Split Thread WTC7 collapse (again) - split from: How did you rule out that 911 was an insid

[danielk]

I have a hard time imagining how a skyscraper could collapse gradually. We aren't talking about granny's barn here.

 

[einsteen]

Perhaps collapse is not the right word. But I can imagine that a frame will stand and some floors inside fail or some parts fall inside. That's not difficult to imagine.

 

[danielk]

It is pretty difficult to imagine if you consider that the frame is exactly the part which is affected by the fire in the first place. Again, we aren't talking about buildings made of wood here.

 

[Parsman]

Perhaps collapse is not the right word. But I can imagine that a frame will stand and some floors inside fail or some parts fall inside. That's not difficult to imagine.

And "Imagination" is what most of the truth movement bring to the table. Try expanding your "imagination" to the events of that day and surely you would have to concede that extreme events have extreme outcomes, like those we witnessed. No need for fantasy middle-men.

 

[V23]

I am going to be perfectly honest.

I have no idea if 9/11 was an inside job or not.

I have heard some compelling accusations from the "truther" crowd, and I have heard some of the most insane and down right sick/sad ones too from the same group. While I hate using a huge paintbrush to cover the entire organization and those who adhere to their beliefs, I am not sa foolish as to believe everything I hear from both sides.

I guess my biggest issue with the truther crowd, is while I have heard a variety of these intersting and compelling ideas and stories coming out of their group, I have never seen any of their supposed "facts" hold up to any real scrunity. While I am certainly of the belief that where there is smoke their is fire, every smoke pile I get too seems to only be a dry ice maker.

Probally the most intersting one I have heard yet is the cell phone story about Flight 93. About 3 months after 9/11, I was luckly enough to have to catch a plane to a police con. in Las Vegas, and while I was in flight I checked my cell phone to see if I could get a signal, just out of curiousness.

The results of my little experment gave me pause. Which is why I have stayed agnostic to the 9/11 CT, instead of atheist.

 

[maccy]

Probally the most intersting one I have heard yet is the cell phone story about Flight 93. About 3 months after 9/11, I was luckly enough to have to catch a plane to a police con. in Las Vegas, and while I was in flight I checked my cell phone to see if I could get a signal, just out of curiousness.

The results of my little experment gave me pause. Which is why I have stayed agnostic to the 9/11 CT, instead of atheist.

Only two calls were made from Flight 93 on cellphones, the rest were made using airphones. The call durations were 1-2 minutes, after which they were dropped. There is nothing to suggest that this is impossible. Just because you've tried and failed to get a signal doesn't mean that you could never get a signal (or, as [SIZE=-1]Frank Kotsonis said, the plural of anecdote is not data).

For more details see:

http://www.debunk911myths.org/topics/Cell_phones
http://www.debunk911myths.org/topics/United_Airlines_Flight_93_-_Phone_calls

Also, you have to consider the difficulty of faking the phone calls. Even if you think it is unlikely that a cell phone call could be made, it seems to me even less likely that a call could be faked.

I have yet to encounter a proposition from the CT side that doesn't fall apart under investigation. Although, I accept that some can seem plausible on first glance - mainly because they are talking about things which are outside of our normal experiences.
[/SIZE]

 

[slyjoe]

...

Probally the most intersting one I have heard yet is the cell phone story about Flight 93. About 3 months after 9/11, I was luckly enough to have to catch a plane to a police con. in Las Vegas, and while I was in flight I checked my cell phone to see if I could get a signal, just out of curiousness.

The results of my little experment gave me pause. Which is why I have stayed agnostic to the 9/11 CT, instead of atheist.

At what altitude were you trying this experiment? And at what altitude were the calls made from 93?

ETA: and just curious - you are agnostic to 9/11 being an inside job because of what is perceived as cell phone anomalies?

 

[GStan]

That's false!

There is often a discussion about the collapse time of wtc7. The movement of the penthouses adds some seconds. That's very interesting indeed, the 6.6 seconds is the fall of the roof of wtc7 and not the penthouses. If we only look at the fall of that roof, then the discrete crush-up model gives the following plot...

