The Uniqueness of the WTC7 Collapse

[Mick West]

After all this time and all those posts, we're supposed to start from scratch? What does that say?

Just joshing with you lee. But it does actually say something. A failure to communicate. I'm still not exactly sure what your objections to the "crush down" model are. Something about violating Newton's laws, which don't get violated in Verinage because they would not use Verinage in the WTC.

Maybe you could sum it up in a couple of sentences?

 

[lee h oswald]

Physics might be a subset, but its the subset I'm debunking.

Then the whole picture is reduced to a subset, and a materialist one to boot. Life's not like that; humans are involved.

 

[lee h oswald]

Just joshing with you lee. But it does actually say something. A failure to communicate. I'm still not exactly sure what your objections to the "crush down" model are. Something about violating Newton's laws, which don't get violated in Verinage because they would not use Verinage in the WTC.

Maybe you could sum it up in a couple of sentences?

Maybe.

 

[Mick West]

Then the whole picture is reduced to a subset, and a materialist one to boot. Life's not like that; humans are involved.

Sure, but if we accurately determine the physical part of things, then that takes a lot of uncertainty out of the equation.

If there's no need for explosives, then that's one incredibly huge thing that an alternate theory now does not have to explain. Surely it's worth debunking?

 

[lee h oswald]

What's really happening is an argument betwen a sceptic and a believer. The believer has all the facts - most of them come from a government agency, Nist - and isn't going to shift out of that gear - not here, anyway. The sceptic is unsure about what happened, has no specific theory (how could he, without all the relevant information?) and is a bit miffed that the believer claims all the answers when the sceptic perceives that many questions are left without even being addressed, let alone given answers. This sceptic says there should be a proper, no-holds barred, public inquiry into the event to uncover something approaching the real truth of the day - what say the believer?

 

[Pete Tar]

It takes a bit of resistance in one place greater or less than a bit of resistance in another place - then it starts to get uneven, assymmetrical - and as the damage was assymmetrical - that's what the starting point should be. Anyway, maybe ask wtc1 or 2 wtf happened? Quite amazing that all three structures suffered catastrophic failures - down to the ground and two of them pulverised - and in two different fashions, all with assymmetrical damage and yet all were pretty much symmetrical in their demise. What a bleedin' coincidence!

...

To my fresh and uncluttered by education of any kind mind, it seems entirely likely they would fall straight down through themselves - they were freaking huge and heavy! Gargantuan. Massive even. Quite large.

 

[Pete Tar]

...

Some photos of the "raging" fires, taken from the video below. Nothing new here, but the Video shows some rare footage of the collapse.

What time were these taken?

 

[Pete Tar]

In that case swing a sixteen pound sledgehammer at a can and that represents gravity too. Except it doesn't, does it?

The foot represents the gravity that would otherwise be inherent in the structure if it were massively large.

 

[Mick West]

What's really happening is an argument betwen a sceptic and a believer. The believer has all the facts - most of them come from a government agency, Nist - and isn't going to shift out of that gear - not here, anyway. The sceptic is unsure about what happened, has no specific theory (how could he, without all the relevant information?) and is a bit miffed that the believer claims all the answers when the sceptic perceives that many questions are left without even being addressed, let alone given answers. This sceptic says there should be a proper, no-holds barred, public inquiry into the event to uncover something approaching the real truth of the day - what say the believer?

I say the collapse of the towers seems quite consistent with the impact and the fires. Your arguments from physics all seem wrong.

Maybe there's something shadowy going on. But there seems to be no evidence of explosives.

 

[lee h oswald]

To my fresh and uncluttered by education of any kind mind, it seems entirely likely they would fall straight down through themselves - they were freaking huge and heavy! Gargantuan. Massive even. Quite large.

But the further down a building you go, the more 'freaking huge and heavy! Gargantuan. Massive even. Quite large' it gets. Can I really expect that to behave as if there was nothing there? When it was designed to be there for a reason. The very idea is absurd.

 

[Pete Tar]

But the further down a building you go, the more 'freaking huge and heavy! Gargantuan. Massive even. Quite large' it gets. Can I really expect that to behave as if there was nothing there? When it was designed to be there for a reason. The very idea is absurd.

It was hardly designed to resist the *moving* force of the weight above it though was it? And then each bit adds it's own weight and momentum to the moving force pulverizing all in it's path.
The very idea that the building was designed and able to resist *that* is absurd.

 

[Mick West]

It was hardly designed to resist the *moving* force of the weight above it though was it? And then each bit adds it's own weight and momentum to the moving force pulverizing all in it's path.
The very idea that the building was designed and able to resist *that* is absurd.

Indeed. Static load and dynamic load are very different when the dynamic load is the entire upper section of the building.

A can will support 30 pounds of weight very easily, in fact it is designed to do so. But drop 30 pounds of weight on it from six inches up, and it will crush the can.

 

[lee h oswald]

It was hardly designed to resist the *moving* force of the weight above it though was it? And then each bit adds it's own weight and momentum to the moving force pulverizing all in it's path.
The very idea that the building was designed and able to resist *that* is absurd.

It was hardly designed to resist the *moving* force of the weight above it though was it?

It was designed to stop it from moving down - it's a kind of tradition in construction, that the lower part of a building holds up the top bit. And it was designed with fire in mind, too! Who woulda thunk it?

And then each bit adds it's own weight and momentum to the moving force pulverizing all in it's path.
The very idea that the building was designed and able to resist *that* is absurd

It's an article of faith then; faith in an incomplete, unscientific, unverifiable govt report. Never mind the mechanism that caused universal instantaneous failure of every structural element; never mind that all undamaged (and there must have been plenty) columns, beams and couplings of every single steel member failed simultaneously, no never mind that; never mind the 2.5 seconds of free-fall, indicating zero resistance from a large articulated steel and reinforced concrete structure, much of which was undamaged. Never mind that all previous experience and observation - and we're talking real-world here, not some unverifiable/unfalsifiable cartoon made by a govt agency that won't release its data for review - refutes your 'hypothesis' (if it can be called that). Not just once, but three times in one day. So, whenever anyone would like to demonstrate some other examples of this phenomenon, in the real world - then I'll be all ears. Otherwise, I don't believe fairy tales.

 

[Mick West]

It was designed to stop it from moving down - it's a kind of tradition in construction, that the lower part of a building holds up the top bit.

It's designed to hold up the top bit if the top bit is not moving downwards.

Just like a can will hold 30 pounds resting on it, but if you drop the 30 pounds on it from six inches, then it will crush the can.

It's like in Verinage. The bottom part of the building is holding up the upper part. It's supporting the entire weight. The upper part is not moving at all. So there much be an upwards force equal to the weight of the upper part of the building.

But just drop the upper part one floor, and the force the upper part now applies is vastly greater than before. So great it just crushes the lower part in near free fall.

It even works if the initial collapse is asymmetric:

Cans and Verinage are not exactly what happend, of course. But they do illustrate some important principles.

 

[lee h oswald]

The foot represents the gravity that would otherwise be inherent in the structure if it were massively large.

Gravity is always present - foot or no foot. It's one of those constants. So any structure 'massively large' or even tiny, is subject to the constant force of gravity. Stamping on something or hitting it with a sledgehammer is not representative of gravity (which in the case of a building is a static load) - it's representative of a dynamic load. Its force can be calculated by knowing its mass and acceleration (Newton's second law of motion - F=ma). In terms of the failure of 7, then it might be helpful to think of Newton's 1st law of motion - that a body at rest remains at rest, a body in motion continues along a right line unless acted upon by some other force. 7 was at rest - and had to be acted upon by another force in order to get it moving down at freefall for 2.5 seconds and not far off it for the remaining 4 seconds. 47 floors hit the deck in 7 seconds? Through the path of most resistance? And it was all down to gravitational potential energy and assymmetric fire damage? I'd say that intact mechanical connections entirely undamaged require a mechanical aid to dismember themselves in short order. Or is that 'absurd'?

 

[Mick West]

Gravity is always present - foot or no foot. It's one of those constants. So any structure 'massively large' or even tiny, is subject to the constant force of gravity. Stamping on something or hitting it with a sledgehammer is not representative of gravity (which in the case of a building is a static load) - it's representative of a dynamic load. Its force can be calculated by knowing its mass and acceleration (Newton's second law of motion - F=ma). In terms of the failure of 7, then it might be helpful to think of Newton's 1st law of motion - that a body at rest remains at rest, a body in motion continue along a right line unless acted upon by some other force. 7 was at rest - and had to be acted upon by another force in order to get it moving down at freefall for 2.5 seconds and not far off it for the remaining 4 seconds. 47 floors hit the deck in 7 seconds? Through the path of most resistance? And it was all down to gravitational potential energy and assymmetric fire damage? I'd say that intact mechanical connections entirely undamaged require a mechanical aid to dismember themselves in short order. Or is that 'absurd'?

But you have to calculate load relative to strency relative to weight.

How many WTC7s could you stack on top of WTC7? How many cans could you stack on top of a can?

If I take an entire WTC7, hold it ten feet above WTC7, and then drop it, I think you would agree that both building would be destroyed.

But if I take a can, hold it above another can, and drop it, then it just bounces off.

It's the square-cube law. Strength is proportional to the cross-sectional area (the square of the linear dimension, like height or width), the weight is proportional to the volume (the cube).

So to simulate the equivalent weight (and hence dynamic force, once it's moving), you need to multiply by the ratio between the height of the can, and the height of the building. Then you need to add that to the can, and damage it.

If you want to simulate a dynamic load then you need to make the dynamic load proportional to the strength, which is why you need more weight, like adding a sledgehammer.

Scale.

 

[lee h oswald]

It's designed to hold up the top bit if the top bit is not moving downwards.

Cans and Verinage are not exactly what happend, of course. But they do illustrate some important principles.

It's designed to hold up the top bit if the top bit is not moving downwards.

Obviously.

Cans and Verinage are not exactly what happend, of course. But they do illustrate some important principles.

Cans have nothing to do with it. Verinage (again!) illustrates one principle - that if you want to destroy a building (and this a dramatically inferior construction as compared to wtc) in a vertical fashion, then you need to carefully prepare it, weakening the structure by removing critical supports over several floors, then you need to apply mechanical forces in all the right places in order to ensure your desired result. So - only from the right - calculated - input can you drop a building vertically, not via random damage by fire or impact. To achieve such a result from random inputs once would be pure luck - and it's never happened before - except for three times in one day.

 

[Mick West]

Obviously.

Cans have nothing to do with it. Verinage (again!) illustrates one principle - that if you want to destroy a building (and this a dramatically inferior construction as compared to wtc) in a vertical fashion, then you need to carefully prepare it, weakening the structure by removing critical supports over several floors, then you need to apply mechanical forces in all the right places in order to ensure your desired result. So - only from the right - calculated - input can you drop a building vertically, not via random damage by fire or impact. To achieve such a result from random inputs once would be pure luck - and it's never happened before - except for three time in one day.

So you think it's not impossible, just unlikely?

 

[lee h oswald]

But you have to calculate load relative to strency relative to weight.

How many WTC7s could you stack on top of WTC7? How many cans could you stack on top of a can?

If I take an entire WTC7, hold it ten feet above WTC7, and then drop it, I think you would agree that both building would be destroyed.

But if I take a can, hold it above another can, and drop it, then it just bounces off.

It's the square-cube law. Strength is proportional to the cross-sectional area (the square of the linear dimension, like height or width), the weight is proportional to the volume (the cube).

So to simulate the equivalent weight (and hence dynamic force, once it's moving), you need to multiply by the ratio between the height of the can, and the height of the building. Then you need to add that to the can, and damage it.

If you want to simulate a dynamic load then you need to make the dynamic load proportional to the strength, which is why you need more weight, like adding a sledgehammer.

Scale.

Cans have nothing to do with it

 

[lee h oswald]

So you think it's not impossible, just unlikely?

How can one calculate the probability of something that's never happened?

 

[Mick West]

How can one calculate the probability of something that's never happened?

You were the one claiming it was unlikely. "Pure luck" you said. Is that a different pure luck to rolling a seven? Or are you asserting that if something has never happened before, then it can never happen?

 

[Mick West]

Cans have nothing to do with it

Cans illustrate two points. Failure via buckling, and the square cube law of strength vs.weight.

Hold one can above another and drop it. You can imagine what happens.

Hold one WTC7 above another, and drop it. What happens?

 

[lee h oswald]

 

[Mick West]

Come on lee. Address the physics, don't just drop in a propaganda video.

 

[lee h oswald]

Cans illustrate two points. Failure via buckling, and the square cube law of strength vs.weight.

Hold one can above another and drop it. You can imagine what happens.

Hold one WTC7 above another, and drop it. What happens?

But what if the can was the size of 7 and it was full of a beer-like substance? Or even just half full? What if 7 was actually a giant aluminium can painted to look like an articulated steel and concrete structure? A trompe l'oeil?

I'd like to see the blueprints for 7 (the building, not the can). Where can I get them? - I'd even pay for them.

 

[Mick West]

But what if the can was the size of 7 and it was full of a beer-like substance? Or even just half full? What if 7 was actually a giant aluminium can painted to look like an articulated steel and concrete structure? A trompe l'oeil?

All good thought experiments which illustrates some of the problems of scale.

I'd like to see the blueprints for 7 (the building, not the can). Where can I get them? - I'd even pay for them.

http://www.ae911truth.org/en/news-s...tc-7-blueprints-exposed-via-foia-request.html

 

[lee h oswald]

Come on lee. Address the physics, don't just drop in a propaganda video.

What's the physics in coaching young girls to lie about Iraqi soldiers taking Kuwaiti babies from their incubators? A General lying about WMD's? Where's the physics in 'The War on Terror'? American imperialism? Greed? War profits?
Where's the physics in a corporate media mouthpiece naming the perpetrator within minutes? In 'we couldn't envisage people using aircraft as weapons'?!!

Physics is just a subset - Do detectives only use physics?

As far as three buildings and 'chance' goes....well, what is the probability of random, unpredictable damage producing the same never-before-seen result three times? When we know from all previous experience and observation that such failures require planned, specific inputs to achieve. Phil Marlowe wouldn't go for soda cans.

 

[Mick West]

What's the physics in coaching young girls to lie about Iraqi soldiers taking Kuwaiti babies from their incubators? A General lying about WMD's? Where's the physics in 'The War on Terror'? American imperialism? Greed? War profits?

A woman lying about babies does not translate to "WTC7 must have been a controlled demolition".

You've been making a case based on your understanding of physics. You can just suddenly attempt to bolster that case by "the government are all liars". The physics either works or it does not work.

 

[Mick West]

As far as three buildings and 'chance' goes....well, what is the probability of random, unpredictable damage producing the same never-before-seen result three times? When we know from all previous experience and observation that such failures require planned, specific inputs to achieve. Phil Marlowe wouldn't go for soda cans.

Two identical buildings were hid in similar (never before seen) ways. They fell in similar ways. Seems perfectly reasonable the results of the impacts would both be similar and "never before seen".

One building was damaged, and burned for hours, and then collapsed in a totally different manner. It seems very reasonable it would collapse in a different manner to the other buildings, as it was not hit by a plane.

