'What about building 7'?

[LSSBB]

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.

There was no evidence of sustained free fall, let alone 7-8 stories.

 

[Miragememories]

There was no evidence of sustained free fall, let alone 7-8 stories.

What constitutes as "sustained" when the global collapse event lasted just several seconds?

After a few seconds the building was totally collapsed.

Events creating free fall over the area of a football field occurred in unison at a far faster rate than JSander's runaway theory.

A runaway theory at best provides enough resistance that FFA would not be reached.

While not the same demolition design, the effect of building collapse speed reduction can be observed in the collapse of the WTC Twin Towers.

With overwhelming momentum, crushing everything in its path, neither WTC1 or WTC2 had comparable collapse acceleration approaching the FFA collapse period observed for WTC7.

 

[DGM]

What constitutes as "sustained" when the global collapse event lasted just several seconds?

After a few seconds the building was totally collapsed.

Events creating free fall over the area of a football field occurred in unison at a far faster rate than JSander's runaway theory.

A runaway theory at best provides enough resistance that FFA would not be reached.

While not the same demolition design, the effect of building collapse speed reduction can be observed in the collapse of the WTC Twin Towers.

With overwhelming momentum, crushing everything in its path, neither WTC1 or WTC2 had comparable collapse acceleration approaching the FFA collapse period observed for WTC7.

Why do you ignore the majority of the collapse event?

Are you unaware of it or is it that your handlers forbid you from talking about it? At least if it's the former, you're not a liar.

 

[ozeco41]

The conflation and confusion of events that must accompany such a post is truly astounding ....

As far as I'm aware Tony Szamboti is the only person to have attempted an explanation that requires "Delayed Action Gravity" - and that was in connection with the Twin Towers collapses. His claim was that explosive cutting of the core pulled on the floor joists and caused the observed inwards bowing of the perimeter. Whilst the fall of the Top Block occurred later. So the Top Block remained in place with core columns missing for that interim period. THEREFORE "Delayed Action Gravity" was involved as I politely told Tony. After the "edit post" window was past IIRC.

For WTC7 on many occasions I recall femr2 commenting to the effect that "measured early motion is incompatible with any event >> immediate descent process" - which was usually far too subtle for many.

Maybe dadeets should be reminded that early motion is incompatible with any "event which would produce immediate descent".

 

[DGM]

Maybe dadeets should be reminded that early motion is incompatible with any "event which would produce immediate descent".

Way too subtle for people that choose to ignore 3/4 of an event.

 

[Miragememories]

Why do you ignore the majority of the collapse event?

Are you unaware of it or is it that your handlers forbid you from talking about it? At least if it's the former, you're not a liar.

Don't you mean "why do I pay so much attention to the period when WTC7 had zero vertical support?"

You are saying WTC7 burned down in those few seconds and I am saying it was imploded in those few seconds.

An 8 storey volume approximately covering an area the size of a football field was instantly removed from beneath 30+ floors of WTC7 causing the falling upper structure to drop through that volume of zero vertical resistance at freefall acceleration

 

[BasqueArch]

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/

Towers 1,2 had collapsed due to fires killing thousands.
WTC7 had been on fire for hours . Many thought this could happen again. The building was empty early afternoon and was damaged and on fire over many floors simultaneously. I remember before the collapse at the time the live news media speculated WTC7 would also collapse. No conspiracy by the government,no CD.

??

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.

Wrong. The data was the tracking of one point on top the north wall. Chandler's data and NIST data showed a first period less than free fall indicating like NIST said a first period of resistance by the wall to collapse. Then the wall collapsed due to a combination unbraced self weight dead load and for those periods of greater than free fall, an additional impulse load from the momentum of the connected falling structure.

Chandler's data shows this first period of less than free fall, like a large boil on Cyrano's nose, falsifying his claim that the first 100 feet fell at freefall without resistance that indicated CD. Charitably, Chandler just doesn't know what his own or NIST's data shows.

