'What about building 7'?

[DGM]

I know that feeling, I was in a steel frame building a large one, during a high wind storm,
the bolts started popping they had been over torqued, I was glad when the storm ended and never went back to that store.

The kicker was the next day the owner asked if I could do "temporary repairs" so the tenants in floors 3-5 could recover their belongings. I never called him back.

 

[Crazy Chainsaw]

Smart no reason to put yourself or your people in harms way, better to run fast away from jobs like that.
No way you could rebolt that structure the steel would have had massive warpage.
We rewelded one temp until the trusses could be replaced but it was a monster job and only 5 stories tall.

 

[DGM]

Smart no reason to put yourself or your people in harms way, better to run fast away from jobs like that.
No way you could rebolt that structure the steel would have had massive warpage.
We rewelded one temp until the trusses could be replaced but it was a monster job and only 5 stories tall.

The only option would be to crib it from the basement. This owner was not looking to do it right and no way would I get permission to do it any other way (or be willing to).

 

[Crazy Chainsaw]

Understood that is a major job, the building probably wasn't worth that much effort sounds easier and less expensive to tear it down and build back new.

 

[grandmastershek]

The above image shows 7WTC in a later stage of its global collapse.

Goal post move noted. You stated that this level was "maintained, which reality proves otherwise.

In spite of some individuals efforts to show otherwise, the videos show how <b>comparatively level</b> the actual roofline was during global the collapse of 7WTC.

Compared to what? Fact is you need to use word like "virtually" b/c it didn't happen in reality. The purpose of such words it to attempt a presentation of fact while none actually exists.

Get over it, the visual evidence proves you wrong, not that has ever swayed you in the past.

A left side failure of solidly interconnected structural steel beams, girders and columns does not drop at near or at freefall acceleration and immediately convey that same amount of failure over to the right side.

This incredible occurrence cannot be achieved by some south side debris damage and several floors of unfought fires.

It can only be created by an engineered implosion of the building core on the lower floors.

In their hearts, your many detractors know this to be true.

By beating up on the messengers they hope to avoid facing the truth!

"Near", more weasel words to convey meaning where none exists. Great surely, such an engineering authority such as yourself who can barely assert such things will have no problem proving them in any reputable journal on the planet. I will not pretend to be such an authority on these things. You should try to avoid doing so as well.

Regardless, you can post as many pics as you want from other angles, but anyone who understands perspective knows that you can be looking at as many sides as you want and it may appear level, but all you need is one to see it is totally out of whack. We can all see it wasn't even near level, nor was it maintained. You can change your goal posts, you can dance around it, but reality won't go away.

I see some broken windows.

Supposedly 7WTC is but a shell at this point and its interior has been gutted.

All that steel connected to the outside facades should have pulled in huge sections of building face and not just caused some minimal window breakage don't you think?[/color]

I will not speculate. All I know is we see an internal collapse, followed by broken windows without so much as a bang nor a flash. I don't believe in magical explosives or incendiaries. People with a rudimentary understanding of Occam's Razor will know which is the more likely cause.

 

[grandmastershek]

Why? When you say "rapid", when are you starting the clock? Eight hours is a long time for unfought fires.

No doubt rapid stands for after the EMP descends into the building. As we all know the EMP was not part of the collapse.

 

[DGM]

No doubt rapid stands for after the EMP descends into the building. As we all know the EMP was not part of the collapse.

You really shouldn't point this out. It's just a "debunker" trick.

 

[Spanx]

Being a laymen myself, can anyone tell me if the NIST examined the Beams/girders in question to establish which direction they were buckled etc. Was this a major contributor to their computer modeling.

Or was it all whisked off to China ?

 

[Animal]

Being a laymen myself, can anyone tell me if the NIST examined the Beams/girders in question to establish which direction they were buckled etc. Was this a major contributor to their computer modeling.

Or was it all whisked off to China ?

My understanding of the modeling.....when a beams "buckled" walked off" or otherwise failed. They removed it from the model......they did not bother to calculate how the hanging beam would further impose a load on the structure.

Troofers will probably demand this in their next go around

 

[Oystein]

My understanding of the modeling.....when a beams "buckled" walked off" or otherwise failed. They removed it from the model......they did not bother to calculate how the hanging beam would further impose a load on the structure. ...

How does this gel with the description in NIST's short summary of the floor failure resulting from the infamous girder walk-off resulting in cascading floor failures down to the 5th floor?

 

[pgimeno]

Being a laymen myself, can anyone tell me if the NIST examined the Beams/girders in question to establish which direction they were buckled etc. Was this a major contributor to their computer modeling.

Or was it all whisked off to China ?

The structural components in WTC7, unlike those in WTC1 and 2, did not have any markings that allowed to identify their original location. NIST didn't use any steel from WTC7 in their analysis; it was pointless.

 

[chrismohr]

The funnel effect only occurred in the towers NIST proposed two radically different failure mechanisms, Thermal weakening in the towers, Thermal expansion in Building 7.

7 fire fighters are on record on 9/11 stating they believed the building was doomed hours before it collapsed.


How about the CNN collapse predictions and I believe it was Ray Mackey who stated that the firemen observed the building was leaning and likely to collapse.
I am looking for those quotes right now.

Yes there may have been some thermal weakening in building 7 that helped to prevent load redistribution after Column 79 failed.

It appears to me from your post that it was mainly a bolted structure column buckling then is not required to cause failure just bolt shearing, that allow floor failure.

If you want to determine mode of building failure, the energy redistribution pattern must first be established, I have read this entire thread and could not find one post were you even came close to an attempt.

My YouTube video on foreknowledge of collapse of Building 7 has a bunch of quotes. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ajIr2G4wFn4

 

[Miragememories]

"A core implosion is fundamentally a "core region collapse".

You just refuse to accept that the core's destruction was a planned event.

An engineered demolition of the core is a rapid enough event that the building above will plummet down like was observed with 7WTC on 9/11.

An un-engineered core demolition, if possible as a result of unfought fires, would not be as rapid an event.

Yet you still believe the core failure was caused by fire, and occurred rapidly across the whole structural floor space, and in such a manner, that there was a balanced loss of total building support.

Fire weakening by its very nature, would be gradual and regardless of the truss inter-relationships, you have never successfully described a mechanism which would rapidly gut the lower core with such balanced precision that it would lead to both the east and west sides dropping at and close to freefall with a relatively level roofline!

"The core came down because it largely was load transfer structures... transfer means they move the forces laterally... this resulted in rapid progression through the core.

These structures were NOT destroyed by office contents fires."

While I agree (for different reasons) that office cubicle fires had absolutely nothing to do with the sudden collapse of 7WTC, the NIST seven year mission is in total disagreement with you, as are the majority of NIST supporters here.

"The failed when as little as one node... one bolted connection failed. When that happened the truss collapsed and involved other load tranfer structures and then down it went.

Weakening is a gradual process... but once the weakened thing has capacity below the service loads... it fails instantly and catastrophically.

It's like heating water... you apply heat and don't see much change until it reaches boils point."

Awesome!

"One bolted connection failure" and you calmly assert that that was sufficient to bring about the partially freefall symmetrical collapse of 7WTC.

They sure don't make them like they used to.

"As you know, the whole basis for the NIST case regarding the mysterious, sudden, high speed plummet of 7WTC, centres around the steel expansion hypothesis which they cannibalized from their WTC1 and WTC2 collapse hypotheses."

"The funnel effect only occurred in the towers NIST proposed two radically different failure mechanisms, Thermal weakening in the towers, Thermal expansion in Building 7."

Semantics.

Thermal weakening and thermal expansion were being argued hand-in-hand.

A few statements from NISTNCSTAR1Draft;

"structural temperatures in th rose, and the resulting thermal expansion of the core was greater than the thermal expansion of the (cooler) exterior walls."

"As the fires continued to heat the core areas without insulation, the columns were thermally weakened.."

"Initially the thermal expansion of the floor pushed the columns outward, but with increased temperatures, the floor sagged and the columns were pulled inward."

"fire fighters are on record on 9/11 stating they believed the building was doomed hours before it collapsed."

That is old news.

Such beliefs would be a natural expectation after the shock 'n awe experienced from losing hundreds of your fellow fire fighters in the unexpected collapses of the WTC Twin Towers.

Prior to 9/11, none of those firefighters had any experience or knowledge which would have lead them to deduce that 7WTC was in any danger of major collapse.

"How about the CNN collapse predictions and I believe it was Ray Mackey who stated that the firemen observed the building was leaning and likely to collapse."

Again, those collapse predictions were a natural consequence from a 'seeded fear' following the totally unexpected 'shock 'n awe' event of both WTC Twin Towers suddenly crashing to the ground.

There has never been any evidence presented that showed 7WTC was leaning. Putting a transit on a building to see if it is leaning is not evidence of anything unless it results in [drumroll], data that shows leaning.

If 9/11 was an inside job, and I believe that the collapse of 7WTC proves that it was, it is quite likely that some of the rumours regarding a pending collapse were initiated by a person or persons unknown, who had a vested interest in perpetuating such a belief.

It is also not unheard of for News gatherers to heavily speculate and 'fan the flames' of a good rumour.

"Heat the bolts and beam seats on the columns until enough bolts sheer in the proper pattern to control energy redistribution which will follow a predictable pattern.

No thermite needed just damage the fire proofing and light fires.

After all buildings are just simple load transfer structures.

That is assuming that the pictures posted by MM are representative of the structures involved, I always thought that the building also had welded structures, if so that could lead to the failure, but unfortunately right now I do not have time for a more in depth study of the structure.

Maybe you should spend a bit more time on your "in depth study" before you express such shallow opinions.

Given enough heat, you can work your way through any structure and melt it to the ground if necessary.

The "predictable collapse pattern" followed by 7WTC was that of a lower floor implosion and not the dramatically different pattern which would be expected from a high-rise gradually succumbing to the effects of overwhelming heat.

Heat is another subject that should be re-addressed, as the NIST arguments that there was adequate fuel and high temperatures to support their lame hypothesis are extremely flawed.

Anyone who pretends that the roof line maintained anything resembling "level", has seriously avoided or ignored reality. Weasel words will be grossly important in 3, 2...

"The above image provided by grandmastershek shows 7WTC in a later stage of its global collapse."

In spite of some individuals efforts to show otherwise, the videos show how comparatively level the actual roofline was during global the collapse of 7WTC.

"Goal post move noted. You stated that this level was "maintained, which reality proves otherwise."

"Regardless, you can post as many pics as you want from other angles, but anyone who understands perspective knows that you can be looking at as many sides as you want and it may appear level, but all you need is one to see it is totally out of whack.

We can all see it wasn't even near level, nor was it maintained.

You can change your goal posts, you can dance around it, but reality won't go away."

I note that it was you that posted the intentionally misleading image, so do not talk to me about moving goalposts.

I stand by what I said and what I showed.

As a professional photographer and video editor, I am quite aware of perspective.

Feel free to explain how the series of image captures above, taken from a video of 7WTC's collapse, represent a false perspective of the relatively level roofline.

There is no photo illusion being deliberately created on my part.

 

[JSanderO]

I would imagine one typical connection would not lead to collapse. But I would argue that one of the connections failing on one of the transfer structures could.

You might recall the collapse of the Miamus River bridge span... caused by one rusty corroded pin which failed and then the span came down in one fell swoop.

"The collapse was caused by the failure of two pin and hanger assemblies that held the deck in place on the outer side of the bridge. The hanger on the inside part of the expansion joint at the southeast corner was forced from the pin that was holding it, and the load was shifted to the only other pin in the joint. The problem was caused by rust formation within the bearing on the pin, exerting a force on the hanger which was beyond design limits. The extra load on the remaining pin started a fatigue crack at a sharp corner on the pin. When it failed catastrophically, the deck was supported at just three corners. When two heavy trucks and a car entered the section, the remaining expansion joint failed, and the deck crashed into the river below."

 

[Crazy Chainsaw]

While I agree (for different reasons) that office cubicle fires had absolutely nothing to do with the sudden collapse of 7WTC, the NIST seven year mission is in total disagreement with you, as are the majority of NIST supporters here.



Awesome!

"One bolted connection failure" and you calmly assert that that was sufficient to bring about the partially freefall symmetrical collapse of 7WTC.

They sure don't make them like they used to.




Semantics.

Thermal weakening and thermal expansion were being argued hand-in-hand.

A few statements from NISTNCSTAR1Draft;

"structural temperatures in th rose, and the resulting thermal expansion of the core was greater than the thermal expansion of the (cooler) exterior walls."

"As the fires continued to heat the core areas without insulation, the columns were thermally weakened.."

"Initially the thermal expansion of the floor pushed the columns outward, but with increased temperatures, the floor sagged and the columns were pulled inward."



That is old news.

Such beliefs would be a natural expectation after the shock 'n awe experienced from losing hundreds of your fellow fire fighters in the unexpected collapses of the WTC Twin Towers.

Prior to 9/11, none of those firefighters had any experience or knowledge which would have lead them to deduce that 7WTC was in any danger of major collapse.



Again, those collapse predictions were a natural consequence from a 'seeded fear' following the totally unexpected 'shock 'n awe' event of both WTC Twin Towers suddenly crashing to the ground.

There has never been any evidence presented that showed 7WTC was leaning. Putting a transit on a building to see if it is leaning is not evidence of anything unless it results in [drumroll], data that shows leaning.