<snip>

I can't really comment on this technical analysis. All I am saying is that arguing the speed of collapse is irrelevant to either side's position. You can argue that the structural failures that led to the collapse were caused by CD, or that they were caused by debris and fire damage. Once those failures have occurred gravity determines the speed at which the mass above falls. The speed of the collapse is not evidence of CD.

 

[Miragememories]

MM, you have followed the 10 story hole thread, and while we couldn't be further apart in our interpretations of what occurred on 9/11, you should know from that thread that I have never in my short time on this forum called anyone a liar; not you or Christopher7 or any other CTer. I would appreciate it if you would acknowledge that and not lump me in with whoever has done that, and not lump me in with whoever you believe is lying on this forum. If you have discovered a lie of mine, please point it out. I assure you it was not intentional. I am not a technical expert in a relevant scientific field, so I may err in stating something in technical terms. There are plenty of people here on both sides to civilly correct me. I am not lying about anything.

This is where I find the whole lying thing at JREF so fascinating. I get called a liar all the time yet my accusers constantly lie about their WTC7 impressions.

Technically what you said is true and I have no recollection of you calling me or anyone else a "liar".

Maybe in your case "practising denial" might be a more accurate description. "failure to acknowledge an unacceptable truth"

I say that when referring to your statement; "Nothing, and I mean that in the strongest possible use of the word, was observed at building 7 that would be inconsistent with the building collapsing as a result of debris and fire damage. No phenomenon were observed by anyone on scene that would have exclusively happened only from a CD."

It doesn't get more unequivocal than; "Nothing, and I mean that in the strongest possible use of the word", that introduction to illustrate the rigidity of your convictions and your mind's closure to lots of reason for doubt.

If you look at the video, without the sound, and with the penthouse collapses edited out, it does look like a CD. Its possible that it was a CD.

That kind of honesty, I respect and I applaud you for your courage in expressing it.

It is also possible that the collapse was from debris damage and fire.

No.

What is possible, is that with sufficient debris damage and with sufficient fire, a modern concrete and steel building could be made to collapse in a debris and fire damage style.

A very big difference.

It has been explained to you, and linked for you, information on why the observed collapse sequence could have been the result of damage and fires. The observed collapse sequence could have been a CD, but CD was not required to bring that about.

Again, I agree that a building can of course be caused to collapse if it has been inflicted with sufficient debris damage and sufficient fire.

It is not to be expected that under this natural state of decay, occurring over several hours that the building would be expected to collapse with the elegance of a controlled demolition.

And when you look at the available evidence for a collapse resulting from damage and fire, the scenario is simply far more plausible than CD, because there is no corraborating evidence for CD other than 'looks like'.

What evidence?

What scenario?

The evidence is mostly based on eyewitness testimony which some consider to be expert and others feel is either disinformation or a loss of objectivity given the shocks of the day.

The scenario posed by Truthers would have us believe the collapse of WTC7 had a more sinister evil purpose, whereas the scenario posed by NIST and those who endorse the Official Story would have us belief anything but evil indent.

Given the two scenarios, and given the extreme public reaction that would be expected if the case for controlled demolition was given more than minimal attention, is it not too surprising that so many would eagerly embrace the Official Story?

There's no evidence of any prep work, There's no visual evidence either recorded or witnessed in the moments leading up to the collapse to corraborate CD. There's no audio evidence either recorded or heard in the moments leading up to the collapse to corraborate CD. Even with many demolition companies assisting in the clean up, no physical evidence of CD was reported by any of the workers.

Of course there is no "known" evidence of prep work. That would involve "discovery" and "action taken". Obviously such a planned act would be as covert as possible.

I'm not going to rehash all the material that's been presented in this forum and others regarding pre-collapse activity. Each one typically evolves into a thread on it's own. If you haven't exposed yourself to the best from both sides of the issue by now, there is little I can say that will influence you.

Keep in mind that the WTC7 debris was quickly removed and NIST never got their hands on what would have constituted as evidence.

FEMA who got there first was never able to reconcile the collapse with the best evidence that was available. and they publicly admitted it.

Professional, heavily funded government organizations like FEMA and NIST can't reach a conclusion yet you and most of the amateur responders here have no difficulty whatsoever reaching the desired "implied conclusion".

NIST in effect says; "We can't prove it yet but were sticking year after year to our WTC7 working collapse hypothesis" and of course the believers obediently follow everywhere NIST chooses to lead them.

Who is exaggerating the damage? NIST? FEMA? JREFers? There is no need to. It happened. Both debris damage and unabated fires were observed and reported by firefighters and other witnesses and were also documented in photos and videos. Which damage is exaggerated?

There certainly is a great need to exaggerate the damage if you wish to argue with any conviction at all that WTC7 should have collapsed!

Many buildings have been badly damaged in the past...and not completely collapsed.

Many buildings have been extremely badly damaged by long lasting raging infernos...and not completely collapsed.

Prior to 9/11, I don't recall seeing any photo of video evidence that was comparable to what happened to WTC7, that wasn't a controlled demolition.

It didn't break up gradually, or collapse in a piecemeal decay-like fashion over an extended time period as it slowly lost structural integrity.

After the east penthouse dropped from view, the whole 47-story, city block structure imploded from the ground upwards in a rapid, symmetrical, unnatural collapse.

Just like with WTC 1 and WTC 2, NIST and the supporters of the Official Story are attempting to sell the idea of a sudden overwhelming DROP which was too much kinetic energy for the intact structure to absorb.

Additionally, it was not obviously CD.

Again, who is practising denial?

You admit you have no technical expertise.

Danny Jowenko, is a professional, and whatever you may argue about his occupational experience, he is an expert in structural demolitions, far more than you are.

He has seen those "was not obviously CD" materials. He's been interviewed several times. He's studied the WTC7 plans. He steadfastly stands by his original opinion that WTC7 was a controlled demolition. He could have used the word "maybe" but he went with "certainly".

Have you read the reports that I linked for you earlier? While you may not want agree with the conclusions about 9/11 that can be drawn from them, they do provide technical information as to why the observed collapse did not have to be CD, it could have been brought about by an initial local failure resulting from debris damage or fire or a combination of both. If you have found any errors in them (other than the fact that the authors work for NIST, a government agency), we can certainly add those to this debate.

I have read virtually every scrap of material that has been made available regarding the history of WTC7. Since you can argue that conceivably virtually anything is possible as long as it doesn't violate the laws of nature, then certainly it's not impossible to find conclusions that would support the Official Story.

Only unexpected to non-experts.

And apparently expected by non-experts like yourself.

For many engineers and firefighters, the collapses were not unexpected. Many laymen have difficulty believing it, but the preponderance of structural engineers, demolition experts and firefighters are not suspicious of the collapses.

There's a good British TV series running right now, it's called WHISTLEBLOWERS. You might want to watch it and then rethink why people aren't so brave and eager to contradict national opinion.

It is unfortunate because it is a logical, rational, non-sinister, science-based explanation for something that the bulk of the truth movement finds suspicious; that being, the speed of the collapse. From the observed collapse, you would probably agree that there was an initial internal failure that caused east penthouse to fall into building; that coincided with or led to another internal failure that caused the west penthouse to collapse, and finally, this coincided with or led to the massive failure that began the global collapse. You can argue that those three failures were from CD and I can argue that they were the result of debris and fire damage, but whoever wins, the speed of the global collapse will be the same. Speed of collapse is not evidence of CD, it is evidence of gravitational forces. It is pointless to bring up the speed of the collapse as evidence, since it supports either collapse hypothesis equally.

The only thing in agreement between the two hypothesis is that ultimately the force that successfully collapsed WTC7 was gravity.

Like any force, it's observed effects will depend on the nature of the object it is working on.

A building suffering from debris and fire damage will feel the downward gravitational pull the greatest at it's weakest points and behave accordingly.

When gravitational force is overwhelming, those weakest points will fail first. If these weaknesses spread, and each reaches a critical level, more and more parts of the building will be pulled downward.

It would not be an expectation that this process would accelerate rapidly over say a period of 17 seconds or less and culminate in the complete and total destruction of this 47-story, city block area building.

WTC7 rigged for collapse would have no problem following the observed timeline. A naturally occurring collapse very much would. If it was that easy, there wouldn't be so few professional engineers that attempt it.

It is of no consequence to me to negate your concerns. I would be satisfied just to have you or any CTer say "wow, you're right, the evidence really does favor the debris and fire collapse hypothesis" And I wouldn't care if they followed it up with "I still totally believe it was a conspiracy, thanks for the info though old man" I don't care. Believe it was a conspiracy, to the eternal depths of your heart and soul, continue on in a noble pursuit of truth, just have the intellectual honesty to admit that currently, the evidence does not support your conclusions.

With your help in identifying it, I will most definitely attempt to remove any rhetoric from my argument. I'm in this for a debate based in fact, evidence and logical critical thinking. Don't quit on me. You, along with Christopher7, are one of the few CTers in this forum with whom I enjoy the dialogue.

Well I have no intention of "quitting" for you or anyone else.

While you are patiently waiting for me to utter the words; "wow, you're right, the evidence really does favor the debris and fire collapse hypothesis", I suggest you might reflect back on what has lead you to so vigorously embrace that belief.

MM

 

[stateofgrace]

The scenario posed by Truthers would have us believe the collapse of WTC7 had a more sinister evil purpose, whereas the scenario posed by NIST and those who endorse the Official Story would have us belief anything but evil indent.

Given the two scenarios, and given the extreme public reaction that would be expected if the case for controlled demolition was given more than minimal attention, is it not too surprising that so many would eagerly embrace the Official Story?



Of course there is no "known" evidence of prep work. That would involve "discovery" and "action taken". Obviously such a planned act would be as covert as possible.


Professional, heavily funded government organizations like FEMA and NIST can't reach a conclusion yet you and most of the amateur responders here have no difficulty whatsoever reaching the desired "implied conclusion".

NIST in effect says; "We can't prove it yet but were sticking year after year to our WTC7 working collapse hypothesis" and of course the believers obediently follow everywhere NIST chooses to lead them.



You admit you have no technical expertise.



I have read virtually every scrap of material that has been made available regarding the history of WTC7.



And apparently expected by non-experts like yourself.



WTC7 rigged for collapse would have no problem following the observed timeline. A naturally occurring collapse very much would. If it was that easy, there wouldn't be so few professional engineers that attempt it.

Well I have no intention of "quitting" for you or anyone else.

Well, well you sure are an expert are you not MM? you've read all that stuff, formulated your ideas and hey bingo, everybody is wrong apart from you and the twoofers. NIST and FEMA are lying and covering up mass murder. Those that were there and disagree with you are either, wrong or in shock. Hey,all figure out right MM?

So why exactly did they demolitish WTC 7,again? You being an expert and all that, surely you can tell us now.

Here is the question again, Mr Expert.......................

WHY WAS WTC 7 DEMOLISHED?

Can you answer this simple question Mr Expert? Just for us non experts?

While you are patiently waiting for me to utter the words; "wow, you're right, the evidence really does favor the debris and fire collapse hypothesis", I suggest you might reflect back on what has lead you to so vigorously embrace that belief.

Yes maybe you should, you self proclaimed " expert"

PS. Whistleblowers is fiction and to be frank,crap, but you would know this wouldn't you Mr Expert?

 

[Corsair 115]

I see MirageMemories has, not surprisingly, failed to acknowledge my point from post #268.

I'll repeat it again:

In regards to the claim that WTC7 was destroyed in a controlled demolition, there is one huge problem for that claim: the lack of any of the very loud and distinctive BOOMS associated with the use of demolition charges. If it was a controlled demolition, why are there no very loud and distincitve booms?

 

[einsteen]

I wish I had this video completely

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SIbqaybkbWI

The Naudet one contains a lot of sound (like firecrackers) but during the collapse, I'm not qualified to analyse that sound. The Dan Rather one is too far away. But assume there are distinct booms does that change anything from the debunkers point of view ? I don't think. i got an mp3 file where a woman talks about a collapse to cause a first initial structural failure but it's unsourced.

 

[Miragememories]

Perhaps collapse is not the right word. But I can imagine that a frame will stand and some floors inside fail or some parts fall inside. That's not difficult to imagine.

Apparently anything other than a complete and rapid collapse is incomprehensible to those who support the Official Story.

MM

 

[Miragememories]

I see MirageMemories has, not surprisingly, failed to acknowledge my point from post #268.

I'll repeat it again:

In regards to the claim that WTC7 was destroyed in a controlled demolition, there is one huge problem for that claim: the lack of any of the very loud and distinctive BOOMS associated with the use of demolition charges. If it was a controlled demolition, why are there no very loud and distincitve booms?

I'm sure many here feel slighted because I haven't devoted all my free time responding to their quips.

As a quick reply to your concerns about explosions from WTC7;

Some video here;
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MwSc7NPn8Ok

MM

 

[danielk]

Apparently anything other than a complete and rapid collapse is incomprehensible to those who support the Official Story.

Please explain how a weakened steel frame could lead to an isolated collapse of walls or a single story alone. I suppose a partial collapse of one side of a building would be possible, if the structure of the building permits it. But I can see that a steel frame construction probably won't be able to bear a one-sided load.

I am neither an engineer nor an architect. I'm just trying to point out that conspiracy theories aren't merely a result of innocent misunderstandings. It's more than just a disparity between layman imagination and reality. I contend that your imagination is faulty, too.

 

[Corsair 115]

As a quick reply to your concerns about explosions from WTC7;

Some video here;
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MwSc7NPn8Ok

MM

It would appear MM is incapable of stating a reply to my point in his own words. I did ask a very simple question. Demolition charges are VERY LOUD; ergo, if they were used to destroy WTC7, the sounds of those charges going off would have been heard clearly by everyone within blocks and blocks of the building, and clearly recorded by every video camera within blocks and blocks.

Have YouTube videos now supplanted the written word in discussions?

 

[Miragememories]

Apparently anything other than a complete and rapid collapse is incomprehensible to those who support the Official Story.

Please explain how a weakened steel frame could lead to an isolated collapse of walls or a single story alone. I suppose a partial collapse of one side of a building would be possible, if the structure of the building permits it. But I can see that a steel frame construction probably won't be able to bear a one-sided load.

I am neither an engineer nor an architect. I'm just trying to point out that conspiracy theories aren't merely a result of innocent misunderstandings. It's more than just a disparity between layman imagination and reality. I contend that your imagination is faulty, too.

It's difficult to follow your question danielk?

You start by asking about isolated collapse and then you admit that it would be possible "I suppose a partial collapse of one side of a building would be possible, if the structure of the building permits it."

Clearly a building's behavior is dictated by what it will structurally permit.

If a steel framed building suffers from a one-sided load that it cannot support, there is no logical reason to assume that the building will drop, completely, vertically, symmetrically and rapidly.

Should the weakness created by a severe one-sided load be great enough, it would be expected that the loss of structural support on that side would cause the building to lean and ultimately topple.

WTC7 did not topple.

If enough of the ground level support columns are demolished in unison, the building will implode in on itself and drop symmetrically, with a level roofline and at a speed close to freefall.

After the east penthouse collapsed, the remaining 47-story WTC7 dropped symmetrically, with a level roofline and at a speed close to freefall.

WTC7 dropped!

MM

 

[stateofgrace]

Apparently anything other than a complete and rapid collapse is incomprehensible to those who support the Official Story.

MM

Ah the resident WTC 7 expert. Hey tell you what "expert", lets say I agree with you. MIB planted lots of bombs,NIST and FEMA are lying, the firefighters were wrong or in shock and there were no fires and no damage and WTC 7 was demolished. Lets say that hey ?

OK < Twoofer mode on>

Hey MM, they really demolished WTC 7 eh, why was that ?

<Twoofer mode off>

Well?

 

[Miragememories]

It would appear MM is incapable of stating a reply to my point in his own words. I did ask a very simple question. Demolition charges are VERY LOUD; ergo, if they were used to destroy WTC7, the sounds of those charges going off would have been heard clearly by everyone within blocks and blocks of the building, and clearly recorded by every video camera within blocks and blocks.

Have YouTube videos now supplanted the written word in discussions?

Okay maybe eyewitness statements are what you seek?

Former NYPD Officer & 9/11 First Responder Craig Bartmer:
"I was real close to Building 7 when it fell down... That didn't sound like just a building falling down to me while I was running away from it. There's a lot of eyewitness testimony down there of hearing explosions. I didn't see any reason for that building to fall down the way it did -- and a lot of guys should be saying the same thing. I don't know what the fear is coming out and talking about it? I don't know -- but it's the truth."

"I walked around it (Building 7). I saw a hole. I didn't see a hole bad enough to knock a building down, though. Yeah there was definitely fire in the building, but I didn't hear any... I didn't hear any creaking, or... I didn't hear any indication that it was going to come down. And all of a sudden the radios exploded and everyone started screaming 'get away, get away, get away from it!'... It was at that moment... I looked up, and it was nothing I would ever imagine seeing in my life. The thing started pealing in on itself... Somebody grabbed my shoulder and I started running, and the ****'s hitting the ground behind me, and the whole time you're hearing "boom, boom, boom, boom, boom." I think I know an explosion when I hear it... Yeah it had some damage to it, but nothing like what they're saying... Nothing to account for what we saw... I am shocked at the story
we've heard about it to be quite honest."

-Reporter Al Jones: "People started to run away from the scene [WTC7] and I turned in time to see what looked like a skyscraper implosion -- looked like it had been done by a demolition crew -- the whole thing just collapsing down on itself and another big huge plume of gray and white smoke shooting up into the air and then more of the smoke billowing up the street here... so that’s number one, number two, and now number seven that have come down from this explosion."

-Emergency worker: "We were watching the building [WTC7] actually ‘cause it was on fire… the bottom floors of the building were on fire and… we heard this sound that sounded like a clap of thunder… turned around -- we were shocked to see that the building was ah well it looked like there was a shockwave ripping through the building and the windows all busted out… it was horrifying… about a second later the bottom floor
caved out and the building followed after that… we saw the building crash down all the way to the ground… we were in shock."

Guns & Butter Radio interview - April 27th 2005:
Hosted by Bonnie Falkner
Guest: Indira Singh (Ground Zero Emergency Worker)
Bonnie: How long did you work as an emergency medical technician and exactly what is it that you were doing (at ground zero)?
Indira: ...when I got there we were setting up triage sites (at ground zero), close, very close to the area. The triage site that I was setting up was behind, well, to the east of Building 7 where Building 7 came down...
...we were setting up triages as close to the pile as possible… so what we were doing was setting up different kinds of stations… IV stations, cardiac stations, wound stations, burn stations ...just trying to have an organized space. What happened with that particular triage site is that pretty soon afternoon, after mid-day on 9/11 we had to evacuate that because they told us Building 7 was coming down... I do believe that they brought
Building 7 down... By noon or one o'clock they told us we had to move from that triage site up to Pace University a little further away because Building 7 was going to come down or being brought down.
Bonnie: Did they actually use the word "brought down" and who was it that was telling you this?
Indira: The fire department... the fire department and they did use the word "we're going to have to bring it down."

MM

 

[Miragememories]

Ah the resident WTC 7 expert. Hey tell you what "expert", lets say I agree with you. MIB planted lots of bombs,NIST and FEMA are lying, the firefighters were wrong or in shock and there were no fires and no damage and WTC 7 was demolished. Lets say that hey ?

OK < Twoofer mode on>

Hey MM, they really demolished WTC 7 eh, why was that ?

<Twoofer mode off>

Well?

I've heard they make very good whiskey in your homeland.

I've also heard that a great deal of it gets consumed at this time of year.

MM