Paraody of AE911: Free-fall descent proves giant hole, not explosives used!

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Yes, discussing 7. Let's go one point at a time until we reach agreement, or clarify the disagreement.

I agree Verinage would not be used for WTC1,2 or 7. Let's leave it at that for now, as WTC7 did not resemble Verinage.


I would say, not only is there the need to no longer be able to support the building,... it has to happen pretty much instantaneously, across the board in order to preserve the symmetry and acceleration of the collapse event.

Within how many seconds of each other? And would your theory then be that this mean that all the columns were destroyed on every floor by thermite?
 

Oxymoron

Banned
Banned
Within how many seconds of each other?

I don't know... this is a theory not a plan lol, The whole event only lasted a few seconds but does that mean they would have to be pretty close together?

Not necessarily, there are many variables, such as how far to cut through the columns/beams or should it be "I told you to only blow the bloody bolts off". (The American Job). lol.

I don't know that is the technical side of it... to be left to the super secret, super nasty, demolition crew.

And would your theory then be that this mean that all the columns were destroyed on every floor by thermite?

I let the agents get on with it. Don't keep a dog and bark yourself etc...

Destroyed needs clarifying. If it means being cut or partially cut to weaken it or bolts blown off, then that's fine. then I would imagine, (but I could be wrong), that maybe every other floor would suffice but As I say, leave the technical details to my expert ninja baddies.

I would probably say something like 'Bring the S.O.B down as clean as you can but it certainly doesn't need to be pristine'.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
I don't know that is the technical side of it... to be left to the super secret, super nasty, demolition crew.

See here's the problem. You claim to understand the issues sufficiently to be able to state with 100% certainty that it was not a fire.

And yet you are not at all certain how it might be brought down with explosives. You don't know how many columns, or how quickly they would need to be set off, or how much of a bang, or how many floors, or what it would look like.

But you KNOW it was not a fire, because it seems like fire could not have done it. You say fire could not result in near-freefall, as there would be some resistance, but then you say maybe only blow the blots off, or just destroy half the floors. Would that also not leave some resistance, and hence not be free fall?

Trying to focus on the one point, what if the columns buckled between the 5th and 10th floors, starting to buckle within one second of each other? Wouldn't that produce the effect we saw?
 

mynym

Banned
Banned
the data for which, they will not release, even to accredited bodies which have a need to know. Not one piece of actual evidence.

Did they say that releasing it would jeopardize public safety?

Seems crazy, if so...
 

Oxymoron

Banned
Banned
See here's the problem. You claim to understand the issues sufficiently to be able to state with 100% certainty that it was not a fire. And yet you are not at all certain how it might be brought down with explosives.

Are you suggesting the only people who may hold valid opinions on the issues are demolition experts?

Are you suggesting because I am not a demolition expert and can not say how many grams of thermite I need to place at each particular point and exactly where and when they will have to be ignited to recreate the the near perfect symmetrical collapse of 7 into virtually it's own footprint, my opinion and my theory, (which is shared by millions), is worthless?

Can you tell me exactly on which columns you would set the thermite and what amount and how you would time them to go off...? So how do you get entitled to have an opinion?

'Ah' you say... 'but I agree with the official scientists and NIST and the Government and the 9/11 Commission... and they have proved it'.

Well no you don't actually because they haven't proved anything and they have changed their stories time and time again.

Then tell me where my logic is flawed here.

We agreed the fire did not 'melt' the steel so there was no reason for it to collapse from fire.

No other fire has ever collapsed a steel framed building.

Do you suggest the beams expanded and unseated from the columns, one after another after another each 20 mins or so as the fire ran out of fuel and moved on to the next?

If so why has this never happened before?

You say 'Oh these were special, these were slender long span beams, that's why it happened to them'.

Well if that is the case why did it not happen in 1975 when the fire burned fiercer and much longer and not one slender long span steel beam or truss had to be replaced and went on to serve well until 2001, withstanding in between a massive bomb blast and 47 other fires between the three buildings.

Not only was the steel undamaged, they did not unseat themselves, the concrete and steel floors did not give way...

See https://www.metabunk.org/posts/48463

So please explain why you feel this happened in 7 on 9/11?

Please explain how as the fire traveled round (allegedly for 7 hours), and unseated this beam and then that beam and then another beam, why did we not see partial collapses occuring, first this section, then that section and so forth.

No, even though 7 was evacuated by 10.00 am because it was expected to collapse, (even before fires are first seen), everyone is shocked when it finally collapses 7.5 hours later because it looks so undamaged apart from a few office fires

Trying to focus on the one point, what if the columns buckled between the 5th and 10th floors, starting to buckle within one second of each other? Wouldn't that produce the effect we saw?

Which columns all of them?

Why would they do such a thing?

Please explain your theory.

Now just to finish off:

If folks were to take their car in for roadworthyness test and it failed, say on some steering joint play, well the folks may be a bit upset if they had been renewed at that self same garage the year before and some folks may question why it needed changing again.

Well, the garage owner, he ups and tells these folks, 'I am an expert in these here matters, I been done changing these here steering joints for years and if en I tells ya'll they needs to be changed then they needs to be changed'.

Well most of these folks they say 'well he's the danged expert and well we don't know how to dooes it so guessing we best just keep our tongues and let the fella get on with it'.

But one of these folks, has a cousin and that cousin knows about fixing cars so he says, 'Well I'm taking my car over to see Billy Bob and see what he says

Well Billy Bob has a look and says 'well there is no wrong with that, it sure's hell doesn't need changing'.

So the guy goes back to the gas station and says, 'There is nothing wrong with the car, a different expert tells me so and showed me why there is nothing wrong with it. Look there is no play on the steering wheel.'

But the owner says, 'and and how would you go about replacing the parts'... and the guy says, ' I would take it to Billy Bob and let him do it ... if it needed doing ... which it doesn't.'

Did they say that releasing it would jeopardize public safety?

 
Last edited by a moderator:

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Are you suggesting the only people who may hold valid opinions on the issues are demolition experts?

Are you suggesting because I am not a demolition expert and can not say how many grams of thermite I need to place at each particular point and exactly where and when they will have to be ignited to recreate the the near perfect symmetrical collapse of 7 into virtually it's own footprint, my opinion and my theory, (which is shared by millions), is worthless?
No, not at all, quite the opposite.

What I'm saying is that if you can't really explain what would cause a building to collapse from explosive, then you can't really explain why it would not collapse from fire.

The issues are quite similar, there's columns, there are beams, there is lateral support, there is vertical support, there is weakening, and there is buckling.

Can you tell me exactly on which columns you would set the thermite and what amount and how you would time them to go off...? So how do you get entitled to have an opinion?

Well, I wouldn't use thermite for a start, as it's not going to do much. But if I were to use explosives, then knowing what I know now I'd cut column 79,80 and 81. That might not cause a full collapse without the additional weakening, so to be on the safe side I'd cut a bunch of other interior columns.

'Ah' you say... 'but I agree with the official scientists and NIST and the Government and the 9/11 Commission... and they have proved it'.

Well no you don't actually because they haven't proved anything and they have changed their stories time and time again.

Then tell me where my logic is flawed here.

I'm not saying they proved it. I'm saying I see nothing wrong with their hypothesis. It all seems to fit the observed events.

We agreed the fire did not 'melt' the steel so there was no reason for it to collapse from fire.
I agree it would not liquify it, but it would cause thermal expansion, bowing, and other damage. Eventually leading to collapse.

No other fire has ever collapsed a steel framed building.
Not on this scale no. But there have been many collapses of steel structures from fire. This was certainly quite unusual. But it was an unusual day.

Do you suggest the beams expanded and unseated from the columns, one after another after another each 20 mins or so as the fire ran out of fuel and moved on to the next?
No. I think the first floor collpased only seconds before the penthouse fell.

If so why has this never happened before?
Because these circumstances have never happened before.

You say 'Oh these were special, these were slender long span beams, that's why it happened to them'.
That's one reason yes, and probably the main one. But there are number of factors.

Well if that is the case why did it not happen in 1975 when the fire burned fiercer and much longer and not one slender long span steel beam or truss had to be replaced and went on to serve well until 2001, withstanding in between a massive bomb blast and 47 other fires between the three buildings.[

Not only was the steel undamaged, they did not unseat themselves, the concrete and steel floors did not give way...

See https://www.metabunk.org/posts/48463

So please explain why you feel this happened in 7 on 9/11?

The 1975 fire was in WTC1, not WTC7. On part of a single floor (with very minor fires from wires on other floors). It was also directly fought by firefighters.

Please explain how as the fire traveled round (allegedly for 7 hours), and unseated this beam and then that beam and then another beam, why did we not see partial collapses occuring, first this section, then that section and so forth.
No, unseating does not lead instantly to collapse as the beam is held in place by the concrete, plue there could be partial unseating, or distortions which simply weaken the beam. Eventaully though these things stacked up so that a floor collapsed, this led to other collapses, and eventually column 79, then the whole building.

No, even though 7 was evacuated by 10.00 am because it was expected to collapse, (even before fires are first seen), everyone is shocked when it finally collapses 7.5 hours later because it looks so undamaged apart from a few office fires
It was evacuated because there were planes flying into 110 story buildings which were collapsing. The South tower collapsed at 9:59. Of course they would evacuate WTC7 at that point.

The firefighters determined the building was going to collapse a lot later than that, quite close to the actual collapse time.

Which columns all of them?
Yes.

Why would they do such a thing?
Stress combined with loss of lateral support. The floor had all fallen on one site, huge stresses were being put on the columns, so once one failed it immediate removed the lateral support from the one next to it, and then that would fail. It's almost as if the skin was a solid sheet that was simply being bent.
 
Last edited:

lotek

Active Member
i know ive asked this before of someone else, but oxy, have you ever actually made and used a thermite composition? its not nearly the cool shit people talk it up to be.

it can be made(legally even) with almost anything. there are countless mixes with countless burn profiles. there are even amatuers who made obscure, new, and pointless ones just as a hobby.

i really urge you to make up a few compositions in small amounts and test them. ya need maybe $10 and 4 hours or $50 and 15min. a fine mesh, a large grain, couple types of metal, etc, then test them out on some scrap. few grams at a time will do. then come back and talk about it. i just feel it will help some how. i used to think it was the shit when i was a kid and had dreams of building the coveted "harddrive in a bag in thermite in sand in a box" 5 1/2" bay for my computer. after i got some real experience with the stuff my dreams changed considerably...

http://www.sciencemadness.org/talk/forumdisplay.php?fid=3
go nuts! and please, dont call it an explosive!
 

Oxymoron

Banned
Banned
No, not at all, quite the opposite.

What I'm saying is that if you can't really explain what would cause a building to collapse from explosive, then you can't really explain why it would not collapse from fire.

I think that is clear conflation on your part Mick. You could pick any number of demolitions as shown on yt and say, what amounts and what types of explosives were used here and which columns/beams were they attached to. You wouldn't know either.

The issues are quite similar, there's columns, there are beams, there is lateral support, there is vertical support, there is weakening, and there is buckling.
I don't agree, the issues appear quite different to me. On the one hand you have, how can a fire which has never before collapsed such a building, even after burning longer and fiercer by far, bring down 7 at all and not content with such a miracle, it brings it down in what appears near perfect duplication of a demolition with near free fall speed, juxtaposed against what appears as, (if isolated from all other events), a fairly routine/mundane demolition of the type carried out usually. Yes there are differences... mostly very 'quiet', with not very visible flashes and then there is the issue of how did someone fix the demolition charges.

None of these are insurmountable. Thermite covers the low noise, low flash. Seems far more realistic than a double miracle on 7 plus 2 more miracles on 1 & 2.

Well, I wouldn't use thermite for a start, as it's not going to do much. But if I were to use explosives, then knowing what I know now I'd cut column 79,80 and 81. That might not cause a full collapse without the additional weakening, so to be on the safe side I'd cut a bunch of other interior columns.
Thermite as you well know has shown itself capable of cutting huge sections of steel or simply blowing bolts with a very small amount, also it is quiet and cuts rather than explodes also 'you'/authorities can deny it can cut steel effectively after the event, refuse to analyse the site for evidence of it's use; if someone does an independent analysis 'you' can rubbish it by saying 'it's only rust'. It's a slam dunk... why ever would you not want to use it.

The only problems arise when 'some Loony', actually starts experimenting and shows the world on yt that 'yep, this is how easy it is'.



Wells as far as hindsight and column numbers... what do you think would actually happen if unlimted resources allowed us to recreate 7 and you cut columns 79, 80, and 81. Do you seriously think the recreated 7 would collapse straight down into it's own footprint?

I'm not saying they proved it. I'm saying I see nothing wrong with their hypothesis. It all seems to fit the observed events.
That's unsurprising. They worked backwards to ensure that would be the case. It took years to concoct and they refuse to show the data... to anyone!

I agree it would not liquify it, but it would cause thermal expansion, bowing, and other damage. Eventually leading to collapse.
I thought we dealt with this issue. See https://www.metabunk.org/posts/48480

Where I stated "Not withstanding that, the 'experts' have clearly stated that the collapse was due to melted steel. Now how melted it had to be is a different kettle of fish and I am sure no one would suggest that it had to be 'liquid' before the collapse could ensue.

So for reasonable discussion purposes re collapse, melted steel would be steel that had reached such a temperature that it bowed and lost it's structural integrity."

Now bearing this in mind, the fire of 1975 shows that a fiercer and longer fire does not cause the steel to be damaged let alone reach 'melting point' as defined above.

Not on this scale no. But there have been many collapses of steel structures from fire. This was certainly quite unusual. But it was an unusual day.
Yep but nothing over ten stories and even that is hard to find and there is some 'other factor'... sure was but can we just pass it off like that? I think not.

The 1975 fire was in WTC1, not WTC7. On part of a single floor (with very minor fires from wires on other floors). It was also directly fought by firefighters.

Really... But WTC1 had the infamous long span slenderbeam construction which all debunkers say, 'Nothing compares to because nothing which survived fires was built remotely similar it.... is all apples and bananas and all kinds of fruit salads'... well clearly that cannot be said here because the 75 wtc 1 fire is as close as it can get to wtc 7 fires, without it being an identical twin.

So you are going down the deny route then Mick or maybe you have been mislead by Cairenns' post on the subject? Very minor electrical fires? I think not. I posted this previously. Does it really sound like a minor electrical fire?

http://rigorousintuition.ca/board2/v...t=9197&p=90141

this was a very serious fire which spread over some 65 per cent of the eleventh floor (the core plus half the office area) in the very same building that supposedly "collapsed" on 9/11 due to a similar, or lesser, fire. This fire also spread to a number of other floors. And although it lasted over 3 hours, it caused no serious structural damage and trusses survived the fires without replacement and supported the building for many, many more years after the fires were put out.



It should be emphasized that the North Tower suffered no serious structural damage from this fire. In particular, no trusses needed to be replaced.

That the 1975 fire was more intense than the 9/11 fires is evident from the fact that it caused the 11th floor east side windows to break and flames could be seen pouring from these broken windows. This indicates a temperature greater than 700°C. In the 9/11 fires the windows were not broken by the heat (only by the aircraft impact) indicating a temperature below 700°C.
Content from External Source

No, unseating does not lead instantly to collapse as the beam is held in place by the concrete, plue there could be partial unseating, or distortions which simply weaken the beam. Eventaully though these things stacked up so that a floor collapsed, this led to other collapses, and eventually column 79, then the whole building.
Ok, but how more likely is that to happen by design than by double triple miracle. I mean we are not talking evolution here.

It was evacuated because there were planes flying into 110 story buildings which were collapsing. The South tower collapsed at 9:59. Of course they would evacuate WTC7 at that point.

7 was also the Command Centre (costing billions... bomb proofed, extra reinforced, own generators and filter systems the lot) and they moved just down the road a few blocks. Logical?

The firefighters determined the building was going to collapse a lot later than that, quite close to the actual collapse time.

There are reports that it was going to collapse from noon or even before.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
You've worn me down Oxy. Seems like whenever I try to focus, things just exploded in every direction.

Can you just pick one of those points? The most significant one?
 

Oxymoron

Banned
Banned
i know ive asked this before of someone else, but oxy, have you ever actually made and used a thermite composition? its not nearly the cool shit people talk it up to be.

it can be made(legally even) with almost anything. there are countless mixes with countless burn profiles. there are even amatuers who made obscure, new, and pointless ones just as a hobby.

i really urge you to make up a few compositions in small amounts and test them. ya need maybe $10 and 4 hours or $50 and 15min. a fine mesh, a large grain, couple types of metal, etc, then test them out on some scrap. few grams at a time will do. then come back and talk about it. i just feel it will help some how. i used to think it was the shit when i was a kid and had dreams of building the coveted "harddrive in a bag in thermite in sand in a box" 5 1/2" bay for my computer. after i got some real experience with the stuff my dreams changed considerably...

http://www.sciencemadness.org/talk/forumdisplay.php?fid=3
go nuts! and please, dont call it an explosive!

No, I have never messed around with thermite or explosives. I have cut steel though and been involved in demolishing a small number of buildings.

But let me take you on a fugue.

You are a crewman on the Starship Enterprise and it has come back in time to 9.11.2001. Now you are given a mission. You are beamed down into 7, in a firefroof suit and breathing gear. The only danger you are in is from collapse of the building.

You are told to use your laser pistol to cut through as many beams or columns as you need to bring about a collapse similar to what would be considered a typical demolition.

You have never read the NIST report so have no idea which columns are blamed for the collapse but you have a good idea of where the fire route was.

You need to go round with your laser and cut the beams aetc so that 7 will collapse as per we know it did.

Can you explain what you would do and how you would work it out. Remember, you don't have 20/20 hindsight on this... just the fire route and final collapse scenario, i.e. straight down at near free fall.

This is your mission if you choose to accept it. Good luck
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
But let me take you on a fugue.

You are a crewman on the Starship Enterprise and it has come back in time to 9.11.2001. Now you are given a mission. You are beamed down into 7, in a firefroof suit and breathing gear. The only danger you are in is from collapse of the building.

You are told to use your laser pistol to cut through as many beams or columns as you need to bring about a collapse similar to what would be considered a typical demolition.

You have never read the NIST report so have no idea which columns are blamed for the collapse but you have a good idea of where the fire route was.

You need to go round with your laser and cut the beams aetc so that 7 will collapse as per we know it did.

Can you explain what you would do and how you would work it out. Remember, you don't have 20/20 hindsight on this... just the fire route and final collapse scenario, i.e. straight down at near free fall.

This is your mission if you choose to accept it. Good luck

Could you just explain the point you are making?
 

Oxymoron

Banned
Banned
You've worn me down Oxy. Seems like whenever I try to focus, things just exploded in every direction.

Can you just pick one of those points? The most significant one?

Lol... sorry bout that but I only responded to your arguments.

I think the key issues for me, have to be:

Steel and concrete high rises never brought down by fire... Unprecedented.

Random fires and random damage = near as dammit perfect demolition.

1975 WTC 1 fire is worse than and longer than 7 fires and caused no damage to steel or concrete floors.

Thermite proven to cut through steel... makes more sense than random fires which cannot 'melt steel', (as prev defined)

If you want to concentrate on an issue... that's great but I cannot plan a demolition with you :)
 

Oxymoron

Banned
Banned
Could you just explain the point you are making?

The point being, disregarding fires etc, how hard is it for a lay person to cut through the right beams and columns at exactly the right amount, (even though it is easy because the laser beam does the work), to bring about a uniform collapse such as we witnessed.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Steel and concrete high rises never brought down by fire... Unprecedented.

But I'm a little bamboozled as to why this is even an argument. There are other tall buildings that were on fire and they did not fully collapse, yes. And those buildings had significant structural differences. The uniqueness of the event is well recognized and really that was the point of the NIST report, to find out what happened, so recommendations could be made for improvements to building codes.

Different circumstances lead to different results. Unique circumstances lead to unique results.

There were many many unprecedented events that happened on that day.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
The point being, disregarding fires etc, how hard is it for a lay person to cut through the right beams and columns at exactly the right amount, (even though it is easy because the laser beam does the work), to bring about a uniform collapse such as we witnessed.

Was the fire a lay person? Did it cut columns? No, it's entirely different kettle of fish. The fire weakened and displaced connections, and collapsed floors, leading to column buckling.

It was not perfectly uniform though, it was significantly asymmetric internally, and had quite a significant lean later in the fall of the exterior.

And the symmetry (of the exteriors) you refer to was not the result of the fire induced collapse alone, it was that plus the impact damage.

Handy diagram for scale:

 
Last edited:

Oxymoron

Banned
Banned
The uniqueness of the event is well recognized and really that was the point of the NIST report, to find out what happened, so recommendations could be made for improvements to building codes.

Well ok, let's stay with that issue for a bit.

How does that statement make any sense whatsoever when (I hate to say it but must), the data used by NIST is not made available even to the architects and engineers who are tasked with making the buildings safer.

It was a unique event but there are many similar buildings around the world and there have been no known retro fits as recommended.

In fact, the NIST recommendations have been largely ignored apart for some wider stairwells and better lighting etc... nothing of significance.

Did NIST say, 'The old methods of building are safer and we need to abandon the slenderbeam model?'

What is the deal here... are our buildings safe?

Is it, 'There was nothing wrong with the buildings we just need to stop terrorists flying planes into them and we are doing that by surveilling every citizens every move and phone call so there is no need to worry because there are less terrorists now because we went and killed them for you to make you safe'.

Where are we on this issue?
 

Oxymoron

Banned
Banned
Was the fire a lay person? Did it cut columns? No, it's entirely different kettle of fish. The fire weakened and displaced connections, and collapsed floors, leading to column buckling.

It was not perfectly uniform though, it was significantly asymmetric internally, and had quite a significant lean later in the fall of the exterior.

And the symmetry (of the exteriors) you refer to was not the result of the fire induced collapse alone, it was that plus the impact damage.

Handy diagram for scale:


It looks pretty uniform to me and millions of others... you even remarked on it yourself.

If some lay person with the state of the art laser gun and an 'intent', cannot make it collapse as uniformly, are we now into the realms of 'intelligent fire', or miracle upon miracle?

Where is the visible evidence of an internal collapse occurring? ... where are the broken windows, the steel ejecting, the facade crumbling, the dust puffs... there is nothing, except the penthouse collapsing like it was a shed up on the roof.

NIST states:
Quote:
continued axial expansion of the floor beams pushed the girder laterally, where it came to bear against the inside of the column flange. Axial compression then increased in the floor beams, and at a beam temperature of 436C, the northmost beam began to buckle laterally. Buckling of the other floor beams followed as shown in Figure 8-27(a), leading to collapse of the floor system, and rocking of the gurder off its seat on Column 79 as shown in Figure 8-27(b).

Now if this is what it takes to bring down a building, someone needs to be fired.







I see 79, 80 and 81 go right down to ground level and allegedly buckled on 13th floor.

Can you give a reason why we did not see ejecta coming through the facade whilst the alleged collapse of the interior was taking place. Not even one paltry piece of steel pushed through a window by the force of the collapse.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Well ok, let's stay with that issue for a bit.

How does that statement make any sense whatsoever when (I hate to say it but must), the data used by NIST is not made available even to the architects and engineers who are tasked with making the buildings safer.

It was a unique event but there are many similar buildings around the world and there have been no known retro fits as recommended.

In fact, the NIST recommendations have been largely ignored apart for some wider stairwells and better lighting etc... nothing of significance.

Did NIST say, 'The old methods of building are safer and we need to abandon the slenderbeam model?'

What is the deal here... are our buildings safe?

Is it, 'There was nothing wrong with the buildings we just need to stop terrorists flying planes into them and we are doing that by surveilling every citizens every move and phone call so there is no need to worry because there are less terrorists now because we went and killed them for you to make you safe'.

Where are we on this issue?

There have been updates to building codes, but it's largely not possible, or too expensive, to retrofit existing buildings.

For example, one of the recommendations was to use moment connections (fully plated, welded and bolted in all directions) rather than seated connections (beam just sat on a plate with some bolts holding it to the plate. You can't just retrofit a building with that in a cost effective manner. At the least it would require taking the building out of service for several months, and in many cases it would be so difficult that it would be cheaper to build a new building.

So there's still a possibility that if a similar building undergoes an extended fire, then it will collapse in the same manner. But since this is a small risk, such fires are rare, sprinkler systems generally work, and there would be plenty of time to evacuate everyone, and if the fire got that bad the building would probably need demolishing anyway, so you are just looking at environmental and collateral damage issues.

But to incorporate moment connections (more accurately, using a moment frame) into new construction is about 1/1000th of the cost of retrofitting an existing building with moment connections, so we can do that.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Where is the visible evidence of an internal collapse occurring? ... where are the broken windows, the steel ejecting, the facade crumbling, the dust puffs... there is nothing, except the penthouse collapsing like it was a shed up on the roof.

Steel is very unlikely to be ejected from an internal collapse.

The timeline of visible evidence is:



That evidence:




And one second later:

 
Last edited:

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
NIST states:
Quote:
continued axial expansion of the floor beams pushed the girder laterally, where it came to bear against the inside of the column flange. Axial compression then increased in the floor beams, and at a beam temperature of 436C, the northmost beam began to buckle laterally. Buckling of the other floor beams followed as shown in Figure 8-27(a), leading to collapse of the floor system, and rocking of the gurder off its seat on Column 79 as shown in Figure 8-27(b).
Content from External Source
Now if this is what it takes to bring down a building, someone needs to be fired.

Why? Sure it would have been great if engineers could have foreseen the potential problem with the design, but they did not, and they learned from it. This is exactly as it has always been. That's why building codes have changed over the years. That's why building codes often change as the result of some kind of disaster. After every major earthquake there are changes to the code because of things learned from collapses. Are you suggesting instead that all the builders of those collapsed structures should be put in jail?

