'What about building 7'?

[Dave Rogers]

Where the "truthers" stand today.

The "official story" is wrong but they can't actually prove why (in detail).


"Truthers" have no alternative explanation that fits observable better than the "official".

Did I miss anything?

No, but you could have missed the word "today".

Dave

 

[DGM]

No, but you could have missed the word "today".

Dave

......it fit better than, since inception.

 

[pgimeno]

Those 3 elements are "restraining" the column (in 2 cases, at a distance) at close to 90° to the action of the force in question. i.e. "not very much", afaics

I guess the horizontal support of the column relied on the connections to the girders located north, south and west of C79, since there's no girder to the east, as gerrycan himself noted. Obviously the girder to its north, the one that walked off, couldn't do anything since its horizontal connection had failed. The one to its west is the one that pushed it.

For the girder to the south, the connection is marked as having no damage. But of the beams that restrained it from the east, the nearest to C79 is marked as buckled, while two of the remaining three are marked as having the connections failed both horizontally and vertically, i.e. they could have fallen for all we know, thus providing no lateral support. Not to mention that the girder itself is marked as buckled.

 

[grandmastershek]

a common characteristic in buildings demolished by controlled demolition implosion at their centre core.

According to?

Additionally, I never stated that the relatively level roofline was maintained all the way to the ground.

Yes, we see new distinctions every time you need to move the goal posts.

It did remain relatively level from the start of global collapse and on through 8 storeys of freefall acceleration.

More of those awesome weasel words. Of course if we check it against the straight edge surrounding buildings we find out that's not true.

As the debris pile grew beneath it, of course the shape of the collapse was altered accordingly.

Yes, make more excuses.

Further support for the argument that 7WTC was felled by a deliberate lower floor implosion, and not by a heat induced internal structural steel failure, can be deduced from construction photographs and screen captures of the north perimeter wall during the start of global collapse.

Sure, we'll take our resident pseudo engineers word. Meanwhile, not a pop was recorded at collapse.

As you can see, the floors were solidly connected to the perimeter walls and window frames.

Good. Point?

When the east penthouse collapsed, several floors below did reveal some but not a lot, of window breakage.

Good. Point?

If column 79, as hypothesized by the NIST, was internally buckling and falling through most of the height of 7WTC, followed by the east penthouse, how was it possible that so little 'pull-in' damage occurred to the perimeter wall?[/color]

Do you have evidence more should have been observed besides your say so?

And apparently whatever magical device you believe did it also avoided visual or auditory detection.

 

[pgimeno]

It is difficult to argue with something so obvious if you care about having your opinions respected.



[qimg]http://i1265.photobucket.com/albums/jj515/Miragememories/WTC7LevelCollapse-lowcontr_zps62091716.png[/qimg]

I hope this makes it more evident. We are talking about a 'kink' after all.

[qimg]http://i1265.photobucket.com/albums/jj515/Miragememories/WTC7KINKING_zps203b04d1.png[/qimg]

I think it's quite more pronounced in this picture

But the WPH had already fallen in the last picture. Why the difference post-WPH fall?

 

[grandmastershek]

I think it's quite more pronounced in this picture

[qimg]http://11-s.eu.org/11-s/Julio-caidaWTC7.JPG[/qimg]

But the WPH had already fallen in the last picture. Why the difference post-WPH fall?

Funny enough, MM repeats the truther mantra that the kink indicates a classic sign of CD. While you can find ample examples of "kinks" in CD's, but nowhere universal, what you actually see is a "kink" where the center of said "kink" becomes a point where the building becomes segmented, whereas the facade of WTC 7 appears to maintain it's rigidity. Not to mention you can find ample examples of CD's where the roof does not maintain level, or have kinks. Just another truther mantra brought to you by fraud Richard Gage.

Video:

 

[tsig]

In case you did not notice, the topic of this thread is 7WTC and not other buildings.

What other buildings totally collapsed on 9/11 "from fire and falling debris"?




You only serve to prove that no matter how much an argument is simplified, there will always be someone who requires an even simpler explanation.

The simple point I wanted to "illustrate", as opposed to "model", by using a building of blocks, was that, even an extremely under-engineered structure has zero probability of collapsing under gravity in a pattern similar to 7WTC on 9/11 without human intervention.

It is difficult to imagine a modern 47-storey office tower with all its interconnected steel, suddenly plummeting to the earth it such a manner.

I am not saying it could not happen because obviously it did.

What I am saying is that it did not happen for the reasons that the NIST claimed.

