'What about building 7'?

[MileHighMadness]

Those words don't fit free fall. Only abrupt removal of lower structure fit. NIST tried to make the case that something other than removal of lower structure fit via their simulation model. But, it turns out, they had to leave out stiffeners and braces, and be very lax in their standards as to what constitutes matching the video records.

The stiffeners and lateral bracing are minor details that very little effect on the NIST computer model and the collapse of Building 7. Most structural engineers understand this. That why there is no outrage throughout the engineering community. They understand fires bought down Building 7, not explosives.

 

[Justin39640]

Those words don't fit free fall. Only abrupt removal of lower structure fit. NIST tried to make the case that something other than removal of lower structure fit via their simulation model. But, it turns out, they had to leave out stiffeners and braces, and be very lax in their standards as to what constitutes matching the video records.

And finally, NIST also found it necessary to refuse to release details of their simulation model when they were served with a FOIA.

"Removal of the lower structure". Do you realize how moronic that sounds? What do you think CD does, vaporize entire column lengths?

Take a look at these two simple collapses I modeled (especially the second in the video): Sorry bout the music \m/\m/

Pay attention to the "kick out". That's how you push the lower section out of the way without any explosives like JSander was trying to point out.

 

[GlennB]

Those words don't fit free fall. Only abrupt removal of lower structure fit.

But classic CD also doesn't match this freefall period, unless (as some truthers here have claimed) all support was removed over 8 entire storeys. The point being that if, say, most support were removed over two storeys then we might get a brief period of ~freefall and then the falling upper section would hit the lower section and we'd lose the freefall. Then the rest of the collapse would more resemble the WTC1+2 collapses.

Bottom line - your objection is self-debunking unless you propose a truly insane number of demolition charges, a number far in excess of anything actually required to bring down a building like this. Is this what you're proposing?

 

[beachnut]

Those words don't fit free fall. Only abrupt removal of lower structure fit. NIST tried to make the case that something other than removal of lower structure fit via their simulation model. But, it turns out, they had to leave out stiffeners and braces, and be very lax in their standards as to what constitutes matching the video records.

And finally, NIST also found it necessary to refuse to release details of their simulation model when they were served with a FOIA.

It comes down to the Gish Gallop of fake points backed with failed opinions.

Always with the NIST attack junk, can't 911 truth do something without attacking others? Why is 911 truth making up lies about 911? Why are they spreading lies? Bush is out of office, he did not not do 911, we did not do 911 to ourselves, 19 idiots did 911, and 911 truth can't figure it out given the answers, and 13 years. Now that is an anti-intellectual movement.

You missed it, the penthouse fell through the interior of WTC 7, total collapse took over 16 seconds. And as a system WTC 7 did not fall at freefall. You have on point of freefall, and think it means something; and you can't explain it, you will Gish Gallop to the next failed point of woo. - how many more useless points do you have for a fantasy of CD?

Is your CD fantasy silent explosives with no blast effects, or the no product thermite?

A real engineer does not need NIST to build a model of WTC 7. Why is 911 truth full of cry babies, crying about NIST this, NIST that. Why can't you and your expert engineers do a study without input from NIST? Guess your engineers are failed ones, they can only complain, they only have problems, they can't solve 911 after 13 years, and only spread lies.

911 truth can't handle NIST probable cause, doubt they know what probable means, and 911 truth can't do their own probable cause and publish it. Why is 911 truth unable to produce some rational work?

Why can't you say what it was?
... , is it silent explosives, no product thermite, or fire? Fire wins. Was it thermal expansion, or could it be thermal cooling...

Guess 911 truth followers who run consensus 911 don't understand fire. Non-experts spewing nonsense, unable to figure out 911. No wonder 99.9 percent of all engineers ignore 911 truth lies.

Fire does what to steel?

A fire fought, and 3 feet of sag, real stuff, not a model, what fire does to steel. Why do you support lies about 911? You offer no evidence for your conclusion you are can't explain.

Why are there less than 0.1 percent of all engineers on your side of woo? All this crying about NIST sounds like chicken little and the sky is falling. All consensus 911 has is BS. Their silly points prove it. We have the DNA for 9 of the 19 people who did 911, who did your fantasy version of 911 - or have you left out the big parts of 911 truth fantasy version of 911, as 911 truth disrespects those who died on 911 by spreading silly lies formed with half-baked opinions.

What is your conclusion on WTC 7? What would 911 truth do without NIST to BS about. Who did 911?

It is sad for 911 truth, these low down murderers figure out 911 before 911 truth by 13 years plus.

These guys did 911, you can't name one who did your fantasy version. Why is that? evidence?

How long did it take the FBI to eliminate each passenger as a suspect? lol - even the easy stuff becomes fodder for 911 truth lies.

Are WTC 1, 2, and 7 the only sky scrapers in history to have massive fires not fought? What about this, can you turn this into something? Is FDNY in on 911, did they help do 911?

I was on active duty in the USAF on 911, was I in on the stand down? How would a stand down order work? I can't believe how disrespectful 911 truth's shallow research and lies are. At least your fantasy is safe where we discuss the dumbest conspiracy theories. Your fantasy is posted in the right place.

A few thesis students could do a model of WTC 7, yet 911 truth can't get over crying about NIST. What a failure of a movement.

 

[pgimeno]

Take a look at these two simple collapses I modeled (especially the second in the video): Sorry bout the music \m/\m/

It's mostly crush-up first!

It comes down to the Gish Gallop of fake points backed with failed opinions.

 

[LSSBB]

With no precedent of fire-induced collapses of steel-frame high-rise buildings, there was no basis for "already knowing" the building would collapse. Unless, they knew it would collapse for another reason.



Likewise, there is no precedent (nor is there a physics-based explanation) for the phenomenon you describe. The only way for free fall is if all lower support is removed (acknowledged by NIST WTC Project Manager Shyam Sunder, see Ref.3 of Consensus Point WTC7-3). Sunder stated free fall was impossible (Ref 2 of Consensus Point WTC7-2). However, in the NIST Final Report, the report agrees, free fall did occur for 2 sec. (Ref. 1 of Consensus Point WTC7-3).

They already knew the building would collapse, for purposes of the simulation.

Yes, there is precedent. Things fall faster than freefall all the time, when something applies a force while they are falling.

I don't care what Sunder says. Look at the NIST acceleration graph. Look at femr2's acceleration graphs. The acceleration exceeds free fall, at times, and is not constant. How the heck does a freely falling building do that?

For further discussion I refer you to this thread:

Freefall is not evidence for Controlled Demolition

 

[chrismohr]

But classic CD also doesn't match this freefall period, unless (as some truthers here have claimed) all support was removed over 8 entire storeys. The point being that if, say, most support were removed over two storeys then we might get a brief period of ~freefall and then the falling upper section would hit the lower section and we'd lose the freefall. Then the rest of the collapse would more resemble the WTC1+2 collapses.

Bottom line - your objection is self-debunking unless you propose a truly insane number of demolition charges, a number far in excess of anything actually required to bring down a building like this. Is this what you're proposing?

When David Chandler wass taslking to me, he said Building 7 was overkill. And LSSBB, you beat me to my next point: levereaging and torquing had to be at play during the collapse, because NIST's own data (improved upon greatly by femr) proves greater than freefall for about 3/4 second of those 2.25 seconds! The secret assumption is that there are only two forces at play: gravity and resistance. Accept that assumption and you must conclude ZERO resistance for eight stories. But the data PROVES other forces had to be at play or greater-than-freefall would be impossible. So we end up with approximately NET zero resistance, sometimes <0, sometimes >0 depending on how those other forces (always ignored by Richard Gage) are playing out moment by moment.

 

[dadeets]

Those three are among the most asinine stupid lies by innuendo of the truther repertoire.

Steel buildings are known to be vulnerable to fire. That vulnerability is one of the major design premises. They are designed with fire resistance and fire fighting systems inbuilt. On the basis that those provisions give a period of time in which:
a) Occupants can escape; AND
b) Active fire fighting methods can be implemented.

On 9/11 WTC 7 was evacuated early. There was no fire fighting. No sprinkler water after the first period - if any - and the fires were unfought. From that stage pure luck as to building design and fire progress whether it would collapse or not. WTC7 lost the gamble.

Contrary to what is often implied by supporters of the official 9/11 narrative, witnesses who expected WTC 7 to come down evidently did not reach this conclusion because of anything they personally perceived but because of what they were told. (Some firefighters on the scene made collapse predictions based on their own observations, but they were outnumbered 7 to 1 by firefighters who derived their confidence in the imminence of collapse from others, typically superior officers -- from Ref. 11 (MacQueen) of Consensus Point WTC7-7)

Whom might these superior officers be? This forecast of a doomed building appears to have come from Mayor Giuliani’s Office of Emergency Management -- from Ref. 23, ibid.

The full text of Consensus Point WTC7-7 is at:

http://www.consensus911.org/point-wtc7-7/

 

[Spanx]

A prime example of desperation from one of the last remaining truthers.

It really makes you wonder how much money these people have been mugged out of ?

 

[Miragememories]

”Those words don't fit free fall.

Only abrupt removal of lower structure fit.

The NIST tried to make the case that something other than removal of lower structure fit via their simulation model.

As It turned out, the NIST also left out stiffeners and braces.

They were very lax in their standards as to what constituted as a match for the video records.

And finally, the NIST also found it necessary to refuse to release details of their simulation model when they were served with a FOIA.

”…classic CD also doesn't match this freefall…,

…unless (as some truthers here have claimed) all support was removed over 8 entire storeys.

The point being that if, say, most support were removed over two storeys then we might get a brief period of ~freefall “

What is a “brief period of time” when you are discussing the total collapse of a 47-story steel office tower in a matter of seconds?

”… and then the falling upper section would hit the lower section and we'd lose the freefall. Then the rest of the collapse would more resemble the WTC1+2 collapses.

Supposing for a “brief period” that you were right and that it was only 2 storeys rather than the known 8 storeys dropping in free fall.

Have you ever conceptualized what it requires for a building with floors approximating the size of a football field to drop, and not topple, for even 2 storeys rather than the actual 8 storeys??

ALL the vertical support,across the whole floor area, for 2 storeys, is missing for your “brief period”.

All across the north and west faces of WTC7, the archives show intact walls dropping at freefall.

What mechanism do you believe would cause the instantaneous ’drop’ of a building with floors approximating the size of a football field for 2 storeys ?

This was not a sequence of domino-like collapse of inner and exterior steel columns.

This was the complete collapse of ALL the inner and exterior steel columns at a speed so fast that a virtually level roofline was maintained.

Yet the NIST, and most of members attending this sub forum, claim the localized fires in the WTC7 were responsible for accomplishing a total building demolition including a professional-looking profile.

No wonder the NIST struggled to find a palatable hypothesis to explain away what was obviously a building core column implosion.

”Bottom line - your objection is self-debunking unless you propose a truly insane number of demolition charges, a number far in excess of anything actually required to bring down a building like this. Is this what you're proposing?

When you haven’t a good case for explaining away uncomfortable facts, you fall back on incredulity.

Bottom line - You GlennB suppose yourself to be sufficiently knowledgeable about the state of commercial-military structural demolitions to claim that the only good reason you have for disagreeing that WTC7 suffered a CD was that you don’t know how it was executed.

Since it was published in 2009, the paper by Dr. Harrit et al has not faced a published challenge debunking their conclusions.

Nanothermite, a signature compound found in randomly collected 9/11 WTC dust remains unexplained by the official bodies that should be most concerned.

Nanothermite does not appear naturally as a result a building collapse.

Its manufacture requires very high tech chemical engineering.

Based on samples, the original amount before ignition must have existed in very large quantities.

 

[LSSBB]

What is a “brief period of time” when you are discussing the total collapse of a 47-story steel office tower in a matter of seconds?



Supposing for a “brief period” that you were right and that it was only 2 storeys rather than the known 8 storeys dropping in free fall.

Have you ever conceptualized what it requires for a building with floors approximating the size of a football field to drop, and not topple, for even 2 storeys rather than the actual 8 storeys??

ALL the vertical support,across the whole floor area, for 2 storeys, is missing for your “brief period”.

All across the north and west faces of WTC7, the archives show intact walls dropping at freefall.

What mechanism do you believe would cause the instantaneous ’drop’ of a building with floors approximating the size of a football field for 2 storeys ?

This was not a sequence of domino-like collapse of inner and exterior steel columns.

This was the complete collapse of ALL the inner and exterior steel columns at a speed so fast that a virtually level roofline was maintained.

There was no constant period of Free Fall. You were unable to demonstrate it in the proper thread. Chandler did not either. He used an average. An average is an average. There was no 8 stories of Free Fall. And your roofline theory is another Red Herring - the building had a moment-frame construction - of course the building had an intact roofline and facade. This has all been brought up before, and you keep on clinging to these myths. Face it - no demolitions, no CD. No Earth shattering kaboom. No flash of thermite. No wires. No paper trail. No confessions. Nada, zip, zero. If you want anyone to believe you, cough up the facts. If you don't have the facts, why do you keep trying to convince anyone? Why believe it yourself?

 

[ozeco41]

@dadeets. Thank you for responding and quoting part of my comments. HOWEVER - why quote my simple factual statement then ignore it with evasive material?

Are you aware of the base facts?
1) Steel framed buildings are vulnerable to fire and their design includes fire resistance and fire fighting provisions which, in the event of a fire, depend on the dynamic process of establishing active fire fighting processes within a brief window of protection.
2) The priority of objectives is always AFAIK and was for WTC buildings:
(a) get the people out; AND
(b) start fire fighting by active combat efforts.

Your argument implies denial of those two factors. So let's get your position clear. Do you understand those aspects? Do you accept them? THEN we can turn to your other comments which are irrelevant because they do not change the realities of those physical facts no matter how much unwarranted weight you put on them. The WTC7 building fell because of some physical realities. The contention is whether or not MHI (Malicious Human Intervention AKA "CD") was involved. What the witnesses thought may support but cannot overrule physical reality.

Contrary to what is often implied by supporters of the official 9/11 narrative,¹ witnesses who expected WTC 7 to come down evidently did not reach this conclusion because of anything they personally perceived but because of what they were told². (Some firefighters on the scene made collapse predictions based on their own observations, but they were outnumbered 7 to 1 by firefighters who derived their confidence in the imminence of collapse from others, typically superior officers³ -- from Ref. 11 (MacQueen) of Consensus Point WTC7-7)⁴

1 You are discussing with me - not "supporters of the official 9/11 narrative". I will agree with the official narrative where I am persuaded that it is right and disagree where I consider it to be less accurate. My statements about the realities of steel framed building construction do not depend on witness reports whether I refer to them or not.
2 Of course that would be the situation. I am trained in counter disaster management, was on two of the sector steering committees when the NSW State Displan was upgraded and held the lead role for incident and emergency management in a large organisation. The information during emergency events will always be dominated by what is released from the top level overview - in parallel with partial perceptions from those with more detailed knowledge of parts of the total scenario. So what? It is "situation normal" for any experienced emergency manger. As is the consequent attribution of blame by those who have never been in the "hot seat" and who freely apply 20/20 hindsight from their armchair comfort in the witch hunt which follows most big events.
3 Of course - more of the same stuff.
4 I'm not persuaded by the appeal to MacQueen as an authority.

Whom might these superior officers be? This forecast of a doomed building appears to have come from Mayor Giuliani’s Office of Emergency Management -- from Ref. 23, ibid.

Of course. Where would you expect announcements about an emergency to come from? When attempting discussion with me don't waste time with lies by innuendo. If you have something to say - say it explicitly. In this example are you trying to say that news and progress reports about an emergency should not come from the emergency management agency? I find that a quaint idea.

The full text of Consensus Point WTC7-7 is at:

http://www.consensus911.org/point-wtc7-7/

I am familiar with the consensus process and its slow progression inevitably leading towards a "highest common factor" of what the disparate parties can agree. If you really want a critique of those "Consensus Points" ask - I may oblige if you nominate say one of those dealing with the Twin Towers.

 

[DGM]

Nanothermite, a signature compound found in randomly collected 9/11 WTC dust remains unexplained by the official bodies that should be most concerned.

Nanothermite does not appear naturally as a result a building collapse.

Its manufacture requires very high tech chemical engineering.

Based on samples, the original amount before ignition must have existed in very large quantities.

When all else fails, claim it was magic. Strange how no one other than your heroes can find it (or any evidence of it). To bad they refuse to share their samples for others to verify. Some people might think they rely on the faith of their believers.

 

[JSanderO]

Those words don't fit free fall. Only abrupt removal of lower structure fit. NIST tried to make the case that something other than removal of lower structure fit via their simulation model. But, it turns out, they had to leave out stiffeners and braces, and be very lax in their standards as to what constitutes matching the video records.

And finally, NIST also found it necessary to refuse to release details of their simulation model when they were served with a FOIA.

What occurred is that there was a rapid progression of failures... destroying load paths and over loading the remaining... in an increasingly rapid process until there was insufficient axial capacity and the topped...yes with no columns or axial resistance. The failures were likely misalignment caused by the failures and forces moving laterally and not axially.

Study how a truss bridge failure works.

 

[Miragememories]

What occurred is that there was a rapid progression of failures... destroying load paths and over loading the remaining... in an increasingly rapid process until there was insufficient axial capacity and the topped...yes with no columns or axial resistance. The failures were likely misalignment caused by the failures and forces moving laterally and not axially.

Study how a truss bridge failure works.

??

When WTC7 was imploded, load paths were indeed "destroyed", and with zero resistance to gravity, 8 storeys of freefall occurred.

It dropped like a stone.

 

[JSanderO]

??

When WTC7 was imploded, load paths were indeed "destroyed", and with zero resistance to gravity, 8 storeys of freefall occurred.

It dropped like a stone.

Load paths are destroyed in any runaway progressive structural failure. It is not economical to over design to arrest a runway process. Could explosive destroy load paths? Yes!... But there is no evidence to support that this is what happened. But there is evidence of a progressive over time... series of failure... and the capacity to support was gone...what was supported DOES drop like a stone... dragging what it is connected to it.

That's what the visuals indicate.

 

[LSSBB]

??

When WTC7 was imploded, load paths were indeed "destroyed", and with zero resistance to gravity, 8 storeys of freefall occurred.

It dropped like a stone.

Show a graph of the building exterior acceleration and show where there are 8 stories of Free Fall, or retract the claim. It is a lie.

 

[beachnut]

??

When WTC7 was imploded, load paths were indeed "destroyed", and with zero resistance to gravity, 8 storeys of freefall occurred.

It dropped like a stone.

Was it explosives, silent explosives, or product free thermite used in your fantasy version of WTC 7 collapsing. Do you ignore the fire, and how steel reacts to fire, heat, and then cooling? Any engineering go into your freefall junk, for a collapse that took over 16 seconds.

As a system, a complete WTC 7 collapsing was the real acceleration of the system? Your claim is based on a study of a single point, yet the entire building was collapsing, and you have no clue what the rate was for the system, and you can't do the physics to explain what it was. Thus your talk is based on repeating junk from 911 truth. You have hearsay, and you did not study more than what you google up. The one point study.

You have the one point study, and the entire WTC 7 was collapsing, and it was not at freefall as a system. Next time become an engineer, they made good money, and are valuable assets in other fields. 13 years, and you have failed to time the WTC 7 collapse from the first collapse, and we can't see many seconds of failure internally before the Penthouse fell into WTC 7.

What was used in your claim to bring down WTC 7.

What did 60 Minutes say about your claims? Did a beam weapon do it? Any engineering stuff to go with the talk?

 

[jaydeehess]

Those words don't fit free fall. Only abrupt removal of lower structure fit. NIST tried to make the case that something other than removal of lower structure fit via their simulation model. But, it turns out, they had to leave out stiffeners and braces, and be very lax in their standards as to what constitutes matching the video records.

And finally, NIST also found it necessary to refuse to release details of their simulation model when they were served with a FOIA.

The conflation and confusion of events that must accompany such a post is truly astounding
The omitted "braces and stiffeners" were those on the girder who's failure was proposed as the initiator of the collapse sequence. Its failure would have occured some 12-15 seconds prior to the beginning of that 2.25 seconds of FFA. No one, except now you, has ever suggested that this is what allowed NIST to disregard the FFA period, nor that inclusion of them would have removed the progression to FFA.

 

[jaydeehess]

The NIST fea shows the cantilever trusses over the old Con-ed as having shifted north. This would tilt the columns under them. That would snap the connections they have to both the trussrs and the foundation.
A tilted and unconstrained column van support exactly zero load.
That s what, 7-8 storeys.