• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

How WTC 7 was pulled down

Miragememories said:
"I'm still waiting for a serious reply to this post;
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6478555&postcount=120

I was under the impression that the thread topic would get discussed?"
Click to expand...
DGM said:
"A serious reply to what? Is there actually a point to the post? Are you disputing the building fell back as it fell?"
Click to expand...
ElMondoHummus said:
"Let's also remember: His post was replied to 3 times in the 7 posts following it. Two by AJM8125, and one by GlennB. The point of the rebuttals was that the very video used did indeed show the effect being denied: That the north face was indeed not falling in unison with the other 3 faces, but was indeed ahead of them.

Granted, posts after those are superfluous, but if he wants to complain, the report button's right there on the left."
Click to expand...

BS responses;

Clarrisani said:
"With big invincible cables and bulldozers!"
Click to expand...
AJM8125 said:
"The northeast face is clearly falling ahead of the rest of the building."
Click to expand...
GlennB said:
"There is no apparent fracture below the kink, but obviously there's a difference in collapse speeds in that region. Otherwise, no kink.

AJM is right. The NE corner starts dropping slightly before the NW corner. And a kink develops. And the whole building leans significantly S as it falls."
Click to expand...

Complain?

Why?

Any visitor can clearly see who is disingenuous in the non-discussion and who is not.

In this view it is quite clear that at least 3-sides of WTC7 are falling in unison including the period that NIST declared a 2+ second freefall on the north face of WTC7.

normalcbsb7montno3.jpg


In this view which also includes the portion that the NIST declared to be in free fall,
the north face and the west face stay joined and fall in unison.

set3sccompositeua1.png


The same is true in this image;

wtc7northwesttogether1o.jpg


MM
 
yes, going from a straight line to a curved one clearly indicates they're falling at the same rate. Why are you avoiding the videos?
 
Last edited:
excaza said:
yes, going from a straight line to a curved one clearly indicates they're falling at the same rate
Click to expand...
excaza if you have nothing to contribute please stay out of the thread.

MM

Edited. Do not change a member's user name in order to insult.
Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: LashL
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Miragememories said:
Edited by LashL: 
Removed moderated content in quote
excaza if you have nothing to contribute please stay out of the thread.

MM
Click to expand...

It''s a valid point. You need to take ALL the evidence, ALL the pictures, ALL the videos, ALL the eye-witness accounts. You're cherry picking images and video
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Miragememories said:
Edited by LashL: 
Removed moderated content in quote
excaza if you have nothing to contribute please stay out of the thread.

MM
Click to expand...

Oh noooooooo, you mocked my name, I'm hurt! :rolleyes:

What's the ETA on you ceasing to cherrypick?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
twinstead said:
It''s a valid point. You need to take ALL the evidence, ALL the pictures, ALL the videos, ALL the eye-witness accounts. You're cherry picking images and video
Click to expand...
How can a "truther" find the truth that way? They need to narrow the scope to remove possible confusion and only listen to "truther" authorized sources. That how a real "open mind" works. Right MM?
 
white060208_468x375.jpg


Here's an image of the White House being blown up. Show it didn't happen.
 
kylebisme said:
Regardless of how support members might be severed, there are many examples to demonstate the fact that building can come down much like WTC did when support members are intentally severed, such as the ones in these side by side comparisons which I presented previously:



On the other hand, where is any example of a building without such systematic severing of support members comeing down anything like WTC 7 did to compare side by side like that? We don't have anything more than NIST's word that their model does, do we?
Click to expand...

Maybe I missed it, but in every single one of those comparisons, the colapse begins at the bottom, not the top.

Fail sir, fail fail fail......
 
kylebisme said:
None of us really have anything more to support the notion that impact damage and fire could cause such a rapped collapse of a building other than NIST's word that their model does, do we? How many people, those writing the Eurocodes or otherwise, have actually seen NIST's model come down? Also, I'm not aware of anything getting published in any peer-reviewed journals about the collapse of WTC 7, what are you referencing with that comment specifically?
Click to expand...

See here.

Performance based structural fire engineering for modern building design
Rini, D., Lamont, S. 2008 Proceedings of the 2008 Structures Congress - Structures Congress 2008: Crossing the Borders 314

Engineering perspective of the collapse of WTC-I
Irfanoglu, A., Hoffmann, C.M. 2008 Journal of Performance of Constructed Facilities 22 (1),

Collapse of towers as applied to September 11 events
Cherepanov, G.P. 2008 Materials Science 44 (4), pp. 489-499

Modeling pre-evacuation delay by occupants in World Trade Center Towers 1 and 2 on September 11, 2001
Kuligowski, E.D., Mileti, D.S. 2008 Fire Safety Journal

World Trade Center building disaster: Stimulus for innovations
Kodur, V.K.R. 2008 Indian Concrete Journal 82 (1), pp. 23-31

A collective undergraduate class project reconstructing the September 11, 2001 world trade center fire
Marshall, A., Quintiere, J. 2007 ASEE Annual Conference and Exposition, Conference Proceedings

"A new era": The limits of engineering expertise in a post-9/11 world
Pfatteicher, S.K.A. 2007 International Symposium on Technology and Society, Proceedings, art. no. 4362228

Progressive collapse of the World Trade Center: Simple analysis
Seffen, K.A. 2008 Journal of Engineering Mechanics 134 (2), pp. 125-132

Scale modeling of the 96th floor of world trade center tower 1
Wang, M., Chang, P., Quintiere, J., Marshall, A. 2007 Journal of Performance of Constructed Facilities 21 (6), pp. 414-421

Failure of welded floor truss connections from the exterior wall during collapse of the world trade center towers
Banovic, S.W., Siewert, T.A. 2007 Welding Journal (Miami, Fla) 86 (9), pp. 263-s-272-s

The collapse of the world trade center towers: A metallurgist's view
Gayle, F.W. 2007 MRS Bulletin 32 (9), pp. 710-716

Building code changes reflect world trade center investigation
Hansen, B. 2007 Civil Engineering 77 (9), pp. 22+24-25

Fire load in a steel building design
Razdolsky, L. 2008 Proceedings of the 4th International Structural Engineering and Construction Conference, ISEC-4 - Innovations in Structural Engineering and Construction 2, pp. 1163-1167

The structural steel of the World Trade Center towers
Gayle, F.W., Banovic, S.W., Foecke, T., Fields, R.J., Luecke, W.E., McColskey, J.D., McCown, C., Siewert, T.A. 2006 Journal of Failure Analysis and Prevention 6 (5), pp. 5-8

Progressive collapse of structures: Annotated bibliography and comparison of codes and standards
Mohamed, O.A. 2006 Journal of Performance of Constructed Facilities 20 (4), art. no. 001604QCF, pp. 418-425

A simple model of the World Trade Center fireball dynamics
Baum, H.R., Rehm, R.G., Quintiere, J.G. 2005 Proceedings of the Combustion Institute 30 II, pp. 2247-2254

Impact of the Boeing 767 Aircraft into the World Trade Center
Karim, M.R., Hoo Fatt, M.S. 2005 Journal of Engineering Mechanics 131 (10), pp. 1066-1072

High-fidelity simulation of large-scale structures
Hoffmann, C., Sameh, A., Grama, A. 2005 Lecture Notes in Computer Science 3515 (II), pp. 664-671

Collapses of the world trade center towers
[No author name available] 2005 Indian Concrete Journal 79 (8), pp. 11-16

Industry updates: Fireproofing, staircases cited in World Trade Center report
[No author name available] 2005 Journal of Failure Analysis and Prevention 5 (4), pp. 34

September 11 and fracture mechanics - A retrospective
Cherepanov, G.P. 2005 International Journal of Fracture 132 (2), pp. L25-L26

Structural responses of World Trade Center under aircraft attacks
Omika, Y., Fukuzawa, E., Koshika, N., Morikawa, H., Fukuda, R. 2005 Journal of Structural Engineering 131 (1), pp. 6-15

Use of high-efficiency energy absorbing device to arrest progressive collapse of tall building
Zhou, Q., Yu, T.X. 2004 Journal of Engineering Mechanics 130 (10), pp. 1177-1187

Progressive analysis procedure for progressive collapse
Marjanishvili, S.M. 2004 Journal of Performance of Constructed Facilities 18 (2), pp. 79-85

Lessons learned on improving resistance of buildings to terrorist attacks
Corley, W.G. 2004 Journal of Performance of Constructed Facilities 18 (2), pp. 68-78