If it was possible for random debris damage and several floors of roaming office cubicle fires to create the high speed, virtually symmetrical collapse of 7WTC, than it stands to reason that the failure mechanism should be easy to simulate in conditions where most of the structure's collapse-resisting elements were removed, and humans were free to delegate fires, and pick away at the supports.

All I ask is that someone show how several levels of unfought fire and a similar degree of external debris damage could make a simple wooden block structure total collapse so symmetrically.

I predict that without a designed core implosion, the structure will either topple or only partially collapse.


[qimg]http://i1265.photobucket.com/albums/jj515/Miragememories/BlockBuildingReducedComp_zpsf3155abe.png[/qimg]


[qimg]http://i1265.photobucket.com/albums/jj515/Miragememories/WTC7Comp-7302014_zpscb34b8b8.png[/qimg]

It is absolutely ridiculous to suggest that the east penthouse collapse was part of a complete internal collapse that left the external facades virtually unscathed.

Facades that were strongly anchored to the internal structure yet revealed little more than some window breakage.


[qimg]http://i1265.photobucket.com/albums/jj515/Miragememories/Col79-WTC7_zps3e639142.jpg[/qimg]

Furthermore, when the final global collapse of 7WTC took place, the east side and the west side were dropping in virtual sync and for 8 storeys or more of freefall and near freefall acceleration.

We know for a fact that this can be done by a human engineered lower floor core implosion. We only know that there is a lame NIST hypothesis that claims this can be engineered by random debris damage and roaming fires.

How do you generate an implosion?

 

[pgimeno]

Funny enough, MM repeats the truther mantra that the kink indicates a classic sign of CD. While you can find ample examples of "kinks" in CD's, but nowhere universal, what you actually see is a "kink" where the center of said "kink" becomes a point where the building becomes segmented, whereas the facade of WTC 7 appears to maintain it's rigidity. Not to mention you can find ample examples of CD's where the roof does not maintain level, or have kinks. Just another truther mantra brought to you by fraud Richard Gage.

Video:

The thing is, ferm2 made a pretty convincing case that the "kink" was actually the building flexing southward. That's why I told Georgio that the north façade flexed inwards at the center as the core fell.

 

[DGM]

The thing is, ferm2 made a pretty convincing case that the "kink" was actually the building flexing southward. That's why I told Georgio that the north façade flexed inwards at the center as the core fell.

It was femr2, and his work was accurate. None of this supports what MM asserts.

ETA: I've seen no evidence femr2's data is wrong.

 

[gerrycan]

So I tried to understand gerrycan's claim:

I don't doubt that you did.

I downloaded the draft report to know what gerrycan was talking about, and I found that in it, NIST shows no damage to the connection at the C79 side of the girder between C44 and C79 in the vertical direction, but it failed in the horizontal direction. I don't know if that is a mistake in the final report, because the seat didn't fail (NIST made it rigid, to start with), and I don't know if the walk-off happened before or after the 4 hours shown in that figure.

You just showed a figure showing that there is no connection damage vertically between the C44-79 girder and column 79, and you still cannot work out if the girder has walked off or not at that point???
Look again at the figures that you posted. There is NO CONNECTION DAMAGE horizontally or vertically at EITHER END of girders A2015 and A2002 which both restrain column 79. Column 79 cannot move laterally without damaging the connections at C79, C76 or C80 in some combination.
You have posted 2 figures that prove that column 79 has not moved laterally at the stage you are claiming that it did.
You've not just shot yourself in the foot here, you have obliterated your foot and still not actually noticed the fact that you have.


As for the section of your post that i highlighted,

 

[Miragememories]

It is difficult to argue with something so obvious if you care about having your opinions respected.

I hope this makes it more evident. We are talking about a 'kink' after all.

"I think it's [the kink] quite more pronounced in this picture.

If you consider the image brightness, contrast, perspective of the two sets of images, it becomes quite obvious why the kink seems "more pronounced".

In the example below, 7WTC has yet to collapse yet the camera perspective creates an uneven roofline.

In the other example I provided, the collapse symmetry is nicely shown, but it is quite dark and shot from a greater distance than the one you are comparing it to.

The closeup composite I created does show the kink but it is not well defined because of the masking effect created by the dark west penthouse interrupting the view of the roofline.

"But the WPH had already fallen in the last picture. Why the difference post-WPH fall?

In my larger composite, after the west penthouse disappears, the kink is pronounced, but somewhat obscured by distance and smoke.

