Total Building Collapse from a Single Column Failure

[GlennB]

It always interested me to note that the WMP overtakes the roofline very early in the so-called global collapse. Anyway, it certainly lacked symmetry.

 

[chrismohr]

If anyone tries to deny the intensity of the damage caused by the collapse of the South Tower onto Building Seven, look at the vast size of the debris flying into the building here. Several acres worth of this debris was a raging fire from where the jets crashed in. And if anyone claims that the collapse was symmetrical, well, it may have looked symmetrical from the north face, but from the side you can see that within a couple seconds of the onset of global collapse, Building 7 fell INTO the most damaged side of the building, as did the north and south towers earlier in the day. Gravity brought it sort of straight down at first, but it got asymmetrical in a hurry, and in a lot of different ways.

 

[Gamolon]

It is ridiculous to say the fall of WTC 7 was not a symmetric collapse.

Your above quote does not equal the one below...

The entire exterior falls in unison.

It takes on a whole new meaning when one admits it was the remaining exterior that fell and not the whole building. This is especially true when people like Gage state in brochures that the ENTIRE collapse took less than 7 seconds.

I guess the statement that the "entire collapse took less than seven seconds" quote is used to better serve the truther demolition mantra then it is to tell the truth and say "The building was leaning when a transit was placed on it. There was also a bulge witnessed in the side of the building. Structural creaking was heard throughout the event. The east penthouse collapsed inward first, followed by rest of the penthouse 6 seconds later, followed then by the facade."

The second description sure doesn't as sound as good as the first one when used to support the controlled demolition claim does it.

 

[tsig]

It is ridiculous to say the fall of WTC 7 was not a symmetric collapse. Try showing it from the start, instead of after it came down about ten stories.

This video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bx2Kx2AkXEg shows just how symmetric it was. The entire exterior falls in unison.

You are aware that CD's are not symmetrical as the CDers take advantage of the weight of one part to bring down another?

 

[tsig]

Your above quote does not equal the one below...


It takes on a whole new meaning when one admits it was the remaining exterior that fell and not the whole building. This is especially true when people like Gage state in brochures that the ENTIRE collapse took less than 7 seconds.

I guess the statement that the "entire collapse took less than seven seconds" quote is used to better serve the truther demolition mantra then it is to tell the truth and say "The building was leaning when a transit was placed on it. There was also a bulge witnessed in the side of the building. Structural creaking was heard throughout the event. The east penthouse collapsed inward first, followed by rest of the penthouse 6 seconds later, followed then by the facade."

The second description sure doesn't as sound as good as the first one when used to support the controlled demolition claim does it.

The building collapsed symmetrically but in an asymmetrical fashion due to explosives which were covered up by arson fires. We know this because steel can't expand far enough.

 

[Jrrarglblarg]

The building collapsed symmetrically but in an asymmetrical fashion due to explosives which were covered up by arson fires. We know this because steel can't expand far enough.

And They covered it all up with clouds of dust generated by magical dust fairies so nobody would notice. Don't forget that part.

 

[Miragememories]

"If anyone tries to deny the intensity of the damage caused by the collapse of the South Tower onto Building Seven, look at the vast size of the debris flying into the building here."

Correct me if I am wrong Chris, but aren't most investigative journalists in agreement that it was the North Tower, 1WTC, that caused the south-side damage to 7WTC?

And did not the NIST after many years of expert analysis conclude that this damage was in effect superficial with regard to the global collapse of 7WTC?

MM

 

[Miragememories]

"If anyone tries to deny the intensity of the damage caused by the collapse of the South Tower onto Building Seven, look at the vast size of the debris flying into the building here.

Several acres worth of this debris was a raging fire from where the jets crashed in.

And if anyone claims that the collapse was symmetrical, well, it may have looked symmetrical from the north face, but from the side you can see that within a couple seconds of the onset of global collapse, Building 7 fell INTO the most damaged side of the building, as did the north and south towers earlier in the day.

Gravity brought it sort of straight down at first, but it got asymmetrical in a hurry, and in a lot of different ways."

You seem rather befuddled Chris.

What do the jets have to do with the damage to 7WTC?

I do claim, that when comparing the collapse profiles of other towers brought down by deliberation core implosions, 7WTC is a good match.

You cannot dismiss 100 feet of freefall acceleration.

Regarding your observation that 7WTC "fell into the most damaged side of the building" that is not what appears to be happening in this series of captured frames showing the north and west sides during 7WTC's global collapse.

7WTC appears to be dropping straight down which is what would happen if was deliberately imploded.

Of course as the debris pile rose up to meet it, 7WTC's descent would eventually take on a sprawl.

MM

 

[Justin39640]

Correct me if I am wrong Chris, but aren't most investigative journalists in agreement that it was the North Tower, 1WTC, that caused the south-side damage to 7WTC?

Hey, you got one right!
Chris, being human, is allowed a typo or two.

And did not the NIST after many years of expert analysis conclude that this damage was in effect superficial with regard to the global collapse of 7WTC?

MM

As far as collapse initiation in respect to column 79 but who knows for sure? I would think, from the first responders' reports, that a giant hole in the face of a building isn't something to take lightly or dismiss altogether. Also, I'm sure the whole leaning/noises thing indicates the damage wasn't that superficial after all.

 

[Justin39640]

MM

Great progression pics of an asymmetrical collapse! Way to really highlight that kink after only two floors of dropping.

 

[Jrrarglblarg]

What do the jets have to do with the damage to 7WTC?

There were no jets. It has been proven that the WTC buildings were attacked by Orbs.

 

[LSSBB]

You cannot dismiss 100 feet of freefall acceleration.

We've already been over this - we had an entire thread on it. There was no such thing. Chris doesn't have to deny something that there was never evidence for. And the acceleration profile of the exterior is fully explained by the collapse dynamics, no CD required.

 

[jaydeehess]

And did not the NIST after many years of expert analysis conclude that this damage was in effect superficial with regard to the global collapse of 7WTC?

MM

No.
NIST determined that the south side damage was a distinct factor in the speed of the progression to global collapse while not the direct cause of collapse. Impact was the initiator of fires in WTC7 and thus the indirect cause of collapse.

Of course you probably are insincere in your confusion over Chris' mention of the jets since his sentence is very easy to understand. In case you truly do suffer from an inability to follow a straightforward statement, he is pointing out that a portion of several acres of burning office contents would have accompanied the debris hitting WTC7.

Now you know.

 

[beachnut]

Correct me if I am wrong Chris, but aren't most investigative journalists in agreement that it was the North Tower, 1WTC, that caused the south-side damage to 7WTC?

And did not the NIST after many years of expert analysis conclude that this damage was in effect superficial with regard to the global collapse of 7WTC?

MM

What exactly did NIST say, source and page number. No CD on 911, 13th year of no evidence claims from 911 truth. No inside job.

Source. What does it mean? Explain superficial damage; you mean broken windows, which let air in to feed the fires? Superficial?

Explain in engineering terms what NIST really means, and why it helps your CD theory of woo? You can't, but I ask anyway. Is your CD silent explosives or super no product thermite?

 

[chrismohr]

Correct me if I am wrong Chris, but aren't most investigative journalists in agreement that it was the North Tower, 1WTC, that caused the south-side damage to 7WTC?

And did not the NIST after many years of expert analysis conclude that this damage was in effect superficial with regard to the global collapse of 7WTC?

MM

Oops you're right about the North Tower, obviously. NIST never said the damage was superficial. Look at NIST's own picture of the debris flying towards Building Seven as the North Tower collapsed. It dwarfs a 47 story building! What they did say was that it didn't cause immediate structural damage severe enough to cause collapse of the building. But there were a hell of a lot of gashes in the building, windows broken letting oxygen in, and lots of flaming debris flying towards it. Then, 7 hours of unfought fires. And did you ever see the video I freeze-framed of the very asymmetrical collapse of Building 7? From that angle, it's obvious that the building is tipping over long before it hits the ruibble at the bottom. Why? Because, as I said, it collapsed into the most damaged part of the buiilding, the side that seven hours earlier got slammed with debris from the collapsing Tower.
Oh and BTW jets had nothing to do with Building 7, obviously. But they had everything to do with the destruction of the Twin Towers, and the floors at and above where they crashed into the Towers is where intense fires were created, and some of that hot debris set the Building 7 fire as it smashed against it during collapse.
Can you honestly look at all that debris smashing into Building 7, higher and wider than this major tall building, and imagine that the damage to Buildingh 7 would be superficial? Do you deny the eyewitness reports of the firefighters who saw the big gashes? Superficial? Who told you that?

 

[DaveThomasNMSR]

I have not seen a possible initiating event for the collapse of WTC7 that could be due to fire as yet. That NIST can claim an impossible event as being plausible does not bode well for the claim that this was a fire induced event.
If indeed this was a fire induced collapse, the need for this analysis to be revisited and corrected by NIST becomes all the more urgent.

Here, let me fix that for you:
If indeed this was a fire induced collapse NIST was correct in its conclusion, the need for this analysis to be revisited and corrected by NIST becomes all the more urgent moot.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Here, let me fix that for you:
If indeed this was a fire induced collapse NIST was correct in its conclusion, the need for this analysis to be revisited and corrected by NIST becomes all the more urgent moot.

Dave, there is nothing moot about this argument and your comment is nothing but rhetoric also, like that of all the NIST WTC 7 report conclusion supporters here. The NIST WTC 7 collapse initiation analysis is impossible when the omitted pertinent structural features are included.

Where is your basis for your claim that the NIST conclusion is possible when the omitted structural features are included in the analysis? Of course, the answer is obvious that you don't have one. NIST couldn't do it, so it is no surprise that you can't. All you have is rhetoric and that will not work.

 

[Justin39640]

Where is your basis for your claim that the NIST conclusion is possible when the omitted structural features are included in the analysis?

The conclusion is that the building collapsed due to 7 hours of fires and no fire fighting. Only truthers disagree with that.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

The conclusion is that the building collapsed due to 7 hours of fires and no fire fighting. Only truthers disagree with that.

More unsurprising rhetoric proving my point about the bias here to simply continue supporting the NIST WTC 7 report conclusions, even when confronted with evidence showing its conclusions are impossible when the omitted structural features are included.

Unfortunately, for your point of view, nobody has been able to show how the building collapsed due to fire.

The simple minded statement that it did because there were fires in it does not satisfy NIST's mandate to explain how it collapsed.

 

[LSSBB]

Unfortunately, for your point of view, nobody has been able to show how the building collapsed due to fire.

Sure they have! They proved there was a fire, they proved steel both weakens and expands when heated, and we have a collapsed building (that had already been evacuated). Voila!

They even for extra credit, pointed out extra vulnerabilities in building design.

Wait, You want them to show the exact mechanism, down to an inch, when we can't know what the inside looked like or exactly where the fire and heat was? GOOD LUCK WITH THAT! You're gonna be tilting at this windmill giant a long time before it strikes back at you, brave Quixote. And your sidekick on the donkey, who has departed from script and also tilts at the giant.