That picture is of the Bankers Trust building, not WTC7. We don’t have any clear photos showing the damage to the south side of WTC7, but it did show in some aerial video.
Two events shaped my understanding of the collapse of the WTC.
- Fire at Hoch Auditorium, University of Kansas, 1991. An auditorium from the 1920s was struck by lightning, and partially burned down. Most of the roof was gone. Two large horizontal support beams that supported the now gone roof remained. One was a very thick wood beam which looked a bit smoke damaged but intact. There was also a steel I-beam which was deformed and sagging. It was shocking to see that a WOOD support held up to fire better than steel. It seemed counter-intuitive.
As soon as one of the towers started collapsing, it was clear to me that the fires were responsible.
- The collapse of the 35W bridge in Minneapolis. The debris includes horribly twisted steel beams. This was accomplished without fire. When an underdesigned piece is overloaded and fails, the next weakest spot is overloaded, and this cascades into catastrophic failure.
An entire bridge was completely destroyed without a jet fuel fire. If a steel structure can completely collapse without heat, it most certainly could with a huge fire. No secret demolition teams would be necessary.
Thought it might be but the site it’s on says it’s 7.
You first - tell us how light they would have to be not to crash through the floors below. Try to grasp that they were not load bearing - the walls were. (Prior to being softened by the fire.)
Note that references to your model, which was composed of materials a thousand times stronger and of significantly more solid construction, do not prove anything except possibly a poor grasp of modeling and physics on your part.
I covered this in post #327.
Rick
Well yeah (actually the problems with his model are legion), but the point is to stop the endless squalking of “Nobody counted the molecules in the floor! Nobody counted the molecules in the floor!” and try and force some semblance of actual thought about the physics involved to occur in the mind of our model-making friend.
Yes, I know it’s a hopeless cause, but if that bothered me I wouldn’t be posting in this thread.
Molecules? I thought they wanted the atoms counted.
:smack:
They’re down to the quarks, now.
Well the NIST already rejected the pancake theory therefore according to them the upper floor assemblies did not break loose to fall on lower floors.
So you expect me to explain what the NIST already says didn’t happen?
So the floors must still have been connected to the upper core when it impacted the lower stationary core therefore their weight could be important to know.
So what was the weight of a floor assembly? I point this out primarily to get people to notice how absurd it is to not have that information after ALMOST NINE YEARS.
Am I to take that as sarcasm? The problem with modeling something large is the inverse square law.
psik
Quarks would be easier. Just take the number of tonnes and multiply it by 1.807 * 10^30
As the 9/11 debunking site noted a long time ago, that is misleading.
For the sake of argument, I’ll guess 5000 tons. But let’s say I was wrong by an order of magnitude and it was actually 500 or 50,000 tons. Can you explain how this would affect the apparently necessary calculations?
The ultimate question is how did the north tower come down in less than 18 seconds.
Dr. Sunder Dunderhead of the NIST says 11 seconds in this podcast.
The people on JREF say he misspoke. Different sources give somewhat different numbers but most are below 18 seconds. The remnants of the core may have taken as long as 25 seconds but the majority of the mass got down in less than 18 as far as I can tell. But for a true collapse that means more than 50% of gravitational acceleration since the official theory is that the top portion crushed the rest under its HUGE MASS.
But the mass relates to horizontal motion also.
The vertical lines on the building in this video are the exterior columns of the south tower. They were 3 ft 3 in center to center.
You can’t see it directly because of the dust but if you draw a line on the frame the bottom of the upper block had to move at least 20 feet horizontally in a few seconds.
When the plane impacted the building fifty-some minutes earlier the entire mass only deflected about 15 inches and oscillated for four minutes. One concrete floor slab alone weighed 600 tons. So what energy source could break the building in two and rotate the bottom 20 feet when the plane’s impact only moved it a little over a foot?
Gravity just pulls down and the fire could just weaken the steel. But how much steel was in the vicinity that it could be strong enough to support 29 stories but weaken in less than one hour?
Accurate answers about the data regarding the building is just stuff we should have gotten eight and a half years ago. That alone would not make me believe the official story. I just point out the absence of a number on the weight of the floor assemblies because so much has been written about their pancaking or not pancaking but we aren’t even told what they weigh. Rather absurd not to have it after EIGHT YEARS.
We call this SCIENCE? 
It’s more like, “Shut up and believe what you are told!”
psik
No, I’m tired of this retarded question - first you give me a reason to care what the weight of a floor assembly was. Tell me how heavy they would have to be to fall? How heavy not to? With what certainty do you know this? Because as far as I’m concerned it doesn’t matter how heavy they are, until somebody gives me a reason to think it does.
Because in actual truth, it doesn’t matter what the weight of the floors were, because even if we knew it to the milligram and told you, you wouldn’t have a damned clue what to do with that information. You don’t know squat about building construction or impact tolerance or physics, and couldn’t use an answer if you had one. You’re Just Asking Questions: flapping your gums for no other reason to make noise and try and spread confusion and uncertainty enough to hide the flaws in your pet silly theories.
It’s pathetic.
This is not sarcasm, it is scale - the very square-cube problem you allude to. Your materials were drastically overstrong, taking account for scale, and that’s not even counting the fact that you used solid slabs and cylinders where in real construction there were hollow lattices. There is a reason why real skycrapers aren’t constructed out of giant cylinders of pressed wood pulp (100x the thickness of your paper) with giant steel washers stacked between.
Meh, as mentioned before you have already the numbers to make a better table than the ones published already (and once again approximations are indeed **also **used in science)
If you are not able to do the math or publish a rebuttal in a scientific publication to then show how the approximations used by others are wrong then you are just wasting your time.
So, if this “ultimate question” is answered, you will be satisfied with the official version?
You are a funny, funny man. Imagine! A JAQer being satisfied with answers! 
How much steel do you need? Is it your claim that no such amount exists that would support the weight for one hour before collapsing? Do you have any claims we can analyze?
Gravity. That clip shows that the outer columns failed asymmetrically. As one area of columns gave way, the entire upper portion of the building toppled in that direction. It looks like it managed to lean almost 5 degrees to the left before all the columns failed and it began falling straight down.
The whole point of controlled demolition is to sever all the support columns at the same time to avoid exactly the sort of sloppy, asymmetrical collapse shown in the video.