Skeptic Project

Back when I was involved in the 9/11 Truth movement for a while, the main argument that had me 90% convinced of demolition, at least of WTC 7, was the "symmetry of collapse" argument -- or, more precisely, the near-symmetry argument, since the collapse of WTC 7 was not 100% perfectly symmetrical.

Unlike some people in the 9/11 Truth movement, I made a conscientious effort, from the very beginning, to see what the debunkers as well as proponents had to say. Thus, I was aware, from the very beginning, that many of the WTC demolition arguments were weak. But there were, still, a few demolition arguments that I found convincing, and to which I did not find any good responses to on any of the debunking sites I looked at. Of these, the argument that seemed strongest to me was the "symmetry of collapse" argument.

It seemed to me that if WTC 7 had collapsed solely due to natural causes such as fire on the lower floors, then it ought to tip over, on its way down, more than it did.

Of course, the above is an intuition based on the ways that smaller structures collapse. And I was already aware that intuitions based on the ways that smaller structures collapse might not be accurate predictors of the ways that more massive structures collapse. Still, I didn't see how it was that a sufficiently large size or mass would change that particular behavior.

But, eventually, after about six months or so, I did begin to understand this, thanks to my ongoing interaction with debunkers.

As far as I am aware, there is still a lack of a good, clear and coherent written explanation of this point anywhere on the web. (Please correct me if I'm wrong, if anyone is aware of such an online explanation.) That's probably because this particular point is tough to explain.

So, to others here who are at all knowledgeable about physics: Let's brainstorm a well-written explanation of this point. The following paragraph is my first draft.

In order for a building to tip over, it needs to acquire angular momentum. In the absence of lateral forces (e.g. from an earthquake), the only source of angular momentum would be the force of gravity acting on the building as a lever. But, in order for there to be such leverage, the building would need to have a good, strong fulcrum at the bottom, stronger than the force of the gravity pulling the building down. And, because the building is collapsing and the bottom is being crushed, there is no such good, strong fulcrum at the bottom. Hence, the building will not tip over by very much.

Accompanying a better-written version of the above paragraph, there should also be an explanation of why size matters in predicting how a structure will fall. Below is my first draft of that, which hopefully we can brainstorm how to write in more accessible terms:

A larger structure can cause much greater damage to itself, when collapsing, than a proportionately-shaped smaller structure. An intuitive example is that knocking down a dog house will cause far less damage than knocking down a proportionately-shaped house for people. More precisely, the larger structure has a lot more potential energy, as explained below:

For a structure with a given aspect ratio, its volume is proportional to the cube of its height. If we assume that its mass is proportional to its volume, this means that the structure's mass, and hence its weight, will be proportional to the cube of its height. (Actually, the mass is likely to be even greater than proportional to the cube of the height, because the larger stucture will need to be built more robustly to hold up the greater weight.) And the structure's potential energy is proportional to the mass times the height. Hence the structure's potential energy is at least proportional to the fourth power of the height.

Are there any artists here who would like to add pictures and diagrams to a better-written version of the above explanations?

Also, does anyone here happen to know a high-rise structural engineer? If so, it would be helpful to get that person's feedback on the above explanations, and if possible to get that person's name added as a contributor to the final version.

Muertos wrote:

They have so many disparate parts (girders, floors, pillars etc.) that the building doesn't respond to a force like one monolithic structure. When a few of its internal threads begin to snap, the building will collapse downward, with all of its parts acting more like a liquid than a solid object. The building disintegrates into essentially "droplets" that fall downward rather than to the side.

The above is a key point that I didn't understand -- despite two years of physics in college, at which I did well -- and which I think a lot of other people don't understand either. And, as I said, none of the debunking sites I looked at back in 2007 explained it well.

A well-written explanation of the above principle, along with what I explained above, could be this site's unique contribution to 9/11 "inside job" theory debunking, if anyone would like to write this up into a coherent, easy-to-understand article.

Muertos wrote:

I agree there is a need for a simple well-written article explaining this principle--and NIST has several videos illustrating how the towers went down which go at least part of the way toward this--but if you were a Truther who was turned away from the CT by understanding this point, I'd venture to say you're in the extreme minority.

What puts me in an extreme minority is that, from the very beginning, I made a point of seeking out the better debunker sites and reading them. Too many people in the 9/11 Truth movement assume that all or most debunkers are just "shills," "agents," or whatever, and hence not worth reading.

The reason why I was turned away from WTC demolition theories by understanding that one point is that I had already encountered (and taken seriously) some good refutations of most of the other alleged WTC demolition evidence, but "symmetry of collapse" was one of the very few arguments that still struck me as strong. And none of the debunker sites I had looked at had a good rebuttal. All either ignored or badly flubbed that particular point.

Most Truthers would claim that such an article proves nothing and is just another "straw man" that we tiresome debunkers insist on using to try to refute their reams of "irrefutable evidence"

What needs to be done, in my opinion, is to convince them to read the better debunking sites, such as 9/11 Myths, and to convince them to take those sites seriously. To that end, it's necessary to convince them that the better debunker sites are in fact worth reading. I would suggest the following approach:

1) Sympathize, any way you honestly can, with the call for a new investigation of whatever aspects of 9/11 you think are still worth investigating. (And don't haggle over whether these aspects are "peripheral.")

2) Point out that if an investigation is to be successful, it needs to ask the right questions. Therefore, people in the 9/11 Truth movement really need to be more careful that they aren't asking the wrong questions. Therefore, they should carefully research both sides of every question they raise.

3) Therefore, they really need to read what the debunker sites have to say.

You know these wingnuts

Also, if you want them to listen to you, it is necessary to avoid namecalling such as "wingnuts."

For the latter reason, the only debunker site I would currently recommend to someone in the 9/11 Truth movement is 9/11 Myths. Alas, it's the only debunker site I know of which is consistently careful to avoid name-calling and other demonizing rhetoric, and which also provides lots of thorough, well-researched refutations of a lot of common claims. Only after they've read that site thoroughly would I then encourage them to look at other debunking sites.

For personal reasons I'd rather not go into, I prefer not to post on JREF myself. However, if anyone else here wants to contact some JREFers regarding this project, I would appreciate it very much.