Anatomy of a disaster: A structural investigation of the World Trade Center collapses
Abboud, N., Levy, M., Tennant, D., Mould, J., Levine, H., King, S., Ekwueme, C., (...), Hart, G. 2003 Forensic Engineering, Proceedings of the Congress, pp. 360-370

World Trade Center disaster: Damage/debris assessment
Thater, G.G., Panariello, G.F., Cuoco, D.A. 2003 Forensic Engineering, Proceedings of the Congress, pp. 383-392

How did the WTC towers collapse: A new theory
Usmani, A.S., Chung, Y.C., Torero, J.L. 2003 Fire Safety Journal 38 (6), pp. 501-533

Microstructural analysis of the steels from Buildings 7, & 1 or 2 from the World Trade Center
Biederman, R.R., Sullivan, E.M., Sisson Jr., R.D., Vander Voort, G.F. 2003 Microscopy and Microanalysis 9 (SUPPL. 2), pp. 550-551

Brannigan, F.L.
"WTC: Lightweight Steel and High-Rise Buildings"
Fire Engineering v.155, no. 4, (2002): 145-150.

Analysis of the thermal exposure in the impact areas of the World Trade Center terrorist attacks
Beyler, C., White, D., Peatross, M., Trellis, J., Li, S., Luers, A., Hopkins, D. 2003 Forensic Engineering, Proceedings of the Congress, pp. 371-382

Clifton, Charles G.
Elaboration on Aspects of the Postulated Collapse of the World Trade Centre Twin Towers
HERA: Innovation in Metals. 2001. 13 December 2001.

"Construction and Collapse Factors"
Fire Engineering v.155, no. 10, (2002): 106-108.

Bazant, Z.P., & Zhou, Y.
"Addendum to 'Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse? - Simple Analysis" (pdf)
Journal of Engineering Mechanics v. 128, no. 3, (2002): 369-370.

Corbett, G.P.
"Learning and Applying the Lessons of the WTC Disaster"
Fire Engineering v.155, no. 10, (2002.): 133-135.

"Dissecting the Collapses"
Civil Engineering ASCE v. 72, no. 5, (2002): 36-46.

Eagar, T.W., & Musso, C.
"Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse? Science, Engineering, and Speculation"
JOM v. 53, no. 12, (2001): 8-12.


Gabrielson, T.B., Poese, M.E., & Atchley, A.A.
"Acoustic and Vibration Background Noise in the Collapsed Structure of the World Trade Center"
The Journal of Acoustical Society of America v. 113, no. 1, (2003): 45-48.

"Collapse Lessons"
Fire Engineering v. 155, no. 10, (2002): 97-103

Marechaux, T.G.
"TMS Hot Topic Symposium Examines WTC Collapse and Building Engineering"
JOM, v. 54, no. 4, (2002): 13-17.

Monahan, B.
"World Trade Center Collapse-Civil Engineering Considerations"
Practice Periodical on Structural Design and Construction v. 7, no. 3, (2002): 134-135.

Newland, D.E., & Cebon, D.
"Could the World Trade Center Have Been Modified to Prevent Its Collapse?"
Journal of Engineering Mechanics v. 128, no. 7, (2002):795-800.


Pinsker, Lisa, M.
"Applying Geology at the World Trade Center Site"
Geotimes v. 46, no. 11, (2001).
The print copy has 3-D images.

Post, N.M.
"No Code Changes Recommended in World Trade Center Report"
ENR v. 248, no. 14, (2002): 14.

Post, N.M.
"Study Absolves Twin Tower Trusses, Fireproofing"
ENR v. 249, no. 19, (2002): 12-14.


"WTC Engineers Credit Design in Saving Thousands of Lives"
ENR v. 247, no. 16, (2001): 12.

and there are the links at
http://www.ae911truth.info/tiki-inde...holarly+Papers

and

http://www.debunking911.com/paper.htm
you need to scroll down to see 20 of their peer reviewed papers.
 
Miragememories said:
[qimg]http://img529.imageshack.us/img529/1149/normalcbsb7montno3.jpg[/qimg]


[qimg]http://img263.imageshack.us/img263/9872/set3sccompositeua1.png[/qimg]

The NIST's north side data was created from the video of the north face collapse.

If those three sides were not falling in unison, we would have seen the north side
falling and the other sides delayed in their fall (not-in-unison). Or we would have
observed some significant irregularity in outline of the east and/or west sides.

The profile of the WTC7 collapse clearly shows that the 3 sides were falling in unison.