Simple Example:
http://construction.about.com/b/2011/08/04/disasters-promoting-building-code-changes.htm
After being devastated by a powerful tornado, Joplin builders and contractors will be required to perform additional steps to protect their buildings against strong winds. Among the building codes changes being adopted by the city of Joplin, Missouri, wood rafters and wood trusses will be required to be installed using mechanical anchors. Those mechanical anchors will be required along with block foundations embedded in concrete, and anchor bolts installed at 4 foot spacing instead of the usual six foot.
Content from External Source
You want to fire all the contractors who build houses in Joplin? 158 more people died there than in WTC7.
 

Oxymoron

Banned
Banned
Steel is very unlikely to be ejected from an internal collapse.


I don't understand the purpose of this post. Windows get broken when a building collapses irrespective of the type of collapse. Unless you are suggesting that 7 should collapse without at some point the windows breaking. These pictures prove nothing re the collapse process.

Are you seriously suggesting the building is now a hollow shell at this point. How do a few broken windows lead to that conclusion... seems something of a leap.

Why should ejecta not come flying out from the building if the guts have collapsed as in your claim. At the very least, where is the dust? Never mind about the lack of fire here. There should at least be some dust.

In the controlled demolition industry, building implosion is the strategic placing of explosive material and timing of its detonation so that a structure collapses on itself in a matter of seconds, minimizing the physical damage to its immediate surroundings. Despite its terminology, building implosion also includes the controlled demolition of other structures, such as bridges, smokestacks, towers, and tunnels.

Building implosion (which reduces to seconds a process which could take months or years to achieve by other methods) typically occurs in urban areas and often involves large landmark structures.
The actual use of the term "implosion" to refer to the destruction of a building is a misnomer. This had been stated of the destruction of 1515 Tower in West Palm Beach, Florida. "What happens is, you use explosive materials in critical structural connections to allow gravity to bring it down." [1]


Linear shaped charges are used to sever steel supports. These explosives are progressively detonated on supports throughout the structure. Then, explosives on the lower floors initiate the controlled collapse
Content from External Source
I suppose they haven't quite perfected it yet... can't quite get the symmetry.

 
Last edited by a moderator:

Billzilla

Senior Member.
But I'm a little bamboozled as to why this is even an argument. There are other tall buildings that were on fire and they did not fully collapse, yes. And those buildings had significant structural differences.

And as I've said many times before - None of those other buildings were nearly cut in half by a heavy jet flying at very high speed into them.
And I'll also say again that I am more amazed that the two towers didn't collapse within seconds of the aeroplanes impacting. The towers weren't designed for an impact anything like what they sustained, it's hugely impressive that they kept standing for as long as they did.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
I don't understand the purpose of this post. Windows get broken when a building collapses irrespective of the type of collapse. Unless you are suggesting that 7 should collapse without at some point the windows breaking. These pictures prove nothing re the collapse process.

Are you seriously suggesting the building is now a hollow shell at this point. How do a few broken windows lead to that conclusion... seems something of a leap.

Why should ejecta not come flying out from the building if the guts have collapsed as in your claim. At the very least, where is the dust? Never mind about the lack of fire here. There should at least be some dust.

You asked were were the broken windows resulting from an internal collapse. The main evidence was in the first picture:


This shows the penthouse collapse into the building. The top two floors have daylight showing though, and 6-10 floors below there are several broken windows. This is consistent with internal collapse.

The penthouse is supported by column 79. So column 79 must have collapsed somewhere. The most likely area is around the floors that were on fire. The visible evidence is consistent with this.

The windows on the right in the next photo break as the other penthouse starts to fall and just before the skin collapses.

There will be dust, but it's not going to be blow out of the windows until the building collapses, as the spaces inside the building are not compressed. You can see in the other videos long trails of dust being forced out the windows as the building falls, and the volumen inside the building is compressed (like the WTC1/2 collapse, but in reverse).









So we have interior floors collapsing, which creates a lot of dust and breaks some windows. Then the exterior of the building collapses, the dust ladened air inside the building is forced out, mostly at the base, but also though the upper windows.

In fact, this effect basically proves the floors are gone, as otherwise the dust would not be blown out like that - hundreds of feet from the base, and only though the already open windows.
 
Last edited:
Top