There are pictures of the perimeter columns bent before they fail at the splices proving the perimeter columns first resisted and bent before the splices failed. I've posted this a number of times. Whack-a-mole Gerbil500*. The columns failed at first gradually and then suddenly due to loads, not CD.

The first time one claims the wall failed at freefall suddenly for the first 100 feet proving CD, they are wrong. After reading this, thereafter they are lying.
It is the responsibility of those in the public, in order to not deceive the uneducated, to retract this false claim.

N.B. dadeets, MM, Chandler, T Szamboti

*tfk

 

[JSanderO]

Don't you mean "why do I pay so much attention to the period when WTC7 had zero vertical support?"

You are saying WTC7 burned down in those few seconds and I am saying it was imploded in those few seconds.

An 8 storey volume approximately covering an area the size of a football field was instantly removed from beneath 30+ floors of WTC7 causing the falling upper structure to drop through that volume of zero vertical resistance at freefall acceleration

wrong...
There was a collapse which progressed east to west gutting the insides.. including undermining the few columns directly coupling the perimeter moment frame to the foundations from floor 8 downward... finally the frame and the curtain dropped for about 104 feet till they slammed into the ground.

Perhaps you failed to notice that the frame developed a nasty inward bow/kink "opposite" column 73 at the NE corner of the core where TT1 was supported on its west side...

 

[Kid Eager]

Don't you mean "why do I pay so much attention to the period when WTC7 had zero vertical support?"

You are saying WTC7 burned down in those few seconds and I am saying it was imploded in those few seconds.

An 8 storey volume approximately covering an area the size of a football field was instantly removed from beneath 30+ floors of WTC7 causing the falling upper structure to drop through that volume of zero vertical resistance at freefall acceleration

Wow! It's in bold, so it must be a valid assertion. Please provide the evidence for this instantaneous removal of 8 floors by implosion.

 

[DGM]

Don't you mean "why do I pay so much attention to the period when WTC7 had zero vertical support?"

Nope. My statement was exactly how I meant it.

You are saying WTC7 burned down in those few seconds and I am saying it was imploded in those few seconds.

Why would I say that? That would be ignoring the 8 hours leading up to the event and also stupid.

An 8 storey volume approximately covering an area the size of a football field was instantly removed from beneath 30+ floors of WTC7 causing the falling upper structure to drop through that volume of zero vertical resistance at freefall acceleration

No, you are still ignoring the majority of the collapse. I'll give you a hint, it starts just before it can be seen on video. If you're really slow, the east penthouse was still visible.

 

[LSSBB]

What constitutes as "sustained" when the global collapse event lasted just several seconds?

After a few seconds the building was totally collapsed.

Events creating free fall over the area of a football field occurred in unison at a far faster rate than JSander's runaway theory.

A runaway theory at best provides enough resistance that FFA would not be reached.

While not the same demolition design, the effect of building collapse speed reduction can be observed in the collapse of the WTC Twin Towers.

With overwhelming momentum, crushing everything in its path, neither WTC1 or WTC2 had comparable collapse acceleration approaching the FFA collapse period observed for WTC7.

Sustained free fall would be an acceleration equal to g for more than an instant. It is not sustained at g from any images, in any measurement. So you cannot say it is freely falling. No one can. And, as has been explained to you and others repeatedly, the mechanics of an interior led collapse can produce an acceleration equal to, and greater than, g, in the observable exterior.

 

[jaydeehess]

wrong...
There was a collapse which progressed east to west gutting the insides.. including undermining the few columns directly coupling the perimeter moment frame to the foundations from floor 8 downward... finally the frame and the curtain dropped for about 104 feet till they slammed into the ground.

Perhaps you failed to notice that the frame developed a nasty inward bow/kink "opposite" column 73 at the NE corner of the core where TT1 was supported on its west side...

That's how I recall it. Odd that you and I both do but MM doesn't, can't, or won't.

 

[GlennB]

An 8 storey volume approximately covering an area the size of a football field was instantly removed from beneath 30+ floors of WTC7 causing the falling upper structure to drop through that volume of zero vertical resistance at freefall acceleration

NIST and Chandler disagree with you.

 

[Miragememories]

??

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.

"...Could explosive destroy load paths? Yes!...

...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.

Over time.

There-in lies the rub.

After years of video analysis the NIST determined that the visible 18 storey portion of global collapse for WTC7 revealed 3 stages lasting a grand total of 5.4 seconds.

After approximately 1.75 seconds of initial global descent, the visible WTC7 was "dropping like a rock".

The middle, free fall stage where the steel structure was "dropping like a rock", was determined to have lasted from 1.75 to 4.0 seconds.

Danny Jowenko, a building demolition expert took one look at the video of the collapsing WTC7 and knew immediately that it was an engineered implosion.

Meanwhile you and the rest of the JREF brain trust attempt to ignore the naked emperor by petty quibbling over curve analysis and absurd speculation that office cubicle fires could instantaneously destroy the vertical support for 8 storeys of building space covering an area the size of a football field and cause WTC7 to drop like a stone for 1.75 to 4 seconds.

WTC7 did not suffer an "over time" internal breakdown that lead to its total high speed collapse.

Whatever took out its vertical support, occurred extremely rapidly.

Office cubicle fires could never have created such a rapid onset of total devastation.

The west side started dropping in agreement with the east side as revealed by the roofline and anyone who dared to look at the emperor's nakedness.

Your concept of "over time" is absolutely laughable.

 

[GlennB]

After approximately 1.75 seconds of initial global descent, the visible WTC7 was "dropping like a rock".

My highlighting. Those are ambiguous terms when slapped together so carelessly.

However, and more to the point, your theory doesn't accommodate the 1.75s of < g acceleration.

 

[dadeets]

7. FDNY and DOB made assessments of the structure throughout the morning and by afternoon had determined that the structure has unstable . This is part of their mandate when a building has had some structural damage or is burning in an uncontrolled manner for hours as 7wtc was. So in the afternoon they made an INFORMED PREDICTION that the structure would collapse.

JSanderO,

What is your ref. supporting the last sentence?

 

[beachnut]

JSanderO,

What is your ref. supporting the last sentence?

Bet he has a source unlike 911 truth delusional CD fantasy.

What did firemen think...

Firefighter Butch Brandies tells other firefighters that nobody is to go into Building 7 because of creaking and noises coming out of there.

Can you find the source, or does 911 truth make up their sources out of thin air.

Battalion Chief John Norman will later recall, “At the edge of the south face you could see that it was very heavily damaged.”

Damage, but no CD. Now what.

Deputy Chief Peter Hayden of the New York Fire Department will later recall: “We had our special operations people set up surveying instruments to monitor, and see if there was any movement of, [WTC 7]. We were concerned of the possibility of collapse of the building. And we had a discussion with one particular engineer there, and we asked him, if we allowed it to burn could we anticipate a collapse, and if so, how soon?” The engineer apparently predicts correctly that WTC 7 will collapse and also the time it will take before it comes down. As Hayden will continue: “And it turned out that he was pretty much right on the money, that he said, ‘In its current state, you have about five hours.’” Hayden will not reveal the name of this engineer.

Why do you make up lies of CD? Where is your evidence.

 

[jaydeehess]

Quick note to MM, WTC7 did topple.
The western two thirds of it toppled to the south, the eastern third toppled to the north east.
The video of collapse indicates this as does the rubble distribution including the heavy damage done to the Fitterman building.

 

[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.

There was no evidence of sustained free fall, let alone 7-8 stories.

I am merely pointing out that the destruction to the support over the northern two thirds of what is essentially the foundation of a forty storey building was severe

 

[Justin39640]

Over time.

There-in lies the rub.

After years of video analysis the NIST determined that the visible 18 storey portion of global collapse for WTC7 revealed 3 stages lasting a grand total of 5.4 seconds.

Pristine building theory.

So before the EMP collapse, nothing was wrong with the building in your opinion? The lean and bulge that developed over time is part of the series of failures that occurred over time during that afternoon. The results of those smaller failures led up to the point that the building globally collapsed.