• 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.

Merged New video! Architects and Engineers - Solving the Mystery of Building 7

Miragememories said:
You wasted a lot of words with few of them actually addressing the significance of the specific concrete flooring in WTC7.

Re: the WTC7 Floor System, the floor slabs were reinforced concrete of varying thickness. Floors 8 through 47 had a concrete slab 5.5" thick (on floor 7 it was 8". The concrete on most floors was poured on a 3" corrugated metal deck.

Unquestionably the floors offered significant lateral stability and fire protection to the WTC7 structure. '
Click to expand...
The concrete floor offered little to no protection of the steel structure. It would only provide a limited amount of protection from fire spreading floor to floor.


I offer no argument to your point that different building constructions offered different structural characteristics.

Again, like your previous comment, you are padding your answer with a general lecture which does not address anything specific.

But the tests must have validity or they would be providing meaningless test data.

Office furnishings fires were what the NIST stated caused the steel failure, and I'm sure the test methods used for structural steel assemblies must have, at the very least, allowed for burning office furnishings.
Click to expand...

Required fire ratings are assigned for evacuation of building occupants and reasonable fire fighting efforts. They also take into consideration the automatic fire suppression systems install. The structure stood long enough for all occupants to have been evacuated and then some.


No I am not ignoring that fires produce heated gases.

What I would question is your suggestion that the heated gases would be so confined, and for so long, that they established prolonged significantly elevated temperatures.

The NIST argued that the fires were started on the south face as a result of debris damage.

Clearly, that damage also provided an outlet for the heated gases produced by the fires started there and those that migrated inward.

Also, high gas temperatures would be expected to cause window breakage which would also vent and reduce hot gas buildup. That kind of window breakage was evident along the fire path on the north face of WTC7.

You have said nothing about the undamaged fireproofing?

According to FEMA; "A sprayed fire-resistive material (SFRM) was used to protect the structural steel of WTC 7 from a fire. Instructions to bidders for WTC 7 recommended using a 3 hour fire rating requirement for columns and a 2 hour fire rating requirement for beams. This requirement was more stringent than the required fire ratings provided by the NYCBC for Type 1C Construction. Private inspections concluded that the thicknesses of applied SFRM were consistent with the recommended values by designers."

So for your concerns to have any validity, those extra hot gases would have to be maintained around column 79 for an inordinately long time.
Click to expand...

No, you are in error as to why column 79 failed.


emphasis mine

Or may not have.

You are merely regurgitating the NIST theory as to what lead to the column 79 failure. A theory based on little or no empiric evidence.

A theory that requires an enormous amount of targeted heat focused on column 79 over 6 floors. A theory that even the NIST's own thermal model and external photography fail to support.

[qimg]http://img204.imageshack.us/img204/3805/nistwtc712floorfiresoo7.png[/qimg]

The center of the upper right quadrant is where column 79 is located. From 4:00 p.m. to the 5:20 p.m. global collapse time, the thermal activity was continually declining around column 79.

OMG. I can't believe you would say that.

First of all, must I remind you that 9/11 represented a day where for the first time in history concrete and steel buildings totally collapsed supposedly, from the finalizing effects of fire? That in the case of WTC7, the NIST determined, after 7 years of investigation, that office furnishings fires were the sole cause behind the collapse?

You honestly believe that random un-fought fires in a modern concrete and steel office tower could set up the same series of synchronized failures that professional engineers would require to achieve a freefall, close-to-symmetrical collapse?

Your belief that such an incredible freak of circumstances could occur in reality is absolutely incomprehensible. Especially given all the fire data that contradicts even the remotest possibility of that happening.
Click to expand...

The collapse was neither "freefall" no close to symmetrical. Troofers repeated claims as such will not EVER make that come true.



Sigh.

Most engineering investigations of building collapses don't require 7 years to reach a determination of cause. Before and after 9/11, no comparable (concrete and steel) building has non-deliberately collapsed. The deliberately collapsed ones were imploded. Carefully engineered to avoid toppling, staggering, piecemeal, incomplete and unsymmetrical collapses.

If WTC7's collapse had been the consequence of random failures caused by mindless migrating fires, a reasonable expectation would have been partial collapse at the first location where structural support integrity was lost.
Click to expand...

Argument from ignorance noted.



You cannot make something true just because you state it as a fact.
Click to expand...

That is what troofers have been doing for 10 years.


Wrong.

No structural integrity means that it is structurally impaired and no longer stable or reliable.

No structural resistance means that there is zero structural support.

Anything above relying on this support, has to immediately drop under the force of gravity.

Yes indeed, Sundar understood this. Which is why he provided numbers in the draft report that did not support freefall
in the observed collapse of WTC7.




Of course there is no dispute that obviously the penthouse could not have collapsed unless it lost the structural support immediately below it.

The window breakage does indicate an internal structural disruption.

From here, it is a major leap of faith to believe the official explanation for what followed.
Click to expand...

Only to those that wish to remain willfully ignorant.




Inside the 47-storey WTC7, over a football field-sized area, interior support columns anchored to floor trusses which were anchored to exterior columns, were all supposedly failing simultaneously due to their connectivity to column 79.

Major perimeter pull-in forces that apparently didn't.

MM
Click to expand...
 
Miragememories said:
I do not waste my time attempting to have adult discussions with children.

MM
Click to expand...

What the :rule10: do you expect?
I ask a straight question, politely - you and your kind ignore it.
I ask a straight question sarcastically - you and your kind ignore it.

You're incapable of having a conversation, with anybody, on any level!
 
I'll ask again -

What, in your opinion, is the meaning of the phrase "fully fire proofed"?

You used it. I'm only asking your opinion.
 
Miragememories said:
"Of course there is no dispute that obviously the penthouse could not have collapsed unless it lost the structural support immediately below it.

The window breakage does indicate an internal structural disruption.

From here, it is a major leap of faith to believe the official explanation for what followed."
Click to expand...
Grizzly Bear said:
"What followed was a progressive collapse, which has been observed on a smaller scale before and it has a legal definition in the professional environment. The likelihood of that kind of failure, is not dictated by first time events, it's dictated by the construction, which is why I continue to call the first time in history argument for what it is; an absolute oversimplification of the real world, and completely untenable."
Click to expand...

Well I think we are starting to run around in circles here, so I'm going to introduce something you haven't addressed.

Under FOIA, a rare NIST video was obtained by Lawyer, James Gourley, the founder of the International Center for 9/11 Studies.

Below is a link to a quick 'n dirty 'repeating' video (x8) of approximately the first 5 seconds of the WTC 7 collapse.

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

It required an extensive increase in gain and the audio equalized to boost the low frequencies and reduce the shrill surround sounds.

By repeating the same segment, the ear can more easily pick up the explosion sound where it occurs, approximately 2 seconds in and just prior to the start of the east penthouse collapse.

And here is the video display of the related audio waveform;

911wtc7explosionofpenth.jpg


So yes, the controlled demolition of WTC7 was visibly starting with the collapse of the east penthouse, but not for the reasons given in the Official Story.

MM
 
I think MM may have found evidence of HushaBoomtm
Code red. Code RED! This is NOT a drill! The mockingbird has left the coup. I repeat: The mockingbird has left the coup.
 
I don't think some peoples have the vaguest notion of how explosives work.
 
Miragememories said:
So yes, the controlled demolition of WTC7 was visibly starting with the collapse of the east penthouse, but not for the reasons given in the Official Story.

MM
Click to expand...
The noise you cite isn't an explosion... That you had to significantly enhance the audio as much as you did to extract anything at all from a piece of footage less than a mile away tells me it's not anything resembling the kinds of explosions you get from charges capable of cutting a support column. From the vantage point the footage appears to have been taken from, background noise wouldn't be an issue, the sound from an explosion would be readily apparent with no additional modifications. So no, there's no controlled demolition taking place when the east penthouse falls.

With regards to:
Miragememories said:
Well I think we are starting to run around in circles here, so I'm going to introduce something you haven't addressed.
Click to expand...
If you have no plans to continue a lengthy discussion I'd at least be interested in dealing with the "first time in history argument". You showed an apparent surprise at me mentioning a few things related to rejecting it. Would you mind sharing?
 
Last edited:
Miragememories said:
Well I think we are starting to run around in circles here, so I'm going to introduce something you haven't addressed.

Under FOIA, a rare NIST video was obtained by Lawyer, James Gourley, the founder of the International Center for 9/11 Studies.

Below is a link to a quick 'n dirty 'repeating' video (x8) of approximately the first 5 seconds of the WTC 7 collapse.

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

It required an extensive increase in gain and the audio equalized to boost the low frequencies and reduce the shrill surround sounds.

By repeating the same segment, the ear can more easily pick up the explosion sound where it occurs, approximately 2 seconds in and just prior to the start of the east penthouse collapse.

And here is the video display of the related audio waveform;

[qimg]http://img696.imageshack.us/img696/8190/911wtc7explosionofpenth.jpg[/qimg]

So yes, the controlled demolition of WTC7 was visibly starting with the collapse of the east penthouse, but not for the reasons given in the Official Story.

MM
Click to expand...

You don't know much about explosives do you?
 
So yes, the controlled demolition of WTC7 was visibly starting with the collapse of the east penthouse, but not for the reasons given in the Official Story.

MM
Click to expand...


That's about as wrong as it gets. The Penthouse goes nowhere without the structure below it already gone. It's as clear as day the collapse progresses up toward the penthouse, then it's gone.

Anyway -
What, in your opinion, is the meaning of the phrase "fully fire proofed"?
 
Miragememories said:
"So yes, the controlled demolition of WTC7 was visibly starting with the collapse of the east penthouse, but not for the reasons given in the Official Story. "
Click to expand...
Grizzly Bear said:
"The noise you cite isn't an explosion... That you had to significantly enhance the audio as much as you did to extract anything at all from a piece of footage less than a mile away tells me it's not anything resembling the kinds of explosions you get from charges capable of cutting a support column. From the vantage point the footage appears to have been taken from, background noise wouldn't be an issue, the sound from an explosion would be readily apparent with no additional modifications. So no, there's no controlled demolition taking place when the east penthouse falls. "
Click to expand...

How can you be so certain that the explosion I cite is only a noise?

I did not have to significantly enhance the audio. I did so to make it easier for the listener since I acknowledge it was a
weak overall recording. As most of the audio recording were. Even the few other audio recordings of the WTC7 collapse are
weak given how loud the high speed collapse of a 47-storey office tower would have been.

Here is a link to the original unaltered recording;

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6mOY52DmAYI

MM
 
Miragememories said:
You do not know much about audio do you?

MM
Click to expand...

How do you explain away the fact that the Landmark demo was recorded by a crew in a helicopter - and yet the explosions were loud enough that they were clearly heard even over the din of the helicopter?

To the point where the people inside the helicopter were taken by surprise?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom