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

[twinstead]

.

But again, unlike you, if someone shows me legitimate proof of a misstatement, I will attempt to make the proper correction.

The fact that you still hold the ludicrous idea that the WTC7 building was a controlled demolition makes that statement untrue.

 

[WildCat]

So, are these 1,500 genius architects and engineers still scratching their heads over the "mystery" of Building 7?

 

[Oystein]

Nooo the Solution is written out clearly in this very thread, by Marokkaan! Or was it Miragememories? No.. wait.. Clayton.. no... RedIbis? Nuh Red is still working on the evidence for "made out like a bandid". Must have been...

Oops! My bad! No solution spelled out in this thread after all. Or anywhere else for that matter.

Ooops wrong again! Found it! NCSTAR 1A!

 

[Miragememories]

"Okay, we are in agreement that large buildings are not filled with solid material. That was a brilliant observation Grizzly Bear and I'm sure the stoners out there will appreciate the clarification."

"And would you also agree that only stoners would think cardboard boxes are appropriate models?"

You could probably convince me that many who religiously adhere to the Official Story are stupid. That is, stupid enough to consider Richard Gage's illustration of the size disparity between the upper and lower sections of WTC1, not an effective model.

I believe that Steve Jobs and many other highly respected modern thinkers were known to get stoned. It would surprise me if they could not see the spatial information that cardboard model was attempting to convey.

Apparently, a model not built to scale, and not utilizing the original construction materials, is too challenging for you?

"Inhabited buildings aren't solid as trees, they aren't inherently monolithic either. In many cases including WTC 7 they have structural elements spread across large footprint and they are considerably less rigid than a solid tree. If they loads are off kilter on these parts (AKA eccentric, and unevenly redistributed) then what do you expect? The building to still fall over like a tree? Perhaps you should drop the looney toon physics (strangely after ten years you and "like minded" believers seem to believe in this looney physics)."

"Okay, we are in agreement that large buildings are not filled with solid material. That was a brilliant observation Grizzly Bear...

If the loads are off kilter on these parts (AKA eccentric, and unevenly redistributed), I expect an off balance look to any ensuing collapse. Duh!"

"and off balance look"?????? care to define what that means? and why you think its relevant?"

Sure, though I am surprised that the consequence of such a building being subjected to what Grizzly Bear described; "If they loads are off kilter on these parts (AKA eccentric, and unevenly redistributed) then what do you expect? The building to still fall over like a tree?", isn't obvious--even to you sheeplesnshills?

Logically the building is at its most vulnerable where the load is most off kilter (not aligned or balanced).

According to the NIST, that point coincided with their computer modeled critical failure of the major supporting column, No.79.

Okay, if true, WTC7 should have started its initial failure there, on the eastern side of the building. The NIST use the drop of the east penthouse and some fractured windows in the upper northeast face as visual corroboration.

Meanwhile, the middle and western side of the building still have an intact supporting structure.

Keeping in mind the many videos showing the relatively even roofline, high speed global collapse (including 2.5 seconds of zero structural support, freefall), do you still not see the problem sheeplesnshills?

"Tipping over is what you might expect if a building lost its structural integrity on the majority area of one side or the other."

"LOL, No you wouldn't (thanks for proving by the way that you did not study structure engineering!) it would only tip over if the building had tremendous rigidity and and very strong joints. You seem to keep missing the point that the only major force on the building was gravity and it only acts straight down."

Good point about WTC7's having tremendous rigidity sheeplesnshills.

Maybe you can explain how it completely lost all that tremendous rigidity during 2.5 seconds of freefall?

"Hmm..column 79, followed within a second, according to the NIST, by columns 80 and 81. Sounds like the east side should have started collapsing. But. If this was part of global collapse initiation, than the rest of the building should have eventually joined in. Hmm. That would lead to an expectation of a topple to the east, the side that failed first."

"Nope, see above. The rest of the building has enormous inertia and with the only force acting straight down it would simply fall apart....and down."

You do realize that you are making very little sense here sheeplesnshills?

Of course we all saw that it fell...down....but it did not fall apart until well into its collapse.

"The failure of one floor corner caused the rapid collapse of the entire corner in Ronan point.

That's what a progressive collapse is, whether it's one corner, or the entire building. Tell me, have you ever studied the structural plans for WTC 7? Can you justify your contention that this is all like an event in a Saturday morning cartoon with hard engineering and design analysis? I'm thinking the answer is a resounding "no," in which case you'd better provide a good reason why anyone should pay attention to what you're arguing?"

"And how Grizzly Bear does that pathetic example illustrate what was observed with WTC7?

Oh I get it. You expect the fools in the audience to believe that column 79 failed over 6 floors, dropping the east penthouse below the roof, that columns 80 and 81 failed within a second of each other, that the external structure remained apparently unaffected, and meanwhile the whole inner core of WTC7 proceeded to fail while the exterior shell exhibited nothing more than some window breakage on the upper northeast face. Finally, by an act of God I guess, the remaining external peripheral structure, amazingly, let go, at all points, at the very same time, for at least 2.5 seconds.

Talk about making your Saturday morning cartoon a reality Grizzly Bear..wow!"

"No we expect the intelligent folks to get the above....the fools already think it was CD."

So let us carefully look at this.

Inside WTC7, all the floor assemblies, girders, interior and exterior structural columns are all interconnected, making the building quite strong and rigid as you previously pointed out.

Now in the NIST global collapse scenario, column 79 has buckled and collapsed, and apparently over seven seconds the inner structural guts of WTC7 also failed.

During this period, watching and recording cameras were trained on the WTC7 north side along with the pre-warned public. What they observed during this period, was the collapse of the east penthouse and some window breakage on the upper northeast face.

Could you explain why not even a ripple was observed anywhere on the very visible
north side of WTC7?

Supposedly, inside girders and trusses were being pulled downward by massive gravitational forces. Girders, trusses and floor pans connected to the perimeter columns, windows, etc.

At least in their flawed hypothesis for explaining the collapse of the WTC Twin Towers, the NIST could show some bowing columns to support their argument.

Yet, with WTC7, not even a single brick was observed to drop until the start of global collapse.

How much do you expect a person to suspend their disbelief?

"Yes, I think you'd better provide a good reason why anyone should pay attention to what you're arguing."

"Why? the sane part of the world already believes it or doesn't care to worry about it, Its the twoofers that have to argue a case and so far they are just one big fail."

Your last comment is not worthy of a response. It says all that needs to be said about the mindless support behind the Official Story.

MM

 

[DGM]

You could probably convince me that many who religiously adhere to the Official Story are stupid. That is, stupid enough to consider Richard Gage's illustration of the size disparity between the upper and lower sections of WTC1, not an effective model.

I believe that Steve Jobs and many other highly respected modern thinkers were known to get stoned. It would surprise me if they could not see the spatial information that cardboard model was attempting to convey.

Apparently, a model not built to scale, and not utilizing the original construction materials, is too challenging for you?

MM

I think that model just shows who Gage's target audience is.

MM, Have you been to one of his shows yet?

 

[Zeuzzz]

Still on the fence.

 

[DGM]

Still on the fence.

Hope it's not one of these:

 

[Clayton Moore]

Still on the fence.

Read this.

http://www.911timeline.net/#90254

And watch this by David Chandler.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rP9Qp5QWRMQ

 

[NoahFence]

Could you explain why not even a ripple was observed anywhere on the very visible
north side of WTC7?

As our beloved Femr2 used to love to say,

incorrect.

It is Femr2's very own anaylsis that shows CLEARLY a "ripple" effect. The south side of the building is collapsing before the penthouse. That's why the penthouse collapses in the first place. The structure beneath it is going-going-gone.


I so do love when you people drop phrases like "pre-warned public" in there to make it sound all sinister. FYI -

YOU'RE NOT FOOLING ANYBODY!

Well at least nobody with a brain.

 

[NoahFence]

MM - If it's at all possible for you to grace me with your obvious wealth of knowledge regarding these images you're posting....

The image of the building burning saying that "this structure" (about 20 floors) needs to squash "this structure" - the remaining 3/4th of the building.....

Where you and your kind are completely wrong, is that the 20 floors at and above the impact zone do NOT have to crush the 80+/- floors below.

They have to crush ONE. That's it. Then those 21 floors have to crush ONE. Then those 22 floors have to crush ONE.

I knew that - for a fact - the INSTANT it was happening.

Tell me how that's wrong. Educate me.

 

[triforcharity]

Yet, with WTC7, not even a single brick was observed to drop until the start of global collapse.

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

How much do you expect a person to suspend their disbelief?

MM

I would expect someone like youself, a self-professed "Truth Seeker" to at least make an attempt at posting some truth.

The EMP collapsing INTO the building, would be considered well above and beyond "a single brick".

How much do you have to try to suspend reality to post the **** that you do?

 

[NoahFence]

Yet, with WTC7, not even a single brick was observed to drop until the start of global collapse.

Wow. That's a hellova statement.

Remember this the next time you whine about being called a liar.

 

[Oystein]

...
Yet, with WTC7, not even a single brick was observed to drop until the start of global collapse.
...

What a transparent and masochistc lie.
Did you hope that all of us have forgotten the drop of the east penthouse several seconds before the "start of global collapse"? Ok, well, technically the east penthouse wasn't brickwork.

 

[GlennB]

Could you explain why not even a ripple was observed anywhere on the very visible north side of WTC7?

Incorrect*. Truther femr_2 produced a colour-adjusted video showing a distinct "ripple" down the N face of WTC7 prior to global collapse. Search his posts and you might even find it.

Yet, with WTC7, not even a single brick was observed to drop until the start of global collapse.

Apart from the entire EMP? Oh dear. Then there's the "ripple" ....

Meanwhile, and strangely, there was a period of <g acceleration prior to the period of freefall. This doesn't tie in with any concept of all support being simultaneously removed, otherwise the acceleration would have been g from the outset.

*Nodding to Noah. I began composing this before cooking dinner, an hour ago

 

[Grizzly Bear]

Did an ultra quick n' dirty drawing of estimate tributary areas for the columns along the area column 79 was located. Mostly intended to show a more or less before/after failure, to show how the loads are changed. They don't quantify the loads in terms of "weight"... instead it shows graphically in terms of floor area what the adjacent columns had to carry.

1st image is before failure. I've super-impoised the outline of the tributary areas for each column onto the plan. The second image shows the extent of floor area in which loads must be redistributed after column 79 failed.

The third image estimates very roughly how the the tributary areas would have changed in response.

Here's a version without the plan in it, just my drawings...

http://img718.imageshack.us/img718/8888/drawing2r.jpg

Like I said... it's a dirty quick sketch of the situation intended as a general guide, no scale assigned for the graphics. Yet not a single truther has ever tried it at all. Despite the fact that it's quick, I think it illustrates with enough clarity the most basic structural characteristics


For anyone not familiar with the concept of tributary are: More details

 

[Zeuzzz]

And watch this by David Chandler.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rP9Qp5QWRMQ

Watched this before. Reminds me something though, judging from the graph (that I think I'm right in thinking NIST has since agreed with?) it only took ~0.8 seconds for the building to accelerate from 0 to g, and then it maintains downwards acceleration of g for a further 2.5 seconds before any sort of resistance is reached. Correct? Want to check other people agree, mainly because the above graph is in a youtube video, before I presume its true.

 

[LSSBB]

Inside WTC7, all the floor assemblies, girders, interior and exterior structural columns are all interconnected, making the building quite strong and rigid as you previously pointed out.

Now in the NIST global collapse scenario, column 79 has buckled and collapsed, and apparently over seven seconds the inner structural guts of WTC7 also failed.

Although the building as a whole is strong and rigid, column 79 itself was not equally supported in all directions in response to the expansion under the heat of the fire. An inspection of the building drawings shows that.

 

[Clayton Moore]

Although the building as a whole is strong and rigid, column 79 itself was not equally supported in all directions in response to the expansion under the heat of the fire. An inspection of the building drawings shows that.

Science proves that the steel columns, because of their huge size, could never have become hot enough to fail.

 

[Zeuzzz]

Science proves that the steel columns, because of their huge size, could never have become hot enough to fail.

What does this mean?

Metal conducts heat extremely quickly, but yes I agree that their large size will factor into the time it takes for them to heat up/fail.

 

[A W Smith]

Engineering proves otherwise, Clayton Troll

Science proves that the steel columns, because of their huge size, could never have become hot enough to fail.

the column didn't need to get hot to fail. It merely needed to lose the stabilization of several floors to buckle and fail

http://www.efunda.com/formulae/solid_mechanics/columns/columns.cfm

Note that the critical buckling load decreases with the square of the column length.