The Uniqueness of the WTC7 Collapse

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
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.
The people who did the investigation were not the people who ordered the steel removed. That was done at a time when investigation of modes of collapse was not a priority.

The simulations were very accurate, given the limitations. The showed what probably happened. It was a successful investigation, and many changes to building codes came out of it.
 

Boston

Active Member
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.
Admit an internal collapse, do you have any verifiable evidence of an internal collapse ? Is there any film evidence ? Why would I think of scale, the building was the size it was, there need be no scaling to view the film and observe a beautifully symmetrical classic controlled demolition, what does scale have to do with it ? What folding ? can you show any folding in the film evidence ?

If this is truly the "only" way that 7 could have come down can you show any other building that fell in the same manor baring controlled demolition ?

There's not a sentence in that which rings true Mick. We saw four corners of 7 all let go at once, even though each was subjected to wildly different forces. This is a virtual impossibility, yet your suggesting its the only possibility
 

Boston

Active Member
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?
The can and wtc 7 are completely different types of structures. There is zero reasonable comparison
 

Boston

Active Member
The people who did the investigation were not the people who ordered the steel removed. That was done at a time when investigation of modes of collapse was not a priority.

The simulations were very accurate, given the limitations. The showed what probably happened. It was a successful investigation, and many changes to building codes came out of it.
The simulation didn't even remotely mimic what the film evidence show, yet you claim its accurate. They not only didn't show what probably happened, they didn't even remotely show what "did" happen.

Why has every other terrorist act been investigated from the word go and this one not? Why was it like pulling teeth to even get the 9/11 commission started ? Why was the investigation allowed to fail in its attempt to recreate the failure of any of the buildings let alone just 7 ? Can you quote a single building code that actually changed due to this NIT investigation ?
 

Oxymoron

Banned
Banned
Different scale, different type of construction.
Not like a manipulated tin can then ?:)

I really don't understand how any 'real life event' which is compared to wtc's is 'apples and bananas', and yet you are quite comfortable likening verinage or other demolitions or demolished tin cans or partial collapses etc?
 

jomper

Inactive Member
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?
If it could not support one, I would not expect it to collapse with the symmetry observed in the evidence, given the random damage and fire you think so obviously precipitated the event.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Admit an internal collapse, do you have any verifiable evidence of an internal collapse ? Is there any film evidence ?
Yes, there is the fall of the penthouse through the building.

Why would I think of scale, the building was the size it was, there need be no scaling to view the film and observe a beautifully symmetrical classic controlled demolition, what does scale have to do with it ?
Scale means you can't impose you expectations of what would happen to a smaller version of the building to this much larger building. People have very little experience with very large object, so they tend to think of them in the same terms they think of small objects. Hence you get things like Oxy's video of a five story structure.

What folding ? can you show any folding in the film evidence ?
The north face of the building quite distinctly bows inwards. And at about 0:42 here you can see the left (east) side of the building fold over to the right. Also at 1:00

If this is truly the "only" way that 7 could have come down can you show any other building that fell in the same manor baring controlled demolition ?
No, because there were not similar building in identical circumstances.


There's not a sentence in that which rings true Mick. We saw four corners of 7 all let go at once, even though each was subjected to wildly different forces. This is a virtual impossibility, yet your suggesting its the only possibility
I'm suggesting it's what happened. Lots of things might have happened. This is the one that did.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Not like a manipulated tin can then ?:)

I really don't understand how any 'real life event' which is compared to wtc's is 'apples and bananas', and yet you are quite comfortable likening verinage or other demolitions or demolished tin cans or partial collapses etc?
Because they are demonstrating principles, not results. Verinage and the cans have very obvious differences, and the other building have very obvious differences.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
If it could not support one, I would not expect it to collapse with the symmetry observed in the evidence, given the random damage and fire you think so obviously precipitated the event.
It didn't. It collapsed asymmetrically internally. Then the exterior fell.
 

