Would the WTC Twin Towers have collapsed from fire alone, without plane impact?

LilWabbit

Senior Member
Here's Shyam Sunder of NIST:

https://www.c-span.org/video/?280569-1/investigation-world-trade-center-building-7 3 minutes in.

I feel like you're battling some cognitive dissonance here... But I get what you're arguing. You're grasping onto that there must be some key difference in the fires that WTC 7 experienced compared to fires in other buildings, because otherwise, why did it collapse and those other buildings didn't? Now, NIST's take on it is, very explicitly, that there was no massive difference, only that the fires happened to cause a very rare, "extraordinary event" as they put it in the FAQ. And you're arguing the difference was that the fires were set in a very unique way, that being debris impact from a building collapsing nearby. But think about it... Once the fires are ignited, what's the difference? It's just office furnishings burning. All the fire proofing in WTC 7 was still intact, and we know steel frames hold up in those sorts of temperatures just fine from examples like One Meridian.

The NIST FAQ answer to question 15 highlights the unique elements in WTC7 leading to the collapse that didn't exist in other historical cases of similar fires:

Article:
Factors contributing to WTC 7's collapse included: the thermal expansion of building elements such as floor beams and girders, which occurred at temperatures hundreds of degrees below those typically considered in current practice for fire-resistance ratings; significant magnification of thermal expansion effects due to the long-span floors in the building; connections between structural elements that were designed to resist the vertical forces of gravity, not the thermally induced horizontal or lateral loads; and an overall structural system not designed to prevent fire-induced progressive collapse.


If these circumstances were identical or fundamentally similar in earlier cases of similar fires, then you can claim the fire as a whole had historical precedents and yet in those precedents they didn't cause a collapse.
 

Thomas B

Active Member
So I'm not trying to teach you. I'm just pointing out the errors of your "reasoning" so that others...do not find metabunk hosting a collection of unchallenged rubbish.
This is very much what our conversation feels like. You're not talking to me. You're performing for some (imaginary?) audience and your main worry is how it looks.

The important thing is this:
When you introduce those connections, you drastically weaken the structure as compared to a uniform, prismatic structure of the same dimensions.
That is, you are saying that the perimeter structures, because of the bolted connections, are much weaker than the textbook mast scaled up. But this, you see, is what we disagree about. I think the strength of the mast is a good model for the strength of the perimeter structure, though you're right that actually designing a structure out of discrete parts to behave like a uniform box column is really hard.
To figure out by how much is a very complicated calculation that I am not equipped to undertake, and I don't pretend to be, but you are not even equipped to recognize that such a calculation is needed while at the same time you purport to draw conclusions as if such a calculation had been completed.
I think that's a great place to leave things. I need to find someone who is better equiped than you and me to do the math. If I do, I will be sure to drop you a line about the result.
 

Abdullah

Active Member
This whole "precedent" debate is a waste of time. There is a first time for everything in this world.

The question is whether there is any reason to believe that fire did not cause the collapse of a burning steel framed skyscraper, whether it be for the first time or not.
 

Henkka

Active Member
If these circumstances were identical or fundamentally similar in earlier cases of similar fires, then you can claim the fire as a whole had historical precedents and yet in those precedents they didn't cause a collapse.
Well if you set the standard absurdly high, then no, there hasn't been any historical precedents. Like a building that is exactly identical to WTC 7 has never burned in the exact same way before, therefore no precedent, hooray.
This whole "precedent" debate is a waste of time. There is a first time for everything in this world.

The question is whether there is any reason to believe that fire did not cause the collapse of a burning steel framed skyscraper, whether it be for the first time or not.
It was many posts ago, but I think the initial argument was:

1) Not a single tall building had ever collapsed from fire like WTC 7 did

2) Many tall buildings had collapsed from controlled demolition like WTC 7 did

Therefore, it was an absolutely scientifically valid hypothesis to ask if WTC 7 was also demolished. Instead, agencies like FEMA immediately got to work on the assumption that fire collapsed the building, even though they could not explain how!
 

LilWabbit

Senior Member
Well if you set the standard absurdly high, then no, there hasn't been any historical precedents.

