9/11: FDNY Member Says "Definitely" Bombs in Towers?

[Christopher7]

The Fire's explanation is correct. The columns (not sure where you get the 58 figure) failed progressively.

Reply) I disagree. I see them all starting to fall at the same time.


In some cases the onset of failure is obvious. For instance, did you read the helicopter pilot reports of the buckling of the north tower columns? Have you seen the close-up videos of the south tower just before it collapsed? It's clear that the structures are failing. Once the load can no longer be distributed among the undamaged columns, buckling ensues, and progresses very quickly. Gravity doesn't wait around.

The idea that the buildings should have toppled over is not supported by any structural engineer,

Reply) This is not rocket science, fire and structural damage to the south side of wtc7 could not cause the north side to fall at the same time (this seems to be the sticking point) steel frame buildings don't progressively collaps. As a matter of fact they don't collapse at all. There have been a few cases, i have heard, of steel frsme buildings paritally collapsing but no modern steel frame building (in the USA) has ever collapsed completely. (other than wtc1, 2, & 7)


anywhere, that I'm aware of. Do you know of any? The buildings were not solid structures, but were complex assemblies of thousands of interconnected parts, each of which had physical limitations. The WTC buildings weren't constructed like, and could not behave like, trees, as Judy Wood would like you to believe.

We take these issues seriously here. We take the time to present evidence that supports our arguments and that refutes yours. Please, when responding, address the evidence that's been presented. Saying that you think there were preplanted explosives in the buildings is not an argument, it's a belief. If you have evidence to support your claims, present it.

Reply) My evidence is the 4 min. video and common sense. And i assure you sir, i take this very seriously.

 

[The_Fire]

(reply).........Kinda looks like a total collapse to me.


What does ETA stand for?

I was not asking of evidence of how much of the structure had already collapsed. I asked what sources supported your claim that it was impossible for the WTC7 building to fall the way it did with only a partial portion of it's support structure collapsed (hence the "partial" collapse remark). Kindly answer that question.

 

[The_Fire]

BTW: If that video is your only evidence for your claim, you are in serious trouble with reality.

 

[Gravy]

Looking at wtc7 from several angles, it's clear that first a small section, then the center, then the outside walls (all 4 corners start down at the SAME TIME).

That "small section" you speak of is the east mechanical penthouse, and it's about 116x130 feet in area. It is, of course, connected to all the structural elements below it. The interior collapses on the lower floors (NIST believes that the transfer trusses on floors 5-7 were principally responsible) led to the collapse of the east penthouse, which began 8.2 seconds before global collapse ensued, then the west penthouse. With the main interior structural elements gone below, the roof had no choice but to fall, and to fall fast.

Again, I implore you to do your homework. NIST's interim report on WTC 7 is the place to start. I linked to this above. Here it is again. http://wtc.nist.gov/progress_report_june04/appendixl.pdf

This is what you would see in an 'implosion', a fine example of getting a bldg. to fall in on itself. There was some damage to surrounding buildings and it fell a little to the south, it didn't do any further damage to buildings 5 & 6 right accross the street.

Don't tell 30 West Broadway that. It will be very cross with you. It's not easy being under scaffolding for 5 years because of all the damage done by its big, mean neighbor, WTC 7.

Now, Christopher7, you're getting way, way ahead of yourself. I asked you above to address the evidence that's been presented to you. How about starting with the firemens' reports of the damage, fires, bulging, groaning, and expected collapse?

So, how do you reconcile these reports with your CD claim? I have asked this of CTs many, many, many times and do you know what? If you address the question you will be the first.

 

[gumboot]

That sounds like great debunking ammo for those who complain that the fires weren't hot enough. Where did you see that quote, Gumboot?

I have to apologise, I had the information second hand - it was from a NYT investigation. Unfortunately I don't have access to the article, as I don't subscribe.

However, I have FINALLY found a website that runs the article. It's a very interesting read anyway, because it goes into great detail about the emergency response. The NYT investigation was undertaken over six months, and includes transcripts from emergency communications as well as interviews with first responders.

The article is called Fatal Confusion

The article is hosted at firehouse.com

The relevant piece is:

Minutes after the south tower collapsed at the World Trade Center, police helicopters hovered near the remaining tower to check its condition. "About 15 floors down from the top, it looks like it's glowing red," the pilot of one helicopter, Aviation 14, radioed at 10:07 a.m. "It's inevitable."

So I was incorrect to say the roof itself was glowing red hot.

However, numerous sources, including the NIST report (NCSTAR 1-7), the 9/11 Commission Report, and a number of NYT articles (as well as original transcripts) indicate that the NYPD helicopters could not remain over the top of the buildings for very long because the heat coming off them was so intense it was causing the engine on their helicopter to overheat.

-Andrew

 

[Gravy]

Reply) My evidence is the 4 min. video and common sense. And i assure you sir, i take this very seriously.

You'll find that "common sense" doesn't count as evidence here, because it varies so much from person to person. For example, to me the idea that WTC 7 was brought down by explosives makes zero sense. That's why you must rely on evidence.

I've already addressed your evidence, and shown you that the collapse time is at least 13.5 seconds (seismic data shows approx. 18 seconds, indicating interior collapses). Please address my evidence.

 

[kookbreaker]

Reply) My evidence is the 4 min. video and common sense. And i assure you sir, i take this very seriously.

'Common Sense' at its best really does not tell you much about the nature of structures and structural failure.

Have you read the NIST preliminary report, or do you just want to watch videos?

 

[Gravy]

Now, Christopher7, you're getting way, way ahead of yourself. I asked you above to address the evidence that's been presented to you. How about starting with the firemens' reports of the damage, fires, bulging, groaning, and expected collapse?

So, how do you reconcile these reports with your CD claim? I have asked this of CTs many, many, many times and do you know what? If you address the question you will be the first.

Correction: as I mentioned above, several CTs have addressed my question by claiming that the FDNY evacuated the area hours before the collapse because they were "in on it."

 

[jon]

Have you seen the close-up videos of the south tower just before it collapsed? It's clear that the structures are failing. Once the load can no longer be distributed among the undamaged columns, buckling ensues, and progresses very quickly. Gravity doesn't wait around.

The idea that the buildings should have toppled over is not supported by any structural engineer, anywhere, that I'm aware of. Do you know of any? The buildings were not solid structures, but were complex assemblies of thousands of interconnected parts, each of which had physical limitations. The WTC buildings weren't constructed like, and could not behave like, trees, as Judy Wood would like you to believe.

Good point. Also, Eagar and Musso have argued that

It has been suggested that it was fortunate that the WTC did not tip over onto other buildings surrounding the area. There are several points that should be made. First, the building is not solid; it is 95 percent air and, hence, can implode onto itself. Second, there is no lateral load, even the impact of a speeding aircraft, which is sufficient to move the center of gravity one hundred feet to the side such that it is not within the base footprint of the structure. Third, given the near free-fall collapse, there was insufficient time for portions to attain significant lateral velocity. To summarize all of these points, a 500,000 t structure has too much inertia to fall in any direction other than nearly straight down.

I'm not an engineer, but that seem a pretty sensible explanation of why the buildings would have fallen (relatively) straight down.

 

[Christopher7]

Reply

Reply) I have read a few quotes from the NIST report and as i rember they coulden't say for sure what caused wtc7 to collapse.
I have dial-up (50kbps) and downloading the whole report is not practical. Is it possible to find just the part about wtc7?


quote=Gravy;1857815]That "small section" you speak of is the east mechanical penthouse, and it's about 116x130 feet in area. It is, of course, connected to all the structural elements below it. The interior collapses on the lower floors (NIST believes that the transfer trusses on floors 5-7 were principally responsible) led to the collapse of the east penthouse,

Reply) I'm a contractor and i understand construction. A failure in the center will not cause all the exterior walls to fall, much less at the same time. The only way that can happen is if all the exterior supports fail at the same time.
You don't need a weather man to know which way the wind blows.
And i don't need a engineer to tell me what i can see with my own eyes.


which began 8.2 seconds before global collapse ensued, then the west penthouse. With the main interior structural elements gone below, the roof had no choice but to fall, and to fall fast.

Again, I implore you to do your homework. NIST's interim report on WTC 7 is the place to start. I linked to this above. Here it is again. wtc.nist.gov/progress_report_june04/appendixl.pdf

Don't tell 30 West Broadway that. It will be very cross with you. It's not easy being under scaffolding for 5 years because of all the damage done by its big, mean neighbor, WTC 7.

Reply) It was not a perfect implosion but it did fall mainly in it's own footprint.
(great pic. i didn't have that one yet)


Now, Christopher7, you're getting way, way ahead of yourself. I asked you above to address the evidence that's been presented to you. How about starting with the firemens' reports of the damage, fires, bulging, groaning, and expected collapse?
So, how do you reconcile these reports with your CD claim? I have asked this of CTs many, many, many times and do you know what? If you address the question you will be the first.[/quote]

Reply) I believe the firemens' reports. That explains the collapse of the front of the building but there was little or no sign of fire arround the base of the north side of the building.

The 4 min video i mentioned has several pictures of a section of wtc7's framework leaning up aginst the building next door. The steel i beams have been cut midspan, this is consistant with a CD.

 

[kookbreaker]

Reply) I have read a few quotes from the NIST report and as i rember they coulden't say for sure what caused wtc7 to collapse.
I have dial-up (50kbps) and downloading the whole report is not practical. Is it possible to find just the part about wtc7?

That is both shamful and pathetic. If you can download videos to watch you can sure as heck download a pdf file.

This is sloppiness of the CTers at its best. You are happy to come to a completely different conclusion than trained experts around on the world on the basis of nothing.

 

[Gravy]

Reply) I have read a few quotes from the NIST report and as i rember they coulden't say for sure what caused wtc7 to collapse.
I have dial-up (50kbps) and downloading the whole report is not practical. Is it possible to find just the part about wtc7?

As a contractor, you should know the value of reading plans. This now the fourth time you've been asked to read the NIST interim report on WTC 7. It's 5 megs.

http://wtc.nist.gov/progress_report_june04/appendixl.pdf

Let us know when you do.

 

[Christopher7]

Time

You'll find that "common sense" doesn't count as evidence here, because it varies so much from person to person. For example, to me the idea that WTC 7 was brought down by explosives makes zero sense. That's why you must rely on evidence.

I've already addressed your evidence, and shown you that the collapse time is at least 13.5 seconds (seismic data shows approx. 18 seconds, indicating interior collapses). Please address my evidence.

Reply) I accept the seismic data and the 13.5 sec from the time the penthouse started falling. I've heard 6.5 sec. from the time the outside walls started falling. What's your take on that?

 

[gumboot]

Can anyone confirm how the load of WTC 7 was distributed, in terms of proportion core to exterior?

I know WTC1 and 2 were a little unusual in that the exterior carried a significant amount of the weight, was WTC7 the same? Or was weight carried primarily by the core?

I'm a little out of wack because here in New Zealand a slightly different version of the WTC1 and 2 style construction has been pretty much standard for years and years as it is better at absorbing earthquake energy (and boy do we have lots of earthquakes!).

-Andrew

 

[Gravy]

Reply) I accept the seismic data and the 13.5 sec from the time the penthouse started falling. I've heard 6.5 sec. from the time the outside walls started falling. What's your take on that?

I've heard 6.6 according to Steven Jones. (Don't forget that tenth: it matters.) I haven't seen a video in which the end of the collapse isn't obscured by smoke and dust, nor do I know exactly at what height the top of the pile was. I assume that Jones and his students measured the rate of acceleration of the visible part of the collapse and extrapolated from there, but I may be wrong about that.

 

[Mancman]

Reply) I accept the seismic data and the 13.5 sec from the time the penthouse started falling. I've heard 6.5 sec. from the time the outside walls started falling. What's your take on that?

You'd expect a collapse just slightly longer than freefall for a 47 storey building failing at the 5-7th floor. What is there to resist all of that falling mass? The 5 floors at the bottom could slow down those 40 falling floors by a fraction of a second perhaps, but what else?

 

[Pardalis]

Reply) My evidence is the 4 min. video and common sense. And i assure you sir, i take this very seriously.

Have you read Gravy's replies so far, especially post #83?

I know you replied to each of them, but have you read any of them?

 

[Pardalis]

BTW Christopher7, you really need to learn how to use the quotes better.

 

[TK0001]

The steel i beams have been cut midspan, this is consistant with a CD.

Yes it is. So, who do you suppose cut the beams? And when? Were they pre-cut months before, when they cleverly guessed that debris from the sure-to-fall towers (man, I bet they were sweating when the drones flew into the towers, they had a lot of delicate explosive charges up there that had to stay intact in order for their sinister plan to be carried out!) would crash into WTC 7, causing just the right amount of damage (not enough to actually cause the building to collapse, of course, but just enough to provide a semi-legitimate excuse for it's eventual controlled demolition with the latest rage in CD technology - silent explosives!) for the firemen to clear the building and "pull it", of course to help out Silverstein commit insurance fraud on the grandest scale ever?

How revealing. I'm glad I logged in today.

 

[Christopher7]

Gravy) I assume that Jones and his students measured the rate of acceleration of the visible part of the collapse and extrapolated from there, but I may be wrong about that.


Chris) I agree. 6.6 sec. is as close an estamite as can be made.