# WTC7 collapse, new numerical results **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [September 11, 2019, 7:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wtc7-collapse-new-numerical-results/840064 "2019-09-11T19:35:33Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 9
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [September 13, 2019, 11:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wtc7-collapse-new-numerical-results/840064/161 "2019-09-13T23:09:32Z")
> [@Skywatcher](#): > > (bolding mine) > > I’ve actually seen that particular CT in the wild; a “Hollywood explosion” followed by conventional demolition charges. Never mind the fact that any conventional charges present would have been heard throughout lower Manhattan and probably across the river in New Jersey as well. I wonder if they realize the irony…a ‘Hollywood explosion’ uses gasoline and an explosive charge. 😛 And, yeah, jet fuel would work for that as well. Just fine. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [September 13, 2019, 11:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wtc7-collapse-new-numerical-results/840064/162 "2019-09-13T23:17:06Z")
> [@namahoo](#): > > This is provably false. > > For the longest time I worked under the same assumption. Too large to keep secret. Once I realized that it _could_ have been pulled off by a fairly limited number of people, then I began taking those theories a lot more seriously. I would be curious to know how a “fairly limited number of people” cold have planted sufficient explosive in all the load-bearing walls of two separate skyscrapers in a short enough period of time to be unnoticed by all of the thousands of people around whom they would have had to work for however long it took to set the charges. (And how would those charges be detonated without being seen from outside the building. This latter could be done, but would add months to the preparation.) ---
**Author:** ![Ann\_Hedonia](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ann_hedonia/32/319_2.png) [@Ann\_Hedonia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ann_Hedonia)\ **Post date:** [September 13, 2019, 11:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wtc7-collapse-new-numerical-results/840064/163 "2019-09-13T23:40:15Z")
But there’s more than jet fuel at play here. Don’t forget the mind control and weather control chemicals that the government sprays from jet liners. Who knows what temperature THAT stuff burns at? Chem trails, baby. (With apologies to xkcd) [xkcd: Jet Fuel](https://xkcd.com/966/) ---
**Author:** ![LAZombie](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/b38774/32.png) [@LAZombie](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LAZombie)\ **Post date:** [September 14, 2019, 12:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wtc7-collapse-new-numerical-results/840064/164 "2019-09-14T00:36:38Z")
> [@I\_Love\_Me\_Vol.I](#): > > It could be that “jet fuel may not burn efficiently without certain conditions such as pressure and proper vaporization”… I don’t really know. However in the particular case of the 9/11 planes into the WTC the jet fuel burned REAL efficient-like. It blowed up real good. Remember the huge fireball when the plane hit the building? > > So whatever the nuances and possibilities of the combustibility of jet fuel, whether that day was a freak occurrence or would happen every time, on 9/11 you witnessed on TV the combustibility of jet fuel. Unless you believe that the huge fireball was part of the “controlled demolition”? The bigger the explosion the less likely fire was the cause of the structural failures. An explosion would cause the jet fuel to disperse rather than pool in certain areas. Also it is much windier at that elevation which also argues against pooling of the jet fuel. While the wind would provide oxygen, it would also dissipate the heat of fires. The ideal fuel for heating up the steel support beams would burn slowly rather than quickly. ---
**Author:** ![snfaulkner](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/snfaulkner/32/433_2.png) [@snfaulkner](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/snfaulkner)\ **Post date:** [September 14, 2019, 12:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wtc7-collapse-new-numerical-results/840064/165 "2019-09-14T00:59:17Z")
> [@LAZombie](#): > > The bigger the explosion the less likely fire was the cause of the structural failures. An explosion would cause the jet fuel to disperse rather than pool in certain areas. Also it is much windier at that elevation which also argues against pooling of the jet fuel. While the wind would provide oxygen, it would also dissipate the heat of fires. The ideal fuel for heating up the steel support beams would burn slowly rather than quickly. How long after the planes hit did they fall? Is that long enough for you? ---
**Author:** ![ASL\_v2.0](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/asl_v2.0/32/3525_2.png) [@ASL\_v2.0](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ASL_v2.0)\ **Post date:** [September 14, 2019, 1:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wtc7-collapse-new-numerical-results/840064/166 "2019-09-14T01:13:15Z")
> [@LAZombie](#): > > The bigger the explosion the less likely fire was the cause of the structural failures. When did you come to this conclusion? Just now, on the fly, or is it something that’s been stewing for a few years? ---
**Author:** ![Sparky812](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/eb9ed0/32.png) [@Sparky812](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sparky812)\ **Post date:** [September 14, 2019, 3:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wtc7-collapse-new-numerical-results/840064/167 "2019-09-14T03:07:29Z")
> [@LAZombie](#): > > The bigger the explosion the less likely fire was the cause of the structural failures. An explosion would cause the jet fuel to disperse rather than pool in certain areas. Also it is much windier at that elevation which also argues against pooling of the jet fuel. While the wind would provide oxygen, it would also dissipate the heat of fires. The ideal fuel for heating up the steel support beams would burn slowly rather than quickly. Nope, you’ve got it completely ass backwards. Wind (more oxygen) helps a fire burn faster and hotter. Are you not familiar with a campfire? Ever seen a brush fire or forest fire spread? Do you know how a blow torch or acetylene torch work? How about a forge? Or a welder? Hint: they’re all have ideal fuels that heat up steel or other metals very quickly causing them to change shape, etc… Metals dissipate heat so a slow burn would have less effect, if any at all. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [September 14, 2019, 3:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wtc7-collapse-new-numerical-results/840064/168 "2019-09-14T03:15:55Z")
> [@LAZombie](#): > > The bigger the explosion the less likely fire was the cause of the structural failures. An explosion would cause the jet fuel to disperse rather than pool in certain areas. Also it is much windier at that elevation which also argues against pooling of the jet fuel. While the wind would provide oxygen, it would also dissipate the heat of fires. The ideal fuel for heating up the steel support beams would burn slowly rather than quickly. What do you think really happened? ---
**Author:** ![Horatius](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/horatius/32/3572_2.png) [@Horatius](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Horatius)\ **Post date:** [September 14, 2019, 3:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wtc7-collapse-new-numerical-results/840064/169 "2019-09-14T03:37:21Z")
> [@LAZombie](#): > > The bigger the explosion the less likely fire was the cause of the structural failures. An explosion would cause **the jet fuel** to disperse rather than pool in certain areas. Also it is much windier at that elevation which also argues against pooling of **the jet fuel**. While the wind would provide oxygen, it would also dissipate the heat of fires. The ideal fuel for heating up the steel support beams would burn slowly rather than quickly. Why are you obsessing so much about the jet fuel? The jet fuel wasn’t the only thing burning in those buildings. The Jet fuel was the match that lit multiple fires throughout the building, but it was everything else in the building burning that kept the steel hot enough long enough to fail. Focusing on just one element of a huge, and hugely complicated, event is hallmark trutherdom. It has nothing to do with reality. ---
**Author:** ![ASL\_v2.0](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/asl_v2.0/32/3525_2.png) [@ASL\_v2.0](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ASL_v2.0)\ **Post date:** [September 14, 2019, 3:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wtc7-collapse-new-numerical-results/840064/170 "2019-09-14T03:55:34Z")
Perhaps we could ask [one of these people](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sBpd8GG7zaY&t=55) where the fire was and what was causing it? ---
**Author:** ![Hampshire](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hampshire/32/4887_2.png) [@Hampshire](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hampshire)\ **Post date:** [September 14, 2019, 4:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wtc7-collapse-new-numerical-results/840064/171 "2019-09-14T04:12:51Z")
> [@LAZombie](#): > > While the wind would provide oxygen, it would also dissipate the heat of fires. Are you familiar with bellows used in old fashioned iron smelting? Before they were invented they couldn’t get the rate of combustion and the heat high enough to do smelting. Amazing what high winds applied to a fire will do. ---
**Author:** ![ASL\_v2.0](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/asl_v2.0/32/3525_2.png) [@ASL\_v2.0](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ASL_v2.0)\ **Post date:** [September 14, 2019, 4:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wtc7-collapse-new-numerical-results/840064/172 "2019-09-14T04:20:33Z")
I don’t even get this whole line of a argument because it is VERY clear from the plethora of videos out there that both buildings were on fire after the impact. I mean, if you have the stomach for it, you can open up the short five minute video I posted in 170 and see orange flames at times through the massive, gaping hole as people are hanging and then jumping out of windows with smoke streaming out of them. So clearly SOMETHING was burning prior to the collapse. Which leads me to join the crowd of people asking… LAZombie, what do you think happened? How do you account for that? ---
**Author:** ![Horatius](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/horatius/32/3572_2.png) [@Horatius](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Horatius)\ **Post date:** [September 14, 2019, 1:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wtc7-collapse-new-numerical-results/840064/173 "2019-09-14T13:42:52Z")
> [@ASL\_v2.0](#): > > So clearly SOMETHING was burning prior to the collapse. Which leads me to join the crowd of people asking… LAZombie, what do you think happened? How do you account for that? And part of that “something” would have been the explosive charges that were allegedly planted. Here’s a nice little video of C4 burning without exploding: And some TNT: After over an hour of being on fire, we're expected to believe that the explosives were intact enough to still take down the building exactly as intended? ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Miskatonic](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mr.miskatonic/32/310_2.png) [@Mr.Miskatonic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Miskatonic)\ **Post date:** [September 14, 2019, 3:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wtc7-collapse-new-numerical-results/840064/174 "2019-09-14T15:13:17Z")
