• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

'What about building 7'?

Status
Not open for further replies.
 
Tony Szamboti said:
You are putting words in my mouth. I have never said I thought column 79 was the initiating event in the collapse of WTC 7, with or without extra explosives. ...
Click to expand...
Where can we get the silent explosives, ones which only blast out four windows? Your fantasy CD has silent explosives, can you explain how they work, and don't blast out more windows? 13 years, you must of found a reality based source for your explosives which leave no evidence by now.

Why has 911 truth stopped working on the towers? WTC 7 was not a terrorists target, why does 911 truth waste so much time on WTC 7, ignoring 11, 175, 93, and 77's real targets. How and why did 19 terrorists, set up the explosives (silent explosives) in WTC 7, and trigger them after they were dead.
 
It is interesting how free fall=explosives is slowly being dumped. When first brought up it was supposedly obvious that the only way to accommodate that was to blow every single column, including the perimeter columns thus bringing the entire structure at 'g'.

When challenged on the sound of such enormous use of heavy column cutting charges, well now the explosives all move to the interior with both MM, and Szamboti throwing Chandler under the bus.

I knew Szamboti had opined on a high level taking out of col 79. Had not seen his quite ridiculous reasoning as to why this would be done. Though it has arisen before that the reason WTC7 fell to the south and NE was specifically to spare the Post Office and Verizon structures. I guess its Szamboti's contention that this pulling the mechanical penthouse west and south is to have its components avoid hitting the post office. We are to swallow that these evil conspirators, who cared not a whit for thousands of people including firemen and police, cared not a whit for Federal, State and Municipal offices within the WTC complex, cared not a whit for Bankers Trust or a historic old church and were ok with targeting the Pentagon, not to mention the effect on the American airline industry, these people however cared so very greatly for the Federally owned Post Office and the privately owned Verizon properties.
 
jaydeehess said:
It is interesting how free fall=explosives is slowly being dumped. When first brought up it was supposedly obvious that the only way to accommodate that was to blow every single column, including the perimeter columns thus bringing the entire structure at 'g'.

When challenged on the sound of such enormous use of heavy column cutting charges, well now the explosives all move to the interior with both MM, and Szamboti throwing Chandler under the bus.
Click to expand...

Yes, and each baby-step takes years. For example, it took MM a few years to accept that rigging WTC7 on the day was a ridiculous concept. When then asked "What if WTC7 hadn't been set on fire at all?" he blathered and withdrew.

The Szamboti "stop the EMP flying off the side" gibberish is a similarly useful reminder of the utterly delusional nature of these beliefs. It might be fun to debate them, but that's all there is to it really.
 
GlennB said:
He was pushed on this question once before and the best he could come up with was to say it was to prevent the EMP from toppling off sideways. He never did explain why it might do that or why anyone would care.
Click to expand...

You know what else is kooky. He says that the broken windows under the EPH is proof that explosives blew out the PH supports. About 2 years ago I pointed out to him that the PH began to collapse then the windows began to break not the other way around. He may have been looking at the A/E not the T deceitful post PH collapse clip. Here it is 2 years later and the Sands of Hamster Wheel 500 returns. Do you think repeating a proven false claim matters to conspiracists? Not a bit, after all they believe they mean well. New suckers are born every minute.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yDFFBzCwsBs
 
Last edited:
GlennB said:
p.s. Here's the original:

"I will say that I believe the asymmetrically located east penthouse was pulled down inside the building so it wouldn't fly off or topple, with column 79 taken out up high only. The window damage you point out is only high in the building and supports this."
Click to expand...

Ah, yes. The bad guys collapsed a 110 story skyscraper, sending debris flying willy nilly, and then suddenly became very, very concerned about collateral damage in this one specific instance.

WilliamSeger said:
In other words, "That's what they did so they must have had some reason."
Click to expand...

"This map doesn't fit the territory. The territory must be wrong."
 
Tony Szamboti said:
You are putting words in my mouth. I have never said I thought column 79 was the initiating event in the collapse of WTC 7, with or without extra explosives.

I have said it appears to have been removed only high in the building to take the east penthouse down. My reasons for that are that daylight is only visible in the top story windows afterward, there is a shock wave from top down which only breaks windows from top down for about fifteen stories, there is no white dust emanating from windows on the east side until the entire exterior comes down, and there is no exterior deformation during the time that NIST alleges the full east side interior is collapsing.

I have also said (on this forum and other places) many times that I believe eight stories of core columns were removed somewhere low in the building to cause the collapse. I also don't see a need to artificially remove exterior columns, as they would be left unsupported and pulled in by the falling core. This is what Danny Jowenko thought also.
Click to expand...
Tony, A couple remarks. First: when I first noticed the light shining through only the top windows of Building 7, I immediately assumed that we saw sunlight there because of the angle of the video camera. Placed on the ground and looking up diagonally, the line of sight inside the windows would have sunlight pouring in the top windows simply because at this steeper angle, you end up seeing above the partial lighjt barrier of the other walls. So after those top floors with light pouring in, you have a lower angle, and those lines of sight would come up against the far outer perimeter wall which was still standing and therefore blocking any direct view of the bright sky. You seem to be saying that the East Penthouse dropped a few floors and then stopped. Is that a correct understanding of your position?
As for the freefall, now you are saying that it wouldn't be necessary to rig the perimeter walls (I certainly agree there!) and knock out all structural support even with freefall happening. David Chandler once told me that every column had to be rigged for there to be freefall. He said about CD, "Building 7 was overkill." Are you saying it is NOT necessary to knock out all structural support to attain freefall + of the perimeter walls of Building 7? Or are you saying that knocking out the lower floors enabled the whole perimeter wall to attain freefall for a few seconds?
Finally, are you aware of femr2's very accurate measurements of the rate of collapse of the perimeter wall of Building 7? He claims (and it's even visible in the graph in the NIST Report) that for about 0.75 seconds, the perimeter wall attained greater than freefall acceleration. Do you accept his data, and how do you explain greater than freefall collapse without acknowledging the leveraging and torquing from the inner collapsing structure to the outer perimeter may have actually "yanked" it down even faster? And if torquing and leveraging may have more than overcome any residual resistance for those 2.25 seconds, why do we need CDs to explain the collapse based in the rate of its descent?
 
Last edited:
chrismohr said:
Tony, A couple remarks. First: when I first noticed the light shining through only the top windows of Building 7, I immediately assumed that we saw sunlight there because of the angle of the video camera. Placed on the ground and looking up diagonally, the line of sight inside the windows would have sunlight pouring in the top windows simply because at this steeper angle, you end up seeing above the partial lighjt barrier of the other walls. So after those top floors with light pouring in, you have a lower angle, and those lines of sight would come up against the far outer perimeter wall which was still standing and therefore blocking any direct view of the bright sky. You seem to be saying that the East Penthouse dropped a few floors and then stopped. Is that a correct understanding of your position?
Click to expand...

WTC 7 was 144 feet wide and if the entire east side interior had been collapsing when the east penthouse went down there certainly would have been sunlight seen through more than just the top story windows. Your camera angle theory does not explain it away.

As for the freefall, now you are saying that it wouldn't be necessary to rig the perimeter walls (I certainly agree there!) and knock out all structural support even with freefall happening. David Chandler once told me that every column had to be rigged for there to be freefall. He said about CD, "Building 7 was overkill." Are you saying it is NOT necessary to knock out all structural support to attain freefall + of the perimeter walls of Building 7? Or are you saying that knocking out the lower floors enabled the whole perimeter wall to attain freefall for a few seconds?
Click to expand...

Removal of eight stories of the core would have left the exterior unsupported for those eight stories and caused it to buckle. The minimum resistance during buckling over an eight story column length would have been less than 5% of the column strength. The falling core would also be pulling the exterior inward, through the attached beams, so the exterior would essentially fall in free fall and it actually could experience a little higher acceleration than gravity due to a whip action from the already falling core.

Finally, are you aware of femr2's very accurate measurements of the rate of collapse of the perimeter wall of Building 7? He claims (and it's even visible in the graph in the NIST Report) that for about 0.75 seconds, the perimeter wall attained greater than freefall acceleration. Do you accept his data, and how do you explain greater than freefall collapse without acknowledging the leveraging and torquing from the inner collapsing structure to the outer perimeter may have actually "yanked" it down even faster? And if torquing and leveraging may have more than overcome any residual resistance for those 2.25 seconds, why do we need CDs to explain the collapse based in the rate of its descent?
Click to expand...

See above answer. There is nothing strange about it. However, 0.75 seconds of a miniscule amount of acceleration above gravity would not explain residual resistance being overcome to retain freefall for the next 1.50 seconds. That is really a silly notion. The only way to get a symmetric free fall over eight stories is for the entire 24 column core to have been removed over eight stories. The mechanics are also right for it to include a slightly over free fall acceleration at the beginning due to the whip action of the already falling core.

