WTC7 Revisited

[GregoryUrich]

Big giant holes, broken windows. Let me see; closing the car door against air resistance with closed window, is more than with open windows. WTC7, open windows.

Major portions of WTC7 had fallen internally, and the unique design of WTC7 makes an amateur approach quite laughable.

The major smoking gun to find a no evidence truther is when they bring up WTC7. It means you have found someone with zero evidence just like the rest of 9/11 truth.

If you would have taken the time to try and understand my calculation instead of just giving your usual knee-jerk bunk, you would know that I calculate the resistance with no restrictions from windows or framing. I.e. totally open.

Please present your evidence that large portions had fallen internally.

 

[Sabrina]

Has anyone taken into account the fact that the damage was ongoing throughout the seven hours before WTC7 collapsed?

I can't help but notice that we all (myself included) seem to be concentrating solely on the collapse of WTC1 tearing a gigantic gash into the building, making that out to be the only damage; but fires were burning throughout the building for approximately seven hours, and NONE of them were ever really fought by firefighters. So isn't the damage much more difficult to model given that fire is more or less chaotic? It was perpetual damage, for lack of a better term, for seven straight hours. Without knowing a whole lot about building dynamics, I'm personally amazed the building stood as long as it did.

 

[GlennB]

...
My point is and has been that it is not realistic to assume that there was significant collapse inside the building until the roof moved.

For this assumption to be "realistic" we would have to assume that the fall of the E Penthouse was provoked by the failing of its support only at the roof level. This is speculation, of course, but it certainly doesn't appear "realistic". Why would the roof cave in with no lower damage?

Failure of core columns much lower in the building would appear to be a much more realistic proposition.

 

[Major_Tom]

Does anyone know where I can find the uncropped version of either of the 2 images shown below?

The person who put this together is obviously using it to show that the image on the left is manipulated.

 

[DGM]

I'm pretty sure you can see the roof in one of the collapse videos so at least some air would be forced out of the holes where the penthouses were. My point is and has been that it is not realistic to assume that there was significant collapse inside the building until the roof moved.

Also large volumes of air were moved as indicated by the the huge dust clouds spreading out from the bottom of the building.

I don't believe there was any of the roof left.
When you look at the videos of the collapse and note the speed that the penthouses disappeared, (I know that mass would be important) where do you think the remains and contents would be at the moment (given the time difference) the roof* appeared to start moving. I'm picturing them well on the way to the basement.


* I think it's more likely what is seen in the videos is the top of the set-back.

 

[GregoryUrich]

Has anyone taken into account the fact that the damage was ongoing throughout the seven hours before WTC7 collapsed?

I can't help but notice that we all (myself included) seem to be concentrating solely on the collapse of WTC1 tearing a gigantic gash into the building, making that out to be the only damage; but fires were burning throughout the building for approximately seven hours, and NONE of them were ever really fought by firefighters. So isn't the damage much more difficult to model given that fire is more or less chaotic? It was perpetual damage, for lack of a better term, for seven straight hours. Without knowing a whole lot about building dynamics, I'm personally amazed the building stood as long as it did.

Whether it should or should not have fallen is not really the issue here. At the point in time at which global collapse initiated, the building had been supporting itself just up to that point. The problem is that the building went from just passing the point at which where it could no longer support itself to zero resistance immediately. This is just not how steel structures behave regardless of damage or heating.

 

[GlennB]

Please present your evidence that large portions had fallen internally.

Strangely, evidence beyond the observed collapse of the E Penthouse isn't required here. The only alternative is that the E Penthouse fell below the roofline and then immediately stopped. Given that the absence of support structures was the reason for its collapse, this is a patently absurd proposition. Therefore large portions must have fallen internally.

 

[DGM]

Whether it should or should not have fallen is not really the issue here. At the point in time at which global collapse initiated, the building had been supporting itself just up to that point. The problem is that the building went from just passing the point at which where it could no longer support itself to zero resistance immediately. This is just not how steel structures behave regardless of damage or heating.

Zero resistance?
I don't believe you (or anyone slse) have shown this.

 

[beachnut]

If you would have taken the time to try and understand my calculation instead of just giving your usual knee-jerk bunk, you would know that I calculate the resistance with no restrictions from windows or framing. I.e. totally open.

Please present your evidence that large portions had fallen internally.

The major smoking gun that proves you found a petition signing thinks they got evidence truther is bringing up anything to do with WTC7. When you they bring up WTC7, you have found someone with zero evidence to back up their blind, drank the Kool-Aid support of 9/11 truth.

Plus, your simple model does not take into account the unique design and loading of WTC7. The WTC7 is a smoking gun of a 9/11 truth member, who puts hearsay ahead of rational thought. The real truth is too hard for most truthers to find and understand.

 

[GlennB]

Whether it should or should not have fallen is not really the issue here. At the point in time at which global collapse initiated, the building had been supporting itself just up to that point. The problem is that the building went from just passing the point at which where it could no longer support itself to zero resistance immediately. This is just not how steel structures behave regardless of damage or heating.

I replied to this kind of point earlier, but you seem to have missed it.

What state was the entire building's core in at the point of so-called "global collapse" ? We have little idea really, as all the photographic evidence is from the N and N-W.

Given that the E Penthouse was falling into the building for some 6 seconds before "global collapse" then treating the building as essentially intact up to the point of "global collapse" is wholly unjustified.

