How could WTC7 Possible have fallen like it did?

[Jazzy]

demonstrates that the line of least resistance is not straight down through a structure.

With FOUR columns, three feet high, made out of wood, loaded with a few pounds of steel.

How do ONE HUNDRED AND THIRTY-TWO steel columns 1,350 feet high with a tower top load of perhaps 100,000 tons compare, exactly?

It doesn't, and the distinction is in the slenderness of the columns. At the same scale as the model, the WTC tower columns would be less than ONE MILLIMETER SQUARE in cross-section. [...]

 

[Jazzy]

Whats amazing is that there were thermal hot spots under WTC 1, 2 and WTC 7.

Amazing to someone who is ignorant of the potential energy of the buildings, how it transforms to kinetic energy as it falls, and how steel's kinetic energy transfers elastically by steel-to-steel collision all the way to ground zero - through the wreckage pile.

Appreciate the above, and cease to be amazed. About that, at least.

This material you have read before. Politeness policy gets you off the hook.

 

[Heiwa]

The "faulty structural analysis" is all yours. Your failure springs from ignoring the consequences of fire.

If a structure is on fire on top, the bottom structure is evidently intact and not on fire. NIST suggests that the fire on top buckled some elements between the top on fire and the bottom not on fire and that the top on fire then dropped down and crushed the bottom not on fire.
It is like a candle. You put the candle on fire on top and POUFF, POUFF the candle collapses. Happens every time you light a candle. Terrorists use the system all the time. Basic. Homeland security should stop the use of candles. And fire.

 

[Jazzy]

If a structure is on fire on top

The towers weren't on fire on top.

 

[jomper]

With FOUR columns, three feet high, made out of wood, loaded with a few pounds of steel.

How do ONE HUNDRED AND THIRTY-TWO steel columns 1,350 feet high with a tower top load of perhaps 100,000 tons compare, exactly?

It doesn't, and the distinction is in the slenderness of the columns. At the same scale as the model, the WTC tower columns would be less than ONE MILLIMETER SQUARE in cross-section. [...]

You were the one who seemed to think that video proved your point. That model didn't even have central columns.

 

[mynym]

The "faulty structural analysis" is all yours. Your failure springs from ignoring the consequences of fire.

Before the tower fires took hold, a huge thermobaric blast stripped the foam insulation from inside the affected floors, exposing the floor truss steelwork on the underside of the floors, and ripping off the wallboard cladding on the columns.

Has the One World Trade Center been engineered so that it will not collapse if a plane hits it? Or is that still a possibility? Because apparently if it did happen to collapse then another building like WTC 7 might fall down at free fall speeds due to office fires again too. There again, architects engineered the Two Towers with the impact of a plane and therefore huge "thermobaric blasts" in mind as well as WTC 7 with office fires in mind in the first place, didn't they?

But apparently that didn't do any good, from your perspective. So do you think that they or you can engineer a way in which buildings won't collapse like that again? And if you do claim to have engineered it in such a way this time then will people be liable in the future, given that we now know that planes can be flown into buildings?

I thought that it was all already engineered not to do basically everything that it actually did do in the first place. So do you think that people will get it right this time, with the One World Trade Center? The ancients used to kill architects that built buildings that collapsed on people, as I recall. That's accountability for you. But now we just shift some paper ponzi and "federal reserve notes" owned by bankers around and call it all even, apparently. Not only that, apparently we promote the people in charge of defense when they're failures and probably hire the same architects of disasters again and so forth. Promotions, all around? Maybe people are looking at it another way, a controlled failure or a controlled demolition can be very profitable and given the rally around the flag effect among lemmings one can basically bungle their way into more power and control. That's the idea behind these proposals:
Dick Cheney's false flag attack idea to start the war with Iran

The only problem with the geopolitical perspective of our oligarchs is when you're the peasant that's actually in the building or on the submarine or in "the base" of their political parties, etc. Then you might want a real investigation into why a submarine was sent to the wrong place by their bungling clowns in the military industrial complex or why they couldn't get planes in the sky or why they supposedly didn't know that buildings might fall down if planes hit them, etc.

 

[Mick West]

WTC 7 had inbuilt redunancy for the entire structure. If one support fails, the others pick the load up.

How much would have to be removed for the structure to fail, in your opinion? How many columns? 2? 3?

And how do you know about the redundancy in WTC7? Where did you find it out?

 

[Josh Heuer]

The NIST report is simply detail on a hypothesis. You can go with the same hypothesis yourself, with a little physics.

Is the hypothesis at all plausible to you? Even a little bit?

It's plausible, but I'm too st-st-stupid really to decipher which side of these arguments is making a critical error. This topic isn't very cut and dry.

 

[Heiwa]

And how do you know about the redundancy in WTC7? Where did you find it out?

Read my analysis at http://heiwaco.tripod.com/nist7.htm where I describe the redundancy. Have you ever designed a structure and calculated the axial, bending and shear stresses in an element? It is quite easy, actually. NIST's attempts to describe the WTC1/2/7 structures are criminal.

 

[Mick West]

I presume you've read this rebuttal?
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4503873&postcount=1942

You know it's kind of difficult to even take you seriously if you don't think planes even hit the WTC. Perhaps there's someone less eccentric who shares your views, and has checked your numbers?

 

[Boston]

I think we can safely conclude that a plane hit each of the two towers, without sufficient energy to bring down the buildings, they stood nice and straight for quite some time after impact. What we can't conclude is that fire brought down BLD 7 and we cannot conclude that any of the three failures were due to damage or fire, given the characteristics of their collapse

 

[Heiwa]

I presume you've read this rebuttal?
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4503873&postcount=1942

Of course - nobody at randi managed to win my Challenge so I was kicked out of that stupid forum.

I hope we agree that flying small planes into weak tops of towers/structures will not affect the intact much stronger bottoms of the hit in the top towers/structures (and therefore nobody will ever win my Challenge).

You know, cutting off the top of a tree will not cause the tree top to destroy the tree below.

 

[Mick West]

Of course - nobody at randi managed to win my Challenge so I was kicked out of that stupid forum.

I hope we agree that flying small planes into weak tops of towers/structures will not affect the intact bottoms of the hit in the top towers/structures (and therefore nobody will ever win my Challenge).

Not with you as the Judge. I don't see any more point in you participating here either. You have raised your claim, but your past history shows you are not open to reason. I'll let others champion your redundancy theory, as it will make them do the math.

 

[Mick West]

I think we can safely conclude that a plane hit each of the two towers, without sufficient energy to bring down the buildings, they stood nice and straight for quite some time after impact. What we can't conclude is that fire brought down BLD 7 and we cannot conclude that any of the three failures were due to damage or fire, given the characteristics of their collapse

The question is more can we concluded if it is impossible that fire would have brought them down? And if it's not impossible, then is there a more plausible alternative hypothesis (and "something else" is not really an alternative).

 

[Boston]

I presume you've read this rebuttal?
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4503873&postcount=1942

You know it's kind of difficult to even take you seriously if you don't think planes even hit the WTC. Perhaps there's someone less eccentric who shares your views, and has checked your numbers?

Interesting rebuttal, however I think the author is assuming perfect symmetry in the collapse with each successive impact, rather than account for variables in the descent, which should have resulted in a continuation of the horizontal acceleration seen in the collapse of the south towers upper section. Which is a point he seems to most studiously avoid. I also notice a lot of assumptions within the text, for instance, he's assuming that most of the exterior columns of the towers were thrown clear of the descending block, but there since there is no map of the fall pattern, and no analysis of the pieces that fell, there can be no reasonable assumptions of just where the pieces fell, other than perhaps through a complete photo survey of the site, which if there is, we are apparently not privy to. He also assumes something he calls progressive collapse, even stating with some authority that something or other in necessary in "any" progressive collapse. Yet he fails to mention that "no" progressive collapse of any steel framed structure has ever occurred due to fire, or any other reason that I've ever heard of in the 100 year history of steel framed buildings. Why ? Because steel bends, it doesn't shatter and the connections are typically stronger than the bending moment of the beam or column. IE the steel should bend first dissipating energy long before it simply snaps off at the connections.

 

[Boston]

The question is more can we concluded if it is impossible that fire would have brought them down? And if it's not impossible, then is there a more plausible alternative hypothesis (and "something else" is not really an alternative).

There are many instances in life where I may not be able to describe what did happen, but I can sure bet what didn't. Simply because we don't know something, doesn't mean we can't know something else.

I'd amend your question to read more like; can we conclude if it is possible that fire would have caused the global collapse perfectly synonymous with controlled demolition" and I'd personally conclude, no, it can't.

 

[Mick West]

There are many instances in life where I may not be able to describe what did happen, but I can sure bet what didn't. Simply because we don't know something, doesn't mean we can't know something else.

I'd amend your question to read more like; can we conclude if it is possible that fire would have caused the global collapse perfectly synonymous with controlled demolition" and I'd personally conclude, no, it can't.

I'd personally conclude: your question is leading. Because it was not perfectly synonymous. There's the huge problem that it was essentially silent.

 

[qed]

your past history shows you are not open to reason.

be scientist

Are you open to reason?

Is there anything anyone could demonstrate that could change your mind on this issue?

 

[Mick West]

I'd amend your question to read more like; can we conclude if it is possible that fire would have caused the global collapse perfectly synonymous with controlled demolition" and I'd personally conclude, no, it can't.

And since "synonymous with controlled demolition" is a little open to interpretation, why not just say: "like we saw in the videos". As that's perfectly objective and descriptive.

 

[Boston]

I'd personally conclude: your question is leading. Because it was not perfectly synonymous. There's the huge problem that it was essentially silent.

Oh ? and how does if vary from the typical controlled demolition ? Also what about all the recordings of explosions that were presented earlier in the discussion ?

You might be interested in this rebuttal I found which goes over some of the stuff we've been discussing lately

http://www.google.com/url?q=http://...opwliQ&usg=AFQjCNEbi058zovpnvhMDJ40tvARGOVwUQ

 

[Boston]

And since "synonymous with controlled demolition" is a little open to interpretation, why not just say: "like we saw in the videos". As that's perfectly objective and descriptive.

Oh I don't know, I thought "perfectly synonymous with controlled demolition" had kinda a nice ring to it

 

[Mick West]

Oh ? and how does if vary from the typical controlled demolition ? Also what about all the recordings of explosions that were presented earlier in the discussion ?

See the video I just posted. With audio. Compare with WTC7 videos.

 

[Mick West]

You might be interested in this rebuttal I found which goes over some of the stuff we've been discussing lately

http://www.google.com/url?q=http://...opwliQ&usg=AFQjCNEbi058zovpnvhMDJ40tvARGOVwUQ

How is that a rebuttal? It's just a series on unsupported assertions and simplifications.

 

[qed]

Mick. You are proposing a theory and supporting it with argument. But that is only half of the scientific process. Do you have a null-hypothesis? That is, some propositions that if demonstrated true, would completely invalidate your theory. Without this, the debate will continue in circles forever. I am assuming you to be a seeker of truth rather than a politician.

 

[Mick West]

Mick. You are proposing a theory and supporting it with argument. But that is only half of the scientific process. Do you have a null-hypothesis? That is, some propositions that if demonstrated true, would completely invalidate your theory. Without this, the debate will continue in circles forever. I am assuming you to be a seeker of truth rather than a politician.

Perhaps you could give an example of the type of thing you are looking for?

 

[Mick West]

I mean, my "theory" is that the NIST hypothesis does not sound implausible. So to falsify that, you'd have to find something in it that was implausible.

 

[Boston]

Sooooooo just out of curiosity, just how loud is thermite or nanothermite ? If nanothermite was used then we'd hear only columns and beams impacting as the collapse is initiated

http://www.google.com/url?q=http://...kuPa3g&usg=AFQjCNG39iGlmdLsT0ud0hGDRgh-7DLkVA

 

[qed]

I am an outsider on these conspiracy theories and have come here for a debunking of another issue so the examples I will try to make up are probably silly. But I will try to explain.

The NIST theory must sound plausible to you otherwise you would be insane. By the same token, it seems to me that Boston is also sane, so conversely he really thinks your plausibility argument is flawed.

Plausibility rests on probability. To combat this a proposer of a theory needs to give conditions that if where true would invalidate the position all the way to zero.


For example, if Boston could prove that there was evidence of explosives at the site, would you switch positions?

Or in the moon example, if someone could show a photograph of the lander on the moon, its game over for the conspiracy theorist.

 

[Mick West]

Sooooooo just out of curiosity, just how loud is thermite or nanothermite ? If nanothermite was used then we'd hear only columns and beams impacting as the collapse is initiated

http://www.google.com/url?q=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CIIF6P8zBG8&sa=U&ei=BeADUqTXAtGAygGP84HwCQ&ved=0CCYQtwIwAw&sig2=DVzySBI0jEKQ3Uh6kuPa3g&usg=AFQjCNG39iGlmdLsT0ud0hGDRgh-7DLkVA

Wait, is this still exactly synonymous with controlled demolition? Exactly like it, except using things that are not used in controlled demolition? Things that we don't even know if they exist, or what their properties are, or even if they make any noise?

 

[Mick West]

For example, if Boston could prove that there was evidence of explosives at the site, would you switch positions?

Of course. Anything that does not fit the NIST hypothesis would invalidate my assessment of its reasonableness. For example, if it could be shown that the interior column connections were moment resisting and not just seated, then that would totally change everything.

 

[qed]

Thanks.

Back to lurking. Nice site.

 

[Boston]

Wait, is this still exactly synonymous with controlled demolition? Exactly like it, except using things that are not used in controlled demolition? Things that we don't even know if they exist, or what their properties are, or even if they make any noise?

are you suggesting that thermite and nanothermite do not exist ?

http://www.google.com/url?q=http://...viq3Pg&usg=AFQjCNGsrfmEKnsaLd2Nfy7H5pjwKVawWA

http://www.google.com/url?q=http://...GDLhYQ&usg=AFQjCNGq8xXGEaCXF6qA7qdzmhNUj4GE4w

 

[Mick West]

Basic Thermite can't cut through steel beams in a reasonable time frame.
Thermate can cut flanges on small beams, but is rather unpredictable. It seems immensely unlikely that enough could cut a column without noticeable evidence. It's rather toxic though, and would have been easily detectable.
"Nano-thermite" is basically theoretical in this context, not seen in the wild. Magic dust. But there are obviously some forms of thermite that are a bit better than the home-made stuff.

To cut the columns silently you'd basically have to set up the equivalent of thousands of thermal lances in exactly the right position. Besides the problem of the vast amount of evidence this would leave, it would be impossible to synchronize in the way you suggest is needed. Plus installing and triggering are major problems. It just does not seem to fit the observations.

BUt the point is you are saying it's like controlled demolitions using explosives, but not actually using explosives.
So if you can posit fast burning material, why not slow burning material? The latter fits the beam evidence a lot better. (even though it was fairly quickly carted away, if thousands of messy beam cuts were made, it would be stunningly obvious in the debris pile).

 

[Boston]

You were saying

http://www.globalresearch.ca/active...the-9-11-world-trade-center-catastrophe/13049

Oh and yah, might be why they blew BLD 7 from the basement up rather than from the top down where they couldn't use the excuse of jet fuel, and then carted off all the debris as fast as they bloody well could so no one had time to examine the wreckage
http://www.globalresearch.ca/active...the-9-11-world-trade-center-catastrophe/13049

 

[Boston]

Mick, this is beginning to get embarrassingly obvious, you have no plausible explanation for any of the collapses of that day. Every gubment report can be clearly shown to be so significantly flawed its ludicrous to even think they have adequately investigated these events.

Right down to destruction of evidence and obstruction of justice

 

[Mick West]

Mick, this is beginning to get embarrassingly obvious, you have no plausible explanation for any of the collapses of that day. Every gubment report can be clearly shown to be so significantly flawed its ludicrous to even think they have adequately investigated these events.

Really? Could you point out the flaws in the NIST WTC7 report NCSTAR 1-9 (ignoring the simulation, just the other stuff). And be specific. Quote the most significant flaw.

 

[qed]

When NCSTAR 1-9 says "The upper section of Column 79 began to descend." what do they mean? I get the buckling, but what do you understand "descend" to mean? I am not arguing at all, just trying to see the picture. (I get it now, I think they mean the top is in a lower position because of the buckle).

 

[Mick West]

When NCSTAR 1-9 says "The upper section of Column 79 began to descend." what do they mean? I get the buckling, but what do you understand "descend" to mean? I am not arguing at all, just trying to see the picture.

It buckled closer to the bottom. The bottom part supported the upper part, so once the upper part had basically no support then it would descend. Essentially the same as if the buckled portion was removed.

Essentially:

 

[jomper]

Anything that does not fit the NIST hypothesis would invalidate my assessment of its reasonableness.

Do you think NIST made reasonable efforts to invalidate its own hypothesis? Does Occam's Razor cut out a serious consideration of the CD hypothesis for you?

 

[Mick West]

Do you think NIST made reasonable efforts to invalidate its own hypothesis? Does Occam's Razor cut out a serious consideration of the CD hypothesis for you?

Yes, read the report.

But the report has stood the test of time. Been studied worldwide, and no credible invalidation of it has be put forward by any academic body anywhere in the world. And the less credible attempts at refutation, like Gage and Griffith, fall apart when you start looking into them.