The problem with accepting the NIST claim of a naturally collapsing interior (core) progressing from east to west is that the exterior of the building comes down over its full length and width simultaneously. There also wasn't any exterior deformation on the east side when they say it was collapsing first and then spread to the west. The core would have been removed starting in its center and moving outward to effect a pull-in and keep the fall somewhat tight. The difference in timing between inner and outer core columns being pulled would only have been fractions of a second. The core removal, starting at its center, is very likely to be what caused the horizontal kink in the north face as the collapse started.

The east penthouse being taken out by removing column 79 high in the building and eight stories of the entire core being removed to cause the full collapse shortly after can explain everything that is observed.
 
Last edited:
Tony Szamboti said:
WTC 7 was 144 feet wide and if the entire east side interior had been collapsing when the east penthouse went down there certainly would have been sunlight seen through more than just the top story windows. Your camera angle theory does not explain it away.



Removal of eight stories of the core would have left the exterior unsupported for those eight stories and caused it to buckle. The minimum resistance during buckling over an eight story column length would have been less than 5% of the column strength. The falling core would also be pulling the exterior inward, through the attached beams, so the exterior would essentially fall in free fall and it actually could experience a little higher acceleration than gravity due to a whip action from the already falling core.



See above answer. There is nothing strange about it. However, 0.75 seconds of a miniscule amount of acceleration above gravity would not explain residual resistance being overcome to retain freefall for the next 1.50 seconds. That is really a silly notion. The only way to get a symmetric free fall over eight stories is for the entire 24 column core to have been removed over eight stories. The mechanics are also right for it to include a slightly over free fall acceleration at the beginning due to the whip action of the already falling core.

The problem with accepting the NIST claim of a naturally collapsing interior (core) progressing from east to west is that the exterior of the building comes down over its full length and width simultaneously. There also wasn't any exterior deformation on the east side when they say it was collapsing first and then spread to the west. The core would have been removed starting in its center and moving outward to effect a pull-in and keep the fall somewhat tight. The difference in timing between inner and outer core columns being pulled would only have been fractions of a second. The core removal, starting at its center, is very likely to be what caused the horizontal kink in the north face as the collapse started.

The east penthouse being taken out by removing column 79 high in the building and eight stories of the entire core being removed to cause the full collapse shortly after can explain everything that is observed.
Click to expand...

Energy transfers though steel at 5100 meters per second, try to blink your eye that fas, bet you can't.

A free standing granite wall would be laid after building erection and not strongly attached to the steel mostly just stabilized by it.
 
Last edited:
Tony Szamboti said:
The problem with accepting the NIST claim of a naturally collapsing interior (core) progressing from east to west is that the exterior of the building comes down over its full length and width simultaneously. There also wasn't any exterior deformation on the east side when they say it was collapsing first and then spread to the west. The core would have been removed starting in its center and moving outward to effect a pull-in and keep the fall somewhat tight. The difference in timing between inner and outer core columns being pulled would only have been fractions of a second. The core removal, starting at its center, is very likely to be what caused the horizontal kink in the north face as the collapse started.
Click to expand...

There are structural engineers here who can address this better than I, but just to point out what I think you are missing: The curtain wall consisted of granite and glass panels supported by a steel box frame set a full 2 feet out from the exterior moment-frame columns. It appears to me that the reason for doing that instead of putting them directly against the columns was to create an exterior shell with sufficient three-dimensional rigidity to resist considerable lateral wind load. The curtain wall was omitted from the NIST FEA because it didn't contribute to bearing gravity loads, and I think you would need to model it to be sure, but I don't find it very surprising that it was rigid enough to maintain the building's shape while the interior columns and floors collapsed. Even so, there apparently was enough deformation of the wall under the east penthouse to break windows down about as far as any of the videos show:
wtc7windows.jpg
 
WilliamSeger said:
Even so, there apparently was enough deformation of the wall under the east penthouse to break windows down about as far as any of the videos show:
]
Click to expand...

This is because the curtain wall WAS cantilevered off of the moment frame at the perimeter. When THAT was pulled in at the location north of the corner of the core...(I think it was north of col 73???) as the several columns beneath the EPH "collapsed".. it pulled the exterior moment frame inward... and the curtain wall with it at that location.
 
Tony Szamboti said:
WTC 7 was 144 feet wide and if the entire east side interior had been collapsing when the east penthouse went down there certainly would have been sunlight seen through more than just the top story windows. Your camera angle theory does not explain it away.