"Funny enough, MM repeats the truther mantra that the kink indicates a classic sign of CD.

While you can find ample examples of "kinks" in CD's, but nowhere universal, what you actually see is a "kink" where the center of said "kink" becomes a point where the building becomes segmented, whereas the facade of WTC 7 appears to maintain it's rigidity.

Not to mention you can find ample examples of CD's where the roof does not maintain level, or have kinks. Just another truther mantra brought to you by fraud Richard Gage."

The point you appear to be making is that for comparison purposes it is best to look at building demolitions that have the greatest similarity to the structure being discussed.

For the record, I agree it was relatively level when comparing the east side to the west side (not so much when comparing north and south).

I think when we have three corners visibly descending in unison (NE, NW and SW), there is a good argument that the north and south rooflines are in close agreement, but it is possible the SE corner was leading (which would be odd given that the SE corner was not previously damaged but the SW corner was).

*Clear view of NW and SW corners during early stage of 7WTC's global collapse.

The thing is, ferm2 made a pretty convincing case that the "kink" was actually the building flexing southward. That's why I told Georgio that the north façade flexed inwards at the center as the core fell.

Watch (one of many examples) the YouTube copy of the video; WTC 7 - Collapse Concern & Features of Old and New Building (History Channel, 2004) - YouTube.

If you have a decent video player (I suggest downloading from YouTube first), you can drag the timeline at slow speed and watch 7WTC's behaviour as global collapse occurs and it kinks.

The "flex" is noticeably downward as would be expected from a lower floor core implosion.

Regarding all the kink and symmetry controversy, I would like to simply state how I saw matters unfold once the global collapse of 7WTC was initiated.

*Referencing the video from which the video screen capture above was obtained, it was clear that the NE, NW and SW corners were dropping in unison and other than the "kink" in the northside roofline, the north and west rooflines were relatively level.

From all the available videos, no where can it be seen that parts of 7WTC were lagging behind during the global collapse (again, it is possible that the SE corner was leading the collapse but there is no evidence to support that possibility).

Following a period of close to freefall, and freefall acceleration, the remaining part of 7WTC, heavily impacting with a growing debris pile, significantly leaned toward the SW corner.

Given the known damage to that corner, it comes as little surprise that the collapse would lose significant symmetry at that location.

 

[DGM]

The "flex" is noticeably downward as would be expected from a lower floor core implosion.

How would it differ from a structural failure due to fire?

 

[grandmastershek]

In the other example I provided, the collapse symmetry is nicely shown, but it is quite dark and shot from a greater distance than the one you are comparing it to.

Yes, Truthers are known for finding poorly lit videos which are pixelated and not very detailed to make all kinds of outlandish claims. This is nothing new. Sadly, when we look at detailed footage we see those claims collapse at free fall speed just as we have here.

The point you appear to be making is that for comparison purposes it is best to look at building demolitions that have the greatest similarity to the structure being discussed.

In part, but I am not the person who barely asserts such things are "classic" signs of CD's. Also, the point which you happened to miss, is that when kinks are present they don't appear and the section maintains rigidity. It appears and the building segments, which WTC 7 did not do. Had you watched the video I posted you would know what I mean, or did you watch it and just hand wave past it?

I think when we have three corners visibly descending in unison (NE, NW and SW), there is a good argument that the north and south rooflines are in close agreement, but it is possible the SE corner was leading (which would be odd given that the SE corner was not previously damaged but the SW corner was).

Goal posts moved again. Now they are "descending in unison". Is this a new "classic"sign of demolitions? Funny how these manifest on the fly.

If you have a decent video player (I suggest downloading from YouTube first), you can drag the timeline at slow speed and watch 7WTC's behaviour as global collapse occurs and it kinks.

Yes it kinks, but as we have seen it's not level in multiple ways as has been demonstrated by multiple angles and in comparison to the surrounding structures. Nor does this "kink" behave like other CD's where a "kink" occurs. Also, which has been demonstrated.

The "flex" is noticeably downward as would be expected from a lower floor core implosion.

Or, get this, as that is the direction gravity pulls.

Regarding all the kink and symmetry controversy, I would like to simply state how I saw matters unfold once the global collapse of 7WTC was initiated.

Well, what you assumed was wrong as all the evidence collectively bears out.

*Referencing the video from which the video screen capture above was obtained, it was clear that the NE, NW and SW corners were dropping in unison and other than the "kink" in the northside roofline, the north and west rooflines were relatively level.

Nope already proved they did not given it's relationship to the surrounding structures. Or are they the ones that are not level?

From all the available videos, no where can it be seen that parts of 7WTC were lagging behind during the global collapse (again, it is possible that the SE corner was leading the collapse but there is no evidence to support that possibility).

Save for the below and the fact that the Penthouse collapsed first. Yes, we know your "core columns were blown first, hence the EMP collapse" claim (A claim truthers never prove happens) sadly these magical detonations avoided being recorded.

[/URL][/IMG]

No doubt MM, you have seen the Landmark Tower CD, which has a penthouse. Oddly, no such premature collapse occurs, nor have I seen one elsewhere. Can't imagine why that is.

Following a period of close to freefall, and freefall acceleration, the remaining part of 7WTC, heavily impacting with a growing debris pile, significantly leaned toward the SW corner.

Yup, it leaned and damaged surrounding buildings. Was not level regardless of your goal post moving.

Given the known damage to that corner, it comes as little surprise that the collapse would lose significant symmetry at that location.

Well given the symmetry claim as a "classic" sign is BS to begin with, it's of little importance.

 

[Dave Rogers]

Yes, Truthers are known for finding poorly lit videos which are pixelated and not very detailed to make all kinds of outlandish claims. This is nothing new. Sadly, when we look at detailed footage we see those claims collapse at free fall speed just as we have here.

This is a fairly common form of confirmation bias. If a grainy, poor quality video shot from a greater distance or, as in the case of WTC7, from an angle that makes it impossible to see a particular aspect of an event, doesn't show something, then to the conspiracy theorist that thing never happened. The fact that clearer video from a more advantageous viewpoint shows that it did happen is somehow irrelevant to the negative they feel they have proven.

Dave

 

[gerrycan]

I guess the horizontal support of the column relied on the connections to the girders located north, south and west of C79, since there's no girder to the east, as gerrycan himself noted. Obviously the girder to its north, the one that walked off, couldn't do anything since its horizontal connection had failed. The one to its west is the one that pushed it.

For the girder to the south, the connection is marked as having no damage. But of the beams that restrained it from the east, the nearest to C79 is marked as buckled, while two of the remaining three are marked as having the connections failed both horizontally and vertically, i.e. they could have fallen for all we know, thus providing no lateral support. Not to mention that the girder itself is marked as buckled.

my emphasis
Is that the "one to the west" that shows "no connection damage" at either end?

So do you now accept that there is no lateral movement in the girder at this point? This is the clearest way I can think of putting it to you.....

The connections that are circled that show "no connection damage", indicate that the girder remains constrained and has experienced no lateral shift to the East or anywhere else.

 

[beachnut]

my emphasis
Is that the "one to the west" that shows "no connection damage" at either end?

So do you now accept that there is no lateral movement in the girder at this point? This is the clearest way I can think of putting it to you.....
[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=32564&stc=1&d=1424626290[/qimg]
The connections that are circled that show "no connection damage", indicate that the girder remains constrained and has experienced no lateral shift to the East or anywhere else.

Where do you get silent explosives to have a the CD fantasy? Has your tactic of not explaining your fantasy of CD, but making up BS about the NIST probable cause sequence worked on anyone? What do your fellow engineers say from your college?


http://911blogger.com/news/2014-03-07/being-smeared-911-truther-msm#comment-260973
A great question is, how many have you fooled with this failed logic tactic? Does it work with WTC 7? Do you understand NISTs has a probable collapse sequence? As you attack a probable and offer nothing but a failed illogical tactic of BS. Read your tactic, it makes zero sense, and reaks of fraud. You don't present evidence for your CD claims, you attack a probable collapse sequence armed with BS from 911 truth, no real engineering. You can't present evidence for CD, there is nothing for you to present. 13 years

To clarify, when I approach a would be debunker and steer clear of claims like "inside job", "US govt complicity", and even "freefall acceleration and thermitic material", but just stick to "they got the report wrong, missed out elements and made errors and should redo their analysis" - there is no defense. The issue is there in black and white and is undeniable. The only response that opposers can resort to is to try and move onto the aforementioned points that I have chosen for now, to steer clear of, and that fact alone indicates where the WTC7 report weak point really is.

The undeniable fact is you have no evidence for your fantasy of "inside job", CD, and thermite.
How many have you fooled, and explain how your explosives are silent, how did you do that? Magic?

13 years, you must of fooled someone with the bait and switch tactic you use. The Boston bombers were fooled.

 

[pgimeno]

You just showed a figure showing that there is no connection damage vertically between the C44-79 girder and column 79, and you still cannot work out if the girder has walked off or not at that point???

You're not paying attention.

The figure shows that there IS connection damage vertically between the C44-79 girder and column 79.

In my image, the vertical damage IS there. Here it is again for you to see:

Don't you see that BLACK dot in the connection between C79 and A2001?

I'll zoom it in for you. This zoomed crop is from the BOTTOM image, the one showing damage in the VERTICAL direction.

See it now? Or do you need more zoom?

Now, that black dot is only in the FINAL report. I checked and saw that it's not in the DRAFT report, which is what made me wonder if adding the black dot in the FINAL report was a mistake (as the diagrams are clearly different, and if they were converted by hand, such a slip is possible), or if the connection had actually already failed vertically at 4 hours of simulation. I'm leaning towards the latter: I think most likely it is not a mistake. NIST says so in the report: "By 4.0 h of heating, [...] The girder between Columns 44 and 79 had walked off the bearing seat at Column 79 on Floor 13 [...]"

Look again at the figures that you posted. There is NO CONNECTION DAMAGE horizontally or vertically at EITHER END of girders A2015 and A2002 which both restrain column 79. Column 79 cannot move laterally without damaging the connections at C79, C76 or C80 in some combination.

I don't see A2015 in the framing plan you posted. Do you mean the girder between C76 and C79? That's the one that pushed C76 to the west and C79 to the east when it expanded, according to NIST, so the status of its connection is mostly irrelevant. As for the one between C79 and C80, namely A2002, you're wrong. The beams that were supposed to restrain it from moving east (D3004, B3006, A2005, M3004) were either buckled or their connections failed both horizontally and vertically. Look at the picture again. See the beam to the southeast of C79? That's D3004. See it's coloured pink? Now look at the legend. What does a pink line mean? Yes, that's right: Buckled member. Now look at the connections of the others, both vertical and horizontal. What do they tell you?

Girder A2002 could move horizontally freely, letting the column move east as the girder between C76 and C79 expanded, as NIST said it happened. And let's not forget that A2002 was buckled anyway.

You have posted 2 figures that prove that column 79 has not moved laterally at the stage you are claiming that it did.

How do these figures show what you claim they show? I think they show the exact opposite. Not the exact opposite, sorry. That was hyperbole. They don't prove that the column moved laterally, but they do prove that the column could move laterally if pushed by the girder to its west.

my emphasis
Is that the "one to the west" that shows "no connection damage" at either end?

So do you now accept that there is no lateral movement in the girder at this point? This is the clearest way I can think of putting it to you.....
[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=32564&stc=1&d=1424626290[/qimg]
The connections that are circled that show "no connection damage", indicate that the girder remains constrained and has experienced no lateral shift to the East or anywhere else.

Frankly, I don't see what is so hard to understand. The girder expanded and pushed C76 to the west and C79 to the east. The girder did not experience any lateral movement other than that of its ends in opposite directions due to thermal expansion. The connections didn't need to fail for that to happen. NIST says such a movement happened. Pay attention.

This is the clearest way I can think of putting it to you:

THE BUCKLED GIRDER A2002 WAS FREE TO MOVE LATERALLY AND COULD NOT RESTRAIN C79. THE GIRDER BETWEEN C76 AND C79 EXPANDED DUE TO HEAT PUSHING C76 TO THE WEST AND C79 TO THE EAST, IRRESPECTIVE OF THE STATE OF ITS CONNECTIONS.

Got it now?

 

[BasqueArch]

<snip>

Got it now?

And the winner of the "Arguing Against Myself" Award is ...

GC - for repeatedly insisting that the girder could not have pushed that column precisely because they were attached.

 

[Animal]

And the winner of the "Arguing Against Myself" Award is ...

GC - for repeatedly insisting that the girder could not have pushed that column precisely because they were attached.

The more he posts, the clearer he shows that he knows nothing about building structures and is simply regurgitating troofer talking points and/or relaying someone else response

 

[Oystein]

Standing on the sideline, I enjoy gerrycan's and pgimeno's reasonably civil exchange, as both try to make their points succinctly, and support then with external documentation.

I'd encourage both to continue, ignore cheers and boos for the time being, and work out where your differences really are, so that a layman on the sideline such as myself understands the point.

Your debate even prompted me to read Chapter 11 of NCSTAR 1-9. I am currently in 11.4.1, the "Discussion of Results for Case B Temperatures".