If 9/11 was an inside job, and I believe that the collapse of 7WTC proves that it was, it is quite likely that some of the rumours regarding a pending collapse were initiated by a person or persons unknown, who had a vested interest in perpetuating such a belief.

It is also not unheard of for News gatherers to heavily speculate and 'fan the flames' of a good rumour.



Maybe you should spend a bit more time on your "in depth study" before you express such shallow opinions.

Given enough heat, you can work your way through any structure and melt it to the ground if necessary.

The "predictable collapse pattern" followed by 7WTC was that of a lower floor implosion and not the dramatically different pattern which would be expected from a high-rise gradually succumbing to the effects of overwhelming heat.

Heat is another subject that should be re-addressed, as the NIST arguments that there was adequate fuel and high temperatures to support their lame hypothesis are extremely flawed.

​

I note that it was you that posted the intentionally misleading image, so do not talk to me about moving goalposts.

I stand by what I said and what I showed.

As a professional photographer and video editor, I am quite aware of perspective.

Feel free to explain how the series of image captures above, taken from a video of 7WTC's collapse, represent a false perspective of the relatively level roofline.

There is no photo illusion being deliberately created on my part.

So you don't understand the collapses then as your admitting in your response?

So you know how to use a transit as I do, that can give me the angle of incline on an earthen dam by simple triangulation down to One half inch. Or the lean on a wall to the same degree?

You ignore the eyewitness accounts, of firemen who observed the buildings lean.

Not nessisary to melt anything, just nessisary to sheer bolts by expansion of the metal sheering them.

Have you done a proper single point prospective calculation on the Images I can view?

The eyes can be tricked the math can not be, do you understand why that is nessisary?

I see the problem in the images, I am an expert on fooling the eye, do a single point perspective drawing over them and you might too, your looking at an illusion of light.

 

[ETAC99]

Silent but deadly

This just won't go away.
It is like little children who are never satisfied?:
"Why is the ocean salty?"
"Why is the sky blue?"
"Why Can't I buy the NY Yankees?, etc etc..."
All those questions for WTC7 have been answered.

Explosives are the only way to do this in a steel-framed high rise.

Amazing all those explosives to take down Building 7 were SILENT!
That's right--there are no sounds of explosives or flashes when the
building came down.
Open your mind.
The three buildings were a different design than
conventional steel-framed buildings, there fore came down
in a different way than expected.

 

[Spanx]

The structural components in WTC7, unlike those in WTC1 and 2, did not have any markings that allowed to identify their original location. NIST didn't use any steel from WTC7 in their analysis; it was pointless.

This explains to me why NIST can only perform a probable collapse mechanism.

What I don't understand is why Gerry & Co who have not produced any collapse mechanism can be so certain NIST is wrong.

 

[Dave Rogers]

The three buildings were a different design than
conventional steel-framed buildings, there fore came down
in a different way than expected.

This is an interesting point. Conspiracists don't really specify how the buildings should have fallen, just that it's different to how they did fall. I've even seen people claiming that the fact they fell at all is suspicious, suggesting that in normal circumstances steel-framed buildings should be indestructible.* I coined the term "unevaluated inequality fallacy" a few years back to describe this sort of illogic; the assertion that two things are different even though you have no idea what one, or occasionally either, of them is. A lot of AE911T's criticism of NIST comes under this heading; they insist that NIST must have been wrong, though they have no idea what response from NIST would qualify as right.

Dave

* Mind you, I suppose there's a reason Superman is the man of steel.

 

[GlennB]

This just won't go away.
It is like little children who are never satisfied?:
"Why is the ocean salty?"
"Why is the sky blue?"
"Why Can't I buy the NY Yankees?, etc etc..."
All those questions for WTC7 have been answered.

Explosives are the only way to do this in a steel-framed high rise.

Amazing all those explosives to take down Building 7 were SILENT!
That's right--there are no sounds of explosives or flashes when the
building came down.
Open your mind.
The three buildings were a different design than
conventional steel-framed buildings, there fore came down
in a different way than expected.

Welcome, and bingo!

 

[Playing Games]

This just won't go away.
It is like little children who are never satisfied?:
"Why is the ocean salty?"
"Why is the sky blue?"
"Why Can't I buy the NY Yankees?, etc etc..."
All those questions for WTC7 have been answered.

Explosives are the only way to do this in a steel-framed high rise.

Amazing all those explosives to take down Building 7 were SILENT!
That's right--there are no sounds of explosives or flashes when the
building came down.
Open your mind.
The three buildings were a different design than
conventional steel-framed buildings, there fore came down
in a different way than expected.

Great way to put it.