Removal of eight stories of the core would have left the exterior unsupported for those eight stories and caused it to buckle. The minimum resistance during buckling over an eight story column length would have been less than 5% of the column strength. The falling core would also be pulling the exterior inward, through the attached beams, so the exterior would essentially fall in free fall and it actually could experience a little higher acceleration than gravity due to a whip action from the already falling core.



See above answer. There is nothing strange about it. However, 0.75 seconds of a miniscule amount of acceleration above gravity would not explain residual resistance being overcome to retain freefall for the next 1.50 seconds. That is really a silly notion. The only way to get a symmetric free fall over eight stories is for the entire 24 column core to have been removed over eight stories. The mechanics are also right for it to include a slightly over free fall acceleration at the beginning due to the whip action of the already falling core.

The problem with accepting the NIST claim of a naturally collapsing interior (core) progressing from east to west is that the exterior of the building comes down over its full length and width simultaneously. There also wasn't any exterior deformation on the east side when they say it was collapsing first and then spread to the west. The core would have been removed starting in its center and moving outward to effect a pull-in and keep the fall somewhat tight. The difference in timing between inner and outer core columns being pulled would only have been fractions of a second. The core removal, starting at its center, is very likely to be what caused the horizontal kink in the north face as the collapse started.

The east penthouse being taken out by removing column 79 high in the building and eight stories of the entire core being removed to cause the full collapse shortly after can explain everything that is observed.
Click to expand...

"gut feeling - it can't happen that way - must be CD"

FTFY
 
gerrycan said:
Where about? You mean the building exterior ?
Click to expand...
Only questions, how does this fit your "new approach"?
http://911blogger.com/news/2014-03-07/being-smeared-911-truther-msm#comment-260973
How many people did you mislead with this method?

When will you explain your CD theory? You mean you don't have a theory? How long did it take to break Watergate?

Tony Szamboti said:
...

The east penthouse being taken out by removing column 79 high in the building and eight stories of the entire core being removed to cause the full collapse shortly after can explain everything that is observed.
Click to expand...
Fire did it. the realcddeal, is BS
 
Last edited:
Tony Szamboti said:
...
The east penthouse being taken out by removing column 79 high in the building and eight stories of the entire core being removed to cause the full collapse shortly after can explain everything that is observed.
Click to expand...

Except for motive, of course.
 
Tony Szamboti said:
Removal of eight stories of the core would have left the exterior unsupported for those eight stories and caused it to buckle. The minimum resistance during buckling over an eight story column length would have been less than 5% of the column strength. The falling core would also be pulling the exterior inward, through the attached beams, so the exterior would essentially fall in free fall and it actually could experience a little higher acceleration than gravity due to a whip action from the already falling core.
Click to expand...

Call it 80 columns, with 4 cutter charges per column per floor, minimum. That's ~2500 explosions happening in a very short space of time. Didn't happen, people would have noticed You're talking delusional claptrap.

That's your right, of course, but you still need to explain why anybody might go to such lengths and take such risks to destroy an inconsequential building. Oh, and how they would have proceeded if WTC7 hadn't been set on fire.
 
GlennB said:
Call it 80 columns, with 4 cutter charges per column per floor, minimum. That's ~2500 explosions happening in a very short space of time. Didn't happen, people would have noticed You're talking delusional claptrap.

That's your right, of course, but you still need to explain why anybody might go to such lengths and take such risks to destroy an inconsequential building. Oh, and how they would have proceeded if WTC7 hadn't been set on fire.
Click to expand...

There were 24 core columns in WTC 7.

The fires in the building were most likely due to arson to provide some sort of cover story for the collapse, as it seems impossible for the North Tower collapse occurring 350 feet away, with only about 4% of it aflame and collapsing with copious amounts of fire dousing gypsum dust, to have caused fires on ten floors of WTC 7. There also is no photographic evidence of the fires in WTC 7 until 12:15 PM (nearly two hours after the North Tower collapsed). The story is quite weak and I am surprised people are falling for it.
 
Last edited:
Tony Szamboti said:
There were 24 core columns in WTC 7.

The fires in the building were most likely due to arson to provide some sort of cover story for the collapse, as it seems impossible for the North Tower collapse occurring 350 feet away, with only about 4% of it aflame and collapsing with copious amounts of fire dousing gypsum dust, to have caused fires on ten floors of WTC 7. There also is no photographic evidence of the fires in WTC 7 until 12:15 PM (nearly two hours after the North Tower collapsed). The story is quite weak and I am surprised people are falling for it.
Click to expand...

When I light a long match, what percent of the material is aflame?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom