Challenge: What is the specific mechanism of WTC7's collapse?

First, NIST released a preliminary report, that is all. So lets see what we have from what was visible...

1. Simultaneous failure of structure at all four corners of the building.

Simultaneuos failure, or progressive internal collapse that then allowed the exterior to collpase into itself. I say progressive collpase that took seconds which seemed 'simultaneous'.

2. Simultaneous failure of all core columns except for one: the initial column failure under the penthouse.

The collapse of the penthouse shows that the integrity of the interior of the building is no longer present. Take one leg away from a table and it may stand till you put weight on it, like the tons of steel and concrete in WTC 7. It was collapsing into itself after a 7 hour fire.


3. No friction whatsoever during the global collapse, thus accounting for the free-fall acceleration.

We cannot see into the inside of the building so how can we know what type of friction and resistance ther was? However, there is not much to the 'interior' of the building as most of the columns were outside the main structure. THis may be from them constructing a building on top of another existing structure as WTC 7 was.




Here is a nice pic of some damage





Here is another showing quite a bit of damage.

www.debunking911.com...

The specific mechanism was the collapse of WTC 1.

Considering the fact that they were right next to the twin towers I would think that the sheer force of the shock waves associated with their collapse would be enough to destabilize the building leading to its eventual collapse. At least that makes sense to me.

So we have a starting point of the collapse for either theory, where exactly did the collaspe start in your opinion in WTC 7? That might get us started on discussion. The NIST seems to show some stuctural failure that coincides with the sagging of the penthouse. Do you agree that is the start of things to come?

Originally posted by esdad71

The NIST "Damage Diagram"... Funny that their diagram shows NO PHYSICAL DAMAGE to columns 79,80 and 81 where they "postulate the collapse initiated. Their orange blobs, though they are irrelevant to their own theory, have been pretty well "debunked" here:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Originally posted by esdad71
Here is a nice pic of some damage

SW corner damage that in no way damaged columns 79, 80 or 81...



[edit on 26-4-2007 by Pootie]

Grover,

What about the other buildings that were -closer- to buildings 1 and 2 that didn't collapse and are still standing to this day, were they weakened?

Esdad, your not making alot of sense to me.. please clarify.

Take one leg away from a table and it may stand till you put weight on it, like the tons of steel and concrete in WTC 7. It was collapsing into itself after a 7 hour fire.

It may still stand til you put weight on it? What the heck?



Ok. now for a little common sense and a physics lesson. A table MIGHT stand momentarily after a leg is taken out but it's definitely going to fall in the direction of the missing leg.

Subtracting one leg from a table does NOT equal the global collapse of the table.


Also, it's obvious from watching the video that the collapse was not progressive in the context that you are purporting. The outer support collumns of the building were not 'pulled' in from the center, they FELL ALONG WITH and INTO the center and because the 'failure' of the center was slightly offset from the rest.

Using building 6 as an example.. the center was hollowed out but the exterior was standing just fine. How do you suppose THAT happened? The center collapsing was sheared away from the outer support collumns without collapsing them.



Come again Esdad...



[edit on 26-4-2007 by ViewFromTheStars]

Originally posted by esdad71
1. Simultaneous failure of structure at all four corners of the building.

Simultaneuos failure, or progressive internal collapse that then allowed the exterior to collpase into itself. I say progressive collpase that took seconds which seemed 'simultaneous'.

So you think the four corners of the building began collapsing, not together, but within seconds of each other?

Are we watching the same building fall?

2. Simultaneous failure of all core columns except for one: the initial column failure under the penthouse.

The collapse of the penthouse shows that the integrity of the interior of the building is no longer present. Take one leg away from a table and it may stand till you put weight on it, like the tons of steel and concrete in WTC 7. It was collapsing into itself after a 7 hour fire.

This doesn't satisfy requirement #2 at all. You aren't even on-topic.

3. No friction whatsoever during the global collapse, thus accounting for the free-fall acceleration.

We cannot see into the inside of the building so how can we know what type of friction and resistance ther was?

It accelerated at free-fall. Enough said. Physics 101, Esdad. Retake it if you want.

The specific mechanism was the collapse of WTC 1.

This a poor attempt at humor?

link to a video

Here is a video of the largest building ever imploded, the 23 story Hudson building. This is a steel structure taken down with explosives, and look how difficult it was to do. Watch the video....4100 charges in 1100 locations. 24 days with 12 people doing nothing but loading explosives. Demolitions happen as the charge to exploded and nothing is simultaneous.


Now, does that look like how WTC 7 collapsed. No.

The specific mechanism that started it was WTC 1 collapsing. Fires ensued and weakend the structure. It also lasted 6 and half hours longer than this steel building tha caught on fire and roof trusses were weakend and collpased without fuel.

link
The fire spread was very rapid due to the lack of compartmentalization, the large amount of fuel, and lack of means of suppression. The unprotected steel roof trusses failed early on in the fire due to the same factors.

come again....

Originally posted by esdad71
The specific mechanism that started it was WTC 1 collapsing.

WTC1 wasn't a structural component of WTC7. Sorry, it doesn't satisfy the thread post.

This is what the original post says, in case you missed it:

It does not have to be worked out in every detail, but it does have to be specific enough to explain the collapse in terms of relations between different parts of the structure, ie between columns, bracing, the outer facade, etc.

You haven't even entered the building, so to speak, when you're still talking about WTC1. That thing fell hours ago, Esdad. Try to make more sense, please. I specifically asked NOT for the generic bull of "fire and debris". You know what I'm asking for, I know you aren't that stupid.

Enough said. Physics 101. It is always the same with these threads. You put up no proof, ask others to try to clarify or answer a question, but you never, ever have an answer yourself.


At least I stick to the same story and attempt to explain that. Hey BS, where is your proof of demo I have been waiting months for? That's right, you don't have any. NOthing. Nada. Zip. Zilch.

Please show me how Physics applies to WTC 7. I want to see you provide some numbers for once that are your own. You see, if you do not like my answers that means you already have the answers to the questions. So, what are they?

Originally posted by esdad71
Enough said. Physics 101. It is always the same with these threads. You put up no proof, ask others to try to clarify or answer a question, but you never, ever have an answer yourself.

Jesus Christ, Esdad, read this if it still doesn't make sense to you:


Gravity accelerates objects at 9.8m/s^2. AN OBJECT WILL ONLY ACTUALLY FALL THAT FAST IF NOTHING IS IN ITS WAY!

To be more technical, the friction produced by even air resistance takes away from the kinetic energy of the falling body, and a decrease in kinetic energy translates to a loss of velocity.

Loss of velocity means it doesn't accelerate at free-fall!


What kind of freaking proof do you need of this? Do you want me to film myself dropping objects through the air and timing their fall, and using physics equations to calculate their acceleration, or what?

Let's backtrack through 400 years of science so Esdad can catch up with us, guys.

[edit on 26-4-2007 by bsbray11]

^You keep asking for numbers to prove the physics that we can see with your own eyes, yet you offer no numbers to support your ridiculous theory that somehow WTC1, that fell what? 7 hours before, was the cause of WTC7's collapse.

Are you for real Esdad or are you just here to stir things up? Cause non of your post make any sense whatsoever.

Take the blinders off and go take some basic physics classes, cause you must have missed them in high school, if you ever went...

Again, ths same thing. You really insult my intelligence when you post that stuff. I know what gravity is, and I know what resistance is, but I do not agree that it fell at free fall speeds. Agreed, you know this is how I feel since we have gone on about it for so long.

The building itself was many structure built within one, with most of the columns in the lower floors, right. So the with the weakening of the lower, interior structure, it was not able to hold the 40 stories above it. It was a building built over an ecxsiting structure that was modifed at least 3 times to add additional structure.

Also, the collpase initiates with the first kink near the penthouse, and the entire collapse took closer to 30 seconds, not 7.

It's not a matter of agree or disagree, it's a matter of fact, because it's been demonstrated.

www.studyof911.com...

It's calculated above.

Do you want me to break that down, too?

For a falling object with an initial velocity of zero:

y = 0.5at2

=> a = 2y/t2

NIST: a = 2*110.534/4.7572 = 9.77 m/s2

[...]

I estimate an error margin of +/-2m for y, which would translate to +/-0.175 m/s2 for the final acceleration figures.

That is too freaking close to dispute. Air resistance should have slowed it more than that, let alone freaking thousands of tons of steel and concrete. Do you think that stuff just folds up into a big pile without any energy being used? Whatever happened to conservation of energy man? Explain to me where you think energy was exerted when the building fell. Anywhere? Anywhere at all, man?

In all seriousness, a review of this stuff wouldn't hurt you.

[edit on 26-4-2007 by bsbray11]

Thanks for the link. I will take a look at it BS.

Yes Esdad..

Come again.....


I've seen the video of the Hudson coming down before and it only stregthens the case of controlled demolition of building 7 for me.

The final figure for theoretical collapse acceleration rate of WTC7 in complete free fall in atmosphere and at sea level is 8.94m/s2, which is only a little above the actual observed 8.71m/s2 acceleration rate arrived at from analysis of the CBS footage and using the Emporis height measurement. From this we can imply that the structure provided a negative acceleration, i.e resistive force of approximately 0.23m/s2 to the gravitational collapse.

So this tells us that there was resistance, but you 'feel' it is not enough. Am I right?

OK, I can see your point. However, do you not agree that it would have been better if the calculation showed it fell faster than it should? That would prove that Physics cannot be applied.

ANOK, seems like the only one here with a problem is you, and I feel like the guy in your avatar after your comment. HOw about you go have a big cup of GFY?

View, if you watched that video you would see how difficult it would be to demo WTC 7 and how that demoed building DID not fall like WTC 7. SO, you are stating that WTC 7 fell in the same way?

Originally posted by ANOK
^You keep asking for numbers to prove the physics that we can see with your own eyes, yet you offer no numbers to support your ridiculous theory that somehow WTC1, that fell what? 7 hours before, was the cause of WTC7's collapse.

Are you for real Esdad or are you just here to stir things up? Cause non of your post make any sense whatsoever.

Take the blinders off and go take some basic physics classes, cause you must have missed them in high school, if you ever went...

Temper temper,

I thnk all he is/was saying is that without WTC 1 collapsing the inital damage to WTC 7 does not occur, which is turn is the start of the events leading to the fall of WTC 7. No WTC 1 collapse, there is no WTC 7 collapse, please correct me if I am wrong.

I assume your contention is that WTC 7 would have Fell without any previous fires or damage since it was already Rigged for CD? Is that correct.

Originally posted by esdad71
View, if you watched that video you would see how difficult it would be to demo WTC 7 and how that demoed building DID not fall like WTC 7. SO, you are stating that WTC 7 fell in the same way?

No.. I'm NOT saying that they fell the same but SIMILAR.

Don't take this the wrong way but I don't really care how difficult it was to bring down the Hudson or how difficult it was to wire building 7 with cd devices. The video on the Hudson CD really illustrates how difficult it would have been to get building 7 to collapse the way it did WITHOUT CD devices.





[edit on 26-4-2007 by ViewFromTheStars]

Pootie.
SW corner damage that in no way damaged columns 79, 80 or 81...

Exactly...

Hmm.. now what mechanism contributed to the failures of collumns 79, 80 or 81?





Pootie, Your handle cracks me up..

Rootie tootie fresh and fruity pooty.. Ok I just had to do it.

Please fogive me.