Not absurdly high. Just a basic standard of scientific rigour. To repeat what's been oft-reiterated, you cannot sloppily appeal to a historical precedent of a 'similar fire' to disprove an explanation of the WTC 7 fire-initiated collapse which the NIST demonstrates as having structural peculiarities different from the earlier fires, as cited in the previous post.

Like a building that is exactly identical to WTC 7 has never burned in the exact same way before, therefore no precedent, hooray.

Or at least similar in the critical respects outlined by the NIST FAQ in answer No. 15.

It was many posts ago, but I think the initial argument was:

1) Not a single tall building had ever collapsed from fire like WTC 7 did

2) Many tall buildings had collapsed from controlled demolition like WTC 7 did

Therefore, it was an absolutely scientifically valid hypothesis to ask if WTC 7 was also demolished.

It's not an entirely illogical hypothesis. But it would be scientifically valid only if the various observables it logically implies can be credibly verified and peer-reviewed. And there are many observables way beyond structural issues spilling all the way into the political and religious realms that need to be accounted for.

Instead, agencies like FEMA immediately got to work on the assumption that fire collapsed the building, even though they could not explain how!

It's perfectly scientific to first explore the merits of the most evident hypothesis, namely fire-induced structural weakening. I think the NIST FAQ answer 15 offers a rather sensible explanation matching all evidence and the details of which should be studied from the full report before claiming, as amateurs, that no valid explanation is offered.
 

benthamitemetric

Senior Member
Do we really need a drawn out discussion of the WTC7 fires in this thread?
That is, you are saying that the perimeter structures, because of the bolted connections, are much weaker than the textbook mast scaled up. But this, you see, is what we disagree about. I think the strength of the mast is a good model for the strength of the perimeter structure, though you're right that actually designing a structure out of discrete parts to behave like a uniform box column is really hard.

I think that's a great place to leave things. I need to find someone who is better equiped than you and me to do the math. If I do, I will be sure to drop you a line about the result.
If you actually understood why you needed those calculations--actually deeply understood it--you wouldn't be posting conclusions about the strength of the perimeter based off the steel tubular example at all. So we do not have just a difference of opinion here. You have been making affirmative claims that are based upon a fundamentally flawed premise. But go on and pretend you haven't been making such claims and are rather just humbly searching for someone to actually undertake for you, someone who can't be bothered to learn the basics for himself, the massive project of calculating the ability of the perimeter to withstand self-buckling for a purpose you have not even actually articulated. No one here will take you up on that, nor will anyone elsewhere, but maybe someone will in the mythical other forums where you have spent so much time over the years arguing against truthers.
 

Thomas B

Active Member
If you actually understood why you needed those calculations--actually deeply understood it--you wouldn't be posting conclusions about the strength of the perimeter based off the steel tubular example at all. So we do not have just a difference of opinion here.
I would take this more seriously if you did know how to do the calculations, or at least how to ballpark the question I'm asking. I'm not at all sure you "deeply understand" the thing you are expecting me to. So you're really saying we shouldn't have an opinion. I don't share that view.
 

LilWabbit

Senior Member
Do we really need a drawn out discussion of the WTC7 fires in this thread?

It seems so since the truther argument @Henkka is trying to make without having been entirely transparent about it goes something like this (correct me if I'm totally off-base here @Henkka):

If it can be demonstrated that (1) a building like the WTC 7 has never collapsed from fire alone while (2) accepting as the NIST does that the impact from the debris wasn't the main cause of the collapse, therefore demolition remains the only viable hypothesis. By extension, if demolition is the only viable hypothesis for WTC 7 collapse, then it's reasonable to assume the WTC Twin Towers also collapsed due to a demolition.
 

benthamitemetric

Senior Member
I would take this more seriously if you did know how to do the calculations, or at least how to ballpark the question I'm asking. I'm not at all sure you "deeply understand" the thing you are expecting me to. So you're really saying we shouldn't have an opinion. I don't share that view.
Ok, great. Don't let your ignorance get in the way of your argument. To you, it doesn't matter that your comparison is completely inapt; you'll persist in insisting that it somehow strengthens your point regardless. That way, instead of having no basis for your incredulity, you can pretend to have some basis. You're just proving my point.
 

Mendel

Senior Member.
All the fire proofing in WTC 7 was still intact, and we know steel frames hold up in those sorts of temperatures just fine from examples like One Meridian.
No, they don't "hold up just fine".
Article:
The area around One Meridian Plaza was cleared of pedestrians and firefighting personnel because of falling glass and debris.

Structural damage observed inside One Meridian Plaza by firefighters, and consultations with a structural engineer, led to fears that the damaged floors might collapse. An order to
evacuate the building was issued by Fire Commissioner Roger Ulshafer, and the building was completely evacuated by 7:30.

There was structural damage to horizontal steel beams and floor sections on most of the fire damaged floors. Under extreme fire exposure the beams and girders sagged and twisted and cracks appeared in the concrete floors.

The 20-story Morris Building and several three-story shops behind One Meridian Plaza on
Chestnut Street were damaged by falling debris and sat unused until they were demolished in 2000.

A lot of the same things happened to WTC7. But because WTC7 spanned the substation, it was more prone to collapse. The engineer's assessment and the fire department's strategy were very similar.
 

Mendel

Senior Member.
So you didn't get that I was talking about a series of prismatic tubes each of which was thinner than the next as we go up?
Yes, but you thought you could apply the equations for a single prismatic tube and get a meaningful result
 

Mendel

Senior Member.
I think the strength of the mast is a good model for the strength of the perimeter structure
yes. based on nothing but wishful thinking, the desire to prove yourself correct, and deft ignorance of any information that stands in the way of that

you were interested in shear lag and framed tubes only as long as you thought it supported your monolith idea; once you found out it didn't, you immediately dropped the topic.
 
Last edited:

Henkka

Active Member
It seems so since the truther argument @Henkka is trying to make without having been entirely transparent about it goes something like this (correct me if I'm totally off-base here @Henkka):
You're going way further with it than I would...
If it can be demonstrated that (1) a building like the WTC 7 has never collapsed from fire alone
It doesn't have to be demonstrated, it is a fact accepted by both sides that WTC 7 was the first tall building in history to collapse from fire.
(2) accepting as the NIST does that the impact from the debris wasn't the main cause of the collapse, therefore demolition remains the only viable hypothesis.
I wouldn't say the only viable hypothesis, but it would have been the exceedingly most likely hypothesis on the day after 9/11. It's just a completely mundane observation that if a tall building suddenly falls straight down, it probably did so for the same reason that every other tall building that has ever collapsed straight down did so, which would be controlled demolition. You could also state that if a building falls in a way that very closely resembles a controlled demolition, then it probably was a controlled demolition. An explanation based on fire will require you come up with a brand new, never observed before mechanism, which NIST attempted to do. You're also required to believe that a collapse resulting from randomly distributed fires looked like a picture-perfect controlled demolition, by pure chance.
By extension, if demolition is the only viable hypothesis for WTC 7 collapse, then it's reasonable to assume the WTC Twin Towers also collapsed due to a demolition.
Never said anything about the Twins during our convo. Entirely possible that WTC 7 was demolished while the Twins collapsed from impact and fire.
 

LilWabbit

Senior Member
You're going way further with it than I would...

It doesn't have to be demonstrated, it is a fact accepted by both sides that WTC 7 was the first tall building in history to collapse from fire.

What is scientifically more appropriate (i.e. sufficiently precise) is the question 'Have structurally similar (in the critical respects mentioned in NIST FAQ answer No. 15) buildings ever collapsed from fire?'. The answer appears to be a resounding 'no' and therefore we simply have no precedents. One Meridian seemed to have been close to a collapse though, but the fires lasted much longer and it didn't have the same structural failures as WTC 7.

I wouldn't say the only viable hypothesis, but it would have been the exceedingly most likely hypothesis on the day after 9/11. It's just a completely mundane observation that if a tall building suddenly falls straight down, it probably did so for the same reason that every other tall building that has ever collapsed straight down did so, which would be controlled demolition.

Without going into the sloppiness and unscientific character of your reasoning (with all due respect), I basically got right what you're trying to argue.

You could also state that if a building falls in a way that very closely resembles a controlled demolition, then it probably was a controlled demolition.

You could, but in so doing you'd be too simplistic and sloppy (read: unscientific) in your reasoning while ignoring all the other observables involved in a controlled demolition.

An explanation based on fire will require you come up with a brand new, never observed before mechanism, which NIST attempted to do.

NIST "attempted to come up" with no new mechanism. The NIST merely reported an investigation into and the consequent discovery of structural failures in WTC 7 that lead to the collapse from a fire which simply were not present in the other cases you'd like to consider as historical precedents. Hence, the historical precedent argument falls flat on its face. Also the historical precedents of 'similar fires' on other buildings of similar size (which were cases in New York reviewed by the NIST team since New York is their jurisdiction and shares the same regulatory framework) are not that many to even statistically consider a pattern even if they'd had fundamentally similar structural failures as WTC 7 (which they didn't).

You're also required to believe that a collapse resulting from randomly distributed fires looked like a picture-perfect controlled demolition, by pure chance.

If a critical column failure causes an entire floor to collapse, to a layman's eye the cascading collapse may look very similar to a controlled demolition indeed. Yes, science can sometimes be counterintuitive to us simpletons. However, it didn't look that similar to a controlled explosion if you look and compare more carefully (which would be the more scientific/professional approach). Not to mention the other observables of a controlled demolition entirely missing.

Finally, since you wrote it's "entirely possible that WTC 7 was demolished while the Twins collapsed from impact and fire", then in that case this whole discussion doesn't belong into this thread.

I've said this to you before on another thread but it seems worthwhile repeating it. It's always possible that a rubber duck is in fact an extraterrestrial in disguise. But as long as the evidence for the more extraordinary claim is lacking, regarding a rubber duck a rubber duck remains the far more reasonable conclusion.

To heavily lean on a conspiratorial explanation despite poor evidence bespeaks, imo, of (1) a naive over-estimation of the intelligence and capability of powerful governments (the longer you've served one at a high level, the less naive you are about their omnipotence) and their sponsors and (2) a tendency to expect the worst of people in power (cliches like 'power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely' taken as a hard and fast rule). Both 1 and 2 can be fuelled by popular fictional literature/movies as well as political forces wanting you to think that way.

But as we have been discussing I'm beginning to see two more reasons: (3) An unwitting hubris in a modern layperson and internet warrior leading him to think his untrained, sloppy reasoning and so-called scientific exploration is enough to contest career professionals who have immersed themselves in a given field before giving these professionals the basic respect of properly immersing into their argument first. (4) A narcissistic need to feel special and non-mainstream.
 
Last edited:

benthamitemetric

Senior Member
Except that that's actually how box columns are made: out of four discrete plates of steel.
Welded plates, not bolted plates. Please learn the difference between the two. NIST actually talked at length about the difference between welded and bolted connections in the WTC report. You wouldn't say something like this if you just took the time to learn the basics.
 

Thomas B

Active Member
Yes, but you thought you could apply the equations for a single prismatic tube and get a meaningful result
There's no question at all (and the MIT textbook confirms it) that the prismatic tube gets us a rough, lower bound on the critical length of a tapered tube with the same amount of steel. Likewise, a single tube gets us an extreme lower bound on an intelligently designed system of tubes.

Stop me when you think it will not go higher:

First, the textbook mast can go 200' without lateral bracing.
Now, we imagine a circle of, let's say, 244 of them. With spandrels every 12 feet.
Next, imagine them transitioning to thinner steel every 36 feet.
Next, imagine using thicker steel and working the other way down, so that we now add three floors at a time onto the bottom. Whatever thickness of steel it takes.

Is there any point where the critical height of this structure gets lower, i.e., where the structure gets weaker?
 

Henkka

Active Member
LilWabbit, I'll probably try to later respond in a private message, so the thread can at least get back to being just about the Twin Towers.
 

LilWabbit

Senior Member
LilWabbit, I'll probably try to later respond in a private message, so the thread can at least get back to being just about the Twin Towers.

I think the added value of these discussions is that we keep them public. It may be worthwhile for you to open up a separate thread on WTC 7 as suggested earlier. Many more members can pitch in. Let's just ensure every interlocutor tries to be patient and polite. I claim no perfection myself.

Cheers.
 

Henkka

Active Member
I think the added value of these discussions is that we keep them public. It may be worthwhile for you to open up a separate thread on WTC 7 as suggested earlier. Many more members can pitch in. Let's just ensure every interlocutor tries to be patient and polite. I claim no perfection myself.

Cheers.
I guess, but we've gotten so deep into it that it would require a kind of "WTC 7 general" thread, and I think threads here are supposed to (ideally) be focused on a single claim / issue.
 

LilWabbit

Senior Member
I guess, but we've gotten so deep into it that it would require a kind of "WTC 7 general" thread, and I think threads here are supposed to (ideally) be focused on a single claim / issue.

In proper MB fashion, you could start several specific WTC 7 threads on each piece of evidence for your controlled demolition hypothesis which you are submitting for review. I think we're specifically interested for any evidence on explosives residue, loud bangs, reports of tremors coinciding with bangs, demolition-induced damage, documents and records (maybe leaked?) of a military-industrial complex behind the demolitions, etc.

Be brave in producing said evidence even if there may be (hopefully not) disrespectful comments as to their sketchiness. It's more important to demonstrate their sketchiness rather than merely pay lip-service to it. The purpose of such threads would obviously be to pore over each piece of evidence and review their credibility technically. Not to pronounce condescending verbal judgments.
 

Henkka

Active Member
In proper MB fashion, you could start several specific WTC 7 threads on each piece of evidence for your controlled demolition hypothesis which you are submitting for review. I think we're specifically interested for any evidence on explosives residue, loud bangs, reports of tremors coinciding with bangs, demolition-induced damage, documents and records (maybe leaked?) of a military-industrial complex behind the demolitions, etc.

Be brave in producing said evidence even if there may be (hopefully not) disrespectful comments as to their sketchiness. It's more important to demonstrate their sketchiness rather than merely pay lip-service to it. The purpose of such threads would obviously be to pore over each piece of evidence and review their credibility technically. Not to pronounce condescending verbal judgments.
Multiple threads would be pretty excessive... I'll just respond in PM, and if there's some sticking point that is interesting enough for a full thread, maybe I'll consider that. I will say though, and hopefully it's the last thing I say about WTC 7 in this thread, is that it's pretty rich to demand a random person online to provide you proof of explosive residue in the steel, while defending a multi-million dollar government investigation that did not look at a single piece of physical evidence from the building lol. See questions 20, 21 and 22 in the NIST WTC 7 FAQ.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
This thread was specifically started to discussion the topic it's labeled with, and detailed in the first post. Rambling 9/11 threads that stray off-topic are just clutter. I'm removing @Thomas B from this thread, as he seems to be the worst offender here. Start a new thread if you want to discuss a new topic.
 

Mendel

Senior Member.
Except that that's actually how box columns are made: out of four discrete plates of steel.
Are they?
Article:
Shaped tubes typically are produced by making a round tube and then forming it into a square, rectangular, or other shape. The cage forming process doesn’t form round first, then the final shape; instead, the material goes from flat directly to the desired shape.
 

Mendel

Senior Member.
There's no question at all (and the MIT textbook confirms it) that the prismatic tube gets us a rough, lower bound on the critical length of a tapered tube with the same amount of steel. Likewise, a single tube gets us an extreme lower bound on an intelligently designed system of tubes.
citation needed, esp. on the latter

First, the textbook mast can go 200' without lateral bracing.
Now, we imagine a circle of, let's say, 244 of them. With spandrels every 12 feet.
now they're more susceptible to wind loads
Next, imagine them transitioning to thinner steel every 36 feet.
makes them weaker
Next, imagine using thicker steel and working the other way down, so that we now add three floors at a time onto the bottom. Whatever thickness of steel it takes.
???
putting gravity loads on the columns increase tension and strain. Actual net effect depends on the design of the floors, thickness of steel, etc.

and none of this is considering resonant frequencies and vibrational modes
 

LilWabbit

Senior Member
Multiple threads would be pretty excessive...

Well that's how we roll at MB. Analyzing each piece of evidence carefully. You can start by one.

I'll just respond in PM, and if there's some sticking point that is interesting enough for a full thread, maybe I'll consider that. I will say though, and hopefully it's the last thing I say about WTC 7 in this thread, is that it's pretty rich to demand a random person online to provide you proof of explosive residue in the steel, while defending a multi-million dollar government investigation that did not look at a single piece of physical evidence from the building lol.

Analyzing the steel samples wasn't possible.

Article:
21. Why didn't the investigators look at actual steel samples from WTC 7?

Steel samples were removed from the site before the NIST investigation began. In the immediate aftermath of Sept. 11, 2001, debris was removed rapidly from the site to aid in recovery efforts and to facilitate emergency responders' efforts to work around the site. Once it was removed from the scene, the steel from WTC 7 could not be clearly identified.


Also it was unnecessary with respect to WTC 7.

Article:
22. NIST's entire investigation included no physical evidence. How can the investigators be so sure they know what happened?

In general, much less evidence existed for WTC 7 than for the two WTC towers. The steel for WTC 1 and WTC 2 contained distinguishing characteristics that enabled it to be identified once removed from the site during recovery efforts. However, the same was not true for the WTC 7 steel. Certainly, there is a lot less visual and audio evidence of the WTC 7 collapse compared to the collapses of the WTC 1 and WTC 2 towers, which were much more widely photographed.

Nonetheless, the NIST investigation of WTC 7 is based on a huge amount of data. These data come from extensive research, interviews, and studies of the building, including audio and video recordings of the collapse. Rigorous, state-of-the-art computer methods were designed to study and model the building's collapse. These validated computer models produced a collapse sequence that was confirmed by observations of what actually occurred. In addition to using its in-house expertise, NIST relied upon private-sector technical experts; accumulated copious documents, photographs and videos of this disaster; conducted first-person interviews of building occupants and emergency responders; analyzed the evacuation and emergency response operations in and around WTC 7; performed computer simulations of the behavior of WTC 7 on Sept. 11, 2001; and combined the knowledge gained into a probable collapse sequence.


The hypothesis of a fire-induced collapse can be demonstrated as valid by structural analysis which indicated critical susceptibilities in WTC 7 for such a collapse (namely, "long-span floor systems, connections that cannot accommodate thermal effects, floor framing that induces asymmetric forces on girders, and composite floor systems, whose shear studs could fail due to differential thermal expansion"), supported by tons of available records and visual data. The hypothesis of a demolition can also be demonstrated by photographic evidence. A full inventory of all the scrapyard steel rubble with a view to distinguishing WTC 7 steel from the rest by hand-picking and analyzing each piece would have been an unnecessarily gargantuan task. So no, the truther is not expected to weed through the same rubble physically. Any photograph of any of the enmeshed scrap or dust from any of the WTC buildings demonstrating explosives residue or damage would be a good thread-starter.

Article:
As part of the investigation, the NIST team gathered every bit of evidence they could find. Activities included:
  • Interviews with 1,056 surviving occupants of the WTC buildings and 116 emergency responders.
  • Extensive reviews of design, construction, maintenance and inspection documents for the buildings
  • Examination of hundreds of structural steel components from WTC buildings
  • Gathering and analyzing thousands of pieces of video, photographic, and audio evidence from professional sources and the public


In order not to reinvent the wheel on the explosives residue 'evidence', maybe you'd like to first study this thread on the nano-thermite residue theory which argued that the "red-grey chips" from the collapse site dust contained nano-thermite used for demolition. Turns out it was primer paint.
 
Last edited:

Henkka

Active Member
Analyzing the steel samples wasn't possible.

Also it was unnecessary with respect to WTC 7.

I feel like your approach to this topic can be summed up as, "NIST said it, I believe it, that settles it!" Like yes, I know NIST has their theory of how the building collapsed, you don't need to quote the entire thing back at me. But again, I find it ironic that our whole conversation got started with you harping on about me believing in unscientific things, and then defending to the death a "scientific study" that did not look at any physical evidence. It's akin to doing an autopsy without the corpse. Also, even if you buy the claim that it "wasn't possible" for NIST to identify WTC 7 steel samples in the rubble, we know for a fact that steel samples existed. One was documented by FEMA: https://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_apc.pdf I'm sure NIST could've gotten their hands on this sample if they wanted to.

And to claim that it was "unnecessary" to examine physical evidence is just mind-blowing to me. You've got a massive, steel-framed skyscraper falling down, with its roofline measured at 9.8 m/s^2, in a manner that exactly resembles controlled demolitions, but it's "unnecessary" to examine the steel to figure out what happened to it?? You can just run a couple computer simulations and call it a day. So when you talk of "discovery of structural failures in WTC 7", it's important to understand that all these "discoveries" were made inside a computer, where all the parameters of the simulation are set up by whoever is running it. You essentially have to take it on faith that they did the simulation correctly, as they refuse to release the input data for reasons of "public safety". But even with all these advantages, they were not able to replicate the collapse, as the simulation looks nothing like the real collapse and cuts halfway. But just trust us, it's very science-y.
 

LilWabbit

Senior Member
I feel like your approach to this topic can be summed up as, "NIST said it, I believe it, that settles it!"

Not blindly. My approach is "NIST demonstrated it with sound models and supporting evidence, @Henkka go ahead and disprove it". Your approach is "don't trust NIST's more scientific explanations but follow my layman's logic".

Like yes, I know NIST has their theory of how the building collapsed, you don't need to quote the entire thing back at me.

It just seemed you ignored the pertinent bits while citing other bits out of context.

But again, I find it ironic that our whole conversation got started with you harping on about me believing in unscientific things, and then defending to the death a "scientific study" that did not look at any physical evidence.

An astronomer does a whole lot of rigorous science on Venus and its motions based on observations, pictures and footage (and mathematical modelling) by never ever acquiring and examining physical samples from Venus. So your argument is yet again a demonstration of layman's logic and ignorance on how science and evidence actually works. Plus, NIST did study the Twin Towers steel beams (as I cited for you) it could clearly identify being from the towers. Is there any valid reason to believe NIST is patently lying about its account on not being able to physically analyze WTC 7 steel beams? If so, start a thread by offering evidence on such a sinister agenda. But don't continue the convo on this thread.

It's akin to doing an autopsy without the corpse.

Firstly, analyzing a steel beam damage and the cause of death of a corpse are too wildly different things which (conflating different things) has become more the norm than the exception in your pattern of argumentation. Another example of using layman's logic and expecting us to go: "Wow, that solves it! How have I been so gullible and deluded by NIST obfuscations that I couldn't see the obvious!"

Secondly, one does not need to analyze every steel beam separately to conclude something accepted on every side of the 'debate': That the fire temperatures in WTC 7 never reached so high as to weaken the steel. But it was enough to cause some thermal expansion to dislodge it from the connecting girders and thereby weakening the overall structure which had these and other peculiar weaknesses.

Also, even if you buy the claim that it "wasn't possible" for NIST to identify WTC 7 steel samples in the rubble, we know for a fact that steel samples existed. One was documented by FEMA: https://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_apc.pdf I'm sure NIST could've gotten their hands on this sample if they wanted to.

Maybe you can start a thread on this FEMA examination and explain how it disproves the NIST model (which the FEMA examination doesn't seem to claim in any way). But not on this thread.
 
Last edited:

econ41

Senior Member
I feel like your approach to this topic can be summed up as, "NIST said it, I believe it, that settles it!" Like yes, I know NIST has their theory of how the building collapsed, you don't need to quote the entire thing back at me.
Remember that I NEVER rely on NIST as an "authority". All my offers to explain are premised on explaining "what actually happened". NOT "did NIST explain it right". A decision I made back in 2007 for the same reasons I stand by it now.

AND it avoids debate about whether this comment is correct or not!!!:
..... then defending to the death a "scientific study" that did not look at any physical evidence. It's akin to doing an autopsy without the corpse. Also, even if you buy the claim that it "wasn't possible" for NIST to identify WTC 7 steel samples in the rubble, we know for a fact that steel samples existed. One was documented by FEMA: https://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_apc.pdf I'm sure NIST could've gotten their hands on this sample if they wanted to.
If we rely on demonstrable facts of readily available evidence AND reasoned argument - I don't even need to go near the contention over "NIST didn't need that evidence". I can prove my point and you don't need to worry about NIST's alleged sins and omissions.
 

LilWabbit

Senior Member
Remember that I NEVER rely on NIST as an "authority". All my offers to explain are premised on explaining "what actually happened". NOT "did NIST explain it right". A decision I made back in 2007 for the same reasons I stand by it now.

AND it avoids debate about whether this comment is correct or not!!!:

If we rely on demonstrable facts of readily available evidence AND reasoned argument - I don't even need to go near the contention over "NIST didn't need that evidence". I can prove my point and you don't need to worry about NIST's alleged sins and omissions.

That's because you don't need to study NIST to understand the relevant basic concepts of structural engineering. I'm a dilettante so I have no choice.
 

econ41

Senior Member
That's because you don't need to study NIST to understand the relevant basic concepts of structural engineering. I'm a dilettante so I have no choice.
I fully understand and, BTW admire your willingness to take a conciliatory approach with @Henkka. I've made the offer many times to both @Henkka and @Thomas B - I doubt either will take me up. And this one thread was my deliberate effort to see if we could get a discussion focused on a defined topic. It lasted about 8 posts BUT I think the answer to the OP had been given by then. Certainly no one has attempted to improve on what had been sais OR attempt reasoned counter claims.

I'm not much interested in either chasing down the rabbit burrows of evasive derails or combative argument hence my backing off from those sub-threads.
 
Last edited:

Henkka

Active Member
An astronomer does a whole lot of rigorous science on Venus and its motions based on observations, pictures and footage (and mathematical modelling) by never ever acquiring and examining physical samples from Venus. So your argument is yet again a demonstration of layman's logic and ignorance on how science and evidence actually works.
I'm dying... That would be because it's literally physically impossible to go to Venus. Of course astronomers would get physical samples from Venus if they could! All the steel was right there in the middle of Manhattan for however many weeks or months it took to clean up, not on another planet.
 

LilWabbit

Senior Member
I fully understand and, BTW admire your willingness to take a conciliatory approach with @Henkka.

Maybe if I knew as much as you do on the technical aspects of the collapses my patience would run out quicker. And if I had invested as many hours on these explications at MB. Anyway, patience and not getting personal is always a good goal (in addition to being a MB rule) whilst not always easy to perfectly uphold.
 

Abdullah

Active Member
I think we should boycott WTC7 as well. At this point I am going to restart discussion of the actual topic where we left off.

Yes, again, the point of post #467 is that I've reached the same conclusion about debunkers on this forum. It's an impasse. We simply don't respect each other's basic understanding of the physics and engineering problem. We set up the problem differently, have widely divergent intuitions, and don't acknowledge each other's authorities.

Why do you think the question of whether thebtube could stand in it's own is important?
 

LilWabbit

Senior Member
I'm dying... That would be because it's literally physically impossible to go to Venus. Of course astronomers would get physical samples from Venus if they could! All the steel was right there in the middle of Manhattan for however many weeks or months it took to clean up, not on another planet.

In that case please start another thread and demonstrate what part of "Steel samples were removed from the site before the NIST investigation began. In the immediate aftermath of Sept. 11, 2001, debris was removed rapidly from the site to aid in recovery efforts and to facilitate emergency responders' efforts to work around the site. Once it was removed from the scene, the steel from WTC 7 could not be clearly identified.... The steel for WTC 1 and WTC 2 contained distinguishing characteristics that enabled it to be identified once removed from the site during recovery efforts. However, the same was not true for the WTC 7 steel." is a big sinister lie?

You think investigators should hamper rescue efforts and risk more lives being lost?

And please also demonstrate how the NIST models based on the rest of the more than sufficient body of evidence is unfounded? But on another thread, please!
 

econ41

Senior Member
Maybe if I knew as much as you do on the technical aspects of the collapses my patience would run out quicker. And if I had invested as many hours on these explications at MB. Anyway, patience and not getting personal is always a good goal (in addition to being a MB rule) whilst not always easy to perfectly uphold.
Nearly 15 years of online debate. And I had to start from zero base - I saw the Twin Towers collapses on TV news on the day - the callous military engineer in me stored it away as a novel method of demolishing a tower. It was 2007 before I even heard of the Conspiracy Theories about CD. Then a colleague asked for my professional opinion about the CD of WTC. And I laughed before I realised he was serious. My first meeting with a 9/11 CT tho I had prior experience dealing with the CT mindset in the context of environmental and public health scenarios.

It took me about 4 years overall - part-time on-line discussion - before I was 95% confident about the Twin Towers. About 2011-12 tho I've refined some of my explanations given multiple opportunities to explain over ensuing years.

So most of this is recycling as far as the real topic of WTC is involved. And I have no interest in chasing the false analogies and text book engineering issues being paraded as derails.
 

econ41

Senior Member
But on another thread, please!
I'm tempted to read this thread through, list the "separate thread" issues raised - most of which have my offer to discuss and explain. I prefer to NOT follow off-topic derails or evasions. And IMNSHO the actual OP question was answered as fully as we can expect within the first few posts. (8 I think!!)
 
Top