 

[beachnut]

Whether it should or should not have fallen is not really the issue here. At the point in time at which global collapse initiated, the building had been supporting itself just up to that point. The problem is that the building went from just passing the point at which where it could no longer support itself to zero resistance immediately. This is just not how steel structures behave regardless of damage or heating.

You have ignored the initial collapse of the Penthouse into the interior of WTC7. One simple post showing your superficial understanding of the WTC7 structure.

Things do all of a sudden collapse! Some times fast, sometimes slow. Why do we have to suffer thought your learning curve on WTC7 due to your lack of experience?

 

[GregoryUrich]

For this assumption to be "realistic" we would have to assume that the fall of the E Penthouse was provoked by the failing of its support only at the roof level. This is speculation, of course, but it certainly doesn't appear "realistic". Why would the roof cave in with no lower damage?

Failure of core columns much lower in the building would appear to be a much more realistic proposition.

Did the whole roof cave in?

Here and here you can see that the west penthouse dropped nearly simultaneously (if not simultaneously) with the roof.

I noticed that it does appear that smoke is expelled where the east penthouse used to be. Nonetheless most smoke and dust are expelled lower down which I interpret as evidence of where the floor by floor collapses are taking place. This still illustrates this point whereas there are small streams coming out of some windows due to backpressure, the large majority of dust and smoke is coming from low down and billowing upwards.

 

[GregoryUrich]

I replied to this kind of point earlier, but you seem to have missed it.

What state was the entire building's core in at the point of so-called "global collapse" ? We have little idea really, as all the photographic evidence is from the N and N-W.

Given that the E Penthouse was falling into the building for some 6 seconds before "global collapse" then treating the building as essentially intact up to the point of "global collapse" is wholly unjustified.

I don't think we need to know the state of the core. The building is not essentially intact. It is in the process of failing. It is however holding itself up which requires a certain amount of strength. This strength cannot suddenly disappear and provide no further resistance to collapse.

 

[DGM]

Did the whole roof cave in?

Here and here you can see that the west penthouse dropped nearly simultaneously (if not simultaneously) with the roof.

I noticed that it does appear that smoke is expelled where the east penthouse used to be. Nonetheless most smoke and dust are expelled lower down which I interpret as evidence of where the floor by floor collapses are taking place. This still illustrates this point whereas there are small streams coming out of some windows due to backpressure, the large majority of dust and smoke is coming from low down and billowing upwards.

The second video shows it quickly disappearing about 6 to 7 seconds before the roof line. Please watch that video and think about the speed of movement of that penthouse. Do you think it stopped just after it disappeared from view?


ETA I should have specified west penthouse.

 

[GregoryUrich]

The major smoking gun that proves you found a petition signing thinks they got evidence truther is bringing up anything to do with WTC7. When you they bring up WTC7, you have found someone with zero evidence to back up their blind, drank the Kool-Aid support of 9/11 truth.

Plus, your simple model does not take into account the unique design and loading of WTC7. The WTC7 is a smoking gun of a 9/11 truth member, who puts hearsay ahead of rational thought. The real truth is too hard for most truthers to find and understand.

I show you where you are wrong and you resort to insults.

I ask you to support your claim and you do not answer.

Where is the evidence that large portions had fallen internally?

 

[GregoryUrich]

The second video shows it quickly disappearing about 6 to 7 seconds before the roof line. Please watch that video and think about the speed of movement of that penthouse. Do you think it stopped just after it disappeared from view?

That's the east penthouse. Roughly 8 m/s before it disappears. There was clearly localised failure. If there was global failure, the roof would start to move.

 

[DGM]

That's the east penthouse. Roughly 8 m/s before it disappears. There was clearly localised failure. If there was global failure, the roof would start to move.

So what happened to it? This is a very large structure that started to move 6 or 7 seconds before any thing else we could see. This is a problem that needs to be addressed before any discussion of "global collapse". That structure was disappearing very quickly and would be unlikely to stop.

 

[CurtC]

This strength cannot suddenly disappear and provide no further resistance to collapse.

You must not have seen the video of the bridge collapse in Minnesota last summer. One second it's there with cars driving over it, the next second it's free-falling into the Mississippi.

 

[SDC]

GregoryUrich, you have some credibility when you provide calculations. But now you seem to have moved to, "Well, this is how it looked." That destroys your (and anyone's) credibility; reliance on the human eye... And unless you are trained in this area, that is a weak reed. It makes your comments no more useful than those of Major Tom, for example.

 

[NobbyNobbs]

This strength cannot suddenly disappear and provide no further resistance to collapse.

Why not?

Whether it should or should not have fallen is not really the issue here. At the point in time at which global collapse initiated, the building had been supporting itself just up to that point. The problem is that the building went from just passing the point at which where it could no longer support itself to zero resistance immediately. This is just not how steel structures behave regardless of damage or heating.

Are you suggesting it should have fallen in slow motion, or something?

Reminds me of a movie....

Dr. Dolen: Funny old bird.
Fletch: Is she ever. I've got some stories.
Dr. Dolen: I'll bet. Shame about Ed.
Fletch (vamping): It was. Really a shame. To go so suddenly.
Dr. Dolen: Oh, he was dying for years.
Fletch: Sure, but the end was so sudden.
Dr. Dolen: He was in intensive care for eight weeks.
Fletch: Yes, but the very end, when he actually died, that was extremely sudden.