Oxymoron

Banned
Banned
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.
So if someone took one of the Eiffel Tower's legs away, you would expect it to collapse like 7?

Edit: and result in molten metal at the debris field?
 

Boston

Active Member
The pent house collapse is evidence of the pent house collapse, we do not know if it effected anything other than its immediate surroundings, Your assuming it fell all the way to the basement, which given the amount of structure between it and the basement is quite presumptuous indeed.

I never imposed those expectations, I suggested we look at the film evidence ;-) it is you who are imposing those expectations on I who doesn't consider them relevant to actual events.

Sorry but I see no folding or buckling within the film evidence, I do see a distinct kink, develop, then a symmetrical collapse including all four corners letting go at once as well structural cohesiveness between all points. IE the building fell, intact ( or at least the parts I can see ) directly into its own footprint. I think your mistaking the kink for a bow, if you look at it from enough angles, you can see the wall remains pretty flat ( I watched your vid about five times actually )

Fair enough

ah but this is one that did, 3 times in one day, and all under some very fishy circumstances, all three unique collapses, all three seemingly defy the laws of physics and all three failed investigations. Not only that but those investigations ignored the film evidence and refused to admit multiple visually confirmable evidences

Glowing hot steel for instance as evident in the multiple pictures I've presented thus far.
 

Oxymoron

Banned
Banned
Because they are demonstrating principles, not results. Verinage and the cans have very obvious differences, and the other building have very obvious differences.
Principles which you suggest validate the wtc collapse stories. But what about the 'real world' scenarios which demonstrate the 'principles'. All these examples are demonstrating principles. The only difference is, when they support an alternate collapse scenario, they are apples and pears but when they support the OS, they are 'valid principles'. You can't have it both ways.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
The pent house collapse is evidence of the pent house collapse, we do not know if it effected anything other than its immediate surroundings, Your assuming it fell all the way to the basement, which given the amount of structure between it and the basement is quite presumptuous indeed.
The penthouse collapse is evidence of the failure of column 79, at least to about half way down the building, based on the broken windows. More likely down to the fires.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Principles which you suggest validate the wtc collapse stories. But what about the 'real world' scenarios which demonstrate the 'principles'. All these examples are demonstrating principles. The only difference is, when they support an alternate collapse scenario, they are apples and pears but when they support the OS, they are 'valid principles'. You can't have it both ways.
Which scenarios?

I just said that the cans and verinage are very different to what actually happened, I also say the other building fires were very different to what happened. I'm not making a distinction here.
 

Boston

Active Member
The penthouse collapse is evidence of the failure of column 79, at least to about half way down the building, based on the broken windows. More likely down to the fires.
The columns are numbered and clearly visible on the outside of the structure, none appear to have collapsed and there are only a few random window failures on any side of the building not associated with fires. There is zero evidence that any column failed previous to the global failure we see in the film evidence.

Sorry but your grasping at straws with all these stacked assumptions. Do you have any direct video evidence of this failure of which you speak ?
 

Boston

Active Member
There really isn't even column failure evident at the kink, so I'd again suggest that this thing all let go at once from the base. Exactly like what you'd do in a controlled demolition. There is a column failure evident on the opposite end of the building tho once the demolition is initiated. You can clearly see every single window ( ok most of them ) adjacent to it go at once as it shows a very very slight hesitation in collapse

See post 294

I've watched that film probably several dozen times at this point. Mick, you have a point that in one view and one view only there is a distortion of reflective characteristics on the exterior of the building. That distortion does appear to ripple through the structure. In which case there may be some validity to the claim that the assumed internal failure initiated with the collapse of the pent house area. This does not however even remotely explain how random fire damage to floors twenty and thirty stories bellow, at typical office fire temps, could have initiated a collapse of the pent house structures. I'd also hesitate to suggest that a complete internal failure could have occurred based on a few bits of mechanical, heavy as they tend to be resulted in a massive internal failure of the nature NIST insists without direct evidence occurred. I've see cranes drop stuff on a roof before and if it does fail, it doesn't even remotely take out the whole building. It just punches a whole down to concrete. But I might be compelled to admit that some force did excert itself from the top down such that it cause a localized temporary deformation of the exterior wall. That assumed there as no wind altering the smoke patters which might allow simple atmospheric changes to have caused the phenomenon, however, I think it less likely an atmospheric event than it be a consequence of the pent house failure. Do you have a mechanical layout of the roof area along with the call outs for the mechanicals ?

Oh and I think what you might be referring to as folding is the interference of the rubble pile coming into play about half way through the event. After that the pile has a greater and greater influence on the fall pattern of any controlled demolition. Its a natural consequence of spending energy compressing the mass of the building, by the rest of the building coming down directly on top of it. Its actually a very good evidence of a directly vertical failure unlike any natural occurrence.

In the end we need the prints to accurately suggest anything that happened on the interior of the building. Which just might be why we don't have the blue prints available. Even just one swamp cooler or water tanks can cause quite the vibration if dropped carelessly onto any roof of a high rise, let alone if it happens to penetrate the roof system for some reason.
 
Last edited:

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
The columns are numbered and clearly visible on the outside of the structure, none appear to have collapsed and there are only a few random window failures on any side of the building not associated with fires. There is zero evidence that any column failed previous to the global failure we see in the film evidence.

Sorry but your grasping at straws with all these stacked assumptions. Do you have any direct video evidence of this failure of which you speak ?
Column 79 is an interior column, it's directly below the penthouse. The penthouse appears to fall through several floors, meaning column 79 was gone from those floors. Given what is observed it's hard to see how anything other than full vertical collapse of column 79 would not be the cause or the result of what is observed. The rest follows.
 

Oxymoron

Banned
Banned
The penthouse collapse is evidence of the failure of column 79, at least to about half way down the building, based on the broken windows. More likely down to the fires.
Broken windows are not proof of structural collapse. Windows can break whilst being carried across the road or fitted... let alone when a building is in the throes of collapse.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
There really isn't even column failure evident at the kink, so I'd again suggest that this thing all let go at once from the base. Exactly like what you'd do in a controlled demolition. There is a column failure evident on the opposite end of the building tho once the demolition is initiated. You can clearly see every single window adjacent to it go at once as it shows a very very slight hesitation in collapse

See post 294
I'd agree the exterior failed nearer the base, so the top half of the building seems to come down more or less as one piece. But that tells you nothing about the interior.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Broken windows are not proof of structural collapse. Windows can break whilst being carried across the road or fitted... let alone when a building is in the throes of collapse.
No, but they are pretty good evidence, based on the timing. Where do you think the penthouse went?
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Sorry but your grasping at straws with all these stacked assumptions. Do you have any direct video evidence of this failure of which you speak ?
You might also want to look at the analysis on NCSTAR 1-9 again. Try chapter 8. (page 323, pdf 367)
 

jomper

Inactive Member
It didn't. It collapsed asymmetrically internally. Then the exterior fell.
Pure supposition based on the fact that A: the penthouse fell first and B: there's an unverified computer model that hypotheses the collapse of the internal structure.

As I said in a previous thread, I think the NIST model debunks itself because it shows how the internal collapse hypothesis does not produce the symmetrical features that make the collapse of WTC7 so unique.

I still chuckle at the memory of your suggestion that NIST ended its simulation of WTC7 halfway through the collapse sequence because it was so accurate to the evidence that there was point in running it any further....
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Pure supposition based on the fact that A: the penthouse fell first and B: there's an unverified computer model that hypotheses the collapse of the internal structure.

As I said in a previous thread, I think the NIST model debunks itself because it shows how the internal collapse hypothesis does not produce the symmetrical features that make the collapse of WTC7 so unique.
Ignore the model then. The hypothesis works perfectly well without it.

I still chuckle at the memory of your suggestion that NIST ended its simulation of WTC7 halfway through the collapse sequence because it was so accurate to the evidence that there was point in running it any further....
You might want to quote what I actually said if you want to make claims.

I suspect I said they stopped the model once global collapse had started because it was not accurate enough to produce any useful result after that, due to the chaotic complexity.
 

Oxymoron

Banned
Banned
No, but they are pretty good evidence, based on the timing. Where do you think the penthouse went?
I don't know where the penthouse went initially and neither does anyone else. That it collapsed down internally to a 'very low level', is pure conjecture.

There were exterior and near exterior columns in the building, any one of which would be expected to be ejected out of the building in a collapse and be captured on video. Sorry but a symmetrical collapse anything like that does not make sense to millions, (if not billions) of people. Ok, we may not be engineers or scientists but we are not stupid and we know what is 'normal' and many of us have experiences in that field even if we do not have qualifications. Add to that the number of people who are engineers and architects, politicians, military, cia whistleblowers etc and that is a strong case against 'elements of the government', with a strong reason and a proven track record of disinformation and propaganda.
 

Cairenn

Senior Member
I refer you back to the article that was in structure magazine that explained how the failure of one column could have resulted in the interior collapse.

You dismissed that as an 'appeal to authority'. Instead of reading it, it seems.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
I don't know where the penthouse went initially and neither does anyone else. That it collapsed down internally to a 'very low level', is pure conjecture.

There were exterior and near exterior columns in the building, any one of which would be expected to be ejected out of the building in a collapse and be captured on video. Sorry but a symmetrical collapse anything like that does not make sense to millions, (if not billions) of people. Ok, we may not be engineers or scientists but we are not stupid and we know what is 'normal' and many of us have experiences in that field even if we do not have qualifications. Add to that the number of people who are engineers and architects, politicians, military, cia whistleblowers etc and that is a strong case against 'elements of the government', with a strong reason and a proven track record of disinformation and propaganda.
Why would the interior columns be ejected in a collapse, but not in a controlled demolition?
 

Boston

Active Member
Column 79 is an interior column, it's directly below the penthouse. The penthouse appears to fall through several floors, meaning column 79 was gone from those floors. Given what is observed it's hard to see how anything other than full vertical collapse of column 79 would not be the cause or the result of what is observed. The rest follows.
agreed but it doesn't mean that column failed, it just means that something failed to cause the collapse of the pent house structure. I'd also agree that the pent house does appear to fall "into" the building. But again I'd be hesitant to make assumptions. Events of this nature demand a more respectful consideration than just an assumption.
 

Oxymoron

Banned
Banned
Why would the interior columns be ejected in a collapse, but not in a controlled demolition?
Logical thinking would say, IMO, in a demolition, the connections are cut so that the resistance is so reduced that you get no resistance and free fall, (at least in part, which is what we witnessed).

In a collapse, the connections would need to be broken by the collapse energies, which would be more chaotic and would likely result in some direct failures but also lateral bending and ejection due to the resistance.
 

Boston

Active Member
Ignore the model then. The hypothesis works perfectly well without it.



You might want to quote what I actually said if you want to make claims.

I suspect I said they stopped the model once global collapse had started because it was not accurate enough to produce any useful result after that, due to the chaotic complexity.
actually it doesn't Mick as the two are inexorably linked, they built the model, off the hypothesis, neither work.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
ah but NIST knows its simulation doesn't accurately represent the film evidence. It just says it doesn't matter and that its close enough. as if that would ever fly in a physics class.
Yes it would, because the physics class would understand the limitations of a model of complex system.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
actually it doesn't Mick as the two are inexorably linked, they built the model, off the hypothesis, neither work.
No they did not. They created the hypothesis based on the observations. They then created a model to perform experiments to verify the hypothesis. But the hypothesis still fits the observed facts. You can totally disregard the model if you like.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Logical thinking would say, IMO, in a demolition, the connections are cut so that the resistance is so reduced that you get no resistance and free fall, (at least in part, which is what we witnessed).

In a collapse, the connections would need to be broken by the collapse energies, which would be more chaotic and would likely result in some direct failures but also lateral bending and ejection due to the resistance.
So all the connections were cut? How many would that be then?
 

lee h oswald

Banned
Banned
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.

And right there is where you have someone that doesn't have the slightest idea what they're talking about; or, more accurately, making up. There's plenty other 'right there's' all over this thread (not to mention the site), but hard to know which to choose.

Presenting as an 'expert' in all kinds of things, but in this case building materials and scale (yet again! a well-worn path by now) without the most basic understanding, is simply disseminating appallingly bad information, and that's putting it politely. Much much better to keep quiet and we can all pretend that the emperor actually has at least a thong on.

Never heard of the Chrysler Building, presumably.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chrysler_Building

The Chrysler Building is an Art Deco style skyscraper in New York City, located on the east side of Manhattan in the Turtle Bay area at the intersection of 42nd Street and Lexington Avenue. At 1,046 feet (319 m),[1][6][7] the structure was the world's tallest building for 11 months before it was surpassed by the Empire State Building in 1931.[8] It is still the tallest brick building in the world, albeit with an internal steel skeleton. After the destruction of the World Trade Center, it was again the second-tallest building in New York City until December 2007, when the spire was raised on the 1,200-foot (365.8 m) Bank of America Tower, pushing the Chrysler Building into third position. In addition, The New York Times Building, which opened in 2007, is exactly level with the Chrysler Building in height.[9] Both buildings were then pushed into 4th position, when the under construction One World Trade Center surpassed their height.
About twice the height of 7 so I presume the bricks must be 66 ft long, 33 ft wide, weigh 1,200,000lbs each in walls 100ft thicK? Roughly, ofcourse - going by the calculations offered above. Please correct my maths if I'm wrong.
 
Last edited:

jomper

Inactive Member
You might want to quote what I actually said if you want to make claims.

I suspect I said they stopped the model once global collapse had started because it was not accurate enough to produce any useful result after that, due to the chaotic complexity.
No, that's not what you said.

from: WTC 7 (Building 7)

jomper said:
It seems to me that the NIST WTC 7 report debunks the fire-induced collapse hypothesis by representing this computer model as its best attempt to prove the case. It is simply not sufficiently accurate to the evidence. It supposes an internal collapse before the collapse of the facade, but as soon as the facade starts to fall it begins to deviate markedly from the video evidence.

It is extremely clear that if the model here had been allowed to run for another second it would not resemble the video evidence at all. The video evidence strongly suggests the simultaneous failure of columns. The NIST model here shows what fire might do, but fire cannot cause columns to fail simultaneously and if this is NIST's best attempt to model the video evidence then fire must be discounted completely.
I think if the simulation were allowed to run, then it would fall straight down - there's nothing supporting it at that point - which is why they stopped the simulation.
Lol.

Ignore the model then. The hypothesis works perfectly well without it.
And exactly why would anyone accept this hypothesis? Because it's proposed by the experts that Cairenn invokes with such reverence? Isn't it pure speculation, rather like the early NIST hypothesis, which it admitted had a "low probability of occurring"?

The alternative hypothesis is obvious to anyone viewing the video evidence. I might be persuaded that fire was indeed the cause of the symmetrical collapse of WTC 7 if the possibility of explosives or accelerants had been exhaustively and intensively investigated and documented.

But this is not the case. What we have on the NIST website is a mealy-mouthed attempt to excuse itself from the responsibility of testing for accelerants and an incredibly lame justification for not doing so.

Apart from anything else there is an overpowering geopolitical case for explicitly and exhaustively eliminating every suggestion of foul play from the question of the unique collapse of WTC 7. Want to radicalise a young Muslim? Show them a video of WTC 7 collapsing, tell them it happened on 9/11, and then tell them the Americans insist it happened because of office fires.

The vast majority of people living in the Muslim world do not believe this, as Pew research shows http://www.pewglobal.org/2011/07/21/muslim-western-tensions-persist/
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Top