I found the missing Jolt.

[Crazy Chainsaw]

I am assuming your response here is in reference to someone claiming that WTC 7 was leaning 2 degrees on the west side before it collapsed.

2 degrees on a 610 foot tall building has the roof shifted 21 feet away from the base in the vertical. If that actually happened it would be very observable. I have never seen any photos or video showing this.

I also can't imagine a mechanism that could cause it except for a large number of columns failing on that side and that would cause other problems. When is this said to have happened?

1 minute prior to collapse 2.5 degrees, it had been slowly increasing in lean for hours before collapse if you had ever talked with any of the fire fighters you would have known that.
But of course they were all in on it with the Bushes, and the victims families.
So why ask freaking questions of all the shills on the site when the buildings fell?
Why use reason and logic when you can just make up your own fantasy?

 

[MicahJava]

Every truther has a personal holy grail. When it vanishes, they get another until they manage to find one that is relatively well protected from criticism. For example, Heiwa's is that 10% of a building can't crush the remaining 90% of it, and gives a damn about what any engineer said.

"Your" engineer is not a holy grail. You don't seem to even consider the possibility that the engineer was lucky with the time estimation, which is the most plausible explanation. You shoehorn that engineer's declaration as evidence of foreknowledge, because your belief requires you to do so. When looked from the distance, with more perspective, that's just a mostly irrelevant data point, that merely tells us that it was not unexpected that the building would fall, unlike what truthers have been saying all this time.

Indeed, your position tells us more about the truther's SOP than anything else: they claimed that it was a conspiracy because no one expected it because high rises have never collapsed blah blah, and now that it's proven that the collapse was expected, it's a conspiracy because everyone expected it.



Hogwash. "100% certainty"? No way.

It had happened twice that day. It was a reasonable expectation. No one was 100% certain.

Nope. Everybody was expecting a total, catastrophic collapse of WTC 7. The Twin Towers normalized it, and only in retrospect can we wonder why they were expecting something like that to happen to a completely different building that was damaged in a completely different way. Have you even read the material that you fancy yourself a debunker of?


There are even a couple of instances in which people may have been confused about why there was so much certainty, so they thought that maybe a controlled demolition was being planned for safety purposes.

On a side-note, today at work I met someone who said they owned a construction and demolition company. I asked "explosive demolition? are you an expert?", "yeah, plastic explosives wired up to buildings" she replied. I said "If i could ask a strange question, what's your opinion on Building Seven?". She laughed and said "They always talk about Seven. Seven is a lucky number, but on 9-1-1, it wasn't. I remember I was in jail when 9-1-1 happened". I then asked "Do you think Building Seven might've been one?". She smiled and nodded 'yes'.

 

[NoahFence]

I am assuming your response here is in reference to someone claiming that WTC 7 was leaning 2 degrees on the west side before it collapsed.

2 degrees on a 610 foot tall building has the roof shifted 21 feet away from the base in the vertical. If that actually happened it would be very observable. I have never seen any photos or video showing this.

I also can't imagine a mechanism that could cause it except for a large number of columns failing on that side and that would cause other problems. When is this said to have happened?

Here's a little help from your buddy Noah. It was WAY back two pages in this same thread.

 

[beachnut]

...
On a side-note, today at work I met someone who said they owned a construction and demolition company. ... She smiled and nodded 'yes'.

Wow, another expert who believes in silent explosives. Cool. You got zero evidence.

About the aircraft was a ruse? Do you believe Tony, and how did the aircraft ruse work?

Who did your version of 9/11? Got some evidence yet?

 

[MicahJava]

The firefighter claimed that he could see the building leaning. From what vantage point do you think he was seeing it? Were the firefighters high in the air in news helicopters blocks away taking photographs, or were they near the base of the building looking up at it?

It would be much easier to see any leaning, curvature, or other distortion from the operational zones near the base of the building than from landscape photographs, for the same reason it's easier to see the crown (non-straightness) in a two-by-four by sighting along its length.

If you can't see the lean in photographs (even though it's there and has been definitively pointed out), that just doesn't matter. Sorry.

Too bad the firefighters in that area were too busy maintaining a safe zone and searching for their hundreds of (at that time presumed) trapped brothers, instead of taking better pictures. How inconsiderate of them.

It takes a special kind of person to not realize that any significant leaning of WTC 7 can be identified and corroborated by close study of the photographic evidence we already have. Combine that with your obnoxious shoehorning of dead firefighters and you have you. There are plenty of adequate pictures of WTC 7 throughout the day. Tfk posted one unsoured picture and claimed that the west side can be measured as leaning 2 degrees. I wondered if that could be a photographic anomaly and asked for corroborating evidence with any of the other several shots of WTC 7. Tfk and NoahFence threw a fit and acted like I was in denial when really I'm just skeptical.

 

[MicahJava]

Wow, another expert who believes in silent explosives. Cool. You got zero evidence.

Explosives are just one of many ways to remove structural components of a building at will.

 

[NoahFence]

It takes a special kind of person to not realize that any significant leaning of WTC 7 can be identified and corroborated by close study of the photographic evidence we already have. Combine that with your obnoxious shoehorning of dead firefighters and you have you. There are plenty of adequate pictures of WTC 7 throughout the day. Tfk posted one unsoured picture and claimed that the west side can be measured as leaning 2 degrees. I wondered if that could be a photographic anomaly and asked for corroborating evidence with any of the other several shots of WTC 7. Tfk and NoahFence threw a fit and acted like I was in denial when really I'm just skeptical.

Skeptical.
Uh huh.
I'm skeptical that you even know what that word means.

 

[NoahFence]

Explosives are just one of many ways to remove structural components of a building at will.

Yes. Fire is another way.
But we're not talking about buildings. We're talking about one specific building. And the fact that fire caused it to fail, and that CD in any of these buildings on 9/11 is literally the most stupid idea in human history, given the obvious circumstances of the day.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Here's a little help from your buddy Noah. It was WAY back two pages in this same thread.

I don't think that is a tilt to the west. I believe it is perspective. The one way to know is to look at the horizontal roofline. If the west wall had been tilted to the west by 2.5 degrees as claimed then the roofline at that corner would have been tilted down that much. It isn't. I looked through frame by frame from seconds before and after collapse.

What you can actually see is the upper part of the west side start tilting ever so slightly to the east as it goes down. That would be expected in an implosion as the core goes first pulling everything inward. The rubble pile is proof that happened also as the exterior is laying on top of a mound which is higher towards center.

 

[ozeco41]

To clarify, most of the firefighters arrived at the WTC wondering how they were going to fight the blaze so high up. They have a lot of training, and had responded to emergencies in the Towers many times before, but in those cases they had working elevators, and the problems were localized, and to my knowledge there were no fires inside of the towers.

In the cases of WTC 1 & WTC2, even if there was a risk of collapse, there were people trapped above the fire, and rescue is job one. It wasn't until WTC2 came down that the order was given by the FDNY for it's crews to withdraw from WTC1. After the second tower came down the overriding concern was safety for the remaining firefighters, so WTC7 was left to burn.

By the afternoon I'm sure they thought more buildings than 7 would collapse too.

I apologise for explaining the obvious.

No apology needed - I fully comprehend. BUT I'm sure that many members including our resident trolls would benefit from your details. I have only been giving the brief summary.

My background includes both Emergency Management and Regulatory oversight of high rise services plumbing/hydraulics.

Naturally I'm not familiar with the FDNY SOPs - I've never worked with them or in America. But NYC specifics aside all that you say and much more that we could both elaborate is fully in line with the AU protocols/practices that I have worked with/alongside/in support of.

And "relay pumping" using hand portable equipment was one of the first things I though about when I originally got serious with analysing 9/11 WTC Collapse events. Had to be since rescue of the trapped was #1 priority and gaining access/egress would demand local fire mitigation at least.

It's the natural response for any emergency manager - quickly scope out the challenges as if you were the on-site commander.

I still have the habit - drive school buses as a retirement hobby job and daily traverse a local rural road - barely 2 lanes wide - which is a risk for head on collisions between impatient car drivers speeding past the bus at ~130kph towards oncoming vehicles. I still exercise the brain through my IAs if something did happen. Call it "What if'ing" . (What would I need to do if the worst......?)

'

 

[NoahFence]

I don't think that is a tilt to the west. I believe it is perspective. The one way to know is to look at the horizontal roofline. If the west wall had been tilted to the west the roofline at that corner would have been tilted down. It isn't. I looked through frame by frame from seconds before and after collapse.

What you can actually see is the upper part of the west side start tilting to the east as it goes down. That would be expected in an implosion as the core goes first pulling everything inward. The rubble pile is proof that happened also as the exterior is laying on top of a mound which is higher towards center.

Amazingly wrong.

Best and brightest?

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Amazingly wrong.

Best and brightest?

If you go along with your friend (tfk) then you also believe this was happening before the internal collapse. Is that right?

Can you explain how a 610 foot tall building could have tilted to the west by 2.5 degrees without starting to fall?

 

[NoahFence]

If you go along with your friend (tfk) then you also believe this was happening before the internal collapse. Is that right?

Can you explain how a 610 foot tall building could have tilted to the west by 2.5 degrees without starting to fall?

It can't.

And what do you know? It didn't. Strange, that.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

It can't.

And what do you know? It didn't. Strange, that.

tfk says the tilt happened before the internal collapse and that had to happen before the exterior fell, so he is saying nothing had fallen yet when he claims the 2.5 degree tilt to the west was occurring. You don't agree with that?

 

[Crazy Chainsaw]

If you go along with your friend (tfk) then you also believe this was happening before the internal collapse. Is that right?

Can you explain how a 610 foot tall building could have tilted to the west by 2.5 degrees without starting to fall?

I just layered a single point prospective grid on the photo in Question the roof line is bowed, any Idea what's is causing the bow along with the 3.7 degree lean from strait?
It is not a camera distortion, by the way I checked for that, and it is not perspective.
Those are all easy for an artist with any talent to verify Tony DA.

Single point prospective has been used for centuries.

 

[TJM]

If you go along with your friend (tfk) then you also believe this was happening before the internal collapse. Is that right?

Can you explain how a 610 foot tall building could have tilted to the west by 2.5 degrees without starting to fall?

I'd say if it's leaning, it's starting to fall.

 

[thedopefishlives]

tfk says the tilt happened before the internal collapse and that had to happen before the exterior fell, so he is saying nothing had fallen yet when he claims the 2.5 degree tilt to the west was occurring. You don't agree with that?

You seem to think the interior of WTC7 was clean and pristine up until the moment it fell over. I don't think any of us are saying that.

 

[Crazy Chainsaw]

If you go along with your friend (tfk) then you also believe this was happening before the internal collapse. Is that right?

Can you explain how a 610 foot tall building could have tilted to the west by 2.5 degrees without starting to fall?

Do you want me to explain it to you? It is called movement, that does not break the connections with the Facade. The facade and the rest of the building were applying a resisting force though the connections, when those connections failed so did the building.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

I'd say if it's leaning, it's starting to fall.

I would say so also, but that isn't what tfk claims in his post.

 

[DGM]

I'm not really interested in any lean. I'm wondering how hundreds of explosive charges could avoid audio detection.

"Truthers", explain that and I'll be impressed.