• 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

LOL he uses Avery, Harrit and Chandlers as his sources......just too funny.

Talk about building on Sand!:D

Counting the errors in his introduction

Many architects, engineers and others have never seen the rapid descent of the 47-story World Trade Center Building Seven (WTC 7) into its footprint in less than seven seconds on the afternoon of September 11,
2001. This unprecedented event—the first steel-frame building in history to collapse suddenly and completely following an uncontrolled office fire—was captured on film from various angles. Engineers at the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) performed extensive thermal and structural analyses of the building in an attempt to explain the
complete collapse in terms of impact damage, fire damage, column buckling and progressive collapse. This extraordinary effort by NIST provides a close-up view inside WTC 7 during the final hours, minutes and seconds before its precipitous fall. But the discovery of extreme temperatures as well as residues of molten iron and highly reactive pyrotechnic material in the World Trade Center debris1 2 3 invalidates the NIST conclusions, and further independent investigation is
required.

:jaw-dropp
 
Is there actually anything new in that report, or is it just a polishing and stacking of the same old turds?
 
Counting the errors in his introduction

Many architects, engineers and others have never seen the rapid descent of the 47-story World Trade Center Building Seven (WTC 7) into its footprint in less than seven seconds on the afternoon of September 11,
2001. This unprecedented event—the first steel-frame building in history to collapse suddenly and completely following an uncontrolled office fire—was captured on film from various angles. Engineers at the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) performed extensive thermal and structural analyses of the building in an attempt to explain the
complete collapse in terms of impact damage, fire damage, column buckling and progressive collapse. This extraordinary effort by NIST provides a close-up view inside WTC 7 during the final hours, minutes and seconds before its precipitous fall. But the discovery of extreme temperatures as well as residues of molten iron and highly reactive pyrotechnic material in the World Trade Center debris1 2 3 invalidates the NIST conclusions, and further independent investigation is
required.

:jaw-dropp

This kind of makes his being (or more likely once was) a Structural Engineer utterly irrelevant as any conclusions made based on faulty initial assumptions and date are, by default, worthless. How could MM not know this?:confused:
 
Counting the errors in his introduction
into its footprint in less than seven seconds on the afternoon of September 11, 2001.
This unprecedented event—the first steel-frame building in history to collapse suddenly and completely following an uncontrolled office firediscovery of extreme temperatures as well as residues of molten iron and highly reactive pyrotechnic material

Add bastardizing witness testimony and spin
Chandler's bastardization of conservation of momentum
The make up belief that freefall acceleration somehow indicates CD
several ton beams ejected fro WTC 1
 
Usually our government seems rather inefficient and inept, but 9/11 was the ultimate in multitasking events.
Convenient for you I guess?

Silverstein wanted the towers torn down, but that was going to be expensive, so when they hatched the plot with the planes, he took the opportunity to have them rigged for CD as well and bought hisself some insurance.
Which didn't cover the cost of rebuilding the towers and of course he's still paying the mortgage on the destroyed buildings. Not a very good plan.

Building 7 had to go as well because of all those computers and files with the evidence of the attack on them.
Shredders are pretty cheap and would leave a lot less evidence than blowing up a building. Not to mention computers have back ups, intranets, servers, etc... Even in 2001. Welcome to the 21st Century.

Over at the Pentagon, they not only wanted to make a statement, but also to get rid of some pesky accountants and try out the new missile system against a particularly strong reinforced section of building. Actually attacking themselves made it so much more convincing for the public.
1) As someone else mentioned, that's not what they hit.
2) Do you think there are cheaper ways to test a missile?
3) What "new missile system?"
4) Do you think hijacking and getting rid of an airliner and its occupants might be a little cumbersome of a way to "test" a missile - against your own building you then have to rebuild?
5) You comment about "accountants" is obviously a reference to Rumsfeld's "missing" trillions. Of course since the money isn't/was never missing, that kind of puts a hole in your boat.

Please tell me you aren't serious...
 
Please tell me you aren't serious...
I see you're kind of new here. Hint: when people have :rolleyes: in their posts they're generally being sarcastic. In addition, if you're not sure you might want to backcheck some of their old posts whereby it will quickly be obvious where they stand :).

Most truthers here won't respond to your sanity questions, but I have been on this or other 9/11 boards for nearly 10 years, so I know all the ins and outs of truther drivel. And all the things in my post have been posed by truthers in the past as "reasons" for various parts of the 9/11 inside job conspiracy. A little searching would bare that out.
 
Last edited:
Usually our government seems rather inefficient and inept, but 9/11 was the ultimate in multitasking events. Silverstein wanted the towers torn down, but that was going to be expensive, so when they hatched the plot with the planes, he took the opportunity to have them rigged for CD as well and bought hisself some insurance. Building 7 had to go as well because of all those computers and files with the evidence of the attack on them.

Over at the Pentagon, they not only wanted to make a statement, but also to get rid of some pesky accountants and try out the new missile system against a particularly strong reinforced section of building. Actually attacking themselves made it so much more convincing for the public.

:rolleyes:

It wasn't the government. It was a few well placed traitors at the top. People who could order underlings not to BAU without serious consequence.
 
After ten years you still have not learned what gravity is? Gives a new meaning to the word "slow" :eye-poppi

Intact. The frame, the facades were completely intact as they sank from view. The interior as per your scenario had already collapsed. Go figure.
 
It wasn't the government. It was a few well placed traitors at the top. People who could order underlings not to BAU without serious consequence.

Do you mean the serious consequence that never happened to the guy who blew the whistle on the Pat Tilman case? The serious consequence that then would not be defied by the thousand plus "underlings" it would take to demolish WTC7 and no one detect any explosive devices, in addition to all the other events of that day?
 
Intact. The frame, the facades were completely intact as they sank from view. The interior as per your scenario had already collapsed. Go figure.

Why is it troofers have such a hard time grasping simple concepts?

WTC & was constructed with a rather conventional structural shell, on the other hand the guts of the building was a hodgepodge of oddly placed columns and transfer beams and girders because of the existing substation. The fact that the rather rigid exterior shell held together longer and more together than the interior framing is not a surprise whatsoever to those with the slightest knowledge of building structures.
 

Back
Top Bottom