiful piece of symmetry in the collapse process. The guys who arranged this really did do a spectacular job. Pulled off three near perfect drops in one day, two of which were entirely unique, being from the top down vs bottom up like most. Didn't fool to many people for to long, but still, they really did pull of an amazing feat of engineering
 

Boston

Active Member
Everything about it screams controlled demo. The side by side comparisons with other demolitions is most telling, even the rate of acceleration and percentage of time in free fall is similar. The more you look at it, the more obvious it becomes.

Then when you see just how laughably unlikely the gubment explanation ( which took the better part of a decade to dream up ) is. It just makes you wonder, who in the world where they expecting to believe that load of crap. Fires ? Right, and I've got some nice land in the Everglades going cheap, but you have to act fast.

I think my favorite part is when they try and foist off some wildly inaccurate temp analysis on us when any fool can see within the photographic evidence that much much higher temps existed within the rubble pile.
 
Last edited:

Heiwa

New Member
Thanks for linking to me above. Having designed and built 100's of steel structures during 40 years and then inspected and maintained them, I have seen a lot. Once a big, heavy object C (a loaded crane say 50 tons) dropped down on my structure A (an offshore platform - weight 10 000 tons) below and BANG C made a big indent in the top of A ... and then bounced off into the sea. No progressive global collapse of A took place. Many people are worried that structures can collapse from top down (or by removing one element in the structure) so I was happy when I was invited to speak about it (that it is nothing to worry about) at the Engineering Mechanics Institute conference today, 7 August, at Evanston, IL, USA. http://heiwaco.tripod.com/emi2013.htm . For some reasons EMI withdrew the invitation last week so I could stay home instead and read this forum. My Challenge is still on - prove me wrong and earn € 1 000 000:-
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Thanks for linking to me above. Having designed and built 100's of steel structures during 40 years and then inspected and maintained them, I have seen a lot. Once a big, heavy object C (a loaded crane say 50 tons) dropped down on my structure A (an offshore platform - weight 10 000 tons) below and BANG C made a big indent in the top of A ... and then bounced off into the sea. No progressive global collapse of A took place. Many people are worried that structures can collapse from top down (or by removing one element in the structure) so I was happy when I was invited to speak about it (that it is nothing to worry about) at the Engineering Mechanics Institute conference today, 7 August, at Evanston, IL, USA. http://heiwaco.tripod.com/emi2013.htm . For some reasons EMI withdrew the invitation last week so I could stay home instead and read this forum. My Challenge is still on - prove me wrong and earn € 1 000 000:-

First prove that you have the € 1,000,000, and describe the legal framework for the escrow and independent judging.
 

Boston

Active Member
There's been a lot of rewards offered to anyone who can substantiate the gubment claims. None have been collected as far as I know as the gubment story is just so wildly implausible it simply belies any rational defense.

http://rense.com/general59/mega.htm

This offer included ten runner ups of 1k each to college students who could find any substantial evidence to support the official view.

One of my faves is watching people try and explain what prevented the top of the south tower from continuing its asymmetrical failure which should have resulted in a partial collapse. The top was obviously moving to the side, when somehow, even after all that energy was removed from the structure below, the structure below somehow lost integrity. Makes no sense at all, unless you consider controlled demolition.
 

Heiwa

New Member
You have to take my word for it ... or ask my bank. French law applies and the legal courts are at Nice (TGI), Aix en Provence (Appeal) and Paris (Supreme). So describe any structure A (elements, connections, material, stresses) that you think can collapse progressively from top down, then remove the top C and drop C on A and video film the collapse.
It is evidently impossible that I just tried to explain to EMI/ASCE today, but instead of allowing me to explain it, they kicked me out. I wonder why the American Society of Civil Engineers does not allow some good news.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
You have to take my word for it ... or ask my bank. French law applies and the legal courts are at Nice (TGI), Aix en Provence (Appeal) and Paris (Supreme). So describe any structure A (elements, connections, material, stresses) that you think can collapse progressively from top down, then remove the top C and drop C on A and video film the collapse.
It is evidently impossible that I just tried to explain to EMI/ASCE today, but instead of allowing me to explain it, they kicked me out. I wonder why the American Society of Civil Engineers does not allow some good news.

You word is not good enough. I'd need some documents.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
There's been a lot of rewards offered to anyone who can substantiate the gubment claims. None have been collected as far as I know as the gubment story is just so wildly implausible it simply belies any rational defense.

http://rense.com/general59/mega.htm

This offer included ten runner ups of 1k each to college students who could find any substantial evidence to support the official view.

One of my faves is watching people try and explain what prevented the top of the south tower from continuing its asymmetrical failure which should have resulted in a partial collapse. The top was obviously moving to the side, when somehow, even after all that energy was removed from the structure below, the structure below somehow lost integrity. Makes no sense at all, unless you consider controlled demolition.

The problems with the challenges is that they are set up so they are essentially "you have to convince a truther". They are not independently judged. Nor are the criteria sufficiently well defined.

Oh, and the structure below lost integrity because there was a bloody big block of building falling on it.
 

Boston

Active Member
Heiwa I think Micks got a point, the prize must be set up in some rational legal manor in order to have much validity to the claim, similar to the prize I linked to.

Mick I'm not so sure independent review isn't part of the game, the problem is that from your point of view, controlled demolition is out, so any consideration would upset your criteria of review. If you consider controlled demolition. particularly since three independent investigations found suspicious residue and iron micro-spheres which could have only formed in extremely high temps of the suggested accelerate, then you come to the inescapable conclusion that controlled demolition was the most likely event possible.

Oh and the asymetrical nature of the collapse of the upper section of the south tower should have continued asymmetrically, so the question becomes what force, halted its lateral acceleration ?
 

Heiwa

New Member
Well, I am pretty rich and honest (that's why I am rich) - just ask my bank and tax man, so the prize money is not a problem. And the French legal system is quite good, if anybody wants to claim the money. The Challenge has been on since many years. ASCE/NIST/National Stasi Agency (NSA), etc, have been given the opportunity to show how structures collapse POUFF, POUFF from top down by gravity as done by the 911 terrorists BUT ... cannot do it. I am really disappointed. Imagine UBL in a cave in Afghanistan doing the calculations below his turbane and behind his beard (maybe using a PC?) - two airplanes fool US defences and hit the weak tops C of two tall structures A at NY and POUFF, POUFF the weak tops C crash down on the strong bottoms A that POUFF, POUFF ... become dust and two little heaps of debris. At the end the little heaps crush up weak tops C from below and nothing is left except the two roofs on the top of the structures.
NIST/ASCE have produced GUIDELINES how to design structures so that it, i.e. POUFF, POUFF cannot happen. So it is easy to win the Challenge - do just the opposite as described in the GUIDELINES and your structure will POUFF, POUFF. Come on.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
There was no lateral acceleration. Gravity does not work sideway.

Microspheres are a natural consequence of impact, fire and collapse. They were expected in the dust.

All these things have been discussed before. I wish there was a better way of just finding and pointing to prior explanations.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Well, I am pretty rich and honest (that's why I am rich) - just ask my bank and tax man, so the prize money is not a problem. And the French legal system is quite good, if anybody wants to claim the money. The Challenge has been on since many years. ASCE/NIST/National Stasi Agency (NSA), etc, have been given the opportunity to show how structures collapse POUFF, POUFF from top down by gravity as done by the 911 terrorists BUT ... cannot do it. I am really disappointed. Imagine UBL in a cave in Afghanistan doing the calculations below his turbane and behind his beard (maybe using a PC?) - two airplanes fool US defences and hit the weak tops C of two tall structures A at NY and POUFF, POUFF the weak tops C crash down on the strong bottoms A that POUFF, POUFF ... become dust and two little heaps of debris. At the end the little heaps crush up weak tops C from below and nothing is left except the two roofs on the top of the structures.
NIST/ASCE have produced GUIDELINES how to design structures so that it, i.e. POUFF, POUFF cannot happen. So it is easy to win the Challenge - do just the opposite as described in the GUIDELINES and your structure will POUFF, POUFF. Come on.

But again, your word is not enough. How will the money be escrowed? How will the judges' independence be determined?
 

Heiwa

New Member
My word is quite good. And I am the judge. So just show how UBL did it! He must have done some calculations and checkings before. His daddy was in the construction business. Maybe somebody there tipped him off?
 

Boston

Active Member
The simple solution is to just let me hold the money cause as everyone here knows I'm a very honest guy ;-) I'll find some impartial judges and soon as I think we have a winner at which point I'll be happy to hand over the prize money ;-)

Oh and Mick

There was no lateral acceleration. Gravity does not work sideway.

Microspheres are a natural consequence of impact, fire and collapse. They were expected in the dust.

All these things have been discussed before. I wish there was a better way of just finding and pointing to prior explanations.

Got a link ? but in short if there was no lateral acceleration how did the top of the south tower tilt in the first place ? It did after all have to move from a stationary position didn't it ? Microspheres only are created in high heat environments, very high heat environments, kinda like white/yellow glowing steel ;-)
 

jomper

Inactive Member
Mick West said:
Oh, and the structure below lost integrity because there was a bloody big block of building falling on it.
Which quite miraculously didn't lose any integrity itself in the process of crushing a bloody enormous tower beneath it, until it reached the ground whereupon it crushed itself "up"?
 

dirk

New Member
A question i ask myself: did this ever happened before? Has there been in history a collapse of a steel frame building by fire?
And if not: isn't that an arguement to feed the rumors?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top