I found the missing Jolt.

MicahJava said:
The person in that video stated that you can clearly see WTC 7 leaning with the naked eye. Please provide evidence for that.
Click to expand...


How about this.

This is a screen grab from about a minute prior before the collapse of the EPH, looking for the final amount of lean before collapse initiation.

Remember that NIST estimates collapse initiation started about 6 seconds prior to the start of the collapse of the EPH.

picture.php



I rotated this screen grab to bring the longest, most defined vertical edge (the one marked "Ref Vertical") into a vertical position. Then I drew the red vertical line beside it (slightly offset so that you can see the parallelism).

That gave me a "true vertical".

I created a vertical line to the right of the western edge of WTC7. I also created the line parallel to the NW vertical corner of the building (slid slightly to the left of that edge in the image above.)

There is about a 2.5° tilt of the NW vertical corner of WTC7, prior to the internal collapses.

On the lower left of the image, I've transport vertical lines, parallel to the original, in order to verify that the "parallelism" holds true across the image, and is not the result of lens distortions.

The parallelism is very good.
Not perfect, but very good.

From image manipulation (looking for "best fits across all vertical lines"), I'd estimate the lean of WTC7 to be 2.5 ±0.2 at this time.
 
MicahJava said:
It is very strange that any person would try to predict such a thing in the first place, even if he was wrong. Are you saying he was right from sheer luck?
Click to expand...

I'm saying that it is EXTREMELY doubtful that anybody made any such prediction at all.

And absolutely nobody made any prediction with any sort of the certainty that you are (stupidly) suggesting.

I'm saying that, just like the myth that "the towers were designed to withstand jet impacts", this story grew after the fact.

There is absolutely zero way that any competent technical person would make any sort of prediction like that.

He'd say, "let me watch it for awhile, to see if the leaning stops, stays increasing at a constant rate, or accelerates. I'll keep you posted as I gather information."

There is absolutely ZERO doubt that the FDNY officials kept in touch with this guy as the afternoon progressed, getting updates.

Apparently, he had gathered enough information by the time that they ordered everyone out of, and back away from, the building, to suggest to him that the building was in danger of collapse.

And that's it.

There is no way for anyone to have predicted, at 11:30 AM, when the building would collapse.

And I don't believe that anyone did.

LOTS of stories grow, and morph, over time.

You, Micah, have not shown any new information about this.
The only thing that you've done is behave like the most incompetent reporter/researcher: assuming that a couple of very specific statements must be precisely, exactly true, as stated.

That is NOT the way the real world works.

And now, this little theory of yours, has become "your baby". That you will defend at all costs, no matter how baseless, or untenable, that defense becomes. Extracting these quotes, writing these posts, assuming that your throwing your made-up precision onto other people's casual statements, makes you look like a biased idiot.

If you've got the bit between your teeth on this absurd little anomaly, then start acting like a REAL researcher & start making phone calls to the people involved.

If you speak to them respectfully, and not like a Twoofer Dick, perhaps they'll talk to you.

If they hang up on you, you can blame all the previous Twoofer Dicks who have harassed them over the years.

Good luck. Let us know how it goes.
Take really, really good notes.
Stay away from leading questions.
__

PS. After you're done, you still have precisely zero evidence whatsoever, that WTC7 was brought down by CD.

You'll have to gather that evidence completely separately.
 
tfk said:
I'll go for this, if Tony wants to participate.
Click to expand...

Might it drive you insane?

Over several years he hasn't shied away from talking utter bilge when it suits him, so why would a restricted debate be any different?

Anyway ... it might be fun so good luck. I expect he'll insist on moving it to a different forum.
 
MicahJava said:
I never suggested they should "manhandle it upstairs", I was asking why the Siamese fittings weren't an option.
Click to expand...
How could that be an option? Do you even know what they are or figured the pressure needed to push the water to sufficient height to charge the standpipes of WTC7?

I'll give you a hint why the quote you used proves they did not have enough water. They reported the pumpers were "drawing a vacuum". This is very bad if you want to push water to great heights.
 
Last edited:
tfk said:
I'm saying that it is EXTREMELY doubtful that anybody made any such prediction at all.

And absolutely nobody made any prediction with any sort of the certainty that you are (stupidly) suggesting.

I'm saying that, just like the myth that "the towers were designed to withstand jet impacts", this story grew after the fact.

There is absolutely zero way that any competent technical person would make any sort of prediction like that.

He'd say, "let me watch it for awhile, to see if the leaning stops, stays increasing at a constant rate, or accelerates. I'll keep you posted as I gather information."

There is absolutely ZERO doubt that the FDNY officials kept in touch with this guy as the afternoon progressed, getting updates.

Apparently, he had gathered enough information by the time that they ordered everyone out of, and back away from, the building, to suggest to him that the building was in danger of collapse.

And that's it.

There is no way for anyone to have predicted, at 11:30 AM, when the building would collapse.

And I don't believe that anyone did.

LOTS of stories grow, and morph, over time.

You, Micah, have not shown any new information about this.
The only thing that you've done is behave like the most incompetent reporter/researcher: assuming that a couple of very specific statements must be precisely, exactly true, as stated.

That is NOT the way the real world works.

And now, this little theory of yours, has become "your baby". That you will defend at all costs, no matter how baseless, or untenable, that defense becomes. Extracting these quotes, writing these posts, assuming that your throwing your made-up precision onto other people's casual statements, makes you look like a biased idiot.

If you've got the bit between your teeth on this absurd little anomaly, then start acting like a REAL researcher & start making phone calls to the people involved.

If you speak to them respectfully, and not like a Twoofer Dick, perhaps they'll talk to you.

If they hang up on you, you can blame all the previous Twoofer Dicks who have harassed them over the years.

Good luck. Let us know how it goes.
Take really, really good notes.
Stay away from leading questions.
__

PS. After you're done, you still have precisely zero evidence whatsoever, that WTC7 was brought down by CD.

You'll have to gather that evidence completely separately.
Click to expand...

Actually he did predict that if the fires were unfought there was a (chance) the building (could collapse) in 5-6 hours after that the fires would die down, and the steel would cool reducing collapse probability. Give you a clue only one Engineer was on site at that date.
 
Dave Rogers said:
OK, imagine you're deciding whether to go into a building that's burning and has a huge gash down the front. Do you think:
(a) I just saw two bigger buildings than this collapse. I'm not going in there, and I'm not ordering my men in there, because this one looks pretty bad;
OR:
(b) This one wasn't hit by a plane, so I'm perfectly safe, because buildings only collapse when they get hit by planes and all this fire and structural damage is irrelevant?

Jesus. Truthers.

Dave
Click to expand...

It would seem like a lot of you guys have realized how crazy the engineer story really is, and have opted for the "lucky guess" theory.
 
tfk said:
How about this.

This is a screen grab from about a minute prior before the collapse of the EPH, looking for the final amount of lean before collapse initiation.

Remember that NIST estimates collapse initiation started about 6 seconds prior to the start of the collapse of the EPH.

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=176&pictureid=10775[/qimg]


I rotated this screen grab to bring the longest, most defined vertical edge (the one marked "Ref Vertical") into a vertical position. Then I drew the red vertical line beside it (slightly offset so that you can see the parallelism).

That gave me a "true vertical".

I created a vertical line to the right of the western edge of WTC7. I also created the line parallel to the NW vertical corner of the building (slid slightly to the left of that edge in the image above.)

There is about a 2.5° tilt of the NW vertical corner of WTC7, prior to the internal collapses.

On the lower left of the image, I've transport vertical lines, parallel to the original, in order to verify that the "parallelism" holds true across the image, and is not the result of lens distortions.

The parallelism is very good.
Not perfect, but very good.

From image manipulation (looking for "best fits across all vertical lines"), I'd estimate the lean of WTC7 to be 2.5 ±0.2 at this time.
Click to expand...

I'm really not seeing that same effect on all of the other videos of WTC 7's collapse. You used one still, how do we know it's not an illusion from the camera lens or something else?
 
tfk said:
I'm saying that it is EXTREMELY doubtful that anybody made any such prediction at all.

And absolutely nobody made any prediction with any sort of the certainty that you are (stupidly) suggesting.

I'm saying that, just like the myth that "the towers were designed to withstand jet impacts", this story grew after the fact.

There is absolutely zero way that any competent technical person would make any sort of prediction like that.

He'd say, "let me watch it for awhile, to see if the leaning stops, stays increasing at a constant rate, or accelerates. I'll keep you posted as I gather information."

There is absolutely ZERO doubt that the FDNY officials kept in touch with this guy as the afternoon progressed, getting updates.

Apparently, he had gathered enough information by the time that they ordered everyone out of, and back away from, the building, to suggest to him that the building was in danger of collapse.

And that's it.

There is no way for anyone to have predicted, at 11:30 AM, when the building would collapse.

And I don't believe that anyone did.

LOTS of stories grow, and morph, over time.

You, Micah, have not shown any new information about this.
The only thing that you've done is behave like the most incompetent reporter/researcher: assuming that a couple of very specific statements must be precisely, exactly true, as stated.

That is NOT the way the real world works.

And now, this little theory of yours, has become "your baby". That you will defend at all costs, no matter how baseless, or untenable, that defense becomes. Extracting these quotes, writing these posts, assuming that your throwing your made-up precision onto other people's casual statements, makes you look like a biased idiot.

If you've got the bit between your teeth on this absurd little anomaly, then start acting like a REAL researcher & start making phone calls to the people involved.

If you speak to them respectfully, and not like a Twoofer Dick, perhaps they'll talk to you.

If they hang up on you, you can blame all the previous Twoofer Dicks who have harassed them over the years.

Good luck. Let us know how it goes.
Take really, really good notes.
Stay away from leading questions.
__

PS. After you're done, you still have precisely zero evidence whatsoever, that WTC7 was brought down by CD.

You'll have to gather that evidence completely separately.
Click to expand...

Peter Hayden recalled almost the same thing when he was on the 2008 Conspiracy Files program: "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? 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."

I'm sure you are also aware of the handful of testimonies that say that the first evacuation of WTC 7 came around 5+ hours before it collapsed.

Shayam Sunder has also spoken about this unidentified engineer person.

I'm not holding out hope that FOIA requests of NIST's interviews will be granted, but if they are I'll post them.
 
MicahJava said:
I thought Barry just recalled seeing burning cars and bushes?
Click to expand...

He also stated the building was "very hot", so much that he was ready to attempt climbing out of the 8th floor window using a firehose. Firemen at the scene persuaded him out of it as the hose wouldn't have held him.
 
Last edited:
Axxman300 said:
Cruthers was the Incident Commander. To be blunt - God works for HIM until the incident is resolved.

Where you fail is when you second guess the judgement of hundreds of professionals - WHO WERE STANDING IN THE SHADOW OF WTC7 - some even venturing inside - and made a call on the side of caution.

You're alleging conspiracy where normal people and professional firefighters see decisive and pragmatic judgement.

I should throw in that among those people working the Pile at Ground Zero before and after 7 collapsed was the NYPD Bomb Squad.
Click to expand...

Information on these "hundreds of professionals"? Are you referring to any firefighter that was there? Also, nice card you played there.
 
Crazy Chainsaw said:
Actually he did predict that if the fires were unfought there was a (chance) the building (could collapse) in 5-6 hours after that the fires would die down, and the steel would cool reducing collapse probability. Give you a clue only one Engineer was on site at that date.
Click to expand...

What are you talking about?
 
MicahJava said:
It would seem like a lot of you guys have realized how crazy the engineer story really is, and have opted for the "lucky guess" theory.
Click to expand...

Unless you know the engineer, and what he actually said, that is he based the probability of collapse in 5-6 hours on the fuel load in the buildings not on
Physical damage to the building, after six hours the fires would not have produced enough heat to weaken the steel.
Some of us here have actually spoken with the engineer personally.
 
AJM8125 said:
He also stated the building was "very hot", so much that he was ready to attempt climb out of the 8th floor window using a firehose. Firemen at the scene persuaded him out of it as the hose wouldn't have held him.
Click to expand...

This goes back to the very charged debate on exactly how hot the WTC dust cloud was. Don't feel like doing that. All I can say is that Jennings is not a WTC 7 fire witness.
 
Last edited:
Crazy Chainsaw said:
Actually he did predict that if the fires were unfought there was a (chance) the building (could collapse) in 5-6 hours after that the fires would die down, and the steel would cool reducing collapse probability. Give you a clue only one Engineer was on site at that date.
Click to expand...

What can you show me about his original statement?
__

Here's my problem with the quote, as it is portrayed.

If I'm taking that measurement, and I the building has fires & unknown amounts of internal damage (but significant damage visible from the outside), and I know that all tall buildings are unique designs ...

... and I see from the transit measurements that the building is unstable ...

... and my best guess is 5 to 6 hours from now ...

... then there is absolutely no way that I'm going to tell anybody "I think that it'll collapse 5 to 6 hours from now."

Because some management dufus might report to somebody, "tfk said it's going to collapse between 5 & 6 hours from now." And based on that, some other dufus might decide, "well, let's fight the fire for another 3 hours. That'll give us a 2 hour margin to pull everyone out before it collapses."

I'm instead going to be REALLY clear, and say, "It might collapse any minute. It's unstable. But, if forced to make a guess, I'd guess 'sometime between 5 & 6 hours from now'."

I can easily see how the first part of the statement might be dropped in the re-telling of the story.

Now, perhaps I'm wrong about this.
Perhaps this guy has some tilt angle that his experience tells him is the critical angle. Perhaps this angle is the same for differing building heights (although I seriously doubt this). Perhaps he's got some chart of "critical angle vs. building height", although I kinda doubt this too.

Perhaps he was able to do some calculation of tilt rate, current angle & "time to reaching critical angle". But I doubt that, also.

Maybe he was going just by his gut.

But I believe it to be incredibly dangerous for him & for others to have said, "I think that it'll collapse between 5 & 6 pm."

Even if that is exactly what I thought would happen.

And I'm a guy who loves to take chances.
That's not one I'd take.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom