Some simple Tower 7 questions

[jaydeehess]

If wires were hanging from the ceiling then the ceiling was indeed NOT intact otherwise those wires, which are usually affixed to the ceiling, would not be hanging!

The statement "from the ceiling" simply means they were hanging from above.

"no heavy debris in the lobby" does seem to refute the heavy damage that Boyle refers to but it is quite possible that the part of the lobby observed did not have heavy debris visible in the smoke and dust. It is also unlikely that Boyle refers to the damage in the SW corner since due to smoke and dust he would not be able to see that from where he was or if he did he would not see it well. Besides you do not explain why it is that you require Boyle to be in error rather than the FF who says "no heavy debris". Boyle is much more explicit in his description but you choose to use the more ambiguous statement of the other FF. Why??

Boyle However is not the only one who describes damage to the central portion of #7.

The elevator car was knocked north, from the shaft. The elevators were in the central part of the building, not along the south edge. Something had to penetrate into the central part of the building, something fairly massive, to do this. Can you think of a way for it to do this withouit leaving a trace on the outside of the building?

 

[aggle-rithm]

Bell: All the videos show WTC 1 comming straight down. Ive never heard anyone say anything different.
Your third photo is iteresting in that it shows pieces of WTC 7 outer frame work sticking out of the wall of WFC 3.
Can gravity alone eject these huge pieces of steel 400' laterally with enough force to pierce WFC 3 ?

Many of the steel components on the outside bent, then broke in the middle of the elastic phase of the distortion, releasing a huge amount of potential energy. This was more than enough to sling huge chunks of steel a great distance.

Remember, you can't use common sense here, as 110-story skyscrapers falling is not a common occurance.

 

[Gamolon]

Well, if I see a sceleton on the ground. I don't need a doctors opinion to determine if that person is dead or not.

That's easy too easy Pagan.

How about if you saw a body lying on the ground motionless. Would you automatically assume the person was dead and walk away, or would you need to investigate further? Sleeping perhaps?

What about a body that had blood seeping from the side of the head. Would you assume that the person is dead? If that person was dead, would you assume that they died from a blow to the head, only to find out from the autopsy that they actually died from a heart attack.

Looks can be deceiving you know.

 

[HeyLeroy]

That's easy too easy Pagan.

How about if you saw a body lying on the ground motionless. Would you automatically assume the person was dead and walk away, or would you need to investigate further? Sleeping perhaps?

What about a body that had blood seeping from the side of the head. Would you assume that the person is dead? If that person was dead, would you assume that they died from a blow to the head, only to find out from the autopsy that they actually died from a heart attack.

Looks can be deceiving you know.

If there's blood flowing, there must be a heartbeat present.

 

[jaydeehess]

Many of the steel components on the outside bent, then broke in the middle of the elastic phase of the distortion, releasing a huge amount of potential energy. This was more than enough to sling huge chunks of steel a great distance.

Remember, you can't use common sense here, as 110-story skyscrapers falling is not a common occurance.

Indeed!
It seems that many CTs fail to realize the scale of things. The columns went 350' but what height did they originate from? If they came from 350' above the point where they first hit the WFC 3 for instance, then that would be a 45⁰ angle and thus a greater horizontal velocity would be required. But if WFC 3 was hit at the 35th floor(approx 350 feet agl) that would mean that the impacting column came from 700' agl or approx the 70th floor of the tower. The north tower began its collapse at about 200 feet above that and given that any column ejected at that point would have more time (approx 3.5 seconds more) to travel away from the tower it is more likely that any column that travelled farther than others came from that level or higher.

There simply is no other collapse that has happened anywhere on Earth that could possibly match this one. In order for any collapse dynamics to be analogous it would have to include a collapse initiation point 10 or more stories below the top of the building, the collapse initiation would have to occur high enough above ground to enable a column that is ejected at the initiation level to travel a significant distance horizontally(if the initiation point is only on the 5th floor for example then the column will only travel about 120 feet it it exits at 48 MPH.), it would have to be a tube in tube design, it would have to be similarily sized in width and breadth since the energy available is directly related to the mass above the initiation point, and collapse initiation would have to occur similarily.

So what we are then looking for is a tube in tube steel column design approximatly the same width as the WTC towers, that collapses starting at least 10 stories below the top and several times that distance from the ground. that would mean a building probably no less than 40 stories that collapses starting between the 20th and 30th floor and which is comparably sized to the WTC towers. However even at that it will not be directly analogous since if it is not 110 stories then it will not require the same sized (and therefore less weight) columns.

There simply is no such beast on the planet.

 

[jaydeehess]

Well, if I see a sceleton on the ground. I don't need a doctors opinion to determine if that person is dead or not.

The only analogy this has to the collapses is that upon seeing a huge amount of building material rubble on the ground and no skyscraper where once there was , one can deduce that the building collapsed. Seeing rubble on the ground does not give you any knowledge about how that came to be just as seeing a skeleton on the ground gives you no idea how the person died.

To determine either how the person died or how the building collapsed one needs to do a detalied autopsy. So far there has been no detailed study of the collapses done by any CT person or organization. On the other hand NIST did study the events leading to collapse (impact and fire) and the properties of the steel of the building in fire in detail and came up with a valid hypothesis for collapse initiation. NIST then states that the energy contained in the falling upper section was more than could be halted by the relatively intact portion of the building below the initial collapse point.

Has there been an FEA (or other computer modelling) done of the WTC towers by the CT's? No, there has not. Has there been any testing of similarily dimensioned steel in fires by the CT's? No, there has not.

 

[jaydeehess]

Further to :"Has there been an FEA (or other computer modelling) done of the WTC towers by the CT's? No, there has not."

Has there been any other valid modelling(chicken wire cages do not count) of the impact and fire damage to the towers, done by CT's? No, there has not.

 

[Christopher7]

If wires were hanging from the ceiling then the ceiling was indeed NOT intact otherwise those wires, which are usually affixed to the ceiling, would not be hanging!
The statement "from the ceiling" simply means they were hanging from above.

The firemen said "from the celing" they didnt say "from above". Wires and ducts are run above a dropped or falce celing and can be dislodged and left hanging.

no heavy debris in the lobby" does seem to refute the heavy damage that Boyle refers to but it is quite possible that the part of the lobby observed did not have heavy debris visible in the smoke and dust.

Their statement was clear "No heavy debris was observed in the lobby area as the building was exited, primarily white dust coating and black wires hanging from the celing........."
There is no mention of smoke or dust in the air.
The damage depicted in the NIST report would have virtually desrtoyed the lobby and left a lot of heavy debris.

It is also unlikely that Boyle refers to the damage in the SW corner since due to smoke and dust he would not be able to see that from where he was or if he did he would not see it well.

The fires took a while to develop [Hayden]. Captain Boyle's observation was made arround noon.

Besides you do not explain why it is that you require Boyle to be in error rather than the FF who says "no heavy debris". Boyle is much more explicit in his description but you choose to use the more ambiguous statement of the other FF. Why??

Theres nothing ambiguous about "no heavy debris in the lobby... wires hanging from the celing" or "...ripped steel out from between the third and the sixth floors..." [If there was a 20 story hole, Chief Fellini would have said so] and "the only damage to the 9th floor facade was at the SW corner"
There are 3 unambiguous statements making it clear that:

There was NO 10 story hole in the middle [lobby area] of WTC 7

Boyle However is not the only one who describes damage to the central portion of #7.
The elevator car was knocked north, from the shaft. The elevators were in the central part of the building, not along the south edge. Something had to penetrate into the central part of the building, something fairly massive, to do this. Can you think of a way for it to do this withouit leaving a trace on the outside of the building?

Whatever it was [steel beam?] went thru the hole in the 14th floor perhaps.


None of the firefighters are in error.
Therefore: Captian Boyle was talking about the SW corner.

 

[Christopher7]

Here are some details of steel fracture:

http://mot.vuse.vanderbilt.edu/mse150/Fracture/Charpy.htm
http://newsdesk.inl.gov/press_releases/2001/11-15steel_fractures.htm
http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=16250276
http://stinet.dtic.mil/oai/oai?&verb=getRecord&metadataPrefix=html&identifier=AD0256119

Point made

Im going to have to properly qualify "steel bends, it doesnt just break off"
from now on

Curse you Red Barron

Have stress fractures ever been a problem is hi rise buildings ?

I dont think they were a factor here.

 

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Anyone have a subscription to APS?
http://prola.aps.org/abstract/RMP/v17/i1/p20_1

 

[jaydeehess]

The firemen said "from the celing" they didnt say "from above". Wires and ducts are run above a dropped or falce celing and can be dislodged and left hanging.

Their statement was clear "No heavy debris was observed in the lobby area as the building was exited, primarily white dust coating and black wires hanging from the celing........."
There is no mention of smoke or dust in the air.
The damage depicted in the NIST report would have virtually desrtoyed the lobby and left a lot of heavy debris.

The fires took a while to develop [Hayden]. Captain Boyle's observation was made arround noon.

Theres nothing ambiguous about "no heavy debris in the lobby... wires hanging from the celing" or "...ripped steel out from between the third and the sixth floors..." [If there was a 20 story hole, Chief Fellini would have said so] and "the only damage to the 9th floor facade was at the SW corner"
There are 3 unambiguous statements making it clear that:

There was NO 10 story hole in the middle [lobby area] of WTC 7

Whatever it was [steel beam?] went thru the hole in the 14th floor perhaps.


None of the firefighters are in error.
Therefore: Captian Boyle was talking about the SW corner.

At best you can say that Boyle's statement about the hole in the "middle" of the south face is in error. On the other hand it seems only Boyle was asked to clarify his statement and he explicitly states "in the middle". You do concede that something massive hit the 14th floor and may have been what knocked the elevator car out of its shaft. So where is your problem with understanding that some massive piece of WTC 1 caused havoc in the central portion of the building? Such steel could easily have been travelling at 50 to 100 MPH when it hit and easily weighed many tons. Take D7 Caterpillar tractor and drop it from several hundred feet onto a dozen buildings one at a time and see if it causes major damage. (you need to do it to several buildings to truly understand what the effect will be)Its expensive but hey, CT's don't have a problem with asking for very expensive tests.

Given that large pieces made it as far as the Winter Garden to the west it is no great mystery that some would have made it to WTC 7 to the north of tower 1 and no great suprise that this would have caused damage to the truss system at the south side of the former Con-ed bldg. FF's were withdrawn from the building early one and the fires developed and further damage ensued. If that further damage was in any way also affecting the load carrying structure near the original impact damaged area(again not unusual) then combined with other damage , the SW corner for eg., one would expect that any collapse would begin in the central and southern portion of the building OR the SW corner.

The computer sims that NIST ran for WTC 7 show that the collapse sequence observed from the north fits a profile of the loss of certain columns under the penthouse. The seismic data shows activity before the penthouse falls through the roof. There is ample evidence that the cause of the collapse was the loss of load bearing column below the penthouse which caused it and the heavy mechanical equipment in it to fall through the roof and no reason to expect that they would stop falling until they had made it to the basement taking out and damaging other columns on the way down which initiated the horizontal progression of the collapse evidenced by the screen wall and other structures on the roof falling through and the kink in the building facade which indicates internal collapse. With much of the internal structure completely compromised the outer walls then fall down and inward(for the most part).

IF, if, if ,if there was any explosive demolition it would have then had to be on the column below the penthouse at about the 5th floor level therefore mimicing the computer sim that NIST ran. But oooh no, does any CT claim explosives in the exact place that NIST shows is the most likely point of initial failure? Not a chance. Instead we are told that there were explosives, "just look at the 'squib' going off 40 floors up". This underlines the fact that no CT can bring themselves to actually believe a team of structural engineers that did extensive work on this solely because they were doing so for a gov't agency. Instead they must drag up all manner of ridiculous assertions with absolutly NO evidence to back them up.

If, if, if ,if , explosives were used what evidence is there that they were? No reports of explosives being loaded into it, no video evidence of explosives going off where they would have to in order to cause the events seen. Please tell me again what evidence you think there is that explosives were used in WTC 7.

 

[Christopher7]

At best you can say that Boyle's statement about the hole in the "middle" of the south face is in error.

No. Im saying that the interpretation is wrong.

On the other hand it seems only Boyle was asked to clarify his statement and he explicitly states "in the middle".

The middle of the SW corner, "about a third of it,... right in the middle of it" [vertically]

You do concede that something massive hit the 14th floor and may have been what knocked the elevator car out of its shaft. So where is your problem with understanding that some massive piece of WTC 1 caused havoc in the central portion of the building?

A single steel beam or a beam section could have knocked the elevators into the hallway, but whatever it was, it did not damage the 9th floor facade or leave heavy debris in the lobby.

To be objective we must give equal weight to all the eyewitness statements.
You cannot ignor 3 eyewitness statements that are in conflict with a 20 story hole in the lobby area.

 

[defaultdotxbe]

No. Im saying that the interpretation is wrong.

how would you interpret "there had to be a hole 20 stories tall in the building"

or "It was a huge hole."

 

[Christopher7]

how would you interpret "there had to be a hole 20 stories tall in the building"

or "It was a huge hole."

The interview was 8 or 9 months after 9/11. (?)

Chief Fellini said there was damage between the 3rd and the 6th floors.

Captain Boyle must have been talking about the SW corner.

 

[jaydeehess]

A single steel beam or a beam section could have knocked the elevators into the hallway, but whatever it was, it did not damage the 9th floor facade or leave heavy debris in the lobby.

,,,,,,,and in damaging the elevator it certainly could have also taken out some of the building's structural components OR another large piece could have done it. Obviously large pieces did reach WTC 7, you admit as much when you admit that the elevator was damaged. The SW corner damage indicates how much damage can be done by such falling mass. Why is it so very difficult for you to believe that other structural damage was done to the building that was not seen by the few people who were in the building following the collapse of the towers? Almost all of the tenents left the building after the fall of the south tower. Not long after the fall of the north tower(at which time the bulk of FF's left were trying to find their buddies in the rubble) the few FF's that did go into WTC 7 were told to get out and no one went in after that.

 

[aggle-rithm]

The firemen said "from the celing" they didnt say "from above". Wires and ducts are run above a dropped or falce celing and can be dislodged and left hanging.

"The ceiling is intact!"

"Of course, it's now on the floor..."

 

[aggle-rithm]

Christopher7,

On 9/11, many people were killed by falling debris.

These people were NOT hit by airplanes, yet they died anyway.

By the same logic you're using with building 7, we must suspect the US government and/or Larry Silverstein of poisoning/shooting/garroting them.

After all, we haven't seen photos of their injuries, so they couldn't have been that bad.

 

[aggle-rithm]

To be objective we must give equal weight to all the eyewitness statements.
You cannot ignor 3 eyewitness statements that are in conflict with a 20 story hole in the lobby area.

Given the unreliability of eyewitness statements, I would say we could safely ignore any statement that is in conflict with the evidence.

 

[jaydeehess]

Given the unreliability of eyewitness statements, I would say we could safely ignore any statement that is in conflict with the evidence.

I am willing to accept the possibility that Boyle was refering to the SW corner damage though by the same measure C7 should be as willing to assume that the others were incorrect and Boyle was refering to the central portion of the south face(in which case only the extent of the damage varies between accounts that C7 acknowledges was transcribed well after 9/11).

On the other hand, given that there was extensive damage to the SW corner and that there was damage done to the central area of WTC 7 which is evidenced by the ejection of an elevator car that was said to have ended up to the north of the shaft, it is not a leap of reasoning to believe that there was damage done to a structural column at the south half of the building which is a cantilever system designed to transfer loads from the newer part of the building that was constructed over the Con-ed substation. That there were fires is also not in dispute. Had damage occured to the columns in one area and fires developed in that area then the remaining column support or bracing would also be expected to have lost its fire retardant layer when the impact happened. Thus that remaining support would be subject to loss of strength due to heating/buckling/twisting. furthermore the fires were in various places in the building and in each location the structure would suffer some damage. It all adds up, though some will of course be more significant to the collapse.

The only thing that can be argued is the extent of impact damage and the extent of fire damage. CT's attempt to minimize both of these as evidenced by C7's attack on the amount of damage to the central face of the building. Others will say that there were minimal fires in WTC 7. The location of both fires and impact damage is however just as important as the extent of both.

The videos of the collapse demonstrate very well that the collapse is first visible when the penthouse structure sinks through the roof. This is proof positive that the collapse is initiated by a loss of structural integrity directly below the penthouse structure. It is also well known that the equipment in the penthouse was heavy machinery and therefore as it ran down through the building it would exacerbate the damage proximate to the already compromised column all the way down to that transfer truss system over the Con-ed building.

So we also know that the SW corner was heavily damaged and leaning, now there is damage from top to bottom east of center(longitudinally) and centrally between the north and south walls. There is also fire damage that may also weaken the structure's ability to redistribute loads. With the central loss of the column(s) the building now leans towards this damage. The SW corner columns are severed and the western portion can less resist the new direction of forces. Basically the western portion of the building has one corner missing(SW) and it is not connected to the eastern portion of the building which is in essence a building with one intact corner(NW) and one missing wall(it's eastern limit at the location of the central column damage). The western portion has two intact corners(SE and NE) and a missing wall on its western limit at the location of the central column damage. The eastern portion is also smaller than the western portion. The western portion will now fall towards the central damage also twisting about the NW corner, but the eastern portion, with it's two intact corners can resist falling inward and indeed this is pretty much what happened.

OR
Unobserved FF's loaded explosives into the building during the day (or they were loaded in weeks, months before 9/11) and later on the Cheif asked L.S. if he wanted to continue with the plan to blow up the building and received instructions to go ahead. the explosives were loaded in such a way as to cause collapse that would mimic the loss of central columns proximate to the location of damage and fires.

 

[TellyKNeasuss]

What about the ones who arent just posting on forums and have expert knowledge in certain fields? I would give the example of Bob Bowman.

He has a Phd in Aerospace and Nuclear engineering. He flew 100 missions as a fighter pilot. He was even head of the star wars program. What, in your opinion, are his motives for believing an inside job?

On his biography, Bob Bowman claims to be a recipient of the Eisenhower Medal. Exactly which medal is that? He is not listed among the recipients of the Eisenhower Medal for Leadership and Service (awarded by the Eisenhower Fellowship) nor among the recipients of the Dwight D. Eisenhower Medal for Public Service (awarded by the American Assembly). Another phony award like the George F. Kennan Peace Prize?