The Uniqueness of the WTC7 Collapse

lee h oswald

Banned
Banned
Mick West said:
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.
Is that why you don't build tall buildings out of brick?
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Is that why you don't build tall buildings out of brick?
You don't build tall buildings out of brick because you'd need massively thick foundations and walls to get the stability needed. It's just not economical, nor a good use of space. For example, the Philadelphia city hall has walls 22 feet thick at the base.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philadelphia_City_Hall
Structures like the Chrysler building have a steel frame that takes most of the load. The bricks are essentially cladding.

The dimensions I gave of the bricks were for if the brick wall in the video were simply scaled 50x in all dimensions. Not a practical suggestion for construction.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
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.
And yet what I said was accurate. The building was already falling, so there was no point in continuing the simulation.

(And I think I did discuss the problems of complexity elsewhere, but can't find it now. But the same point is valid. You can't simulate a complex system past a certain point with any real accuracy).

And exactly why would anyone accept this hypothesis?
Because it fits the observations better than alternative hypotheses.
 

lee h oswald

Banned
Banned
If you could point out and explain the "disinfo" then I could correct it. But please don't just make personal attacks.
I just did and look what happens - I've been pointing it out since I got here (along with a select few) - and look at all the good it's done. I'd urge all the real sceptics, and they know who they are, not to waste too much time engaging here. Take your energy elsewhere and let this place die (it's barely alive as it is). It's clear what the purpose is, and there's nothing to be gained (only lost) from running around in circular trenches with people who will never alter their position beause of anything you might say - wasn't it Upton Sinclair who said that getting someone to understand something when their livelihood depends on them not understanding it was a fool's errand?
It's not personal, how could it be? It's all about the evidence. Never mind diminishing returns, there are no returns at all - just deliberate atomisation and endless faux 'debate'. It's quite sad to see someone wasting a large chunk of their life on that.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
I just did and look what happens - I've been pointing it out since I got here (along with a select few) - and look at all the good it's done. I'd urge all the real sceptics, and they know who they are, not to waste too much time engaging here. Take your energy elsewhere and let this place die (it's barely alive as it is). It's clear what the purpose is, and there's nothing to be gained (only lost) from running around in circular trenches with people who will never alter their position beause of anything you might say - wasn't it Upton Sinclair who said that getting someone to understand something when their livelihood depends on them not understanding it was a fool's errand?
It's not personal, how could it be? It's all about the evidence. Never mind diminishing returns, there are no returns at all - just deliberate atomisation and endless faux 'debate'. It's quite sad to see someone wasting a large chunk of their life on that.
ahem...
https://www.metabunk.org/members/


If I'm a paid shill, then what's your excuse? :)

I think we can have a quite reasonable discussion about scale and suchlike without immediate descending into cries of "liar". I explained my comments about scale. I gave examples of why all-brick construction is not used. Kind of off topic though - the whole point is was to get people thinking about scale, and how some things scale up well, but other things do not.
 
Last edited:

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
And the same force is exerted upwards by the structure - it's quite simple. Have you ever built anything structural? Have you ever built anything at all?
There's a difference between static and dynamic loads though. Also a difference between the upwards force a straight/vertical column can exert, and the force a bent/tilted column can exert. These differences are very large.
 

lee h oswald

Banned
Banned
But I've shown you lying several times - let's call a lie a lie. Want me to dig them out? I know it's not normal around here to be honest and straightforward in what's said, but I don't compromise on other people's 'terms'. Also - what? 1.5 ish posts per day from me - doesn't represent much effort. I run two businesses, write books and have a vibrant social life. This is an aside - in between regular arbitrary bannings for 'politeness' 'infringements'.
 
Last edited:

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
But I've shown you lying several times - let's call a lie a lie. Want me to dig them out? I know it's not normal around here to be honest and straightforward in what's said, but I don't compromise on other people's 'terms'. Also - what? 1.5 ish posts per day from me - doesn't represent much effort. I run two busineses, write books and have a vibrant social life. This is an aside - in between regular arbitrary bannings for 'politeness' 'infringements'.
Yes, I would like you dig them out. I stand by my posts, and if I got something wrong I'd explain it, then stand by the explanation. I might make mistakes, but I have never lied.

If you can't give an example of an unequivocally lie, then I ask you to apologize.
 

Josh Heuer

Active Member
Ok, to get a little bit back on topic...
I'm curious about this molten steel. It appears there's video/photo evidence it was there (refer back to around page 6, Boston had a good video showing multiple credible eyewitnesses and video evidence) and yet people who follow the official story still deny it altogether.
I noticed the tactic seems to be either 1) ignore it and argue something else or 2) deny it and say 'I don't see molten steel prove it'
So? Was it there? Was this building really so unique that molten steel came about through uncontrolled fires?
 

lee h oswald

Banned
Banned
Structures like the Chrysler building have a steel frame that takes most of the load. The bricks are essentially cladding.
Nope, the brickwork takes the load - the steel is built into it for just that purpose - it transfers the load to the, er, load-bearing walls - it's how things like that are done, really. So, wrong again on yet another basic fact of construction - unless it's being suggested the steel just floats on....? Sometimes it's better to stop digging.
 

lee h oswald

Banned
Banned
Yes, I would like you dig them out. I stand by my posts, and if I got something wrong I'd explain it, then stand by the explanation. I might make mistakes, but I have never lied.

If you can't give an example of an unequivocally lie, then I ask you to apologize.
ok - will do - let others be the judge. not tonight though - I'm off to a private view - so later - I won't forget :)
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Nope, the brickwork takes the load - the steel is built into it for just that purpose - it transfers the load to the, er, load-bearing walls - it's how things like that are done, really. So, wrong again on yet another basic fact of construction - unless it's being suggested the steel just floats on....? Sometimes it's better to stop digging.
Reference?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chrysler_Building
http://www.designbookmag.com/chryslerbuilding.htm
An earlier example:
http://www.in-arch.net/NYC/nyc1.html
 

Cairenn

Senior Member
http://archinect.com/forum/thread/14921180/why-can-t-you-have-a-skyscraper-made-of-bricks


http://www.monadnockbuilding.com/history.htm
 

Pete Tar

Senior Member
And the same force is exerted upwards by the structure - it's quite simple. Have you ever built anything structural? Have you ever built anything at all?
So when a structure 200 m tall fails is it going to go down or to the side?

For it to go to the side 10 metres or more would require a significant portion to maintain complete rigidity under the kinetic energy being released and to transfer all the material crushing down on it out to the side. How would it maintain its own structure at an angle with force brought down on it, without just collapsing?
Wouldn't everything underneath the top of a building just crumple so it appears to go straight down? That would be the point of least resistance in the face of that much force, not out to the side.
 

Boston

Active Member
So when a structure 200 m tall fails is it going to go down or to the side?

For it to go to the side 10 metres or more would require a significant portion to maintain complete rigidity under the kinetic energy being released and to transfer all the material crushing down on it out to the side. How would it maintain its own structure at an angle with force brought down on it, without just collapsing?
Wouldn't everything underneath the top of a building just crumple so it appears to go straight down? That would be the point of least resistance in the face of that much force, not out to the side.
and thats where your mistake is, in order for that structure to do anything but fall over it would take a symmetrical application of kinetic energy to get any complex structure, let alone one of this size to fall straight down. The gravitational resistance is generally multiple times what the building actually weighs, so removing a portion of that weight only serves to further stabilize the structure. Making it even less likely that the NIST hypothesis is accurate. Which is one reason there model doesn't work. Another is that they didn't take ( or at least thats the rumor ) the floor grating connection into account or the lateral support the remaining floor structure even after the assumed collapse into account. Makes it even less likely to have occurred.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

jomper

Inactive Member
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.
No changes were made even to the construction of the new WTC7.

Once again you are left with only a bare assertion that the investigation was successful in the face of powerful arguments to the contrary.
 
Last edited:

Cairenn

Senior Member
Jomper, no attacks please. We have been polite to you, you can do the same.

It does not take an application of kinetic energy to make something fall. If you are cutting a 2x4 and you cut through it, the unsupported piece FALLS because of gravity.

When the supports that tied the building together gave, it collapsed, in the easiest direction, straight down.
 

jomper

Inactive Member
Cairenn, the only planet where a massively scaled up foot exerting huge downward pressure on a building could be called representative of the force of gravity would be Jupiter. That was the comment that Peter responded to and it was not an inappropriate response.

Your argument above assumes that "all the supports that tied the building together" gave simultaneously in order for "easiest direction" to be symmetrically straight down.

Why would you make such an incredibly improbable assumption?
 

jomper

Inactive Member
Yeah I guesss.

Why don't you explain to me why it's wrong then?
Since I was referring to Mick standing on a can in the first instance, the force of which "massively scaled up" to the size of WTC7 would be many times greater than the force of gravity here on Earth, I referred you to Jupiter where surface gravity is the greatest in the Solar System -- about 2.4 times greater than it is on Earth. Of course the downward force Mick was exerting on the can by standing on it would be much greater than 2.4 times Earth's gravity if it was scaled up with the can to the size of WTC 7.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Cairenn

Senior Member
The magazine article by EXPERTS that you discounted for one, and my own knowledge of physics and building things.

My dad had a nice workshop and I had my own tools when I was in primary school. I built things and some of them didn't work.

Let's take a simple example, a storage shelf unit. Say it is rated for 250 lbs a shelf and you have 250 lbs on a shelf. Say you didn't assemble it right or that it had some faulty bolts. The top shelf gives way and falls on the next one. Since it only fell a few inches, the energy in was limited. But you leave the collapsed shelf sitting on top of the other one. Now that shelf has a load of 500 lbs. Now your silly dog that weighs 100 lbs decides to make a bed on top of the shelf. Would you be surprised for the second shelf to collapse?
 

jomper

Inactive Member
The magazine article by EXPERTS that you discounted for one, and my own knowledge of physics and building things.

My dad had a nice workshop and I had my own tools when I was in primary school. I built things and some of them didn't work.

Let's take a simple example, a storage shelf unit. Say it is rated for 250 lbs a shelf and you have 250 lbs on a shelf. Say you didn't assemble it right or that it had some faulty bolts. The top shelf gives way and falls on the next one. Since it only fell a few inches, the energy in was limited. But you leave the collapsed shelf sitting on top of the other one. Now that shelf has a load of 500 lbs. Now your silly dog that weighs 100 lbs decides to make a bed on top of the shelf. Would you be surprised for the second shelf to collapse?
If it collapsed straight down through the line of most resistance -- ie the supporting uprights of the shelves suddenly offered no support at all, and the shelves fell through the perpendicular described by uprights with very little deviation from it -- I would be amazed. And I'm sure you would, too.

Now multiply this amazement by 70+ times -- representing the 70+ supporting columns of WTC 7 -- and you have a reasonable person's response to WTC 7.
 

Cairenn

Senior Member
But all the columns were not supporting all the floors.

I have a question, did you read the link I posted? I need to know so I understand what I need to explain.
 

jomper

Inactive Member
But all the columns were not supporting all the floors.

I have a question, did you read the link I posted? I need to know so I understand what I need to explain.
I'm sorry, I thought you'd extracted and posted the most salient points, which I responded to. I'll read it thoroughly when I get back from work; perhaps you would like to respond to the points I made in response to your extract without appealing to authority, if you have time.
 

Pete Tar

Senior Member
Okay - in the sense that a foot represents a constant downwards force exerting directional force on all objects to a central point, how does that not represent gravity?
 

jomper

Inactive Member
I would emphasise that the singular quality of the collapse of WTC 7 involves the simultaneous failure of a set of supporting columns: this is clear from the video evidence.

This fact is denied by NIST of course which is why the NIST model fails to reproduce any of the symmetrical features of the collapse of the building that make it so unique.

This is also partly why Mick's can example has so little explanatory power. If the can represents a structural column then the question of how 80+ cans can be simultaneously kinked and crushed to achieve a symmetrical collapse remains.
 
Last edited:

jomper

Inactive Member
Okay - in the sense that a foot represents a constant downwards force exerting directional force on all objects to a central point, how does that not represent gravity?
Did you not understand the point that I made about scale or are you simply looking for an excuse to insult me again? The force at scale would be many, many times greater than the force of gravity on the Earth's surface. That was my point at the outset.
 
Top