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

A similar thread was just posted, but was not clear enough, and thus misinterpretted and closed. This thread is going to be specific enough to avoid this problem.

Specific collapse mechanism theories for the Twin Towers include the generic pancake theory, the NIST team's truss failure theory, Thomas Eager's zipper theory, etc. For example, according to NIST, trusses sagged and pulled in the perimeter columns in the towers, causing extreme deflection, but according to general pancake theory, the trusses sagged and then bolt connections severed at the perimeter, allowing trusses to simply fall down onto the next floor.


The challenge is simple: Find an equivalent, specific collapse mechanism theory that explains WTC7's progressive global collapse. (See bullet list below for specific requirements for said theory.)

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.


"Fire and impact damage" isn't a specific enough explanation for engineers regarding WTC7's global failure, just as "planes and fire" wasn't a specific enough explanation for the Twin Towers. Those things only account for the columns they directly compromised; separate mechanisms must be defined for once the buildings start falling into themselves.




The theoretical mechanism(s) must account for the following observed phenomena:

• Simultaneous failure of structure at all four corners of the building.
  
• Simultaneous failure of all core columns except for one: the initial column failure under the penthouse.
  
• No friction whatsoever during the global collapse, thus accounting for the free-fall acceleration.
  
• Failures between exterior wall end-to-end connections without causing friction.
  
• Core columns telescoping down into themselves without friction.
  
• Lateral bracing of each column at each floor must be accounted for.

Of course, all other things being equal, a single mechanism would be more desirable than many unrelated mechanisms that happened to occur simultaneously by chance. This would be a proper application of Occam's Razor, again, given that all other things are equal between the theories.

Good luck.

Have you focused any attention on the GAP in the SE corner of the building. A building needs all of its supporting beams to be in tact in order to support the loads they have to endure. When you have a chunk of structural components damaged such as the corner, you're going to begin to have problems (a.k.a. the building will lean on that side more because it's weak and eventually everything will come down with it)

You have also where the debris from the collapsing WTC gouged out a part of the fascia in WTC 7, this didn't help matters either.

Then you had the fires from the diesel tanks in WTC 7. They burned long enough and hot enough to weaken the steel support beams. You can see what an office fire did to WTCs 1 and 2, look at what a diesel fuel fire can do to WTC 7.


Edit: By the way, logic and proper calculations > psuedo conspiracy science

Dream on conspiracy boy.

[edit on 4/26/2007 by Masisoar]

Masisoar,

Why don't you keep dreaming.. in fact.. why don't you wake up and truly understand what Bray is asking for here. NOTHING you just said contributes anything towards explaining the mechanism of the global collapse of building 7.


Heres a little something for you dribbling naysayers: BUILDING 7 DID NOT SUSTAIN GLOBAL DAMAGE so HOW did it collapse GLOBALLY?

Since you are so focused on the 'corner of supposedly great damage' how come the building didn't collapse in the direction that it was supposedly leaning towards? OHHH.. that's right.. in your fantasy world all of the collumns of the building that didn't have any damage just magically gave way at the same time.



I'm not even going to waste my time on holding your hand on the diesel fuel.. (Anyone care to do it for me?)

Masisoar
By the way, logic and proper calculations > psuedo conspiracy science

What an irony coming from you and your logic is skewed... Now what about those proper calculations?





[edit on 26-4-2007 by ViewFromTheStars]

How about YOU tell US, the non-believers of the demo theory, how it occured? Please tell us step by step how someone would prepare WTC 7 for failure by the hand of a human and not from the debris that fell. These threads all turn out the same and there is nothing accomplished. Maybe it is time to hear HOW it could have actually been done with explosives and set up without NO one knowing.

Originally posted by esdad71
How about YOU tell US, the non-believers of the demo theory, how it occured? Please tell us step by step how someone would prepare WTC 7 for failure by the hand of a human and not from the debris that fell. These threads all turn out the same and there is nothing accomplished. Maybe it is time to hear HOW it could have actually been done with explosives and set up without NO one knowing.

Exactly, the burden of proof is more on the conspiracy theorist believers on how it came down due to Controlled Demolition or some other variance of it. The manner of demonstrating how WTC 7 collapsed was done in the NIST report.

Read it, it's there. It makes sense.

I don't have to Esdad because the burden of proof is on you to explain how a global collapse resulted from damage that was not global. Whether or not you believe this or want to admit it common sense is on the side of mystery and the mystery of the building 7 collapse is on the side of controlled demolition.

Originally posted by ViewFromTheStars

What an irony coming from you and your logic is skewed... Now what about those proper calculations?

[edit on 26-4-2007 by ViewFromTheStars]

Proper calculations as done by the NIST dealing with static loads and damaged structural components and their capacities.

I'd like to see something substantial as in regard with proper calculations having to deal with WTC 7 and its collapse and how it was "controlled demolition".

Masisoar and Esdad..

Let's focus now on one of the incredibly simple, factual elements about building 7's collapse as illustrated by Brey:

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

Now how do you guys think this happened again? Now before you start spouting off about logic and 'proper calculation' please have these numbers ready.

Come on now Masisoar.. show us these calculations from the NIST report that explains how ALL 4 CORNERS of building 7 COLLAPSED ALL AT THE SAME TIME.

I'm waiting.. dig it out.. I want to see it. Back it up.. We are waiting.



[edit on 26-4-2007 by ViewFromTheStars]

Originally posted by Masisoar
Exactly, the burden of proof is more on the conspiracy theorist believers on how it came down due to Controlled Demolition or some other variance of it.

I like how you guys try and deflect to "nah, uh...you guys prove the demolitions". The burden of proof lies with the government and their agencies. NOT the people who question them.

The manner of demonstrating how WTC 7 collapsed was done in the NIST report.

Really? Why are they wasting more of my money then? Their final report is still due out. Unless you got to proof-read it or something.

Read it, it's there. It makes sense.

How do I read a non-existant document? Edit: Not really non-existant, just not in public view yet.

[edit on 4/26/2007 by Griff]

That's what I thought.

You can't even get past the 1st one much less the other 5 collapse phenomenon illustrated by Bray.


I'm wading through the NIST report again and I find it a load of crap but I'll keep trying to digest it for the sake of argument. Now.. again I ask, what part of the NIST report explains how ALL 4 corners of bulding 7 failed simultaneously?

I'm sure not finding it and I don't think you will either.




Bray.. there is a simple explanation for ALL of the phenomenon observed during the collapse of building 7..

IT'S CALLED CONTROLLED DEMOLITION.




Unless someone else can come up with a better 'theory' it's the only thing that explains it all. Unless of course the very hand of God himself did it.


Come on guys.. dig it out.

[edit on 26-4-2007 by ViewFromTheStars]

Originally posted by Masisoar
I'd like to see something substantial as in regard with proper calculations having to deal with WTC 7 and its collapse and how it was "controlled demolition".

What you ask is a logical fallacy. In a controlled demolition the columns are severed. Therefore, introducing a zero into the equation and thus equates to zero. You don't need to calculate anything if you sever all columns at once. The reason CD companies do calculations is to minimise the amount of explosives and to make sure it falls the way they want.

Now, there are calculations that should be done regarding how this assymetrical damage globally collapsed the building. Starting from damaged area (like what was the new stress distribution and how did the remaining structure handle the loads). Things like that. i could do it, but I don't have drawings to know the structural elements. Plus, doing it by hand would take me about a hundred years. NIST has computers that could simmulate it in seconds. Where are these simmulations? Show us the proof!!!!

Originally posted by esdad71
How about YOU tell US, the non-believers of the demo theory, how it occured?

Give me $15 million and I will, bud.

In the mean time, use NIST's $15 million research and explain this building's collapse to me on a structural level, Esdad. That's the challenge. You can even make up your own crap if you want.


Btw, I'm pretty sure Masisoar was being sarcastic. Look at his post history. He knows it was demo'd.

[edit on 26-4-2007 by bsbray11]

First, there is no NIST report for WTC 7, it is not complete.
Second, it is not for us to prove, it is for you to prove how it was not a progressice collapse caused by a large structural fire and damage from 7 hours of fires.

It is upon you, the theorist, to back up your claims that somehow it was something other than structural failure. This arguement can go round and round and it does. I have posted links in numerous threads that explain this with'calculations' as you put it, but there are real world variables that negate any type of calculation you attempt because this was not a undamaged structure.

Please answer the question of the post which is "What specific mechanism caused the collapse'. There is no one but a combination of events that led to the collapse.

Originally posted by esdad71
It is upon you, the theorist, to back up your claims that somehow it was something other than structural failure.

Structural failure due to fire and debris is also a theory. You draw your lines arbitrarily, Esdad.

There isn't even an official story for WTC7. That's the point of this thread. There's nothing to attack! You have to establish a theory first, before you can claim anyone else has to disprove it, you silly goose. You act like everything is already figured out, and I have to disprove it. What in the hell am I even trying to disprove? Fire and debris?

Please answer the question of the post which is "What specific mechanism caused the collapse'. There is no one but a combination of events that led to the collapse.

Well, please, feel free to divide them up!

[edit on 26-4-2007 by bsbray11]

Esdad
First, there is no NIST report for WTC 7, it is not complete.

