WTC7 and the NIST free fall failure

[achimspok]

Use two.

Exactly.

 

[Dave Rogers]

Yes, may be.

Larry: Some guy told me the foundation is altready unstable.

Insurance loss adjuster: Do you have a name?
Larry: No, I didn't get the engineer's name. He was someone from the Buildings Department.
Loss adjuster: Well, I'll need some kind of report from... hang on, look at CNN, is that your building falling down?
Larry: Good god. Yes.
Loss adjuster: I guess there's no need to look up the engineer's name, then.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2010/...#ixzz18TsxQBZS

OK, since you're quoting this as an authoritative source, let's see what else it says.

While I was talking with a fellow reporter and several NYPD officers, Building 7 suddenly collapsed, and before it hit the ground, not a single sound emanated from the tower area. There were no explosives; I would have heard them. In fact, I remember that in those few seconds, as the building sank to the ground that I was stunned by how quiet it was.

So is the whole piece an authoritative source, or just the bit you want to believe?

Dave

 

[DGM]

Shortly before the building collapsed, several NYPD officers and Con-Edison workers told me that Larry Silverstein, the property developer of One World Financial Center was on the phone with his insurance carrier to see if they would authorize the controlled demolition of the building – since its foundation was already unstable and expected to fall

As a developer his inquiry to his insurance company would make perfect sense. He's trying to find the fastest way to get his property back to being profitable (and who would pay for it). Of course trying to connect this to what happened that day is stupid.

 

[Myriad]

Use two.

Exactly.

If I had two transits, at a scene like WTC7, I'd use each of them in the way I just described, to monitor two different parts of the building.

Maybe if I had eight, I'd have some of them set up in pairs, for partial triangulation on the one or two most critical points -- if I also had a lot of extra personnel with a lot of extra time on their hands.

The FDNY had nothing much else to do that afternoon, I suppose?

Respectfully,
Myriad

 

[twinstead]

achimspok you need to let those insurance companies know that you have incontrovertible evidence that WTC7 was a CD. They had to pay quite a bit of money out, and I'm sure they'd be very interested that it was all a scam.

 

[DGM]

achimspok you need to let those insurance companies know that you have incontrovertible evidence that WTC7 was a CD. They had to pay quite a bit of money out, and I'm sure they'd be very interested that it was all a scam.

Especially considering the insurance companies never would have investigated for themselves. As we all know, they're in the business to help people.

 

[twinstead]

Especially considering the insurance companies never would have investigated for themselves. As we all know, they're in the business to help people.

Indeed. The altruism of the insurance companies is world renowned.

 

[achimspok]

No one needs to triangulate it because no one cares about quantitative measurements in a situation like that. The relevant information is whether there is displacement, the approximate magnitude, and whether (and at approximately what rate) it is increasing.

Here is a conversation you will never hear firefighters have:

"Chief, the lean is still increasing! We're at eight inches now."

"What direction?"

"We triangulated it, and the trend is toward the west-southwest."

"Okay, thanks. Move everybody over to the east-northeast side where they'll be safe."

Here's how to do it in real life: put one (1) transit close to the building, aimed 75 degrees or so upward with the cross hairs on a particular recognizable spot. (This is also convenient because it means the transit will be within the secured operations area, rather than sending personnel hundreds of yards away to place it and check it.) Periodically, check the view to see if the aim point has moved in any direction in the view, and by about how much.

Now, if the building is leaning directly toward the transit and happens to also be slumping downward just the right amount at the same time you might miss it! Fortunately buildings will lean long before they slump down, unless they're already falling and it's too late to do anything about it.

The real comic irony here is that you're expecting firefighters, having placed multiple transits in precisely measured locations, to then track the movements of building features (either measuring the movement within the transits' fields of view or measuring the angular changes needed to re-aim the cross hairs), and then perform the calculations to determine the true building feature movement in three dimensions. All in real time in the midst of intense activity and danger at the fire scene. And yet of the Truthers who have made all sorts of claims about measuring building movements at the start of the collapses, not one has been able to perform those same sorts of 3-D triangulation measurements and calculations, given safe armchairs to work from, hundreds of supposedly supportive engineers to consult with, and years of time!

I suppose that expecting firefighters to do things in minutes that no Truther can learn how to do in years at least shows that you hold them in high esteem. But it might help to remember that firefighters carry axes, not scalpels.

Respectfully,
Myriad

Yes, that method should work. Have you heard of such building observations on 9/11?

For the truther measurements of the building movements it would be fine to have 75° and a transit. Instead you have to use video resolution and radom vantage points. At a flat angle 1° leaning results in 0.9998 of the original height. It's a different problem.

 

[triforcharity]

Larry's Insurance: Who told you to pull the men out?
Firechief: Some guy who looked like an engineer.
Larry's Insurance: Did you saw his ID?
Firechief: No, but he was right on the money.

Way to poison the well. They KNOW he was an engineer. The guy even stated he was from the NYC DoB.

Again, it doesn't matter WHAT the engineer told him. The Chief made that decision. If his insurance company had a problem with that, they could have taken it up with the chief. Did they?

 

[triforcharity]

I don't say that the decision was wrong. We know about that engineer from a firefighter. He clearly don't need to know who he is but someone should, no?

Would it matter?

...but that engineer isn't my concern at all. It's just my opinion.

And it's an assinine opinion at that.

 

[alienentity]

At 1pm the evidence show no visible sign of the fires (neither fire nor smoke) allegedly ignited at 10:28 in the south of the floors 11, 12, 13.

Wrong. You got that claptrap from an intentionally enhanced image (a compilation of two images) that someone created to illustrated where the S side gash was.

Check the video it is made from and you'll see.

The NIST report clearly shows the areas which could not be assessed because they were obscured by smoke. Therefore they do not claim whether or not fires could have happened in those areas.
They don't know. You don't know either.

How ironic that the 'wake effects', ie vortexes and such in this gif are so similar to these ones, yet you deny smoke in one but not the other.... oh, the joys of confirmation bias...
Your own evidence debunks your claim, because the gif shows smoke clearly emerging from multiple windows. There can be no other reasonable interpretation.

I'll post another comparison in a moment....

 

[alienentity]

Here's a better way to evaluate the appearance of smoke emanating from the building.

I've oriented the pic of WTC 7's SE face the other way around. Gee, it looks almost identical to the pics of the SW face, but of course the no-smoker is claiming that this indicates smoke is coming from elsewhere than the building itself.

Not possible, is it? Either both pictures have smoke coming from the building, or neither do. You can't have it both ways, unless the argument is that you can't tell either way. But that's not his argument, is it?

 

[triforcharity]

Alien,

It appears that the smoke is starting at the lower part of the building, and is being drawn up along the side of the building in the second photo. You can also distinguish three seperate sections of smoke in the top part of the photo, with a line between each one. This indicates to me that there are 3 different origins of the smoke.

 

[alienentity]

Alien,

It appears that the smoke is starting at the lower part of the building, and is being drawn up along the side of the building in the second photo. You can also distinguish three seperate sections of smoke in the top part of the photo, with a line between each one. This indicates to me that there are 3 different origins of the smoke.

Which photo are you referring to?

 

[alienentity]

Here's the view that achimspok says was taken in the afternoon. There are several clues as to the origin of smoke -

In the foreground low down you can see a distinct source from WTC 6, and the rubble pile.

In the background is smoke coming from WTC 7. One of the obvious features that show which smoke is coming from 7 is the fact that the smoke plumes expand rapidly after they exit the buildings.

Yet we see exactly this effect from several points on 7, at least 2 distinct thick plumes which expand from the source, and one which even begins on the W face, possibly 2.

If the smoke was mixing from another building then being drawn to WTC 7 as alleged, you wouldn't get these pinpoint sources with immediate expansion - you'd have a better mixed, more homogenous blanket of smoke.

Additionally, in this afternoon shot, there is mainly steam and lighter smoke coming from 6 and expanding over the debris piles to the SE, whereas the smoke from WTC 7 is still dense - as would be expected since the fires were not being fought - already the fires of WTC 6 have been successfully fought, as we can see.

 

[achimspok]

Insurance loss adjuster: Do you have a name?
Larry: No, I didn't get the engineer's name. He was someone from the Buildings Department.
Loss adjuster: Well, I'll need some kind of report from... hang on, look at CNN, is that your building falling down?
Larry: Good god. Yes.
Loss adjuster: I guess there's no need to look up the engineer's name, then.

Loss adjuster: ...but you should wait for the final report, Larry.

OK, since you're quoting this as an authoritative source, let's see what else it says.

So is the whole piece an authoritative source, or just the bit you want to believe?

Dave

...authoritative like FOX. I guess they wanted to kick the A of Jesse Ventura. How silent is a penthouse that fall through the inner structure?

 

[Edx]

In the background is smoke coming from WTC 7. One of the obvious features that show which smoke is coming from 7 is the fact that the smoke plumes expand rapidly after they exit the buildings.

Its best shown in videos which show the direction of the smoke as obviously coming from 7

 

[achimspok]

achimspok you need to let those insurance companies know that you have incontrovertible evidence that WTC7 was a CD. They had to pay quite a bit of money out, and I'm sure they'd be very interested that it was all a scam.

If you say so. Do you imply that only CD can cause the described mechanism?

 

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

If Truthers claim that WTC7 was a "CD", they have to explain where the paper & money trail went & who benefitted from it.

I don't think they have a prayer explaining that.

 

[achimspok]

Wrong. You got that claptrap from an intentionally enhanced image (a compilation of two images) that someone created to illustrated where the S side gash was.

Check the video it is made from and you'll see.

The NIST report clearly shows the areas which could not be assessed because they were obscured by smoke. Therefore they do not claim whether or not fires could have happened in those areas.
They don't know. You don't know either.

How ironic that the 'wake effects', ie vortexes and such in this gif are so similar to these ones, yet you deny smoke in one but not the other.... oh, the joys of confirmation bias...
Your own evidence debunks your claim, because the gif shows smoke clearly emerging from multiple windows. There can be no other reasonable interpretation.

Wrong.

[qimg]http://img560.imageshack.us/img560/4848/wtc7wakeeffect.gif[/qimg]


[qimg]http://img98.imageshack.us/img98/8631/pic00049.png[/qimg]

I'll post another comparison in a moment....

For the 3rd time, smoke cannot emerge from unbroken windows but it should emerge from opened windows.