gravity-driven demolition, question ...

IrelandSpirit

Hiya, I recently came across this short video, which explains (ostensibly) the science behind a gravity-driven demolition. I would seriously appreciate your take on it:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NiHeCjZlkr8&feature=player_embedded

I do realise it is related to the collapse of the Twin Towers, and this is not a CT forum, I'm asking only if the explanation given in the video is scientifically correct. Or at least consistent with Newtonian physics, as claimed.

I also ask the Mods to please respect this line of inquiry; it is purely the science I'm interested in here, NOT conspiracy theories, and the physics forum was recommended as the best place to ask.


Thank you in advance for any help you might provide.

Podman

Very interesting video there

FISMA

Bad Physics, plain and simple.

A bit better done than the "moon-landing was a hoax" theorists, but still bad Physics.

Videos like this make sense only to those that learn enough science to suit their agenda.

Not only is the science bad, however, the analogy is widely inappropriate. The inherent construction techniques were radically different. Any conclusions drawn between the two are wishful thinking. Not only has the video failed Physics, however, I am sure the Civil Engineers are laughing at well.

Sorry OP, this is just bad science.

IrelandSpirit

FISMA wrote: »

Bad Physics, plain and simple.

A bit better done than the "moon-landing was a hoax" theorists, but still bad Physics.

Videos like this make sense only to those that learn enough science to suit their agenda.

Not only is the science bad, however, the analogy is widely inappropriate. The inherent construction techniques were radically different. Any conclusions drawn between the two are wishful thinking. Not only has the video failed Physics, however, I am sure the Civil Engineers are laughing at well.

Sorry OP, this is just bad science.

That's ok, thanks. I'm just interested to know what people well-versed in science have to say. Are you a physicist, btw?

FISMA

IrelandSpirit,

The onus is on the person who made this video to abide by the scientific method and release the data, assumptions, calculations et al.

One major flaw is the overly simplistic use of Newton's Laws, which are colloquially used on point particles, not extended bodies like the towers.

I've seen "studies" like this before, mention a pinch of science, show a graph, disallow anyone from seeing your data, and hope that people find it credible.

Did the videographer even take into account the radically different way in which those two structures were designed to bear loads? The videographer has shown a building that has an internal skeletal support system to prove a point about a building with an external skeleton. That is just radically inappropriate IMHO.

Finally, if you tell me what a Physicist is, I will tell you if I am a Physicist.:pac:

IrelandSpirit

FISMA wrote: »

IrelandSpirit,

The onus is on the person who made this video to abide by the scientific method and release the data, assumptions, calculations et al.

One major flaw is the overly simplistic use of Newton's Laws, which are colloquially used on point particles, not extended bodies like the towers.

I've seen "studies" like this before, mention a pinch of science, show a graph, disallow anyone from seeing your data, and hope that people find it credible.

Did the videographer even take into account the radically different way in which those two structures were designed to bear loads? The videographer has shown a building that has an internal skeletal support system to prove a point about a building with an external skeleton. That is just radically inappropriate IMHO.

Right, well we don't know, because I suppose the vid's only 4 minutes long, and he does not explain if the internal skeletal support system is even comparable to the WTC. This is perhaps not the best example to provide for a forum like this ...

There is a website where over a thousand architects and engineers (literally) have come together and provided what appears to be strong evidence for controlled demolition, and yes, using the scientific method:

http://www.ae911truth.org/

Should I perhaps choose a video from there? They have several in-depth lectures on the subject, might that be more suitable?

Finally, if you tell me what a Physicist is, I will tell you if I am a Physicist.:pac:

Clever

Edit: the lectures I'm referring do not offer 'conspiracy theories' as regards 'who, or why' etc, only topic appears to be the 'how'

FISMA

Sorry if the tone appears antagonistic, it is not meant to be.

Have you ever watched those moon landing was a hoax shows, or visited their sites? If that's all you read, they make a pretty good case.

Then you go to a myth-buster type site and they totally pick apart the argument.

Have any of the people, like Jones, spoken in a Public forum and taken questions?

The link you provides cites the following
http://www.bentham-open.org/pages/content.php?TOCPJ/2009/00000002/00000001/7TOCPJ.SGM

Which looks very technical, however, I never heard of them. They seem new on the science block - this study is volume 2 and only a handful of articles. They are cherry picking. Sounds more like self-promotion to me.

Why not go to the well established scientific reviews? Because it does not pass a stink test.

So, they had to use and SEM to find nano-particles? What did they find?

They use the term "Active Thermitic Material." What is that? Sounds like a flux capacitor. It's so nebulous. If they found thermite, they would have stated it, but they did not. Neither are any graphs therein showing thermite.

It's kind of like having trace amounts of ethanol in water and saying that you are drinking rocket fuel.

I find it incredulous that anyone would think a building could survive that collision with a plane, the kinetic energy and momentum were just staggering.

Again, I am not trying to be antagonistic, however, the idea that someone did a controlled demolition is pure conspiracy theory and bad science.

Finally, I heard that these fellas picked their "peers" for peer review.

This is not the scientific method. These people are not scientists, but activists with a scientific agenda. I call them scienticians.

I'll leave the last word to you. If you want to read it, fair enough. Just keep in mind that you are reading the National Inquirer of Science.

IrelandSpirit

FISMA wrote: »

Sorry if the tone appears antagonistic, it is not meant to be.

Have you ever watched those moon landing was a hoax shows, or visited their sites? If that's all you read, they make a pretty good case.

Then you go to a myth-buster type site and they totally pick apart the argument.

Have any of the people, like Jones, spoken in a Public forum and taken questions?

The link you provides cites the following
http://www.bentham-open.org/pages/content.php?TOCPJ/2009/00000002/00000001/7TOCPJ.SGM

Which looks very technical, however, I never heard of them. They seem new on the science block - this study is volume 2 and only a handful of articles. They are cherry picking. Sounds more like self-promotion to me.

Why not go to the well established scientific reviews? Because it does not pass a stink test.

So, they had to use and SEM to find nano-particles? What did they find?

They use the term "Active Thermitic Material." What is that? Sounds like a flux capacitor. It's so nebulous. If they found thermite, they would have stated it, but they did not. Neither are any graphs therein showing thermite.

It's kind of like having trace amounts of ethanol in water and saying that you are drinking rocket fuel.

I find it incredulous that anyone would think a building could survive that collision with a plane, the kinetic energy and momentum were just staggering.

Again, I am not trying to be antagonistic, however, the idea that someone did a controlled demolition is pure conspiracy theory and bad science.

Finally, I heard that these fellas picked their "peers" for peer review.

This is not the scientific method. These people are not scientists, but activists with a scientific agenda. I call them scienticians.

I'll leave the last word to you. If you want to read it, fair enough. Just keep in mind that you are reading the National Inquirer of Science.

Thanks. Ok, I suppose I'd better reiterate that for the purpose of this thread, my intention was to explore the science behind the collapse of the buildings themselves. Only that. The laws of nature should establish what is true without the need to form conspiracy theories about the scientists involved, or resort to name-calling.

I'm personally not interested in discussing whether or not the scientists involved are lying, not here. I would've thought this is not the place for it.

As regards that Thermite Paper, it was peer reviewed nonetheless. I have no reason to suspect foul play.

The fact remains. Three buildings collapse, symmetrically into their foundations, with the third building (WT7) collapsing despite comparatively little damage. No plane hit WT7. It suffered superficial damage from falling debris, and an office fire on the upper floor.

WT7 being the only known building of that spec to have been demolished (ostensibly) due to an office fire. To my knowledge, no official (NIST) explanation has been given as regards what caused the building to collapse in such a uniform manner, or how it achieved near freefall speed in its decent - a phenomena also commonly seen in controlled demolitions:

This video tracks the motion of the NW corner of Building 7 of the World Trade Center on 9/11 2001. For a period of ~2.5 seconds. This means it was falling through itself for over 100 feet with zero resistance, an impossibility in any natural scenario. This period of freefall is solid evidence that explosives had to be used to bring the building down. In the final draft for public comment (August 2008) NIST denied that WTC7 fell at freefall. In the final report in Nov 2008 they reversed themselves and admitted freefall, but denied its obvious significance.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rVCDpL4Ax7I

There is also a WTC7 Measurement FAQ page for the above: http://www.911speakout.org/WTC7-Measu...

In any case, thanks for giving me the last word, though I was hoping that perhaps you would've had more to say? but that's ok. I'll post this video analysis of the collapse of the North Tower too, for prosperity, in case anybody else wishes to discuss it:

The wave of horizontal mass ejection moving down the face of the North Tower of the World Trade Center is shown to move faster than heavy debris falling through air nearby. See http://www.911speakout.org for more.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eXSHm3CdHf4



And here's another take on it, which appears to contradict the above:

Proof to any reasonable person that the World Trade Center towers fell considerably slower than free fall speed.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DoOp40E6UZg&feature=related

locum-motion

IrelandSpirit wrote: »

... I'll post this video analysis of the collapse of the North Tower too, for prosperity, ...

I'll look at these when I get home tonight, but in the meantime, thanks for your concern that we should prosper.


Or did you perhaps mean 'posterity'?

IrelandSpirit

locum-motion wrote: »

I'll look at these when I get home tonight, but in the meantime, thanks for your concern that we should prosper.


Or did you perhaps mean 'posterity'?

Well indeed, I meant posterity, but ... considering the gravity of this topic perhaps a healthy desire for prosperity is not inappropriate?

Please do have a look at those vids whenever you have time, and please bear in mind they are very short; more in-depth analyses can be found on their site.

Also, I'll just quickly say that I'm not well-versed in science as regards this topic, past a rudimentary grasp of Newtons laws, a little knowledge of Victorian engineering and some direct experience of building work ...


Thanks.

Xios

Irelandspirit.
It seems to me that you've come to a conclusion about the events and are working backwards to find evidence for your ideas. Going down this route, you are going to be strongly convinced by some evidence that proves you right while ignoring everything that contradicts your idea.

'In my opinion' there was no such thing as a controlled demolition. The sheer chaos of a 833,000 lb aeroplane slamming into a building at those speeds is a very substantial amount of force. Factor that in with burning jet fuel, plastics and furniture over time, the building had no chance. As for the collapse. The huge amount of weight bearing down on those critical few floors would surely begin the collapse. the rest was like crushing a plastic cup, everything went down and outwards.
Falling debree would've damaged surrounding buildings sufficiently to cause collapse.


edit /Think of castles that have fallen to trebuchets, using only 50 lb rocks.

Morbert

IrelandSpirit wrote: »

Hiya, I recently came across this short video, which explains (ostensibly) the science behind a gravity-driven demolition. I would seriously appreciate your take on it:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NiHeCjZlkr8&feature=player_embedded

I do realise it is related to the collapse of the Twin Towers, and this is not a CT forum, I'm asking only if the explanation given in the video is scientifically correct. Or at least consistent with Newtonian physics, as claimed.

I also ask the Mods to please respect this line of inquiry; it is purely the science I'm interested in here, NOT conspiracy theories, and the physics forum was recommended as the best place to ask.


Thank you in advance for any help you might provide.

The WTC used steel trusses to support its structure. If these are weakened and expanded (by, say, a 1000 Fahrenheit fire), they go slack, and you have a near free-fall collapse.

IrelandSpirit

Xios wrote: »

Irelandspirit.
It seems to me that you've come to a conclusion about the events and are working backwards to find evidence for your ideas. Going down this route, you are going to be strongly convinced by some evidence that proves you right while ignoring everything that contradicts your idea.

Not at all. To arrive at a conclusion about the events, I would need to be 100% certain of the events. I am not 100% certain and it is the reason I started this thread here. I do, therefore, have some questions as regards what we're told happened.

BTW, these are not my ideas, I am neither an architect nor an engineer, but they are:
http://www.ae911truth.org/

'In my opinion' there was no such thing as a controlled demolition. The sheer chaos of a 833,000 lb aeroplane slamming into a building at those speeds is a very substantial amount of force. Factor that in with burning jet fuel, plastics and furniture over time, the building had no chance. As for the collapse. The huge amount of weight bearing down on those critical few floors would surely begin the collapse. the rest was like crushing a plastic cup, everything went down and outwards.

An aeroplane slamming into a building at great speeds will generate a substantial amount of force, I agree. But for the 'crushing a plastic cup' effect to work, wouldn't the upper floors of the building need to be exerting a greater force than the combined resistance offered by the lower floors? Would the weight of the upper floors (about 20) be sufficient to crush all the floors beneath? (About 90 of them)

Or would the combined resistance offered by the lower floors need to be greatly reduced in some way. And reduced uniformly throughout all 90 or so floors beneath the impact zone, to achieve a uniform, symmetrical collapse at freefall or near freefall speeds. No? Otherwise we'd expect the building would topple over in its collapse, or (most likely in my current opinion) it would not collapse at all.

Falling debree would've damaged surrounding buildings sufficiently to cause collapse.

Please have a look at this footage of WT7 collapsing, it's only about 9 seconds long because that's about how fast it collapsed.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LD06SAf0p9A

Bear in mind it is a 47-story steel-frame skyscraper:

Collapse of 7 World Trade Center
... a 47-story steel-frame skyscraper.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collapse_of_the_World_Trade_Center#Collapse_of_7_World_Trade_Center

What caused this building to collapse? Damage from falling debris and an office fire in the upper floor? I think Newton would have a word or two to say about that! No, I'm not convinced by the 'falling debris' explanation.

edit /Think of castles that have fallen to trebuchets, using only 50 lb rocks.

(Trebuchets! Love them - wanted to build one in back garden a few years back)

IrelandSpirit

Morbert wrote: »

The WTC used steel trusses to support its structure. If these are weakened and expanded (by, say, a 1000 Fahrenheit fire), they go slack, and you have a near free-fall collapse.

Hmmm, perhaps it would. Did temperatures reach that high, and over the entire structural support of the building (or significant portion thereof) to cause a total collapse at near free-fall speed?

Xios

IrelandSpirit wrote: »

But for the 'crushing a plastic cup' effect to work, wouldn't the upper floors of the building need to be exerting a greater force than the combined resistance offered by the lower floors? Would the weight of the upper floors (about 20) be sufficient to crush all the floors beneath? (About 90 of them)

Or would the combined resistance offered by the lower floors need to be greatly reduced in some way. And reduced uniformly throughout all 90 or so floors beneath the impact zone, to achieve a uniform, symmetrical collapse at freefall or near freefall speeds. No? Otherwise we'd expect the building would topple over in its collapse, or (most likely in my current opinion) it would not collapse at all.

It's about momentum and kinetic energy. 20 Floors of that structure falling 3-4 storeys is a lot of force, watch this video. The same principle applies.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YIUmfXXe0v4

Morbert

IrelandSpirit wrote: »

Hmmm, perhaps it would. Did temperatures reach that high, and over the entire structural support of the building (or significant portion thereof) to cause a total collapse at near free-fall speed?

The fire definitely reached 1000 Fahrenheit, and may have reached over 1500. And if even a small section of the trusses are weakened, they all go slack all along the building, and any support they provide goes completely. This might seem like a design oversight, but you can't blame the architects for not anticipating a jet-fuel fire.

Xios

Morbert wrote: »

This might seem like a design oversight, but you can't blame the architects for not anticipating a jet-fuel fire.

Every decision can be easily scrutinised in hindsight. So yeah, we can't blame them.

Podman

I remember back in the 80's there was a documentary about the twin towers, from what I can remember they were specifically designed to withstand a jet collision because they were so tall.

It is very obviously out of place how both towers collapsed within hours, in their own footprints, exactly like demolitions. Neither toppled over sideways, as would be expected.

There are also numerous eyewitnesses that testify to explosions before the collapses, just like wtc7.

These are some small parts from an engineers report...

The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) report into collapse of the WTC towers, estimates that about 3,500 gallons of jet fuel burnt within each of the towers. Imagine that this entire quantity of jet fuel was injected into just one floor of the World Trade Center, that the jet fuel burnt with perfect efficency, that no hot gases left this floor, that no heat escaped this floor by conduction and that the steel and concrete had an unlimited amount of time to absorb all the heat. With these ideal assumptions we calculate the maximum temperature that this one floor could have reached.

Quote from the same page:
What we propose to do, is pretend that the entire 3,500 gallons of jet fuel was confined to just one floor of the World Trade Center, that the jet fuel burnt with the perfect quantity of oxygen, that no hot gases left this floor and that no heat escaped this floor by conduction. With these ideal assumptions (none of which were meet in reality) we will calculate the maximum temperature that this one floor could have reached. Of course, on that day, the real temperature rise of any floor due to the burning jet fuel, would have been considerably lower than the rise that we calculate, but this estimate will enable us to demonstrate that the "official" explanation is a lie.

In the mid-1990s British Steel and the Building Research Establishment performed a series of six experiments at Cardington to investigate the behavior of steel frame buildings. These experiments were conducted in a simulated, eight-story building. Secondary steel beams were not protected. Despite the temperature of the steel beams reaching 800-900° C (1,500-1,700° F) in three of the tests (well above the traditionally assumed critical temperature of 600° C (1,100° F), no collapse was observed in any of the six experiments.

Morbert

Podman wrote: »

I remember back in the 80's there was a documentary about the twin towers, from what I can remember they were specifically designed to withstand a jet collision because they were so tall.

Source?

It is very obviously out of place how both towers collapsed within hours, in their own footprints, exactly like demolitions. Neither toppled over sideways, as would be expected.

Both buildings took damage that was more-or-less evenly distributed through the floors struck. I say, more-or-less because the south tower took more damage to its north side and hence did not fall on its own footprint.

There are also numerous eyewitnesses that testify to explosions before the collapses, just like wtc7.

There are numberous eyewitnesses that testify to alien abductions. If they are not documented with video then they're not much good.

These are some small parts from an engineers report...

Quote from the same page:
What we propose to do, is pretend that the entire 3,500 gallons of jet fuel was confined to just one floor of the World Trade Center, that the jet fuel burnt with the perfect quantity of oxygen, that no hot gases left this floor and that no heat escaped this floor by conduction. With these ideal assumptions (none of which were meet in reality) we will calculate the maximum temperature that this one floor could have reached. Of course, on that day, the real temperature rise of any floor due to the burning jet fuel, would have been considerably lower than the rise that we calculate, but this estimate will enable us to demonstrate that the "official" explanation is a lie.

Again, steel trusses, not just beams, were responsible for most the Towers' support. The trusses would be much more susceptible to fire than the beams.

IrelandSpirit

Xios wrote: »

It's about momentum and kinetic energy. 20 Floors of that structure falling 3-4 storeys is a lot of force, watch this video. The same principle applies.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YIUmfXXe0v4

I can totally understand what you're saying, 20 or so floors (it was actually less, 13-14 floors) falling from a gap 3-4 storeys high it is a lot of force, but I just don't think it would be sufficient to crush the entire steel structure, all the remaining 93 concrete floors AND in a symmetrical collapse at near freefall speeds - and certainly not in the case of WT7 where structural integrity was comparatively intact and no such force was present.

This is what I don't understand. I just can't envisage it ...

And I am prepared to accept the temperature theory, that the steel melted, was weakened due to jet fuel fire etc - but you'd need to sustain the temperatures of a blowtorch over a considerable amount of time: the steel would need to glow red hot, literally, to melt and then somehow reduce the combined resistance offered by the entire steel structure of all 93 floors below. It would've also had to have happened uniformly - if some parts weakened more than others the building would topple.

And again, nothing of the sort happened in the case of WT7.

This is one of the first presentations by Richard Gage, a practising architect for over 20 years, who works with steel frame designs. The explanation given here is detailed and appears well-researched.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8182697765360042032#

BTW, I'm having problems embedding video too.

Morbert

IrelandSpirit wrote: »

I can totally understand what you're saying, 20 or so floors (it was actually less, 13-14 floors) falling from a gap 3-4 storeys high it is a lot of force, but I just don't think it would be sufficient to crush the entire steel structure, all the remaining 93 concrete floors AND in a symmetrical collapse at near freefall speeds - and certainly not in the case of WT7 where structural integrity was comparatively intact and no such force was present.

This is what I don't understand. I just can't envisage it ...

And I am prepared to accept the temperature theory, that the steel melted, was weakened due to jet fuel fire etc - but you'd need to sustain the temperatures of a blowtorch over a considerable amount of time: the steel would need to glow red hot, literally, to melt and then somehow reduce the combined resistance offered by the entire steel structure of all 93 floors below. It would've also had to have happened uniformly - if some parts weakened more than others the building would topple.

And again, nothing of the sort happened in the case of WT7.

This is one of the first presentations by Richard Gage, a practising architect for over 20 years, who works with steel frame designs. The explanation given here is detailed and appears well-researched.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8182697765360042032#

BTW, I'm having problems embedding video too.

Remember that it wasn't simply a jet-fuel fire. It was a jet-fuel fire couple with trauma from a jet collision.

http://www.debunking911.com/impact.htm

This kind of support destruction would be more than enough to destroy the floors below. In fact, it seems I was even being generous with my description of a near free-fall collapse.

http://www.debunking911.com/freefall.htm

garancafan

FISMA wrote: »

It's kind of like having trace amounts of ethanol in water

Were you referring to Budweiser?:rolleyes:

IrelandSpirit

Morbert wrote: »

Remember that it wasn't simply a jet-fuel fire. It was a jet-fuel fire couple with trauma from a jet collision.

http://www.debunking911.com/impact.htm

This kind of support destruction would be more than enough to destroy the floors below. In fact, it seems I was even being generous with my description of a near free-fall collapse.

http://www.debunking911.com/freefall.htm

Thanks. I'll have a look at those vids.

IrelandSpirit

There was some good arguments made on that site, I thought anyway, and yet the jury is still out in my mind.

The 14 floors fell 12ft, about 4m, (not 3 storeys, I was being generous too), reaching speeds of 19mph in the case of WTC1. So I'm not 100% convinced by the 'crushing plastic cup' effect of top floors falling, especially as the top portion was destroyed in first 4 seconds of descent.

WT7 fell in around 6.5 seconds, not 16 seconds. And it fell vertically, not sideways, and with no resistance - not one column resisted hence the speed and symmetry of collapse. Something must have caused each of the fifty perimeter columns to fail, sequentially, to account for this. Fire alone would not do it.

And the NIST report itself says there was not significant damage from falling debris to cause collapse of WT7. Also, the surrounding buildings WTC3, 4, 5 & 6, sustained considerable more damage and yet were left standing.

There are many more questions still left unanswered ...

Morbert

IrelandSpirit wrote: »

There was some good arguments made on that site, I thought anyway, and yet the jury is still out in my mind.

The 14 floors fell 12ft, about 4m, (not 3 storeys, I was being generous too), reaching speeds of 19mph in the case of WTC1. So I'm not 100% convinced by the 'crushing plastic cup' effect of top floors falling, especially as the top portion was destroyed in first 4 seconds of descent.

WT7 fell in around 6.5 seconds, not 16 seconds. And it fell vertically, not sideways, and with no resistance - not one column resisted hence the speed and symmetry of collapse. Something must have caused each of the fifty perimeter columns to fail, sequentially, to account for this. Fire alone would not do it.

And the NIST report itself says there was not significant damage from falling debris to cause collapse of WT7. Also, the surrounding buildings WTC3, 4, 5 & 6, sustained considerable more damage and yet were left standing.

Much of the evidence regarding the WTC7 collapse came after the NIST report. It was found that the building not only had a massive fire, but also a 20 story hole in it.



http://www.debunking911.com/WTC7.htm

There are many more questions still left unanswered ...

It clear that the collapse of the WTC buildings was not the result of controlled demolitions, and that conspiracies regarding the collapse are just that:conspiracies.

IrelandSpirit

Morbert wrote: »

Much of the evidence regarding the WTC7 collapse came after the NIST report. It was found that the building not only had a massive fire, but also a 20 story hole in it.



http://www.debunking911.com/WTC7.htm



It clear that the collapse of the WTC buildings was not the result of controlled demolitions, and that conspiracies regarding the collapse are just that:conspiracies.

If the massive hole was the cause of the collapse, then why didn't the building topple over? How do you account for the symmetrical collapse?

Morbert

IrelandSpirit wrote: »

If the massive hole was the cause of the collapse, then why didn't the building topple over? How do you account for the symmetrical collapse?

There was no symmetrical collapse. The north wall fell in around 7 seconds, but the full collapse started well before that. The collapse propagated outwards.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OUkvnfV606w

In this video, you can see the penthouse collapse from fire. This collapse propagates to the support structures, causing the whole building to go slack and fall.

As for why the building didn't topple over. WTC7, like the towers, was specifically designed not to topple over, unlike the small concrete buildings conspiracy theorists often show.

Xios

IrelandSpirit wrote: »

If the massive hole was the cause of the collapse, then why didn't the building topple over? How do you account for the symmetrical collapse?

Dude, seriously...
A bunch of pissed off muslims took down the towers. You say that 14 floors falling 4m is not enough to collapse the whole building. It never needed to, it just needed to break the floor below it, once that happened, the next would break and so on.

You're ommiting the fact that heated steel is very weak and bendy. Fire blazed concrete cracks and crumbles. When someone tells you that the fire needed to reach 2000 degrees to have melted steel, i just tell them, (do you need to melt a spoon to break it?)

You've become a victim of conspiracy propaganda. There are hundreds of people and videos looking at tiny details and making up assumptions to what they mean, like the debree flying out from the lower floors before the initial collapse wave, how would you explain that?

IrelandSpirit

Morbert wrote: »

There was no symmetrical collapse. The north wall fell in around 7 seconds, but the full collapse started well before that. The collapse propagated outwards.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OUkvnfV606w

In this video, you can see the penthouse collapse from fire. This collapse propagates to the support structures, causing the whole building to go slack and fall.

I find it difficult to believe the penthouse collapsing took down the entire building with it. It looks like the penthouse collapses because the building's support structures failed - the inner columns - and not the other way around.

And thing is: WT7 was 47 storeys, was the fire hot enough to cause the whole building to go slack and fall? temperatures equivalent to a blow torch?

Remember, no plane struck it so there was no jet-fuel to feed the fire.

As for why the building didn't topple over. WTC7, like the towers, was specifically designed not to topple over, unlike the small concrete buildings conspiracy theorists often show.

Is that a conspiracy theory? Sorry, not here to discuss CTs. I'd say all buildings are designed not to topple over, not just the WTC1,2 and 7.

Or did you mean that only those 3 buildings were specifically designed not to topple over as they collapsed?

True, they were the only 3 buildings to collapse that day and not topple over. But what you assert here is a typical requirement of a controlled demolition. And I can't think of any building which has that specification pre-engineered into it's design.

IrelandSpirit

Xios wrote: »

Dude, seriously...
A bunch of pissed off muslims took down the towers. You say that 14 floors falling 4m is not enough to collapse the whole building. It never needed to, it just needed to break the floor below it, once that happened, the next would break and so on.

You're ommiting the fact that heated steel is very weak and bendy. Fire blazed concrete cracks and crumbles. When someone tells you that the fire needed to reach 2000 degrees to have melted steel, i just tell them, (do you need to melt a spoon to break it?)

You've become a victim of conspiracy propaganda. There are hundreds of people and videos looking at tiny details and making up assumptions to what they mean, like the debree flying out from the lower floors before the initial collapse wave, how would you explain that?

If you believe I've 'become a victim of conspiracy propaganda', you are wrong. I seriously don't know what to believe anymore. For a long time now I have been questioning the alternative theories and the official version of events too, and have come to no definitive conclusion.

It is the reason I came here.

I believed you guys might be able to explain things in a coherent and rational manner.

I'd of hoped that asking in a science forum I would have the answers to questions like how did 'the debree fly out from the lower floors before the initial collapse wave?' And how did the fire become hot enough to bring down WT7? And how did WTC7 collapse without toppling over? And no, it was not a built-in specification, sorry, I do not accept the assertion that the only three buildings to collapse were designed to do so symmetrically.

And yes, agreed, it may very-well be '"a bunch of pissed off muslims took down the towers", as you say. But please read the OP. I'm only interested in questions as regards the 'how' of it, not the 'who.'

Xios

On the blasts.
One would think they are explosions, as they look like them. But when you think about what else is happening. The whole building above is coming down and displacing a huge volume of air, creating a pressure wave that would've travelled down elevator shafts and burst out at the weakest points or where the elevator doors were already open.

IrelandSpirit

Xios wrote: »

On the blasts.
One would think they are explosions, as they look like them. But when you think about what else is happening. The whole building above is coming down and displacing a huge volume of air, creating a pressure wave that would've travelled down elevator shafts and burst out at the weakest points or where the elevator doors were already open.

Yes, like a giant bicycle pump, I can envisage how that could happen. And I can also understand how perhaps it could sound like explosions to some people, and how by extension this might lend support to the idea that explosives were used, when perhaps they weren't.

TalkieWalkie

Xios wrote: »

It's about momentum and kinetic energy. 20 Floors of that structure falling 3-4 storeys is a lot of force, watch this video. The same principle applies.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YIUmfXXe0v4

While I appreciate this video, it does not explain why the towers were pulverised to dust.
With "momentum and kinetic energy" on a 110 story building, one would expect to see the floors lying on top of eachother, like those bricks in the clip. Not many floors, maybe 10 or 20, more ? Like pancakes

Morbert

IrelandSpirit wrote: »

I find it difficult to believe the penthouse collapsing took down the entire building with it. It looks like the penthouse collapses because the building's support structures failed - the inner columns - and not the other way around.

The buildings internal structure effectively split in half when the penthouse collapsed. After a few seconds, this strain propagated to the base of the tower, causing the 7 second collapse of the entire building. The entire process took well over 13 seconds. Controlled demolitions are much quicker.

And thing is: WT7 was 47 storeys, was the fire hot enough to cause the whole building to go slack and fall? temperatures equivalent to a blow torch?

Remember, no plane struck it so there was no jet-fuel to feed the fire.

It was not just a fire. It was a combination of the fire plus the huge 20 story hole on the south side.

Is that a conspiracy theory? Sorry, not here to discuss CTs. I'd say all buildings are designed not to topple over, not just the WTC1,2 and 7.

Or did you mean that only those 3 buildings were specifically designed not to topple over as they collapsed?

True, they were the only 3 buildings to collapse that day and not topple over. But what you assert here is a typical requirement of a controlled demolition. And I can't think of any building which has that specification pre-engineered into it's design.

WTC 7 is not so much a single building, but rather a series of pieces locked together with a steel frame. When these buildings collapse, the "fold" more than "topple", unlike concrete buildings.

But anyway, when we say WTC7 collapsed, it still did significant damage to the surroundings, as it was tilted and not a symmetrical collapse. The debree from WTC spilled across Barclay street and damaged buildings from the other side, for example.



And while you might not be here to discuss conspiracy theories. All the objections you are raising are the falsehoods reported by conspiracy theorists. It would be a good idea to take these objections with a pinch of salt, as none of them are grounded in scientific or engineering principles.

How did the debree fly out from the lower floors before the initial collapse wave?

This did not happen. As Xios said, the pressure wave from the collapse is responsible for this.

IrelandSpirit

Morbert wrote: »

The buildings internal structure effectively split in half when the penthouse collapsed.

How would the penthouse collapsing split the internal structure of the entire building? I cannot envisage there would be anywhere sufficient force generated by the collapse of such a relatively small structure, to affect the damage you describe. A far more plausible scenario is that the internal structure gave way, and caused the collapse of the penthouse upon which it relied on for support.

After a few seconds, this strain propagated to the base of the tower, causing the 7 second collapse of the entire building. The entire process took well over 13 seconds. Controlled demolitions are much quicker.

Controlled demolitions often do achieve near freefall speeds. That is the speed WT7 collapsed. I don't know where you get this 13 seconds from, it is clear in all recorded footage this is not the case.

It was not just a fire. It was a combination of the fire plus the huge 20 story hole on the south side.

And as we previously discussed, a huge hole on one side would cause the building to topple over. Your claim that "WTC7, like the towers, was specifically designed not to topple over, unlike the small concrete buildings" remains a very (IMHO) fanciful assertion. I would have thought the same care, as regards specifications and guidelines, would have gone into the construction of the other buildings as well. Where did you get this information?

WTC 7 is not so much a single building, but rather a series of pieces locked together with a steel frame.

No, sorry, it is a building. A very strong, well-built building.

When these buildings collapse, the "fold" more than "topple", unlike concrete buildings

Ok, this folding effect I can envisage ... but not its cause, as you describe.

But anyway, when we say WTC7 collapsed, it still did significant damage to the surroundings, as it was tilted and not a symmetrical collapse. The debree from WTC spilled across Barclay street and damaged buildings from the other side, for example.

As Xios suggested, would the pressure wave from the collapse perhaps be responsible for this?

And while you might not be here to discuss conspiracy theories. All the objections you are raising are the falsehoods reported by conspiracy theorists. It would be a good idea to take these objections with a pinch of salt, as none of them are grounded in scientific or engineering principles.

For the purposes of this thread, correct, I'd rather not discuss conspiracy theories. However, some of your claims here are beginning to sound a little like CTs too, or maybe just unscientific, or perhaps I'm missing something ...

On the one hand you say WT7 did topple over, and show us a picture of why you believe it did. And on the other hand you say it did not topple over, because it was specifically designed not to.

Maybe provide a link where you sourced that: "WTC7, like the towers, was specifically designed not to topple over, unlike the small concrete buildings conspiracy theorists often show."

Because to be perfectly honest, I am confused!

I can't see how WT7 can do both.

IrelandSpirit

IrelandSpirit wrote: »

How would the penthouse collapsing split the internal structure of the entire building? I cannot envisage there would be anywhere sufficient force generated by the collapse of such a relatively small structure, to affect the damage you describe. A far more plausible scenario is that the internal structure gave way, and caused the collapse of the penthouse upon which it relied on for support.

The penthouse collapsing was due to part of the internal structure of the building giving way. Once it did it pulled the rest of the building with it.
This is detailed in the official reports.

IrelandSpirit wrote: »

Controlled demolitions often do achieve near freefall speeds. That is the speed WT7 collapsed. I don't know where you get this 13 seconds from, it is clear in all recorded footage this is not the case.

Can you detail exactly how you know this?

The thing is even if all these "holes" in the official story where anything more than misunderstandings of physics and out and out dishonesty, they are nothing compared to the gaping holes in the idea that it was a controlled demolition.
Leaving aside the fact that it would be near impossible to wire a building of that size for demolition with on one noticing and that such a project would require hundreds of workers who must be bought off...

We still have the fact that the collapses look only superficially like a demolition, but lacks most of the (well all except for the falling down really) of the features of an explosive demolition.
For example controlled demolitions usually involve a series of loud, very noticeable explosions on multiple floors, simultaneously or in rapid sequence and the followed immediately by the buildings collapse.

This is plainly not what we see....

Morbert

IrelandSpirit wrote: »

How would the penthouse collapsing split the internal structure of the entire building? I cannot envisage there would be anywhere sufficient force generated by the collapse of such a relatively small structure, to affect the damage you describe. A far more plausible scenario is that the internal structure gave way, and caused the collapse of the penthouse upon which it relied on for support.

Well yes, hence the "internal structure was split in half when the penthouse suite collapsed." This was due to the fires and the damage.

Controlled demolitions often do achieve near freefall speeds. That is the speed WT7 collapsed. I don't know where you get this 13 seconds from, it is clear in all recorded footage this is not the case.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4k6GMddY-lQ

And as we previously discussed, a huge hole on one side would cause the building to topple over.

Your claim that "WTC7, like the towers, was specifically designed not to topple over, unlike the small concrete buildings" remains a very (IMHO) fanciful assertion. I would have thought the same care, as regards specifications and guidelines, would have gone into the construction of the other buildings as well. Where did you get this information?

No, sorry, it is a building. A very strong, well-built building.

I do not see how you can say you want opinions if you are unwilling to familiarise yourself with even the basic structure of skyscrapers with similar designs to WTC7. Unlike say, a building simply reinforced with concrete and steel Skyscrapers consist of multiple parts essentially held together by a combination of a steel frame, a very strong foundation, and gravity. When their support is compromised, the pieces come apart and fold like a house of cards. They do not topple over. The only way to make a skyscraper topple would be to disconnect its base from the foundation while, at the same time, keeping the steel support perfectly intact.

Here is a basic link to skyscraper anti-topple design:
http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2009/06/how_stable_are_skyscrapers.php

This video further illustrates my point:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V9Mhhvl7vWk
Notice in this video, at 00:12, that the WTC tower collapses and tilts above the impact site. This is because that component of the tower has been disconnected from the foundation. This is the closest to 'toppling' you can get.

As Xios suggested, would the pressure wave from the collapse perhaps be responsible for this?

The explosions Xios was referring to were caused by air being forced through narrow areas within the building. Once the air is forced outside the building, the pressure drops dramatically and and destructive force it has dissipates. It would not be capable of doing the sort of damage documented in that picture.

For the purposes of this thread, correct, I'd rather not discuss conspiracy theories. However, some of your claims here are beginning to sound a little like CTs too, or maybe just unscientific, or perhaps I'm missing something ...

On the one hand you say WT7 did topple over, and show us a picture of why you believe it did. And on the other hand you say it did not topple over, because it was specifically designed not to.

Maybe provide a link where you sourced that: "WTC7, like the towers, was specifically designed not to topple over, unlike the small concrete buildings conspiracy theorists often show."

Because to be perfectly honest, I am confused!

I can't see how WT7 can do both.

I never said WTC 7 toppled over. I said WTC did not topple over and I am unsure as to why you think I said otherwise. Perhaps it was because I said WTC 7 was not a symmetrical collapse (which it wasn't). WTC 7 pancaked, but it also tilted to the side, due to the type of damage it undertook, and the resultant debree from this asymmetrical pancaking damaged surrounding buildings. This is not the same as toppling, which can happen with certain building designs.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QP2pIwE4LLM&feature=related

IrelandSpirit

King Mob wrote: »

The penthouse collapsing was due to part of the internal structure of the building giving way. Once it did it pulled the rest of the building with it.
This is detailed in the official reports.

Yes, that is what you believe appears to be the case. But I still can't envisage how the penthouse collapsing caused the collapse of the entire building.

Can you detail exactly how you know this?

Watch the video of WT7 collapsing, and count. It is not 13 seconds. And even at 13 seconds, it is still a very fast speed for such a massive building.

The thing is even if all these "holes" in the official story where anything more than misunderstandings of physics and out and out dishonesty, they are nothing compared to the gaping holes in the idea that it was a controlled demolition.
Leaving aside the fact that it would be near impossible to wire a building of that size for demolition with on one noticing and that such a project would require hundreds of workers who must be bought off...

Look, it would serve me far more to believe the official version of events, and finally leave it at that. And I really want to try and understand both sides of the scientific argument as much as possible. So I'm not prepared to discus conspiracy theories, not here. I know we've met on the CT forum many times, and while I appreciate the freedom afforded us there to discuss just about everything under the sun, I think we should stay away CTs here. And from accusations of dishonesty - I seriously don't think this is the place for it.

We still have the fact that the collapses look only superficially like a demolition, but lacks most of the (well all except for the falling down really) of the features of an explosive demolition.
For example controlled demolitions usually involve a series of loud, very noticeable explosions on multiple floors, simultaneously or in rapid sequence and the followed immediately by the buildings collapse.

This is plainly not what we see....

Well that's the thing, do we know what we're looking at? There are many witness reports of explosions - re:

http://www.ae911truth.net/wtc7/WTC7-eyewitness-2-PFC.wmv

IrelandSpirit

Morbert wrote: »

Well yes, hence the "internal structure was split in half when the penthouse suite collapsed." This was due to the fires and the damage.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4k6GMddY-lQ

This is what you actually claim: "the penthouse collapse from fire. This collapse propagates to the support structures, causing the whole building to go slack and fall."

I assume you amended "the fires and the damage" to the rest of the building as contributors to its collapse? And yet fail to answer how the fires became hot enough to significantly weaken steel in the first place. So it certainly does not explain how the collapse of such a relatively small structure would generate anywhere near sufficient kinetic force to bring down the entire building.

Also, in that video above, the penthouse does not appear to be on fire, or at least the smoke appears to be coming up from the floors below - I don't know, but pause it at 0.12 just before the collapse and there does not appear to be any smoke coming from the roof. Though that might be because of the angle in that particular shot?

I do not see how you can say you want opinions if you are unwilling to familiarise yourself with even the basic structure of skyscrapers with similar designs to WTC7. Unlike say, a building simply reinforced with concrete and steel Skyscrapers consist of multiple parts essentially held together by a combination of a steel frame, a very strong foundation, and gravity. When their support is compromised, the pieces come apart and fold like a house of cards. They do not topple over. The only way to make a skyscraper topple would be to disconnect its base from the foundation while, at the same time, keeping the steel support perfectly intact.

Here is a basic link to skyscraper anti-topple design:
http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2009/06/how_stable_are_skyscrapers.php

I do know what steel-framed means, thanks. My contention was with your claim that the only three buildings to collapse were built not to topple over, and the others weren't. I still don't believe that, and would appreciate a source. This is what you claimed:

"WTC7, like the towers, was specifically designed not to topple over, unlike the small concrete buildings conspiracy theorists often show."

Well those 'small' buildings were actually 8 and 9 storeys tall. And yet they did not topple over, and they did not collapse despite suffering considerable more damage than WT7. And here is a description of these 'concrete buildings', notice the words steel-framed:

http://www.designaids.com/wtc/chapter4.html

To quote from the above link:

WTC 4, 5, and 6 are eight and nine story steel-framed office buildings, located on the north and east sides of the WTC Plaza, that were built circa 1970.

It then goes on:

WTC 5 and WTC 6 were impacted by exterior column debris from WTC 1 that caused large sections of localized collapse and subsequent fires spread throughout most of the buildings. All three buildings also were able to resist progressive collapse, in spite of the extensive local collapses that occurred.

Despite being closer to WTC1&2 than WTC7, and sustaining more fire and damage, they did not entirely collapse - as one might expect from durable, well-designed steel-framed buildings.

However, going by the theory that WT7 collapsed due to damage and fire, causing the steel to melt and weaken the structure, why did these steel-framed buildings not collapse too?

Presuming the fires in WT7 reached the required temperature without the aid of jet-fuel.

BTW, I don't know why you're accusing me of being 'unwilling' to familiarise myself with this subject, when you yourself do not seem to know which buildings were steel-framed and which were not.

This video further illustrates my point:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V9Mhhvl7vWk
Notice in this video, at 00:12, that the WTC tower collapses and tilts above the impact site. This is because that component of the tower has been disconnected from the foundation. This is the closest to 'toppling' you can get.

Watched it the other night, thanks. I'm still not sure what, exactly, it is trying to debunk - as regards a controlled demolition it appears to strengthen the theory rather than debunk it.

As one commentator there put it: "The third steel framed building in the history of the world ever to collapse due to fire?"

The first and second steel-framed buildings being WTC1 & 2.

[FONT=Callisto MT,Georgia,Book Antiqua,Palatino,Times New Roman,Serif]Other Fires in Steel-Structure Buildings[/FONT]
[FONT=Callisto MT,Georgia,Book Antiqua,Palatino,Times New Roman,Serif]WTC1, WTC2 and WTC7 are the only steel-structure buildings ever to have collapsed (allegedly) as a result of fire. There are several cases of fires in other such buildings, none of which collapsed.[/FONT]

[FONT=Callisto MT,Georgia,Book Antiqua,Palatino,Times New Roman,Serif] In May 1988 a fire at the Interstate Bank Building in Los Angeles destroyed four floors and damaged a fifth floor of the modern 62-story building. The fire burned for four hours. The building did not collapse. See http://www.iklimnet.com/hotelfires/interstatebank.html[/FONT]
[FONT=Callisto MT,Georgia,Book Antiqua,Palatino,Times New Roman,Serif]In February 1991 a fire gutted eight floors of the 38-story One Meridian Plaza building in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. The fire burned for 18 hours. The building did not collapse. See http://www.sgh.com/expertise/hazardsconsulting/meridian/meridian.htm[/FONT]


[FONT=Callisto MT,Georgia,Book Antiqua,Palatino,Times New Roman,Serif]In October 2004 in Caracas, Venezuela, a fire in a 56-story office tower burned for more 17 hours and spread over 26 floors. Two floors collapsed, but the underlying floors did not, and the building remained standing. See http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/10/18/world
/main649824.shtml[/FONT] [FONT=Callisto MT,Georgia,Book Antiqua,Palatino,Times New Roman,Serif]In February 2005 there was another "towering inferno" in Taiwan. The fire burned for about an hour and a half, but the building never came close to collapsing. See http://www.itv.com/news/world_404914.html [This page has been removed.][/FONT]




[FONT=Callisto MT,Georgia,Book Antiqua,Palatino,Times New Roman,Serif] Also in February 2005 the 32-story Windsor Building in Madrid, Spain, caught fire and burned for two days. The building was completely engulfed in flames at one point. Several top floors collapsed onto lower ones, yet the building remained standing. See http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4263667.stm[/FONT]

[FONT=Callisto MT,Georgia,Book Antiqua,Palatino,Times New Roman,Serif]See also Christopher Bollyn's
9/11 and the Windsor Tower Fire.[/FONT]

[FONT=Callisto MT,Georgia,Book Antiqua,Palatino,Times New Roman,Serif] [FONT=Callisto MT,Georgia,Book Antiqua,Palatino,Times New Roman,Serif]The still-uncompleted Beijing Television Cultural Center, containing the Mandarin Oriental Hotel, caught fire on 9 February 2009 (due to uncontrolled use of fireworks at Chinese New Year). 140,000 tons of steel was used in its construction. It burned for five hours, but it did not collapse. See http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/10/world/asia/10beijing.html [/FONT]
http://www.serendipity.li/wot/other_fires/other_fires.htm

[/FONT]

The explosions Xios was referring to were caused by air being forced through narrow areas within the building. Once the air is forced outside the building, the pressure drops dramatically and and destructive force it has dissipates. It would not be capable of doing the sort of damage documented in that picture.

Ok, so it was the debris of WTC7, then.

I never said WTC 7 toppled over. I said WTC did not topple over and I am unsure as to why you think I said otherwise. Perhaps it was because I said WTC 7 was not a symmetrical collapse (which it wasn't).

Then it appears I misunderstood what you meant. I'll take it you mean that the building was not in a symmetrical collapse.

WTC 7 pancaked, but it also tilted to the side, due to the type of damage it undertook, and the resultant debree from this asymmetrical pancaking damaged surrounding buildings. This is not the same as toppling, which can happen with certain building designs.

Granted it had a hole on one side, which might asymmetrically affect its descent, but wouldn't it need to have its base disconnected from the foundation to tilt to one side?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QP2pIwE4LLM&feature=related

Thanks for that 'demolition gone wrong' vid. However, all it does is suggest WT7 was a demolition gone right.

Ok, I've developed a horrific workload for the next couple weeks so if I don't answer in a timely way, or if posts are a bit rushed, please don't confuse that with 'unwillingness' to participate. Thanks for your responses.

IrelandSpirit

IrelandSpirit wrote: »

Yes, that is what you believe appears to be the case. But I still can't envisage how the penthouse collapsing caused the collapse of the entire building.

It didn't, no one is claiming that at all.
The collapse of the penthouse was because the internal structure beneath it gave way.
The collapsing internal structure then pulled down the façade or outer shell of the building.

The second you see the penthouse disappear is when the collapse likely started.

IrelandSpirit wrote: »

Watch the video of WT7 collapsing, and count. It is not 13 seconds.

I have seen the videos, most of them at least.

The ones that claim "free fall speeds" always either start after the penthouse has disappeared and/or never show the rubble hitting the ground.

IrelandSpirit wrote: »

And even at 13 seconds, it is still a very fast speed for such a massive building.

Says who exactly? Based on what?

If it's just you're uneducated opinion then mine is just a valid, therefore it was the exact right time for it to collapse.

IrelandSpirit wrote: »

Look, it would serve me far more to believe the official version of events, and finally leave it at that. And I really want to try and understand both sides of the scientific argument as much as possible. So I'm not prepared to discus conspiracy theories, not here. I know we've met on the CT forum many times, and while I appreciate the freedom afforded us there to discuss just about everything under the sun, I think we should stay away CTs here. And from accusations of dishonesty - I seriously don't think this is the place for it.

Well if you are trying to find holes in the official story you must also find holes in the nutjob story.
Do you actually think the PCT explanation is perfect?

IrelandSpirit wrote: »

Well that's the thing, do we know what we're looking at? There are many witness reports of explosions - re:

http://www.ae911truth.net/wtc7/WTC7-eyewitness-2-PFC.wmv

Yea disparate reports of things that sound like explosions that aren't apparent on any video or photo and that take place on random floors at random time and often well before the collapse.
Exactly what you don't see at an explosive demolition.

Can you show a single demolition that used explosives in this way?

There are hundreds of thing that can account for people hearing "explosions".
Office equipment exploding due to heat, TVs, photocopiers, electrical transformers. Collapsing sections of building, falling elevators etc...
And so on and so on.

IrelandSpirit wrote: »

As one commentator there put it: "The third steel framed building in the history of the world ever to collapse due to fire?"

The first and second steel-framed buildings being WTC1 & 2.

This is a common fallacy and it's been explained to you why it's nonsense before. It comes up very time this stupid quote is trotted out.
The WTC buildings where all unique and original designs comparing them to other buildings is ridiculous.
Further more, no other steel framed buildings where hit by fuel filled jet liners slamming into them at high speeds. And in the case of WTC7, no steel framed building have ever had skyscrapers collapse uncontrolled next to them.
But I get the feeling this won't stop you using that quote again...

Enkidu

These theories never fail to flummox me. A high-speed, extremely heavy jet airliner slams into a building and then the building falls down. One would think it was obvious that the jet airliner was the cause, but apparently not.

You are missing two things IrelandSpirit:
(a) None of your other examples were hit by a jet airliner. Think about the momentum these things carry. Also consider that the fire generated by the burning of the fuel is much more potent than just an office fire. As a gedanken experiment, consider the difference between a regular fire in your house and detonating a kerosene tank in your house. This should be obvious.
(b) The collapse of buildings is not intuitive, it would involve explicit numerical modeling of the internal structure. It's not something you can just get a feel for.

IrelandSpirit

King Mob wrote: »

It didn't, no one is claiming that at all.

What? Read Mobert's posts.

The collapse of the penthouse was because the internal structure beneath it gave way.
The collapsing internal structure then pulled down the façade or outer shell of the building. The second you see the penthouse disappear is when the collapse likely started.

I agree. Have you actually read any of the last 3 pages?

I have seen the videos, most of them at least.

And I have yet to see a video of a plane hitting WT7.

The ones that claim "free fall speeds" always either start after the penthouse has disappeared and/or never show the rubble hitting the ground.


Says who exactly? Based on what?

Based on observation.

If it's just you're uneducated opinion then mine is just a valid, therefore it was the exact right time for it to collapse.

If you say so. We're all entitled to share and explore our opinions.

Well if you are trying to find holes in the official story you must also find holes in the nutjob story.
Do you actually think the PCT explanation is perfect?

No, I don't. At this time I am keeping an open mind.

BTW, is your use of the word 'nutjob' really necessary to illustrate your point? Or are we to infer that you don't have a point, and have only come here to cause insult to the many thousands of people questioning the official version of events?

Yea disparate reports of things that sound like explosions that aren't apparent on any video or photo and that take place on random floors at random time and often well before the collapse.
Exactly what you don't see at an explosive demolition.

Can you show a single demolition that used explosives in this way?

I will try to find some, if there are any. In the meantime, always remember 'google is your friend.'

There are hundreds of thing that can account for people hearing "explosions".
Office equipment exploding due to heat, TVs, photocopiers, electrical transformers. Collapsing sections of building, falling elevators etc...
And so on and so on.

I agree. And also, explosions sound like explosions too.

This is a common fallacy and it's been explained to you why it's nonsense before. It comes up very time this stupid quote is trotted out.
The WTC buildings where all unique and original designs comparing them to other buildings is ridiculous.
Further more, no other steel framed buildings where hit by fuel filled jet liners slamming into them at high speeds. And in the case of WTC7, no steel framed building have ever had skyscrapers collapse uncontrolled next to them.
But I get the feeling this won't stop you using that quote again...[

Wrong. In July 28 1945, a US Army B-25 Bomber crashed into the Empire State Building, between the 78th and 80th floors, carving a 18 x 20 ft hole in the building;


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q74MiBSqm78&feature=related

As I say, google is your friend.

IrelandSpirit

Enkidu wrote: »

These theories never fail to flummox me. A high-speed, extremely heavy jet airliner slams into a building and then the building falls down. One would think it was obvious that the jet airliner was the cause, but apparently not.

Fair enough, but by what you say, if jet-liners crashing into steel-framed buildings cause total collapse, then the Empire State Building would not still be standing.

And if the jet-liner was the cause, then WT7 would still be standing.

You are missing two things IrelandSpirit:
(a) None of your other examples were hit by a jet airliner. Think about the momentum these things carry. Also consider that the fire generated by the burning of the fuel is much more potent than just an office fire. As a gedanken experiment, consider the difference between a regular fire in your house and detonating a kerosene tank in your house. This should be obvious.

(a)

None of those other examples were hit by a jet airliner, true, and neither was WT7. How then did the steel frame soften and no longer hold the weight the building?

(b) The collapse of buildings is not intuitive, it would involve explicit numerical modeling of the internal structure. It's not something you can just get a feel for.

(b)


You're right, I do go by intuition in a lot of things, in life as a whole, but this is not only intuition. It's a well-known fact that those buildings were built to withstand the impact of planes hitting them.

Here's a clip from the Discovery Channel documentary with Frank De Martini, the Manager of WTC Construction and Project Management, explaining that the buildings were specifically designed so a Boeing 707 can be crashed into them. He goes on to say that they could probably withstand multiple impacts.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q74MiBSqm78&feature=related


BTW, "The only real valuable thing is intuition.” Albert Einstein.

Morbert

IrelandSpirit wrote: »

This is what you actually claim: "the penthouse collapse from fire. This collapse propagates to the support structures, causing the whole building to go slack and fall."

I assume you amended "the fires and the damage" to the rest of the building as contributors to its collapse? And yet fail to answer how the fires became hot enough to significantly weaken steel in the first place. So it certainly does not explain how the collapse of such a relatively small structure would generate anywhere near sufficient kinetic force to bring down the entire building.

Also, in that video above, the penthouse does not appear to be on fire, or at least the smoke appears to be coming up from the floors below - I don't know, but pause it at 0.12 just before the collapse and there does not appear to be any smoke coming from the roof. Though that might be because of the angle in that particular shot?

I also said: "It was found that the building not only had a massive fire, but also a 20 story hole in it." I do not believe a fire or building trauma alone would have been enough to collapse it. However, because they both occurred, the damage was more than enough to bring the building down. Remember, they key is that there was more than just a fire. Here is the body of an email from chief Daniel Nigro

"Early on the afternoon of September 11th 2001, following the collapse of WTC 1 & 2, I feared a collapse of WTC 7 (as did many on my staff).

The reasons are as follows:

1 - Although prior to that day high-rise structures had never collapsed, The collapse of WTC 1 & 2 showed that certain high-rise structures subjected to damage from impact and from fire will collapse.

2. The collapse of WTC 1 damaged portions of the lower floors of WTC 7.

3. WTC 7, we knew, was built on a small number of large columns providing an open Atrium on the lower levels.

4. numerous fires on many floors of WTC 7 burned without sufficient water supply to attack them.

For these reasons I made the decision (without consulting the owner, the mayor or anyone else - as ranking fire officer, that decision was my responsibility) to clear a collapse zone surrounding the building and to stop all activity within that zone. Approximately three hours after that order was given, WTC 7 collapsed."

I do know what steel-framed means, thanks. My contention was with your claim that the only three buildings to collapse were built not to topple over, and the others weren't. I still don't believe that, and would appreciate a source. This is what you claimed:

"WTC7, like the towers, was specifically designed not to topple over, unlike the small concrete buildings conspiracy theorists often show."

Well those 'small' buildings were actually 8 and 9 storeys tall. And yet they did not topple over, and they did not collapse despite suffering considerable more damage than WT7. And here is a description of these 'concrete buildings', notice the words steel-framed:

http://www.designaids.com/wtc/chapter4.html

To quote from the above link:

It then goes on:

Despite being closer to WTC1&2 than WTC7, and sustaining more fire and damage, they did not entirely collapse - as one might expect from durable, well-designed steel-framed buildings.

However, going by the theory that WT7 collapsed due to damage and fire, causing the steel to melt and weaken the structure, why did these steel-framed buildings not collapse too?

Presuming the fires in WT7 reached the required temperature without the aid of jet-fuel.

BTW, I don't know why you're accusing me of being 'unwilling' to familiarise myself with this subject, when you yourself do not seem to know which buildings were steel-framed and which were not.

I was not talking about the other buildings around the towers. Those buildings did not collapse because they did not sustain sufficient damage.

Watched it the other night, thanks. I'm still not sure what, exactly, it is trying to debunk - as regards a controlled demolition it appears to strengthen the theory rather than debunk it.

How? It clearly shows asymmetrical tilting above the impact sight, and goes on to explain its origin in detail.

As one commentator there put it: "The third steel framed building in the history of the world ever to collapse due to fire?"

The first and second steel-framed buildings being WTC1 & 2.

The commentator was mistaken. WTC 1 and 2 didn't collapse due to fire. They collapsed due to the combination of a fire and severe trauma due to the jet impacts. Similarly, WTC 7 didn't just collapse due to fire, but due to fire and severe trauma.

Granted it had a hole on one side, which might asymmetrically affect its descent, but wouldn't it need to have its base disconnected from the foundation to tilt to one side?

The lower down the damage, the more severe the tilting. And it should be noted that severe damage to the bottom corner and 'bulging' is recorded by the fire-fighters. That's why they evacuated the area.

IrelandSpirit

IrelandSpirit wrote: »

What? Read Mobert's posts.

He's not claiming that. You've clearly misread him.

IrelandSpirit wrote: »

I agree. Have you actually read any of the last 3 pages?

Yes. I'm just reiterating the point.

IrelandSpirit wrote: »

And I have yet to see a video of a plane hitting WT7.

On one claims one did.

IrelandSpirit wrote: »

Based on observation.

But this observation is based on clearly dishonestly edited video.
Please show us a video that starts a count of the collapse when the penthouse disappears and when the top of the building hit the ground.

IrelandSpirit wrote: »

If you say so. We're all entitled to share and explore our opinions.

But you realise that your uneducated opinion is evidence for nothing right?

IrelandSpirit wrote: »

No, I don't. At this time I am keeping an open mind.

And I wonder how much time you spend picking apart those theories, if at all.

And no I seriously doubt you have an open mind.

IrelandSpirit wrote: »

BTW, is your use of the word 'nutjob' really necessary to illustrate your point? Or are we to infer that you don't have a point, and have only come here to cause insult to the many thousands of people questioning the official version of events?

I fail to see why I should be so sensitive to these people when many of them are accusing thousands of people of murder based on their own delusions.

IrelandSpirit wrote: »

I will try to find some, if there are any. In the meantime, always remember 'google is your friend.'

I have seen any videos of demolitions.
There is not a single video like that, because that's not how demolitions work.

Are you now saying that the demolition of WTC7 is an a-typical one?

IrelandSpirit wrote: »

I agree. And also, explosions sound like explosions too.

Except the thing is there is no evidence that there where explosives in the building....

IrelandSpirit wrote: »

Wrong. In July 28 1945, a US Army B-25 Bomber crashed into the Empire State Building, between the 78th and 80th floors, carving a 18 x 20 ft hole in the building;
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q74MiBSqm78&feature=related

As I say, google is your friend.

And this old chestnut again :rolleyes:
Again I bet this has been explained to you many many times.

The Empire State building is of an entirely different construction to the twin towers. (I don't think it's even a steel framed building.)
The B-25 is much much smaller and lighter than an airliner (more specifically it is not a jetliner like I stated).
Here's a size comparison.
http://www.loosechangeguide.com/images/image102.jpg
http://www.loosechangeguide.com/images/image103.jpg

Weight ranging from 27,100 lb to a limit of 41,800 lb.
A 767-200 ranges from 179,080 lbs (empty) to 395,000 lb (maximum takeoff load).

The top speed of a B-25 ranged from 275 mph to 315 mph. But the plane that crashed was likely travelling slower. Around 150 mph
The 9/11 planes where travelling at up to 590 mph.

The fuel load of a B-25 was 974 US gallons. Which would have been running lower at the time of the ESB crash.
For the 9/11 planes it was 10000 gallons.

The fire in the ESB was out in 40 mins.

Now can you honestly say that these two crashes can compare?

IrelandSpirit wrote: »

Here's a clip from the Discovery Channel documentary with Frank De Martini, the Manager of WTC Construction and Project Management, explaining that the buildings were specifically designed so a Boeing 707 can be crashed into them. He goes on to say that they could probably withstand multiple impacts

And a similar nonsensical and dishonest comparison.

A 707 is much smaller than a 767. And they were assuming a slow flying plane lost in the fog with low fuel, not a bigger plane slammed into the building at top speed filled with fuel.

But seriously this has all been explained to you before....

IrelandSpirit

Morbert wrote: »

I also said: "It was found that the building not only had a massive fire, but also a 20 story hole in it." I do not believe a fire or building trauma alone would have been enough to collapse it. However, because they both occurred, the damage was more than enough to bring the building down. Remember, they key is that there was more than just a fire. Here is the body of an email from chief Daniel Nigro

"Early on the afternoon of September 11th 2001, following the collapse of WTC 1 & 2, I feared a collapse of WTC 7 (as did many on my staff).

The reasons are as follows:

1 - Although prior to that day high-rise structures had never collapsed, The collapse of WTC 1 & 2 showed that certain high-rise structures subjected to damage from impact and from fire will collapse.

2. The collapse of WTC 1 damaged portions of the lower floors of WTC 7.

3. WTC 7, we knew, was built on a small number of large columns providing an open Atrium on the lower levels.

4. numerous fires on many floors of WTC 7 burned without sufficient water supply to attack them.

For these reasons I made the decision (without consulting the owner, the mayor or anyone else - as ranking fire officer, that decision was my responsibility) to clear a collapse zone surrounding the building and to stop all activity within that zone. Approximately three hours after that order was given, WTC 7 collapsed."



I was not talking about the other buildings around the towers. Those buildings did not collapse because they did not sustain sufficient damage.



How? It clearly shows asymmetrical tilting above the impact sight, and goes on to explain its origin in detail.



The commentator was mistaken. WTC 1 and 2 didn't collapse due to fire. They collapsed due to the combination of a fire and severe trauma due to the jet impacts. Similarly, WTC 7 didn't just collapse due to fire, but due to fire and severe trauma.



The lower down the damage, the more severe the tilting. And it should be noted that severe damage to the bottom corner and 'bulging' is recorded by the fire-fighters. That's why they evacuated the area.

Mobert. I honestly can't fully reply right now, just to say that (leaving the CTs aside), in the light of the two other buildings collapsing, it's understandable he would've wanted to get WT7 cleared.

However, if the plane-fuel fires were the main contributors to the collapse of WTC1 & 2, along with the plane crash itself, how did WTC7 collapse without these contributors?

This is the question many appear to be dodging. On the one hand it's all about WTC1 and 2 collapsing due to the combination of a jet-fuel fire and severe trauma from plane impacts. And on the other hand, WTC7 collapses due to ordinary fire and trauma from falling debris.

And to add to that, when you say:

"I was not talking about the other buildings around the towers. Those buildings did not collapse because they did not sustain sufficient damage."

It was those buildings, WTC3,4,5,6, I was referring to since Post 24.

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that you'd perhaps misread what I was questioning all along. But everything I've read claims the opposite of what you assert. Those buildings sustained more structural damage from falling debris and fire than WTC7. They buckled, and warped, and partially collapsed in places and yet did not collapse entirely like WTC7.

IrelandSpirit

King Mob wrote: »

He's not claiming that. You've clearly misread him.


Yes. I'm just reiterating the point.


On one claims one did.

But this observation is based on clearly dishonestly edited video.
Please show us a video that starts a count of the collapse when the penthouse disappears and when the top of the building hit the ground.

But you realise that your uneducated opinion is evidence for nothing right?

And I wonder how much time you spend picking apart those theories, if at all.

And no I seriously doubt you have an open mind.

I fail to see why I should be so sensitive to these people when many of them are accusing thousands of people of murder based on their own delusions.

I have seen any videos of demolitions.
There is not a single video like that, because that's not how demolitions work.

Are you now saying that the demolition of WTC7 is an a-typical one?

Except the thing is there is no evidence that there where explosives in the building....


And this old chestnut again :rolleyes:
Again I bet this has been explained to you many many times.

The Empire State building is of an entirely different construction to the twin towers. (I don't think it's even a steel framed building.)
The B-25 is much much smaller and lighter than an airliner (more specifically it is not a jetliner like I stated).
Here's a size comparison.
http://www.loosechangeguide.com/images/image102.jpg
http://www.loosechangeguide.com/images/image103.jpg

Weight ranging from 27,100 lb to a limit of 41,800 lb.
A 767-200 ranges from 179,080 lbs (empty) to 395,000 lb (maximum takeoff load).

The top speed of a B-25 ranged from 275 mph to 315 mph. But the plane that crashed was likely travelling slower. Around 150 mph
The 9/11 planes where travelling at up to 590 mph.

The fuel load of a B-25 was 974 US gallons. Which would have been running lower at the time of the ESB crash.
For the 9/11 planes it was 10000 gallons.

The fire in the ESB was out in 40 mins.

Now can you honestly say that these two crashes can compare?


And a similar nonsensical and dishonest comparison.

A 707 is much smaller than a 767. And they were assuming a slow flying plane lost in the fog with low fuel, not a bigger plane slammed into the building at top speed filled with fuel.

But seriously this has all been explained to you before....

Yes, and you're going round in circles - just about everything you've raised here has been explained to you before, so let's waste half the night bickering about the difference between a B-25 Bomber and a 707 and a 767 - and then continue on to your oh so 'educated' belief that the Empire State Building is not steel-framed.

"Empire State building- Facts:

Empire State building is a steel frame 102 Story building completed in New York City in the year 1931."

http://www.sevenwondersworld.com/wonders_of_world_empire_state_building.html


Christ, and I suppose the many families of the victims calling for 911 to be reinvestigated are deluded nutjobs too? I'd like to see you tell them that to their faces.

Shame on you King Mob. If you have nothing to contribute except insults, then I suggest you crawl back in your hole and evolve.

IrelandSpirit

IrelandSpirit wrote: »

Yes, and you're going round in circles - just about everything you've raised here has been explained to you before,

No they haven't. Not a single one of the points I've brought have ever been explained away by the CT crowd. Just lots of question dodging or feigned outrage over some pedantry.

Care to break the mould and actually explain them?

IrelandSpirit wrote: »

so let's waste half the night bickering about the difference between a B-25 Bomber and a 707 and a 767 -

You mean silly little differences like vast differences in speed, size, weight and fuel capacity?
Are you honestly claiming that these planes are comparable?

IrelandSpirit wrote: »

and then continue on to your oh so 'educated' belief that the Empire State Building is not steel-framed.

"Empire State building- Facts:

Empire State building is a steel frame 102 Story building completed in New York City in the year 1931."

http://www.sevenwondersworld.com/wonders_of_world_empire_state_building.html

So I was wrong on one point, which I indicated I was not sure on.
Now can you explain why this negates the other points?
Like the vast differences between the two crashes?

IrelandSpirit wrote: »

Christ, and I suppose the many families of the victims calling for 911 to be reinvestigated are deluded nutjobs too? I'd like to see you tell them that to their faces.

And what about the families who lost people who don't believe the nutjob theories and if fact think they are a disgrace to their loved ones?

See I can play the Appeal to emotion fallacy too.

IrelandSpirit wrote: »

Shame on you King Mob. If you have nothing to contribute except insults, then I suggest you crawl back in your hole and evolve.

But I have brought many many points to the table, not one of them you've even attempted to address.
But oddly you seem preoccupied with one little petty sentence.....

Xios

IrelandSpirit wrote: »

Christ, and I suppose the many families of the victims calling for 911 to be reinvestigated are deluded nutjobs too? I'd like to see you tell them that to their faces.

Shame on you King Mob. If you have nothing to contribute except insults, then I suggest you crawl back in your hole and evolve.

I now consider all your arguments invalid. Good day.

King Mob wrote: »

But I have brought many many points to the table, not one of them you've even attempted to address.
But oddly you seem preoccupied with one little petty sentence.....

GG/WP

Morbert

IrelandSpirit wrote: »

Mobert. I honestly can't fully reply right now, just to say that (leaving the CTs aside), in the light of the two other buildings collapsing, it's understandable he would've wanted to get WT7 cleared.

However, if the plane-fuel fires were the main contributors to the collapse of WTC1 & 2, along with the plane crash itself, how did WTC7 collapse without these contributors?

This is the question many appear to be dodging. On the one hand it's all about WTC1 and 2 collapsing due to the combination of a jet-fuel fire and severe trauma from plane impacts. And on the other hand, WTC7 collapses due to ordinary fire and trauma from falling debris.

And to add to that, when you say:

"I was not talking about the other buildings around the towers. Those buildings did not collapse because they did not sustain sufficient damage."

It was those buildings, WTC3,4,5,6, I was referring to since Post 24.

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that you'd perhaps misread what I was questioning all along. But everything I've read claims the opposite of what you assert. Those buildings sustained more structural damage from falling debris and fire than WTC7. They buckled, and warped, and partially collapsed in places and yet did not collapse entirely like WTC7.

If everything you've read claims the opposite of what I assert then you are getting your information from conspiracy sites. It is well documented, for example, that the "pancaking" of WTC 1,2 and 7 were not unusual given their design. It is well documented that WTC took over 13 seconds to collapse, and that the 6.5 second collapse normally shown is simply the second half of the collapse. It is well documented that WTC 1 2 and 7 all sustained both fire damage and severe trauma.

As for WTC 3 4 5 and 6, well I reasonably inferred you were talking about other buildings, as you posted several pictures of non-WTC building fires, but anyway: It was only WTC7 that had both unfought fires and a heavy load, along with damage caused by the collapse of WTC 1 and 2. The other buildings were either very short or had no unfought fires.

IrelandSpirit

King Mob wrote: »

No they haven't. Not a single one of the points I've brought have ever been explained away by the CT crowd. Just lots of question dodging or feigned outrage over some pedantry.

Care to break the mould and actually explain them?

You mean silly little differences like vast differences in speed, size, weight and fuel capacity?
Are you honestly claiming that these planes are comparable?


So I was wrong on one point, which I indicated I was not sure on.
Now can you explain why this negates the other points?
Like the vast differences between the two crashes?


And what about the families who lost people who don't believe the nutjob theories and if fact think they are a disgrace to their loved ones?

See I can play the Appeal to emotion fallacy too.


But I have brought many many points to the table, not one of them you've even attempted to address.
But oddly you seem preoccupied with one little petty sentence.....

Care to explain then, why you think they are 'nutjob theories' and why everybody who looks into them are 'deluded?' You are entitled to believe whatever you wish, King Mob, but I'm not entering into discussion with someone who enjoys insulting other people, that's not why I started this thread.

When you learn to make your points intelligently, with coherence and respect and without the need for base insults, I will respect your input. Until then, you are not worth my time.