Tell that to Masisour, he keeps bringing up 'logic and proper calculations'. I've been sarcastic I know but I want to see these calculations as they pertain to this thread and building 7.. What calculations are Masisour talking about? You get the gist.

Esdad
It is upon you, the theorist, to back up your claims that somehow it was something other than structural failure.

Wrong. I really don't want to go round' and round' with you on this one but the simple fact is this: Building 7 didn't sustain global damage so it is up to YOU to explain how a global collpase occured in light of this FACT. Since 99.9% of the proof has been hauled off under security it's hard to prove either way isn't it but like I said earlier, common sense is on the side of controlled demolition. Anyone with a clear mind and after watching building 7 collapse would have to conclude that there is NO WAY, NO HOW building 7 collpased the way it did without demolition assistance. I don't care how much damage you might perceive on one corner, why didn't that corner collapse first? I don't understand why you insist on glossing over this self evident truth. How did the damage on one corner cause the instantaneous failure of an opposite corner? No matter how desperately in delusion you try and rationalize this and gloss over this you can't escape it.

No, I want Esdad to realize this:

There is no official story for WTC7!

There is nothing to disprove!


The whole point of this thread, is to GIVE us something to disprove. Give us a mechanism, a set of mechanisms, anything other than "fire and debris" and lots of arm-waving.

Originally posted by ViewFromTheStars

IT'S CALLED CONTROLLED DEMOLITION.

Unless someone else can come up with a better 'theory' it's the only thing that explains it all. Unless of course the very hand of God himself did it.


Come on guys.. dig it out.

[edit on 26-4-2007 by ViewFromTheStars]

Exactly why else would the building come straight down on itself.
Even the dear old Larry Silverstein said

"I remember getting a call from the, er, fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, 'We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it.' And they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse."

Silverstein who is the lease holder of the WTC pulled it for insurence gaining a whopping 7 billion dollars.

And if this was a terrorist attack then why was Fema at the WTC the night before?

This whole 9-11 deal was a big money scam and giving reason for Bush sending troops to Iraq. Watch the 911 mysteries and see for yourself. And thats why America is almost down for the count. We have too many greedy people cutting up America and thats why our freedoms are threated. And it makes me sick because no one is taking it seriously.

Oh almost forgot WTC 7 contained thousands of important documents- Its in the DVD 911 Mysteries too. But after the WTC 7 was pulled it of course destroyed those documents.

[edit on 4/26/2007 by Leyla]

Actually, the NIST gives a half-assed answer to WTC 7's demise here:

wtc.nist.gov...

They "postulate" on page 27 that the failure of columns 79,80 and 81 (odd triple failure) NONE OF WHICH ARE IN THE DAMAGE IMPACT AREA on page 20 initiated the collapse... then those failures would "likely result in failure at the floor-column connections and would progress vertically up to the east penthouse."

On page 28 they blame the failure of 79 and 81 on heat... What heat? A diesel fed fire at best? What jokers those guys are.

On page 29 they re-use the old "failed fireproofing" and "Transfer Truss 2" arguments...

Anyhoo... this got the EXACT response I would expect it too..

ESDAD should be on warn for attempted derailing of the thread and posting non-relevant info.

Masisoar to for harassing BSBRAY11. "psuedo conspiracy science.. Dream on conspiracy boy. "

But what do I know... a "known cter" asks a question and the thread gets locked or this crap happens.

File this under "the usual suspects"...

BSBray11 and I want ANYONE to explain how this collapse happened WITHOUT CD. Why is that so hard?

bsbray11

The whole point of this thread, is to GIVE us something to disprove. Give us a mechanism, a set of mechanisms, anything other than "fire and debris" and lots of arm-waving.

I think a couple of people here are trying to give us something to disprove but are not doing a very good job of it.

Ok.. trying to stay true to the original direction intended for this thread by it's founder, here is my question for Masisour and Esdad:

Getting back to number 1 on the list.

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


Ok.. please at least give us your honest opinion again how this occured. How did the damaged corner cause the other undamaged corners to fail simultaneously?

My not so humble belief is controlled demolition but what mechanism do YOU submit?


Masisour said this:

Have you focused any attention on the GAP in the SE corner of the building. A building needs all of its supporting beams to be in tact in order to support the loads they have to endure. When you have a chunk of structural components damaged such as the corner, you're going to begin to have problems (a.k.a. the building will lean on that side more because it's weak and eventually everything will come down with it)

"eventually" everthing will come down with 'it' (the corner)..

hehe.. when I see building 7 collapse I don't see an "eventual" between the damaged corner and the REST of the building.

Please elaborate on that a little. If the bulding was leaning on it's 'weak' side before everthing 'else' collapsed as you state why didn't the bulding collapse in that direction?

Please do tell.

[edit on 26-4-2007 by ViewFromTheStars]