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

[NoahFence]

That sounds compelling on the face of it. Now, can I get a link, a screenshot or some reference to which image shows this.

Just go to any of Gage's outlawed videos - you know, the ones that show the entire collapse.

 

[Oystein]

That sounds compelling on the face of it. Now, can I get a link, a screenshot or some reference to which image shows this.

It is telling that, after years of peddling irrelevant and false information as "Larr made out like a bandit" while trying to debate WTC7, you STLL haven't seen the relevant evidence. Must be that you aren't looking for it in earnest.

 

[GlennB]

That sounds compelling on the face of it. Now, can I get a link, a screenshot or some reference to which image shows this.

It's discussed at length in the NIST report with stills, iirc. Meanwhile it's clear from at least one of the classic videos, taken from the NW at, or close to, street level.

eta: NCSTAR1-9 Vol I, pdf page 263 onwards. Several examples.

It's kind of surprising you haven't heard of this before.

Then femr2 has his colour-enhanced vid showing a 'shock wave' or ripple propagating up towards the EMP, which promptly disappears into the building. I always thought the missing EMP was quite a clue even without that 'ripple' thing. I found the vid. earlier in a thread here but forgot to bookmark it. If you're interested I can find it again easily enough.

And the WMP overtakes the roofline early in so-called global collapse, which is a minor clue I suppose.

 

[sheeplesnshills]

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.

Whats has size to do with it?? Any floor dropping on the one below would cause the entire building to fail. The top did not squash the lower section, the dropping floors dismantled the lower section.

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.

You are supporting Gages demo???? Really???? Do you really think a cardboard box is even remotely like a steel framed skyscaper in any way whatsover other than shape??? Thanks again for proving you did not study structural engineering. If you had you would have burst out laughing at that demo..........

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

On the contrary, I am quite aware of how to build models demonstrate points. Thats what makes Gages demo so funny. Its just so wrong on so many levels its just too funny.

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?

What problem? Please explain, list all assumptions made and show working.
It not looking right to you, a complete ingenue, is not a problem.

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?

It didn't. A relatively small section of it did near the end of the collapse event and there are a number of mechanisms that could cause that, including levers, tension, and buckling. I suspect it was the last.

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

to you? who cares?

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

nope, you just see the visible results well into its collapse but the change in roofline, east penthouse etc show that its was falling apart long before the final plunge of the north wall.

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?

from hundreds of yards away???? Now perhaps if their had been cameras and measuring equipment all sorts of interesting things would have been visible and measured.

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.

none of the video has resolution to see a brick..........

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

No intelligent person has any disbelief and what can you do about what stupid people believe?? You are a fine example of just how difficult it is to educate the stupid.

 

[Dave Rogers]

That sounds compelling on the face of it. Now, can I get a link, a screenshot or some reference to which image shows this.

It appears surprisingly difficult to find a copy of the WTC7 video that doesn't have the collapse of the east mechanical penthouse carefully edited out by the truther who posted it. This is what I meant in another thread by "polluting the historical record". But if you find a copy of the well-known video of the WTC7 collapse taken from the northwest from which someone hasn't deliberately removed the first few seconds to give a false impression of how the collapse progressed, you should be able to see this for yourself. Alternatively, chapter 5 of NIST NCSTAR 1-9 has a copious selection of video stills that show all the major steps in the collapse.

Dave

 

[Dave Rogers]

It is telling that, after years of peddling irrelevant and false information as "Larr made out like a bandit" while trying to debate WTC7, you STLL haven't seen the relevant evidence. Must be that you aren't looking for it in earnest.

Actually, I suspect this is a prelude to a planned Gotcha! moment, where RedIbis says that it doesn't look that way to him therefore we're all government indoctrinated sheeple for believing something that's painfully obvious to all of us but that he isn't bright enough to have figured out even with the help of colour pictures, whereas he's an independent thinker because he's believed exactly what Richard Gage told him to.

Dave

 

[sheeplesnshills]

His target audience is anyone unafraid of the truth.

No his target is anyone who is unable to tell one way or the other and have a pre existing low level of paranoia.

The Official Story rules because it provides sanctuary for those who fear the truth.

psychobabble. I do not fear things that have no credible evidence to support their existance.

 

[sylvan8798]

The above is a simple explanation derived by a layman with a reasonable grasp of the physics involved, but no more. You say that "Nearly every point about WTC7 that I've seen brought up here supporting CD recently has had a counterpoint made," but I have yet to see any account even in this little detail that even establishes a plausible scenario in which explosive demolition could account for this acceleration profile.

Your explanation is a lot more reasonable than any truther's I have seen. How many floors were involved in the exterior moment frames? It seems to me that the fact that the exterior would try to fall as a unit is not surprising given the stiffness of the frames. The frames were INTENDED to act as a structural unit.

 

[Zeuzzz]

given the stiffness of the frames. The frames were INTENDED to act as a structural unit.

hmmm, this implies some sort of structural resistance when they collapse, even without any core columns supporting them does it not?

 

[Dave Rogers]

hmmm, this implies some sort of structural resistance when they collapse, even without any core columns supporting them does it not?

It implies structural resistance in the part that hasn't already collapsed, yes. The part between the upper and lower hinges of the buckle has already collapsed, though, and therefore can't offer any structural resistance, so everything above the upper hinge falls as a single unit until it hits something that hasn't collapsed. The upper block can have as much structural resistance as it likes; as long as there's nothing below it, it falls at 1G acceleration. And there is nothing below it, because the buckled part has moved sideways out of the path of the collapse.

Dave

 

[sylvan8798]

hmmm, this implies some sort of structural resistance when they collapse, even without any core columns supporting them does it not?

The "resistance" that they provide is the sense that the entire upper exterior section is briefly falling all as one rather than helter skelter. And the resistance that they provide in terms of the core having fallen first and then being followed by the exterior. Obviously the frames can't provide resistance to falling if their own support has buckled or if they have buckled out of the plane of the wall.

This is the best compilation I've seen of all the WTC7 collapse videos. I never realized there were so many, as the truthers usually like to focus on one or two.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bWorDrTC0Qg

Interestingly it appears to have been posted by a truther organization.

 

[slowsmile]

It appears surprisingly difficult to find a copy of the WTC7 video that doesn't have the collapse of the east mechanical penthouse carefully edited out by the truther who posted it. This is what I meant in another thread by "polluting the historical record". But if you find a copy of the well-known video of the WTC7 collapse taken from the northwest from which someone hasn't deliberately removed the first few seconds to give a false impression of how the collapse progressed, you should be able to see this for yourself. Alternatively, chapter 5 of NIST NCSTAR 1-9 has a copious selection of video stills that show all the major steps in the collapse.

Dave

Hi

There's one here showing the collapse of the east penthouse - is this the one you mean?

youtube.com/watch?v=XrnmbUDeHus

(Sorry can't post full link as I've only just joined)

 

[Edx]

It implies structural resistance in the part that hasn't already collapsed, yes. The part between the upper and lower hinges of the buckle has already collapsed, though, and therefore can't offer any structural resistance, so everything above the upper hinge falls as a single unit until it hits something that hasn't collapsed. The upper block can have as much structural resistance as it likes; as long as there's nothing below it, it falls at 1G acceleration. And there is nothing below it, because the buckled part has moved sideways out of the path of the collapse.

Dave

I first saw it in an alienentity video showing collapse time and was shocked and thought it might be fake or something.

 

[Miragememories]

You're missing the point, so let me rephrase it:

In your CD scenario why is there a period of 1.75 seconds of < g acceleration, given that you claim instantaneous removal of all support is required to explain the g phase? What was happening in those 1.75 seconds?

How many ways must you hear it?

NIST's Stage 1, was the period before the global collapse of WTC7 reached freefall acceleration (Stage 2). During Stage 1, for 1.75 seconds at least 8 storeys worth of lower supporting columns, across the complete WTC7 floor area, were simultaneously demolished.

Stage 1 was followed by Stage 2, a period of freefall for 2.25 seconds, clearly meaning an unobstructed global drop through those column-removed 8 storeys. A 100 foot free fall, unobstructed and unresisted.

From the videos you can see for yourself that the north face and the west face were free-falling in unity.

Vertical structural supports from the northeast corner all the way around to the southwest corner were proven by the video to have been instantly removed.

Not even a left to right progressive collapse which might have supported the NIST fantasy.

When global collapse started, the left side dropped in time with the right.

MM

 

[NoahFence]

at least 8 storeys worth of lower supporting columns, across the complete WTC7 floor area, were simultaneously demolished.

lie.

 

[GlennB]

eta: agreed. never mind

 

[WildCat]

nvm

 

[twinstead]

How many ways must you hear it?

NIST's Stage 1, was the period before the global collapse of WTC7 reached freefall acceleration (Stage 2). During Stage 1, for 1.75 seconds at least 8 storeys worth of lower supporting columns, across the complete WTC7 floor area, were simultaneously demolished.

Stage 1 was followed by Stage 2, a period of freefall for 2.25 seconds, clearly meaning an unobstructed global drop through those column-removed 8 storeys. A 100 foot free fall, unobstructed and unresisted.

From the videos you can see for yourself that the north face and the west face were free-falling in unity.

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

Vertical structural supports from the northeast corner all the way around to the southwest corner were proven by the video to have been instantly removed.

Not even a left to right progressive collapse which might have supported the NIST fantasy.

When global collapse started, the left side dropped in time with the right.

MM

Why do so few people with relevant education and experience agree with your conclusions? You obviously have mad structural engineering skills; I sense a conspiracy!

 

[LSSBB]

When global collapse started, the left side dropped in time with the right.

MM

Funny, how do you explain that funny tenting and poof of white smoke to the left right where the Penthouse took a dive? Maybe, just maybe, that whole interior section of the building was gone by then? No spine, and you're just watching the skin fall in?

 

[sylvan8798]

How many ways must you hear it?

NIST's Stage 1, was the period before the global collapse of WTC7 reached freefall acceleration (Stage 2). During Stage 1, for 1.75 seconds at least 8 storeys worth of lower supporting columns, across the complete WTC7 floor area, were simultaneously demolished.

MM

If they were simultaneously demolished, why would there be a 0.8 second Stage 1? Doesn't simultaneously suggest that it happened all at once and in an instant went from not moving AT ALL to moving with acceleration of g? As is the case if one, say, drops an object from rest?