Their collapses are also perfectly consistent with physics.

 

[lee h oswald]

Two identical buildings were hid in similar (never before seen) ways. They fell in similar ways. Seems perfectly reasonable the results of the impacts would both be similar and "never before seen".

One building was damaged, and burned for hours, and then collapsed in a totally different manner. It seems very reasonable it would collapse in a different manner to the other buildings, as it was not hit by a plane.

Their collapses are also perfectly consistent with physics.

Bush physics. Like said, random inputs don't equate to planned, deliberate, engineered inputs - to stand up for that is to piss on physics. It's really simple.

 

[lee h oswald]

[Admin: off topic post removed. New topics in new threads please]

 

[Mick West]

Bush physics. Like said, random inputs don't equate to planned, deliberate, engineered inputs - to stand up for that is to piss on physics. It's really simple.

Are you now just saying something like it was "too neat"? Or are you still asserting it was actually impossible that the collapses could occur at all?

 

[lee h oswald]

A woman lying about babies does not translate to "WTC7 must have been a controlled demolition".

(Not woman) Young girl put in front of the world's media to lie equates to people prepared to make their own children liars to further their political ends; and the political end is large scale war against a whole country. It equates to context on the type of people we're dealing with; such examples are abundant. I think that matters.

 

[Mick West]

(Not woman) Young girl put in front of the world's media to lie equates to people prepared to make their own children liars to further their political ends; and the political end is large scale war against a whole country. It equates to context on the type of people we're dealing with; such examples are abundant. I think that matters.

It does not change the physics, and so it's off topic. If you want to discuss how the untrustworthiness of those in power makes a controlled demolition hypothesis more plausible, then start a new thread on it. It's off topic here, and will be deleted.

 

[lee h oswald]

Are you now just saying something like it was "too neat"? Or are you still asserting it was actually impossible that the collapses could occur at all?

Why not try to calculate the probability of an event based on an event that's never happened happening three times in a day? All damages were unique to each structure, yet they all ended up the same - via two different methods - on the ground. Show me probability, show me some other similar examples that are not controlled demolitions of inferior buildings, show me an example of a government in the US being 'open and honest' in the last seventy years.

 

[lee h oswald]

It does not change the physics, and so it's off topic. If you want to discuss how the untrustworthiness of those in power makes a controlled demolition hypothesis more plausible, then start a new thread on it. It's off topic here, and will be deleted.

And aluminium cans are on topic? The uniqueness of the wtc7 collapse

 

[Mick West]

And aluminium cans are on topic? The uniqueness of the wtc7 collapse

Yes, because I was using then to illustrate principles of physics that directly relate to the WTC7 collapse, and peoples' understanding of it.

What's the maximum static load of a can as a multiple of its weight?

What's the maximum static load of the bottom of WTC7 as a multiple of the weight of WTC7? What about with just the exterior?

The problem is that people think these two numbers are much closer to each other than they actually are, so they think that the collapse is inexplicable.

 

[lee h oswald]

Yes, because I was using then to illustrate principles of physics that directly relate to the WTC7 collapse, and peoples' understanding of it.

What's the maximum static load of a can as a multiple of its weight?

What's the maximum static load of the bottom of WTC7 as a multiple of the weight of WTC7? What about with just the exterior?

The problem is that people think these two numbers are much closer to each other than they actually are, so they think that the collapse is inexplicable.

Why don't we include a solid three hundred kilo cube of steel too? While we're comparing a giraffe to an amoeba? I mean, why not? What about the maximum static load of a hedgehog as compared to wtc7?

 

[Mick West]

Why don't we include a solid three hundred kilo cube of steel too? While we're comparing a giraffe to an amoeba? I mean, why not? What about the maximum static load of a hedgehog as compared to wtc7?

Well, let's not compare them at all then. Just what's the maximum static load of the bottom of WTC7 as a multiple of its weight?

 

[xenon]

What time were these taken?

No idea