MM
Click to expand...

Grainey YouTube videos do not make good starting points.

Can you explain the kink? How about the lean?
 
excaza said:
yes, going from a straight line to a curved one clearly indicates they're falling at the same rate.
Click to expand...
Rather, maintaining pretty much that same curve through around 100 feet of descent indicates the faces are maintaining pretty much the same acceleration throughout that space.

triforcharity said:
Maybe I missed it, but in every single one of those comparisons, the colapse begins at the bottom, not the top.

Fail sir, fail fail fail......
Click to expand...
So where are the win comparisons? While there are obvious differences between the controlled demolition examples I presented and WTC 7, they still match far closer than any example of a building brought down by impact damage and/or fire anyone has managed to present, eh?

As for the papers you listed, I'm familiar with many of them which address the Twin Towers, but do any examine WTC 7 in any detail?
 
Last edited:
kylebisme said:
Regardless of how support members might be severed, there are many examples to demonstate the fact that building can come down much like WTC did when support members are intentally severed, such as the ones in these side by side comparisons which I presented previously:



...
Click to expand...

These side-by-sides have the audio track of only the lefthand side.
Would you wager a guess about what we would hear if instead the maker of that video had chosen to play the audio track of the right hand video?
 
That depends on what kind of mic was used and it's location reletive to the explosives which brought down the building. If it was about three blocks away with buildings in the way, and only started recording in time to catch the last blast, it could sound something like the faint boom caught right at the start of this video:



And if the audio was recorded by an interview mic even further away, the explosions could sound even fainter, such as the sequence of booms caught on this video right as the people all snap their heads towards WTC 7:



Those audio recordings compare far better with the sounds of controlled demolitions than any building succumbing to fire and/or impact damage I've ever heard.
 
Last edited:
kylebisme said:
That depends on what kind of mic was used and it's location reletive to the explosives which brought down the building. If it was about three blocks away with buildings in the way, and only started recording in time to catch the last blast, it could sound something like the faint boom caught right at the start of this video:



And if the audio was recorded by an interview mic even further away, the explosions could sound even fainter, such as the sequence of booms caught on this video right as the people all snap their heads towards WTC 7:



Those audio recordings compare far better with the sounds of controlled demolitions than any building succumbing to fire and/or impact damage I've ever heard.
Click to expand...

Oh handwave handwave handwave confirmation bias blah blah.
Buddy. No one on this earth with a head that's nearly sane will describe anything in these audios as... well, what people generally describe the detonation of real CDs. Those are "AWESOME". "INSANE". "INCREDIBLE". Such explosions always go like this...
















(hold your ears)

















like

















BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG!

Not like "even fainter", which is a very fitting description of what you posted. These explosions go BANG! to the tune of 140db a piece. There were workers nearby on GZ, only hundreds of feet away, many of which familiar with explosive demolitions. Not a single one of those hundreds would have missed the BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! if there had been one.

Compare real CDs:


Note how the cameraman jerks the camera in shock because the first BANG, although expected and hundreds of feet away, is so insanely loud


Behind closed windows


At quite a distance


Look how several of the people duck


They countdown, the cameraman knows exactly when and what to expect, and still jerks the camera in shock at the first BANG


Here is one that is faint compared to the others. Please note that here you can't hear the collapse at all, whereas in the street interview, you can actually hear the WTC7 collaspe. But you can't hear any boom boom booms. Unless you desperately want to.


And on it goes



Even on Danny Jowenko's site, who was so foolish to conclude from no infomation and wrong information that WTC7 was a CD, you can hear what real CDs sound like:
http://www.jowenko.com/
 
Oystein said:
No one on this earth with a head that's nearly sane will describe anything in these audios as... well, what people generally describe the detonation of real CDs. Those are "AWESOME". "INSANE". "INCREDIBLE".
Click to expand...
Sure, just like people often use such words to describe race car engines revving, yet those same sounds are very faint on recordings from interview mics some 1000 feet away.

Oystein said:
...in the street interview, you can actually hear the WTC7 collaspe. But you can't hear any boom boom booms.
Click to expand...
I can hear the booms, louder than WTC 7 coming down after it, and I could boost the base on the audio and upload that to demonstrate as much if need be. However, surely you can hear the final boom at the start of the other video I posted, and hear that it is louder than the sound of WTC 7 collapsing shortly after it, eh?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom