How could WTC7 Possible have fallen like it did?

[Jazzy]

What that video demonstrates is that a weight placed on top of inadequate support will invariably twist off in an asymetrical manor and not, fall directly into the footprint of the structure bringing virtually every single bit of the structure along with it. Next

It demonstrates that columns perfectly capable of handling a load handle it no longer when their intermediate (non-load-bearing) restraint is removed.

Politeness policy limits me, but I'll give it a try. I think you should re-examine your powers of perception and analysis.

That was a very slapdash response, showing few signs of attention or care.

 

[Jazzy]

In the first NIST simulation there is clear distortion of the left hand side of the structure prior to the complete collapse of the penthouse, followed by a radical distortion in the right hand side corner closest to the viewer. Not even remotely what is seen in the photographic evidence. In the second NIST simulation there is a completely different fall pattern to the exterior walls than in the photographic evidence. Neither simulation runs more than a second or two into the actual collapse sequence and neither run through to completion, very suspicious as we can clearly see a major deviations from the photographic evidence even only one second in, let alone at completion. The NIST simulations not just completely, but embarrassingly fail to represent the photographic evidence. Period. Any failure to acknowledge that is tantamount to denial Denial is the refuge of a failed argument

How funny. Are you saying the actual collapse video sequence doesn't show any sign of the same distortion, and remains symmetrical?

 

[muttkat]

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?

What temperatures are sufficient to cause such a sudden free-fall collapse?

The damage as you can see was to the SIDE... why didn't it tilt to the side where the damage was and rather have the CLASSIC 'controlled demolition' quirk in the MIDDLE (when they blow out the core columns)?

In an office fire it's IMPOSSIBLE for enough heat to be generated to MELT STEEL... so how do you explain the molten steel that was found?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beijing_Television_Cultural_Center_fire

and what are they going to do with this building?


The initial images of the blaze suggested that the tower might be nearly destroyed. However Rem Koolhaas said that "they are simply rebuilding it as it was, because there was no structural damage."

The complex's main building, the doughnut-shaped structure, was not damaged. The building, which was originally scheduled to open in 2009, did not see any progress towards opening or being visibly repaired by the end of that year. It is currently being repaired,[29] and is still slated to open.



Wtc 7 had some piddly ass fires and fell straight down.

 

[xenon]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beijing_Television_Cultural_Center_fire

Wtc 7 had some piddly ass fires and fell straight down.

Amazing video. Great post! I've seen pictures of that building but the video tells a million words.
Puts it into perspective very well.

 

[Jazzy]

Wtc 7 had some piddly ass fires

Involving sixteen floors.

and fell straight down.

Seven hours later.

Was this building constructed exactly the same, using long-span beams and wall-board-insulated steelwork?

 

[muttkat]

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?

What temperatures are sufficient to cause such a sudden free-fall collapse?

The damage as you can see was to the SIDE... why didn't it tilt to the side where the damage was and rather have the CLASSIC 'controlled demolition' quirk in the MIDDLE (when they blow out the core columns)?

In an office fire it's IMPOSSIBLE for enough heat to be generated to MELT STEEL... so how do you explain the molten steel that was found?

This demolition kinda reminds me of the WTC, explosion at the bottom, the top tilts a little bit and then almost falls straight down.

 

[Boston]

You keep saying this, but it's pure nonsense. The simulations were only ever intended to be somewhat accurate up until collapse initiation. Ah so they were intended to be inaccurate, now I get it Because their purpose was to find out WHY the building collapsed. So the reason why the building collapsed is inaccurate ? I'd be tempted to agree with that you know.

Given the vast number of uncertainties as to the initial state (with impact damage Minor impact damage ? ), and the actual spread of the fires, Which had mostly burned out by the time the building failed the results of the simulation are remarkably accurate. All the significant features up until the collapse of the exteriors are represented very well. So what your saying is that the parts of the collapse that were invisible to the observer, are quite accurate ? I guess my question then would be, by what basis can you judge how accurate they might be if there is zero supporting evidence for there being any accuracy at all. But then you go on to say that the visible parts of the collapse, the fall of the exterior, are represented well, when its more than obvious that the models don't represent them at all, instead they stop just as the collapse of the exterior walls is initiated. So that they very specifically do not represent that failure.

If you disagree, then point out exactly where it differers, and we can compare in more detail.

I have done exactly that and you have responded by insisting that it does agree. Why is that ? Could it be because your model shows nothing verifiable and what little it does show that might correspond to the photographic evidence, doesn't. Either model, for the paltry few seconds they show any reaction in the exterior shows that reaction inaccurately, with deformations clearly not evident in the photographic evidence.

The does so, does not, argument simply isn't a viable argument. I've pointed out specifics and I've yet to hear a response, other than, "its good enough". It isn't, not only because its pure conjecture but because its inaccurate conjecture at that due to what we can see of the results.

 

[Boston]

It demonstrates that columns perfectly capable of handling a load handle it no longer when their intermediate (non-load-bearing) restraint is removed.

Politeness policy limits me, but I'll give it a try. I think you should re-examine your powers of perception and analysis.

That was a very slapdash response, showing few signs of attention or care.

While I appreciate your restraint I'd point out that my assessment of the reaction we see in that demonstration does in fact show that the supporting structure would rather bow out from under the load, shedding that load in an asymmetrical manor due to even the most minor variations in the supporting structure, than collapse straight down. Amplifying the inherently asymmetric nature of even simple systems is exactly what the demonstration shows.

Simply because you don't like the conclusion, makes it no less viable.

Your model failed completely to show any similarity with the events of 9/11 yet quite effectively showed that structures do not fail in symmetrical fashion. If you want a structure to fail symmetrically, you have to control the failure. IE controlled demolition.

 

[Boston]

Yup.. explained perfectly here. Helped me better understand why some people think the way they do.

Oh that was a blast from the past, The first person up in that video lived very close to me in Boulder and we have several mutual friends.

Great view of the problem. I'm shocked and amazed that two people can see the same evidence and yet see completely different things. My take has always been that some kinda mental block is in place in order to facilitate this selective vision. I think its a bit to grim a realization for some folks to admit that their emotional safety net might just have some whopping huge holes in it.

 

[Boston]

Involving sixteen floors.


Seven hours later.

Was this building constructed exactly the same, using long-span beams and wall-board-insulated steelwork?

Look up work hardening

What you'll find is that a steel column when heated under load and then cooled ( the fires in BLD 7 had mostly burned out and the building would have been cooling by the time of the collapse ) strengthens.

Its one of the more interesting characteristics of steel that tends to get very little play in these conversations

 

[Mick West]

Of the four significant features that can actually be seen in the video evidence, are any of them counterindicative of CD? Or are they all also consistent with the CD hypothesis, like the collapse of the penthouse?

One could use "Controlled demolition" to simulate the effects of the fire, sure. You could use explosives, or some kind of thermal lance type thing to cut and weaken connections in just the right order. However there is no evidence this was done. And it was certainly not doe with conventional demolition charges, as it was too quite.

BUt yet again, the point here is that the NIST hypothesis is plausible. It's also by far the simplest hypothesis in the Occam sense. Requiring nothing at all in addition to what was observed. Debris impacts, fires, time, collapse.

 

[Boston]

One could use "Controlled demolition" to simulate the effects of the fire, sure. But you can't use fire to simulate the effects of controlled demolition You could use explosives, or some kind of thermal lance type thing to cut and weaken connections in just the right order. To simulate the effects of controlled demolition. However there is no evidence this was done. There is mountains of evidence which all leads to this being exactly what was done. And it was certainly not doe with conventional demolition charges, as it was too quite. I'd be tempted to agree with that, with the following caveat, that since unreacted thermite is found in multiple samples it seems reasonable to investigate the use of thermite or thermite like substances as a likely source of the failure of WTC 7 see http://www.globalresearch.ca/active...the-9-11-world-trade-center-catastrophe/13049

BUt yet again, the point here is that the NIST hypothesis is plausible. NIST hypothesis is holey dependent on supposition and in no way attempted to recreate accurately the failure of BLD 7 exterior, which is the only verifiable bit of its accuracy, for a reason. It's also by far the simplest hypothesis in the Occam sense. Occams razor demands that we look at all the possibilities doesn't it, in which case the least likely scenario is the most likely to be negated by Occams principle. Requiring nothing at all in addition to what was observed. Debris impacts, Minimal fires, Minimal time, building had plenty of time to cool off after the fires had burned themselves out collapse. Pretty sure you meant symmetrical collapse exactly synonymous with a controlled demolition, including a substantial amount of free fall time.

I have absolutely no idea how you can place any faith in the NIST line of reasoning. Its complete lack of respect for the scientific process is legendary at this point.

 

[Mick West]

I have absolutely no idea how you can place any faith in the NIST line of reasoning. Its complete lack of respect for the scientific process is legendary at this point.

That's entirely besides the point. The point is that the hypothesis matches observations. It does not matter who made the hypothesis. It just matters if it matches or not.

 

[dirk]

i repeat my post: does someone know if a steel structure building has ever collapsed by fires, anywhere in the world. I m quite convinced it never happened before...

 

[Mick West]

i repeat my post: does someone know if a steel structure building has ever collapsed by fires, anywhere in the world. I m quite convinced it never happened before...

Small structures have, and parts of larger structures. But nothing on the scale of WTC7. It was a fairly unique event.

Which does not mean it was controlled demolition, just that it was a unique event.

 

[Alchemist]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beijing_Television_Cultural_Center_fire

and what are they going to do with this building?


The initial images of the blaze suggested that the tower might be nearly destroyed. However Rem Koolhaas said that "they are simply rebuilding it as it was, because there was no structural damage." (DESPITE FIRES x100 MORE SEVERE THAN WTC 7's WHICH WAS MUCH MORE STRUCTURALLY SOUND AND OVERENGINEERED)

The complex's main building, the doughnut-shaped structure, was not damaged. The building, which was originally scheduled to open in 2009, did not see any progress towards opening or being visibly repaired by the end of that year. It is currently being repaired,[29] and is still slated to open.



Wtc 7 had some piddly ass fires and fell straight down.

</thread>

 

[Jazzy]

While I appreciate your restraint I'd point out that my assessment of the reaction we see in that demonstration does in fact show that the supporting structure would rather bow out from under the load, shedding that load in an asymmetrical manor due to even the most minor variations in the supporting structure, than collapse straight down. Amplifying the inherently asymmetric nature of even simple systems is exactly what the demonstration shows.

"It demonstrates that columns perfectly capable of handling a load handle it no longer when their intermediate (non-load-bearing) restraint is removed."

That is the point, and it is quite succinct and unequivocal. You don't even appear to acknowledge it. It is the fundamental point, relevant to all three collapses, and you will not begin to face it. Until you do I have no interest in pissing into this wind.

Simply because you don't like the conclusion, makes it no less viable.

It isn't viable at all. Never select engineering for a profession, or criticize the work of engineers, because you steadfastly refuse to accept their work. Your "conclusion" is valueless.

 

[Mick West]

</thread>

Unless they were actually different types of buildings.

Which they were.
<thread>

 

[Boston]

That's entirely besides the point. The point is that the hypothesis matches observations. It does not matter who made the hypothesis. It just matters if it matches or not.

Well if the point is that the NIST hypothesis doesn't match the observations, their simulation isn't even close. But it does very conveniently leave off right about two seconds into the visual evidence, which clearly it does not simulate at all. Then that is exactly the point. They have abandoned the scientific method which requires any hypothesis to undergo scrutiny and should it fail that scrutiny then it end up in the trash heap. This hypothesis of there's is entirely devoid of any merit within the photographic evidence and specifically ignores much of the data.

 

[SR1419]

i repeat my post: does someone know if a steel structure building has ever collapsed by fires, anywhere in the world. I m quite convinced it never happened before...

Does that negate the possibility of it happening in the future?

 

[Jazzy]

Look up work hardening. What you'll find is that a steel column when heated under load and then cooled (the fires in BLD 7 had mostly burned out and the building would have been cooling by the time of the collapse) strengthens.

They wouldn't have cooled. In fact they would have softened.

The steelwork was insulated, remember? So the time it took for it to heat up would be at least doubled for it to cool down.

The difference is in the draught of the flames. It's there "on the way up" (fires are busy), but not there "on the way down", you know, embers, wisps of smoke.

It's becoming obvious that "truth" is to be found wherever it is that you're not pointing. At least until you get past second grade science.

Steel has to be quenched WELL above its transition point (475 deg C) to be hardened in such a manner. By "quenching" I mean cooled down in seconds, normally done by plunging in or spraying with water. Sometimes done by plunging into an oil bath.

You are person to whom science is some sort of semantic exercise. Please do not pretend you know something about it.

Your behavior is very insulting to anyone who has spent decades becoming familiar with this subject, especially when you continue to make, er, mis-statements. Please moderate it somehow.

Replacing your assertions with questions might be the way to begin.

 

[Boston]

Small structures have, and parts of larger structures. But nothing on the scale of WTC7. It was a fairly unique event.

Which does not mean it was controlled demolition, just that it was a unique event.

fairly unique ? or totally and completely unique if and only if you exclude controlled demolition ?

That Occams Razor thing again

 

[Boston]

Does that negate the possibility of it happening in the future?

Its a matter of probability, you'd have to find the likelihood that a 47 story building suffering minor asymmetrical damage and minor asymmetrical office furniture fires would fall in the exact same way as a symmetrical controlled demolition. The odds, are so wildly astronomical, its amazing.

Course then you'd have to explain how they knew the building was going to collapse prior to its collapse and why unreacted thermite was found in the wreckage.

 

[Mick West]

Its a matter of probability, you'd have to find the likelihood that a 47 story building suffering minor asymmetrical damage and minor asymmetrical office furniture fires would fall in the exact same way as a symmetrical controlled demolition. The odds, are so wildly astronomical, its amazing.

Course then you'd have to explain how they knew the building was going to collapse prior to its collapse and why unreacted thermite was found in the wreckage.

Really?

I'm constantly bamboozled as to why people just bring up the same things over and over again, even though they have been debunked. I think this is an indication that the extended thread discussions don't work. So I'm going to take my own advice and bow out of this one, and go write something more useful.

 

[Boston]

They wouldn't have cooled.

The steelwork was insulated, remember? So the time it took for them to heat up would be at least doubled for them to cool down.

The difference is in the draught of the flames. It's there "on the way up" (fires are busy), but not there "on the way down", you know, embers, wisps of smoke.

It's becoming obvious that "truth" is to be found wherever it is that you're not pointing. At least until you get past second grade science.

Oh there's something obvious all right, but its not to be found in your condescending tone thats for sure. The hard reality is you've zero defense of the "fires did it" hypothesis and so you descend into petty and thinly veiled insults so typical of a failed argument. If this is really the best you can do, I'm not sure you have anything beneficial to offer the conversation

Face it, we may not know what did bring down WTC7 but you can bet fires couldn't have. Partial asymmetrical collapse maybe, but global symmetrical collapse exactly synonymous with a controlled demolition, ? No way.

 

[Boston]

Really?

I'm constantly bamboozled as to why people just bring up the same things over and over again, even though they have been debunked. I think this is an indication that the extended thread discussions don't work. So I'm going to take my own advice and bow out of this one, and go write something more useful.

Oh and you've debunked this, OK so what are the odds ?

 

[Mick West]

I don't mean to seem condescending, I'm just a little frustrate by the endless treadmill of the same arguments coming up again and again, especially as each one has been quite effectively explained years ago in various places. I like discussing it, but there's only so many times you can answer the same question (or explain why a question is leading).

It's page 7 of an obscure thread. Any exposition I do here will be seen by approximately ten people over the next year. But if I go and write a detailed article on an aspect, then it has a potential to be seen by thousands. So I'm going to do that instead.

Sorry about that.

 

[Boston]

You weren't Mick, actually you seem the tower of civility. But there "may" be someone else who's discussion has descended into something less than constructive.

I'm sure you believe you've debunked some of this stuff before, but from my perspective, I don't see it that way. The one that does really intrigue me is the NIST simulations and how anyone can look at it and even remotely find congruity between it, and the photographic evidence.

I'm actually surprised no one dragged NIST through the court system over what an amazingly poor job of it they did.

 

[jomper]

Any exposition I do here will be seen by approximately ten people over the next year.

I contribute to your forum here Mick only in the very faint hope that it will somehow be archived for posterity and endure. I will be happy if only a tiny minority of future generations note that not everyone in the early 21st century accepted the 9/11 nonsense you defend.

 

[Mick West]

Which is kind of amusing, as many truthers seem to think the simulation results are too accurate, and so they must have fudged the numbers to get them to come out like that.

 

[Mick West]

I contribute to your forum here Mick only in the very faint hope that it will somehow be archived for posterity and endure. I will be happy if only a tiny minority of future generations note that not everyone in the early 21st century accepted the 9/11 nonsense you defend.

I think the Truther movement has already found its place in history. No need to worry about that.

 

[jomper]

I think the Truther movement has already found its place in history. No need to worry about that.

There is no chance that the historians of the future will view the NIST WTC 7 report as a credible scientific document.

 

[Mick West]

There is no chance that the historians of the future will view the NIST WTC 7 report as a credible scientific document.

Let's see.

 

[jomper]

Let's see.

Indeed: it is merely a matter of seeing.

 

[Mick West]

Waiting and seeing. Wait 50 years, then check.

 

[dirk]

In fact we should thank Mick for creating a platform like this, no matter what you believe. Respect! Keep on thinking. You helped me with the Kennedy quote..

 

[jomper]

Waiting and seeing. Wait 50 years, then check.

Exactly. The presence of the events will then be dead, and that is the nature of history.

In 50 years' time, though, people will be able to build physically accurate computer models of structures like the Twin Towers for fun, and the collapses of 9/11 will be proven irreproducible.

Maybe I should change my name to Nostradamus ;-)

 

[Mick West]

I don't think you'll have to wait 50 years for the "fun" simulations. I'm surprised there are not more now. I'd put good money on the simulations of the future showing NIST was pretty much correct. What with physics, and all.

 

[jomper]

I don't think you'll have to wait 50 years for the "fun" simulations. I'm surprised there are not more now. I'd put good money on the simulations of the future showing NIST was pretty much correct. What with physics, and all.

People have already put good money on the opposite case in this very thread.

 

[Mick West]

I'd take that action.