For those with an interest, the site metabunk has a thread on the Hulsey report that was started right as it was released. > **[Sept 3, 2019 release of Hulsey's WTC7 draft report: Analysis](https://www.metabunk.org/threads/sept-3-2019-release-of-hulseys-wtc7-draft-report-analysis.10890/)** > > Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7OClixCTdDw > > Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a-DadyW-LR4 > > > The above two videos details some issues raised in the thread below (and in prior threads) regarding Professor Hulsey's study. > > > Draft report... The analysis by several engineers and other people on this thread show that the Hulsey model has some _serious_ issues. 1. The model has several columns just ‘disappear’. Not buckle, not break, not cut. Just…gone. 2. The model used was _not_ a dynamic modeling. It apparently is just an animation program and a static analysis program. 3. There is no distribution of temperature, values were just placed where they wanted. Number 1 is pretty sloppy, and number 2 is crucial. You just don’t evade using a dynamical model when modelling a collapse like this. They seem to have gone out of their way to avoid using one. Doubtless because it did not give the results that AE911T paid for. ---
**Author:** ![Skywatcher](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/skywatcher/32/254_2.png) [@Skywatcher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Skywatcher)\ **Post date:** [September 14, 2019, 3:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wtc7-collapse-new-numerical-results/840064/175 "2019-09-14T15:29:17Z")
> [@Horatius](#): > > And part of that “something” would have been the explosive charges that were allegedly planted. Here’s a nice little video of C4 burning without exploding: > > And some TNT: > > After over an hour of being on fire, we're expected to believe that the explosives were intact enough... Or the wiring supposedly in place to set off any demolition charges; these are exactly why Danny Jowenko said neither Tower could have been a controlled demolition and had “no explanation” for 7 after being told he had been looking at footage of 7. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [September 14, 2019, 6:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wtc7-collapse-new-numerical-results/840064/176 "2019-09-14T18:52:56Z")
> [@Hampshire](#): > > Are you familiar with bellows used in old fashioned iron smelting? Before they were invented they couldn’t get the rate of combustion and the heat high enough to do smelting. Amazing what high winds applied to a fire will do. I’ve been watching a lot of forest fire coverage in the past few years, and the firefighters do not pray for high winds, to put it mildly. ---
**Author:** ![Grim\_Render](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/a87d85/32.png) [@Grim\_Render](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Grim_Render)\ **Post date:** [September 14, 2019, 7:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wtc7-collapse-new-numerical-results/840064/177 "2019-09-14T19:18:39Z")
I never understood the conspiracy theorists need for explosives and planes in the same theory, anyway. If you were going to place explosives there, why do you need to complicate everything enormously by involving somethings as out there as planes? Just detonate the explosives and blame Al-Quaida. They tried to take the towers down with explosives before, no-one would have blinked at that. ---
**Author:** ![Northern\_Piper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/northern_piper/32/5304_2.png) [@Northern\_Piper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Northern_Piper)\ **Post date:** [September 14, 2019, 7:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wtc7-collapse-new-numerical-results/840064/178 "2019-09-14T19:28:44Z")
Have you not seen the articles that assert the planes never hit the Towers? It was all CGI, to make people _think_ planes struck the towers, covering up the controlled demolition. It’s all very simple, really. 😃 ---
**Author:** ![Skywatcher](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/skywatcher/32/254_2.png) [@Skywatcher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Skywatcher)\ **Post date:** [September 14, 2019, 7:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wtc7-collapse-new-numerical-results/840064/179 "2019-09-14T19:36:14Z")
> [@Grim\_Render](#): > > They tried to take the towers down with explosives before, no-one would have blinked at that. Theoretically, the truck bomb would have worked had they parked up against a support rather than between supports and this thread wouldn’t be here. ---
**Author:** ![msmith537](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/d9b06d/32.png) [@msmith537](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/msmith537)\ **Post date:** [September 14, 2019, 7:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wtc7-collapse-new-numerical-results/840064/180 "2019-09-14T19:47:28Z")
> [@LAZombie](#): > > Explain this: > > (1) Why did all three buildings collapse symmetrically as in a controlled demolition? > (2) Why did all three buildings collapse at free fall rates of speed ? > (3) WTC7 wasn’t hit by a plane. Why would normal office furnishings and material cause such a massive structural collapse? > (4) Why wasn’t the steel from the structures analyzed for explosives and why was it shipped to China for scrap rather than keeping for it for analysis of a crime beyond the government issued explanation? > (5) What were the explosions that many people heard? > (6) How could there be molten steel under ruins three months after the collapse? > (7) How did the fire get so “bad” in a relatively modern structure that would surely pass code? > (8) Why has no other skyscraper collapsed the way these three buildings did? > > [https://www.youtube.com/watch?time\_continue=13&v=LgYNPaO1rNY](https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=13&v=LgYNPaO1rNY) The controlled demolition of a skyscraper is something that takes weeks to prep using heavy equipment and explosives. And it’s a bit more complex than sticking a couple of magic satchel charges to the main columns and pressing an “arm” button. Is the hypothesis that a crew came into WTC7 either during the 9/11 attack or in the weeks beforehand, drilled a bunch of holes, laid a bunch of charges and strung a bunch of det-cord without anyone noticing and leaving no trace of their presence during one of the most observed scrutinized events in human history? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wtc7-collapse-new-numerical-results/840064.md?page=8) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wtc7-collapse-new-numerical-results/840064.md?page=10)