The real winners here are those of us who will enjoy lampooning future use of “the Lower Manhattan Defence”

You made the fatal mistake of taking what I said seriously!

I am, but like you, nobody takes me seriously either..

I like this guy’s attitude. I assume that it makes a big difference that the towers floors are more connected than in his experiments. Edit experiments start at approx 5 mins if you find his droning on a bit boring 😉

Yep, none of those models appear to match the actual structure.

So I’m compelled to say I remain unconvinced.

What a lovely tone you’ve struck there ned. Thumbs up. 😉

But why should we take the official line as gospel?

What if the official line was controlled demo? Could you prove otherwise?

The wiki piece has 3 reference to proper peer reviewed papers that completely debunked the nonsense about thermite. which was the only bit I was looking at.

RE: The video up there^^^

Someone who isn’t a physicist once again gets the wrong answer!

You cannot directly “scale” experiments because not all physical properties scale linearly with absolute size. For example Froude number (the ratio between inertia and gravity) Reynolds number (the ratio between inertia and viscousity) and many more critical parameters (Weber, Mach, etc etc) must be carefully scaled in order to produce a valid comparison with the full sized event.

Funnily enough, this science has it’s own name, and history (Dimensional Analysis) and is generally not something a layperson understands implicitly.

The reason a 6foot model made of paper doesn’t collapse like a 1200 foot building made of 1000’s of tonnes of steel and concrete is precisely because of these non linear scaling issues (and also incidentally why a bumble bee can fly, despite basic physics suggesting it can’t! (At the BB’s scale, the air appears significantly more viscous, making flight possible)

Let me give you a simple example. He uses thin paper walls as supports. But paper has a very low density, so the viscosity of the surrounding air actually supports and damps a paper wall by a significant factor. meaning a small model with paper walls is massively more resistant to buckling that if that scale model was actually life sized, where the viscosity of the air is much less significant.

or another example, surface tension. if you are a small insect, you can walk on water due to the surface tension. try that as a human and you’re going to get wet!

All these factors and many more invalidate basic scale modelling unless it is done extremely carefully indeed!

For me, the collapse of the main towers looks absolutely to follow basic, expected patterns. Even if you hadn’t seen the aircraft hit, the fact the towers buckled at the fire zone, and that the tower with more mass above that point fell first, all makes scientific sense. Add in the poor lateral connection between floors and the exoskeleton design of the main towers and a pancake style collapse from the point of impact isn’t unexpected.

WTC7 is indeed different. It does look to collapse from low level first, btu that to me doesn’t scream conspiracy, it screams that the collapse was due to a different mechanism.

Immediately the presence of a large underground void under the complex springs to mind. That void held up both main towers and WTC7 in some way (i’m sure the load sharing is extremely complex!). Considering that half a million tonnes of building had just fallen down, i’d suggest that a lower level structural failure, resulting in WTC7 being undermined is a likely possibility.
Undermining can bring down a structurally sound building, let aloe one already compromised by fire and impact.

So, here’s the question:

Which is more probable:

1) WTC7 collapse through complex, not that understood and difficult to prove factors, but those factors do carry a weight of sensible and understood science behind them

2) WTC7 was for some (unexplained reason) deliberately blown down after the Towers Fell.

Given that 2) requires an enormous number of people, huge pre-planning, massive costs, has no proven benefit, and the fact that the same result could be achieved without the planes and tower bit (a lorry bomb, or simple fire could have been used to destroy what ever “evidence” was to be destroyed with a lot less hassle and chance of discovery) even without any evidence i’d suggest sane and logical people (in fact the majority) think the Conspiracy theorists are idiots…..

max, you’re making stuff up. NIST ahve done a model that completely discounts what you say.

And you bring me back to my original point back on page humtytum: either neat collapses of buildings are extremely hard to achieve and demand huge time, planning, resources, skill and disruption, or they are (WCT1&2) the inevitable result of asymmetric damage and heat in a localised area or 7) can happen as the result of random buckling on one vertical tower and some other damage by thermal expansion at hundreds of degrees below design parameters following some scattered office fires.

The two positions are hard to reconcile, even more so when you’re being told that one follows from the other: that a neat collapse is so hard to co-ordinate that it must have been completely unco-ordinated.

“Probable” is there because they’re scientists and they recognise there’s always scientific doubt.

Yeah, that’ll be it. Probably dust pouring out of virtually every window.

The cleaners emptying hoover bags or something. That can be really dusty.

Certainly wouldn’t be the fires that were known to be burning unchecked for hours.

Damnit, I’m gonna have to finally share a you tube video

.

It’s also easy to miss the scale of WTC7. It was 47 floors tall. For reference, the Grenfell tower is/was just 24 floors tall, pretty much half the height!

Well, you need to differentiate a bit here.

It was highly unlikely that a bunch of hijackers would get hold of some planes and successfully fly them into two of the tallest towers in the word. That’s fairly improbable, I’ll grant you that, but not in and of itself implausible…

But from that point on what happened is rather plausible indeed. Massive damage the building, jet fuel explosion, raging fire… it’s not at all implausible that this would cause the buildings to collapse, I’d even go so far as to say probable.

just want to say a few words about this bit in case some clarity around my comments is required…

I’ve not said, and will not say, that differential weakening, or localised sagging/tipping/leaning is not possible, as not only is it clearly visible in pictures and video, it’s to be expected. But as a whole (and thats the important bit) the twin towers couldn’t collapse in any other way than ‘down into a localised area/their footprint. There may be minor deviations at a local level, but not on the overall scale.

The slight tipping of the top section thats visible is the start of initiated collapse due to the structure failing, it’s not so much tipping (implying a coherent top structure pivoting) as it is sagging/deformation of the structure below. IT’s a result of damage, and once the structure is comprised enough, it starts to give way. As soon as it starts ‘to go’ so to speak, there is nothing present that could divert it from pretty much straight down. The top section lacks integrity and they’re simply too tall, too massive, and have insufficient integrity once compromised to topple or split or anything like that.

I hope I’m making myself clear?

I guess what I’m trying to say is that the observed collapse, to me, doesn’t look unusual in any way. You cna argue the toss about the specifics of where the structure first started to fail and why, but the collapse looks totally explicable for a structure of that type and size.

And here’s the kicker, controlled/initiated demolition or structural failure would BOTH result in an essentially similar looking collapse. The initiation events may be different, but as a whole it’s gonna go down in the same way overall. Which is another reason that neat collapse doesn’t imply demolition*.

I don;t know as much about 7, chiefly because I’ve not read that much about it. And while I keep an open mind about it I’ve really not seen compelling (that word again) evidence of anything fishy. I’ve see a few doubts cast on the official explanation, but most of those centre around scale of impact, eg: fires weren’t big enough, it wasn’t damaged enough. That’s fine, but pointing at a few less than complete aspects of an explanation is very different from providing actual evidence of an alternative.

It somebody says the explanation has errors or holes in it fair enough, lets investigate further and see if we can plug those knowledge gaps, or if some calculations were wrong, or maybe there are simply some bits we will never have enough info on to know for sure, but again, that is VERY different from having any actual evidence of an alternative. And I’ll hold my hands up to the fact I’m an evidence based kinda guy. Right now I’ve got a lot of evidence of a mostly explicable, and at least plausible collapse due to damage. I have no evidence of an alternative, the only thing close to evidence is doubt of the evidence we do have. Lets also be clear, doubt can be investigated and either resolved, or not, but it is not actually supporting evidence of another theory.

*Also, the entire point of controlled demolition is not ‘to blow it up’ but to ‘initiate collapse’. You’d essentially be trying to cause a structural failure, but in a controlled manner, the explosive bit is only used to compromise integrity and start the collapse, hence why collapse is in the same manner.

cheers jonnyboi. (Youtube?!?!?!?!? WTAF?)

Same 8 windows, I think, with fire coming out of them, some more round the corner of the same 8, and another fire in 6 windows, which spreads to the next floor. some of the flames are quite big I guess. Raging? guess so. wouldn’t want to be stood near them.

Still, that’s 3 or four sections of 3 or four floors shown in the video. And an awful lot of windows not even broken.

Those 10 words in brackets don’t add much or take much away from the rest of my post, so if that’s all you’ve got to object to…?

Or you can set a few floors on fire and you’ll get the same result.

cheers for the long post amedias. You’ve made yourself clear.

You’re not 100%, but you’ve happy enough and you’ve seen no reason to think otherwise.

Not much to argue with there, I agree with a lot of it, and haven’t said any more than you regarding alternatives.

Got your point about the demolition too. You just need to initiate it. one of two floors might be all you need?