The Uniqueness of the WTC7 Collapse

[jomper]

No, in fact it's literally physically impossible for the unsupported shell of WTC7 to do anything other than fall down. It's a problem of scale.

Is this another unsupported assertion like your assertion that a hypothesized internal collapse must produce a symmetrical fall of the external shell? The question here is why it would be assumed to fall symmetrically. It is the most improbable assumption. A child playing with jenga knows that structures fall towards the weakest area, not straight down through their support in a symmetrical fashion.

 

[Mick West]

Is this another unsupported assertion like your assertion that a hypothesized internal collapse must produce a symmetrical fall of the external shell? The question here is why it would be assumed to fall symmetrically. It is the most improbable assumption. A child playing with jenga knows that structures fall towards the weakest area, not straight down through their support in a symmetrical fashion.

No, it's supported by physics. However it's a little hard to convey. There's the problem of scale again.

I know I keep mentioning scale, but it seeming increasingly obvious that this is the one concept I'm failing to communicate here.

Large objects are physically different to smaller versions of the same object. If you scaled WTC7 down so it was only two feet high, then yet, you could just knock it over. But as you increase the scale, then the structure is increasingly unable to support its own weight in anything other than a perfectly straight configuration.

Consider what you happen if you were to magically lift up WTC7, and place it on a corner. What do you think would happen?

 

[jomper]

Can I just clarify what you are attempting to argue here? You are saying that a large empty shell of a structure, subject to damage on one side and weakened by fire, must inevitably fall symmetrically down through the line of greatest resistance rather than with asymmetrical movement towards the most damaged area as all common sense and reason would expect. And the reason for this, you are saying, is simply because it's big.

 

[Mick West]

Can I just clarify what you are attempting to argue here? You are saying that a large empty shell of a structure, subject to damage on one side and weakened by fire, must inevitably fall symmetrically down through the line of greatest resistance rather than with asymmetrical movement towards the most damaged area as all common sense and reason would expect. And the reason for this, you are saying, is simply because it's big.

Not simply. It's not simple at all, hence the problem I'm having in communicating it.

Think about what your proposed "asymmetrical movement towards the most damaged area" would actually entail. Perhaps you could draw a simple diagram of what you think actually would happen to the exterior after the interior had collapsed?

 

[Boston]

No, it's supported by physics. However it's a little hard to convey. There's the problem of scale again.

I know I keep mentioning scale, but it seeming increasingly obvious that this is the one concept I'm failing to communicate here.

Large objects are physically different to smaller versions of the same object. If you scaled WTC7 down so it was only two feet high, then yet, you could just knock it over. But as you increase the scale, then the structure is increasingly unable to support its own weight in anything other than a perfectly straight configuration.

Consider what you happen if you were to magically lift up WTC7, and place it on a corner. What do you think would happen?

OK lets all ignore the fact that the model doesn't represent the building and just ask, whats your point Mick. Cause the can thing is highly distracting and I'd think it more productive to continue to pursue NIST to the logical conclusion. They have there physics all wrong within there text explanation and those errors transfer to there model which fails to mimic the collapse of 7 even remotely. They can then be definitively shown to have there temps wrong by virtue of direct observation of the molten steel in the film evidence, and then be shown to have ignored the multiple evidence sources all suggesting the existence of these levels of heating within the event.

 

[Mick West]

My issue with the can analogy is that the only thing the can, can do, it collapse straight down. A its monolithic exterior skin and circular shape mean the path of least resistance is inward. B its only one stack tall, add 47 more, add a bunch in a rectangular shape with shear/ lateral support, and then remove that lateral support, The cans won't go anywhere. You'd have to add energy to make it collapse.

The can analogy is entirely inadequate

It's not an accurate analogy, the scale is all wrong. It's just demonstrating failure via buckling of a thin exterior. The can is actually vastly stronger than the WTC7 exterior.

soooooooooooo if we are to keep our investigation honest, I think its necessary to compare the video evidence of the actual event with the recreation by NIST. If the NIST explanation is to be believed then they should be able to model it accurately. My contention is they didn't, that in fact there model or models ( I may not have seen them all ) or at least the ones I've seen don't even remotely resemble the video evidence. Ergo, they are unable to describe the failure sufficiently to accommodate the film evidence, IE their explanation is wrong.

Didn't you read their explanation of this, above?

 

[Mick West]

OK lets all ignore the fact that the model doesn't represent the building and just ask, whats your point Mick. Cause the can thing is highly distracting and I'd think it more productive to continue to pursue NIST to the logical conclusion. They have there physics all wrong within there text explanation and those errors transfer to there model which fails to mimic the collapse of 7 even remotely. They can then be definitively shown to have there temps wrong by virtue of direct observation of the molten steel in the film evidence, and then be shown to have ignored the multiple evidence sources all suggesting the existence of these levels of heating within the event.

My point is that the collapse via buckling of the exterior needs no explosives to explain it. It's just what would physically happen. It's also hard to convey this because of the problems of scale.

 

[Boston]

Not simply. It's not simple at all, hence the problem I'm having in communicating it.

Think about what your proposed "asymmetrical movement towards the most damaged area" would actually entail. Perhaps you could draw a simple diagram of what you think actually would happen to the exterior after the interior had collapsed?

Mick, your having trouble communicating something that doesn't make logical sense. It also is in direct contradiction to the laws of physics. Objects don't fall directly straight down, through the path of greatest resistance, unless an massive external source of energy is applied. The vast majority of 7 was not subject to any energy at all.

 

[Mick West]

Mick, your having trouble communicating something that doesn't make logical sense. It also is in direct contradiction to the laws of physics. Objects don't fall directly straight down, through the path of greatest resistance, unless an massive external source of energy is applied. The vast majority of 7 was not subject to any energy at all.

How much potential energy did it have?

 

[Boston]

How much potential energy did it have?

how much potential energy did what have, the human body in comparison with the structural integrity of a tin can, or bldg 7

If your talking about bldg 7 the answer is "we'll never know" due to the fact that the blue prints are unavailable. Nor do we know the exact extent of the initial damage to the building nor do we have an accurate account of what temps existed as compared to the film evidence.

so again if your point is to show that a sufficient amount of external force is applied to the can that it will collapse, then fine, that particular structure, a monolithic metallic circular can subject to stresses tens of thousands of times greater than any it was intended to resist and applied in a manor completely alien to its natural condition, will fail in the only way it can under those circumstances. But that point has no bearing whatsoever on the collapse of 7

Can we please get back to the subject of the film evidence, why the NIST model fails to represent what we see in the film evidence and why that film evidence is being ignored by NIST scientist when used to estimate actual temps within the wtc site

 

[Mick West]

Is this not difinitive proof as well as the countless other pictures of glowing hot metal that temps far in excess of what could have existed in a typical office fire were evident at the wtc site ?

No. Because you don't know what the substance is, and you don't know what exposure the camera used. Plus this is not from an office fire, it's from an underground burning collapsed building fire. Well after the actual collapse. So it's unrelated to temperatures in the fires that caused the collapse.

 

[jomper]

It's a terribly poor explanation. I don't accept the hypothesis that the internal structure collapsed, because there's really no evidence for it except a computer model that reproduces none of the key symmetrical features which make this collapse so remarkable, and has in any case not been independently verified.

 

[Mick West]

how much potential energy did what have, the human body in comparison with the structural integrity of a tin can, or bldg 7

The building. Once something starts to fall it's got a vast amount of momentum.

Look, you are suggesting that the lower columns were blown out with explosives. How is that any different (to the end result) from the lower columns bucking? Once the building has started to collapse then there's no stopping it.

 

[Oxymoron]

Well this wall falls over as expected, asymmetrically and to the path of least resistance. There are no conspiracy theories saying 'this does not make sense' or 'it was brought down by exotic weapons'.

 

[Mick West]

It's a terribly poor explanation. I don't accept the hypothesis that the internal structure collapsed, because there's really no evidence for it except a computer model that reproduces none of the key symmetrical features which make this collapse so remarkable, and has in any case not been independently verified.

And the penthouses falling thought the building.

Can you prove that the internal structure did not collapse?

 

[Mick West]

Well this wall falls over as expected, asymmetrically and to the path of least resistance. There are no conspiracy theories saying 'this does not make sense' or 'it was brought down by exotic weapons'.

Scale that up to 500 feet high.

 

[Oxymoron]

Scale that up to 500 feet high.

What do you think would change?

 

[Mick West]

What do you think would change?

What do you think?

 

[jomper]

The building. Once something starts to fall it's got a vast amount of momentum.

Look, you are suggesting that the lower columns were blown out with explosives. How is that any different (to the end result) from the lower columns bucking? Once the building has started to collapse then there's no stopping it.

In this case there was literally nothing stopping it, at least for eight stories. The building may have momentum as you say, but the structure offered absolutely no resistance at all.

 

[Oxymoron]

The building. Once something starts to fall it's got a vast amount of momentum.

Look, you are suggesting that the lower columns were blown out with explosives. How is that any different (to the end result) from the lower columns bucking? Once the building has started to collapse then there's no stopping it.

Is he? I didn't notice that he limited it to the base. Simply that that is where it started, (apart from the penthouse). What is to say other beams were not 'blown out' as well?

 

[jomper]

Mick, your having trouble communicating something that doesn't make logical sense. It also is in direct contradiction to the laws of physics. Objects don't fall directly straight down, through the path of greatest resistance, unless an massive external source of energy is applied. The vast majority of 7 was not subject to any energy at all.

Perhaps there was a massively scaled up foot standing on the roof and exerting great downward force in it. Now that seems reasonable...

 

[Oxymoron]

What do you think?

I asked you first

 

[Mick West]

In this case there was literally nothing stopping it, at least for eight stories. The building may have momentum as you say, but the structure offered absolutely no resistance at all.

So you think every single column was turned to dust over it's entire length?

Or perhaps there was simply relatively little resistance, like say about 5% of what it could support before. Like the coke can, it was above to support 50 pounds no problem, but the instant it buckled then the amount of weight it could support was vastly diminished

 

[Boston]

No, in fact it's literally physically impossible for the unsupported shell of WTC7 to do anything other than fall down. It's a problem of scale.

no, the squared cubes law does not require any structure to fall straight down through the path of most resistance. Scale has nothing to do with it. What does have something to do with it is a complex structure vs a monolithic one. BLDG 7 was a complex structure.

 

[Oxymoron]

Here's a clue:

And here's some reference that every WTC7 thread needs:

The can is a demolition. Pressure is applied exactly in the right places to create that demolition. The foot that makes the crease, allowing the vent to start, works in unison with the applied force from above which if you look closely, you can see the force is not uniformly applied but the foot flexes to apply pressure to manufacture the collapse to achieve the desired effect.

I suggest the lower clip is also a demolition.

I love you tube... the abstract random things that people post.



Notice how this can finishes up squished to the side.

 

[Mick West]

I asked you first

I think it would break up, and mostly fall straight down.

Although of course it depends on exactly how you scale it up. The brick wall is about 10 feet high and one foot thick, so to scale it up to 500 feet that would be 50x, so you'd have a 50 foot thick wall. Which is why you don't build tall building out of brick. It does not scale well. Plus the bricks themselves would be 33 feet long, and weigh 600,000 pounds each.

 

[Boston]

So you think every single column was turned to dust over it's entire length?

Or perhaps there was simply relatively little resistance, like say about 5% of what it could support before. Like the coke can, it was above to support 50 pounds no problem, but the instant it buckled then the amount of weight it could support was vastly diminished

No, the suggestion is that a majority of the connective elements of the building were removed simultaneously, as in a controlled demolition

 

[Boston]

I think it would break up, and mostly fall straight down.

Although of course it depends on exactly how you scale it up. The brick wall is about 10 feet high and one foot thick, so to scale it up to 500 feet that would be 50x, so you'd have a 50 foot thick wall. Which is why you don't build tall building out of brick. It does not scale well. Plus the bricks themselves would be 33 feet long, and weigh 600,000 pounds each.

can you show any debris falling from the structure as it descends into a nice neat pile ? The film evidence does not show a disintegrating structure, instead it shows one falling perfectly through its path of most resistance

 

[Mick West]

no, the squared cubes law does not require any structure to fall straight down through the path of most resistance. Scale has nothing to do with it. What does have something to do with it is a complex structure vs a monolithic one. BLDG 7 was a complex structure.

The square cube law informs us about the limits of engineering. You can't make, for example, a very large lattice of steel that can be balance on its corner. There are physical limits as to how large such a lattice can be.

If you take a structure made of stiff wire, and scale it up to a very large size, then the properties of the very large structure are very different to the properties of the smaller structure. Weh the structure becomes of the size of WTC7 then the only thing it can do is fall straight down, because it only has sufficient strength to support itself with the columns vertical.

As soon as they are no longer vertical, they bent and/or fail at the connections, and the structure comes essentially straight down.

 

[Boston]

Oh and Mick, I think its nice of NIST to admit there recreations failed to mimic the actual film evidence, I am disappointed however that decided that failed analysis was "good enough" for the US public and the thousands who died that day. I consider it one of the greatest tragedies of that day.

 

[Boston]

I know exactly what the squared cubes law is Mick, I use it all the time to create models of my retirement yacht and test them for stability. Which is why I question its use in this application. It in no way defines why a building should or shouldn't fall in a pattern contrary to the laws of physics

 

[Mick West]

Oh and Mick, I think its nice of NIST to admit there recreations failed to mimic the actual film evidence, I am disappointed however that decided that failed analysis was "good enough" for the US public and the thousands who died that day. I consider it one of the greatest tragedies of that day.

The inadequacy of the simulation was a tragedy?

It's inevitable it was not going to match what was observed exactly. There was too much complexity and unknowns. It would have been impossible to make a perfect simulation. It was good enough as it replicated the macro level features of the collapse.

 

[Boston]

So we have direct film evidence of 7 falling in a manor inconsistent with the NIST models ( which NIST is kind enough to admit but says doesn't matter ) and we have direct film evidence of temps far in excess of a typical office fire ( which NIST ignores ) and yet I am expected to accept there interior collapse theory ? Rather than look at the actual fall and notice its perfect symmetry, regardless of the irregularities of fire influences and whatever minor damage it may have been subjected to ?

 

[jomper]

So you think every single column was turned to dust over it's entire length?

Or perhaps there was simply relatively little resistance, like say about 5% of what it could support before. Like the coke can, it was above to support 50 pounds no problem, but the instant it buckled then the amount of weight it could support was vastly diminished

I think it is absurd to suggest that all the structural columns of the building could simultaneously lose 95% of their strength as if they were all simultaneously kinked in the middle the way you kinked the side of the can you were standing on.

 

[Mick West]

I know exactly what the squared cubes law is Mick, I use it all the time to create models of my retirement yacht and test them for stability. Which is why I question its use in this application. It in no way defines why a building should or shouldn't fall in a pattern contrary to the laws of physics

The application of the square cube law helps you explain what happens though. Think about wire vs. steel girders again. You can make a 1 foot wide ball of wire that you can roll around. You can drop that ball from one foot onto concrete, and it will just bounce off.

Can you scale that up to a 500 foot wide ball? Can that ball roll around? Can you drop that from 500 feet onto concrete? Can you drop it from one foot onto concrete?

 

[Oxymoron]

Unfortunately, I think this guy has read to much Metabunk and too many NIST reports. He appears to have gone with the notion that 'if you demolish a column, the building will drop straight down symmetrically into it's own footprint' like 7 did 'when column 79 failed'.



Pause at 1.15 and 1.18.

 

[Mick West]

So we have direct film evidence of 7 falling in a manor inconsistent with the NIST models ( which NIST is kind enough to admit but says doesn't matter ) and we have direct film evidence of temps far in excess of a typical office fire ( which NIST ignores ) and yet I am expected to accept there interior collapse theory ? Rather than look at the actual fall and notice its perfect symmetry, regardless of the irregularities of fire influences and whatever minor damage it may have been subjected to ?

No, you are supposed to admit that an internal collapse followed by the collapse of the exterior matches what was seen. You are supposed to think about how things scale, and realize that the exterior of WTC could not have collapsed in any way other than more-or-less straight down, with a bit of folding.

 

[Mick West]

Unfortunately, I think this guy has read to much metabunk and too many NIST reports. He appears to have gone with the notion that 'if you demolish a column, the building will drop straight down symmetrically into it's own footprint like 7 did 'when column 79 failed'.

Different scale, different type of construction.

 

[Boston]

The inadequacy of the simulation was a tragedy?

It's inevitable it was not going to match what was observed exactly. There was too much complexity and unknowns. It would have been impossible to make a perfect simulation. It was good enough as it replicated the macro level features of the collapse.

Yes, its an insult to the families of those lost and the pubic as a whole to so disrespect their loss and forward what is obviously a failed reconstruction. We can dredge up an airplane from the bottom of the ocean and piece it back together over years in a hanger somewhere, in order to better understand how that failure occurred and prevent it from happening again. but we can't even map the fall pattern of a 47' office building, one of the most secure in the world, housing thousands of people, and typical of hundreds of other buildings. Yes I think it one of the greatest tragedies of our time to have been so completly and obviously lied to that a simple review of the film evidence by any open minded person will reveal flaws so gross that no other rational conclusion can be reached but that NIST is ignoring evidence and presenting wildly unlikely scenarios in order to not explain what exactly happened that tragic day.

Its embarrassing and at the least it does nothing to lessen the tragedy of that day.

 

[Mick West]

Perhaps there was a massively scaled up foot standing on the roof and exerting great downward force in it. Now that seems reasonable...

Essentially there was. But not on the roof, on the lower floors. The lower floors have to support the upper floors, so there's your giant foot.

The coke can can support 1000x its own weight. How many WTC7's could you stack on top of WTC7?