'What about building 7'?

[ProBonoShill]

Fonebone likes to talk about the 'penthouses' ---
The open air 'penthouse' on the western two thirds of the roof housed the air conditioning equipment
and condenser fans as well as the exhaust blowers.
The eastern third of the roof was a mechanical room enclosed penthouse.
Viewed from the north, the eastern 'penthouse' third of the roof that was the first section
to collapse, is the enclosed structure seen here on the left.
The air conditioning equipment is on the right. This WTC7 cameo is the north face of the WTC7
taken shortly after the WTC1 tower had collapsed.

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/363814ca3c71ec48fe.jpg[/qimg]

The sunlit area north of the WTC7 building is mirrored in the windows of the
WTC7 tower clearly indicating the structure is not contorted to any noticeable degree
and there no broken windows.
No visible damage,fire, or smoke at any point of the WTC7 north face. Again , this still was taken
minutes after the second tower WTC1 collapsed.

Where is the raging inferno that the fire department couldn't battle ?

Why would there be damage to the upper floors on the north face?

The south face was the side most exposed to the collapse of the towers and suffered extensive damage (especially on the lower floors) raging unfought fires soon followed.

 

[pgimeno]

No visible damage,fire, or smoke at any point of the WTC7 north face. Again , this still was taken
minutes after the second tower WTC1 collapsed.

Where is the raging inferno that the fire department couldn't battle ?

The highlighted word should serve as clue. The WTC1 debris is what started the fire, therefore you're showing a pic where the fire is just starting and unlikely to have reached the north façade.

There was no water pressure (the collapses ruined the pipes); also, the focus was victims from the collapse. Between the time of the collapse of WTC1 (10:28 a.m.) and ~12:15 p.m., the fires developed. From the NIST report:

The earliest visual evidence showing flames in WTC 7 is a video clip of the southwest corner that was recorded between 12:10 a.m. and 12:25 p.m. Figure 5-109 is a frame from this video.​

NCSTAR 1-9 Vol 1, p.194 (238 of the PDF). Note the typo: the caption of figure 5-109 correctly indicates "between 12:10 p.m. and 12:25 p.m.". See also section 6.6 (p.299-303) for the activity between 11:02 a.m. and 2:30 p.m.

 

[T.A.M.]

For one to say that over 100 feet of downward acceleration, in a natural collapse, is not remarkable, is the most asinine thing I have ever heard. I would like to debate you on this in public Mr. Mackey.
According to Sunder at NIST, there would have to be no structural components benith a structure to fall at free fall, yet there is free fall.

Someone tell me how this happenns without explosives.

Read NIST Final Report - WTC7, it explains everything.

TAM

 

[Dave Rogers]

For one to say that over 100 feet of downward acceleration, in a natural collapse, is not remarkable, is the most asinine thing I have ever heard. I would like to debate you on this in public Mr. Mackey.
According to Sunder at NIST, there would have to be no structural components benith a structure to fall at free fall, yet there is free fall.

Someone tell me how this happenns without explosives.

Before anybody starts taking you seriously, would you like to establish your credentials and explain, in detail, what you would expect to happen in a natural collapse? I don't think anyone's really interested in bothering to debate yet another ignorant teenage keyboard warrior who's just saying "I have no idea how it should have collapsed, but you should take me seriously when I say it shouldn't have collapsed like it did."

Dave

 

[T.A.M.]

For one to say that over 100 feet of downward acceleration, in a natural collapse, is not remarkable, is the most asinine thing I have ever heard. I would like to debate you on this in public Mr. Mackey.
According to Sunder at NIST, there would have to be no structural components benith a structure to fall at free fall, yet there is free fall.

Someone tell me how this happenns without explosives.

1. Natural collapse? What is natural about any building collapse.
2. given the group of people who also take your position on this matter, i know for a fact, what mackey said IS NOT the most asinin thing you have heard.
3. You may want to debate him in public now, but i assure you after such a debate you would be afraid to do so again.
4. The 2.25 seconds of free fall of the north face of wtc7 has been explained, ad naseum, you just don't like the answer...no explosives needed.

TAM

 

[RedIbis]

Read NIST Final Report - WTC7, it explains everything.

TAM

You've got to freakin' be kidding me.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

You've got to freakin' be kidding me.

If you don't want to take the time to read an engineering report that you yourself are attempting to discuss then your participation in the discussion is a relevant as claiming the moon is made of cheese. You've had a couple of years to read it, and I still see no indication you have. You have the choice in whether or not you go through it, but the fact that you don't agree with it or understand any basic engineering principles is of little concern to those actually... you know... having serious discussions on it ...

 

[ProBonoShill]

You've got to freakin' be kidding me.

You don't like the report Red?

What is wrong with it?

Is NIST involved in a massive conspiracy?

Are all the experts that agree with NIST in on it too?

Maybe they're all just incompetent, what say you?

 

[RedIbis]

That's rich...
If you don't want to take the time to read an engineering report that you yourself are attempting to discuss then your participation in the discussion is a relevant as claiming the moon is made of cheese. You've had a couple of years to read it, and I still see no indication you have.

I've read it. That's how I know it doesn't "explain everything" about the collapse of WTC 7.

 

[twinstead]

Some guys on an some obscure internet forums think the NIST report is preposterous, and all the contributers to it either are incompetent or in on it (are there any other choices?).

Wow. Such a call to arms. When does the revolution start?

 

[twinstead]

I've read it. That's how I know it doesn't "explain everything" about the collapse of WTC 7.

So? Lots of people disagree. What's your point?

 

[Grizzly Bear]

I've read it. That's how I know it doesn't "explain everything" about the collapse of WTC 7.

Reading the one page FAQ doesn't count as reading the report :rolleyes

EDIT: In all seriousness... I'm not trying to insult you or anything but when you start asking people to show "a thermally expanded column" or prove that "a single point (single column as you put it) failure" is possible you pretty much guarantee casting doubt about your own ability to understand the science and engineering involved.

 

[Sabretooth]

You've got to freakin' be kidding me.

Don't worry Red...I hear NIST is issuing a new 2011 edition. It will be exactly the same as the last report, but it will have the following statement at the beginning:

"NIST has found no evidence, and therefore no validity or justification, that any of the following items were instrumental in the structural failure of WTC1, WTC2, or WTC7. Those items include, but are not limited to; bombs, explosives, plastic explosives, rubber explosives, paper explosives, Hush-A-Boom explosives, dynamite, AA missiles, AG missiles, GA missiles, GG missiles, AGA missiles, AGAGA missiles, thermite, thermate, nano-thermite, nano-thermate, super-nano-thermite, super-nano-thermate, nano- or super-nano-anything, termites, microwaves, macrowaves, tidal waves, Soundwave, the moon, DEW’s, lasers, lightning, thunder, rain, rainbows, rainbow sherbert, skittles, unicorns, lady bugs, smurfs, bunnies and/or rabbits, salmon, trout, Trautman, John Rambo, Green Berets, Navy SEALS, baby seals, great white sharks, sharks with laser beams, lizard men from Mars, lizard women from Venus, women in general, the NWO, the NAACP, the WWF, the WWE, vitamin E, bananas, pancakes, maple syrup, corn syrup, bonsai trees, palm trees, Palmolive, dental floss, noodling, tractor pulls, “pull it”, “pull my finger”…

Oh…or the Jews.”

 

[T.A.M.]

You've got to freakin' be kidding me.

Nope. You may not like the abscence of the physical column evidence, but not you, nor anyone else, has shown me where nIST got it wrong.

TAM

 

[funk de fino]

I've read it. That's how I know it doesn't "explain everything" about the collapse of WTC 7.

You have not read the whole thing. Even if you did you would fail to understand it as proven by previous comments made on this forum about the collapse mechanism.

 

[Fonebone]

Probably because that picture was taken sometime after the collapse of 2 WTC. The picture you posted seems to show the building before it caught fire. The lack of fire should be a clue.

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=456&pictureid=3789[/qimg]

You are correct- The lack of fires is the clue.The WTC1 is missing from the still-

Here is another cameo of the WTC7 penthouses taken from the observation
platform on the WTC 2 roof- The building on the extreme left is the WTC1 tower.
Note the WTC1 tower's position with respect to the WTC7 tower.

NOW - study the still I posted and note what is missing--
[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=456&pictureid=3789[/qimg][/QUOTE]

Correct , The WTC1 tower is missing- This still was taken after the 2nd tower,the WTC1 tower, collapsed.
The lack of fires is the clue.!

 

[Tinfoil Hater]

'What about building 7' is the most common question truthers pose as 'proof' their delusions are valid. Is there an answer as brief as the question to silence these fools? I tend to respnd with 'The towers fell, severely damaged building 7, a fire raged for hours , the building weakened, then collapsed, The end. Is there an even shorter answer one can give?

 

[DGM]

'What about building 7' is the most common question truthers pose as 'proof' their delusions are valid. Is there an answer as brief as the question to silence these fools? I tend to respnd with 'The towers fell, severely damaged building 7, a fire raged for hours , the building weakened, then collapsed, The end. Is there an even shorter answer one can give?

Yeah, "What about it"? "Can you give me your theory"?

 

[TJM]

What about Richard Gage's mortgage? Have you heard of it?

 

[RedIbis]

I'll give you a hint. You go wrong about here:

'The towers fell, severely damaged building 7,