WTC7 and the girder walk-off between column 79 and 44

[alienentity]

For the purposes of context, this is what was heard from WTC7 at the time of its collapse:

Yes, that's right. I also made a video with audio-time correction which demonstrates that no explosion occurred at collapse. I co-opted the title for the video from that of the 9/11 Truther who posted it first - an attempt to bait truthers to view the video, you see.

 

[Justin39640]

You can't imagine that a stationary discharge device could be developed because your imagination only works in one direction - "It can't be because".

One that leaves no evidence? (Sorry I know I'm still far behind but the last five pages have been blowing my mind lol)

 

[Justin39640]

No, I posted the link.

Like I said, your imagination only works in one direction so you cannot imagine how a hands free column cutting device could be developed.

The scientists at Komatsu are very intelligent people with all the funding they need and they were not the only people developing nano-thermite demolition devices. The military, with unlimited funding, was also working on ways to use nano-thermite to blow things up and bring structures down.

I don't know about you but... when the military blows something up they tend to do so in a way that's indicative of... the military blowing something up. As far as clandestine operations, I'm not sure but assassination by building collapse can't be efficient and/or appealing. Other than nefarious NWO type mass murders, I really don't see a real world application for this.

 

[erwinl]

Thank you all very much about the loudness of explosions.

The table that Alienentity linked to says that 194 dB is the loudest noise possible. Is that an absolute? Is the air incapable of transmitting a larger shockwave?

 

[erwinl]

For the purposes of context, this is what was heard from WTC7 at the time of its collapse:

Note that the reporter says "This is it! This is it!"
Almost if she expected the building to come down.

Well she could have been in on it and wanted to give a hint on television (the way THEY apparantly like to do). But it could also mean that people were waiting for the building to fall.

Hmm. Which of these two hypotheses to choose from?
Choices, choices.

 

[Clayton Moore]

Note that the reporter says "This is it! This is it!"
Almost if she expected the building to come down.

Well she could have been in on it and wanted to give a hint on television (the way THEY apparantly like to do). But it could also mean that people were waiting for the building to fall.

Hmm. Which of these two hypotheses to choose from?
Choices, choices.

9/11: Explosive Evidence - Experts Speak Out, Full-length, Pre-Release-v1.3; Low-Res.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lw-jzCfa4eQ

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

One figure, often quoted from NIST's WTC7 FAQ, is (if I recall correctly) "9 pounds of TNT half a mile away: 130db". That figure of 9 pounds represents the minimum necessary to cut column 79 at the point where it presumably failed to initiate progressive collapse.

And just for Tony and his explosive-proof window nonsense; How far away will 9 pounds of TNT shatter glass?


HINT: Not far away enough.

 

[erwinl]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lw-jzCfa4eQ

You're not sugesting I sit through the entire 2 hours and 15 minutes to find out whether people did or did not expect WTC7 to come down?
Where in this clip is that mentioned?

 

[Oystein]

And just for Tony and his explosive-proof window nonsense; How far away will 9 pounds of TNT shatter glass?


HINT: Not far away enough.

For the sake of logical honesty: One doesn't have to accept the premise that column 79 had to be broken at the location where NIST thinks it broke. In fact, I think Tony disagrees with that scenario. I kinda remember words to effect that, in his asessment, the columns under EMC may hay failed much higher up. I also think that a CD expert might not have targeted such a massive column directly; instead, he might remove bracing first by attacking connections over several floors. If you time these milliseconds apart, you could certainly avoid the huge pressure amplitude of a 9-lb-charge.

In actual highrise demolitions, charges average something like half a pound. For example, the Landmark Tower in Fort Worth:

The explosive charges used to bring down the Landmark Tower weighed only 364 pounds, consisting of 198 pounds of 60-percent nitroglycerine-based gel in 1-1/4 inch sticks, and 166 pounds of RDX (a C-4 derivative). The explosives were supplied by Buckley Powder Company.

To break structural steel, 369 linear shaped armor-piercing charges were required. Concrete columns were broken with the larger charges of RDX ranging from 2 ounces to 12 ounces at a density of 600 grains to 4,000 grains per lineal foot.

166 lbs of RDX, chopped into charges of 1/8 lbs to 3/4 lbs; those are described as the "larger charges", and were used to break concrete columns. If those were on average 1/4 lbs, then there were roughly 600 of those charges.

"198 pounds of ... nitroglycerine-based gel in 1-1/4 inch sticks" apparently were used to break structural steel, coming in "369 linear shaped armor-piercing charges". If I get that right, each linear shaped charge weighed, on average, 0.54 lbs.

At any rate, that should give us an idea. The Landmark Tower had about 62% the height of WTC7, but only perhaps 15% of its volume and mass.

ETA: And this is how it sounded when these quarter-to-half-pounders were detonated, "with 120 different sequenced and delayed detonations of 8 milliseconds or greater" (i.e. ca. 3 pounds of explosives going off simultaneously):

• http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vzZBXuyIE28 (only a block away - notice how the camera jerks at the first BANG)
• http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gbzJornQlRE (couple of blocks away)
• http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n8vREo7PFz4 (couple of blocks away, high up, behind closed windows)
• http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sIOgpxyzqq4 (perhaps more than half a mile away. Bangs are not awesome, but sharp cracks are easily heard even against the noise of a nearby helicopter. Note also how the tower leans and falls significantly to the left of its footprint, to disprove the point that "landing inside footprint" is a characteristic of CDs)

AWESOMELY, unmistakably loud (but didn't break glass on neighboring blocks).



Demo work on the Landmark Tower began 4 months prior to the day it was brought down. I suppose most of this was cleaning out the building, removing windows, and laying bare the structural elements.

 

[000063]

...
Cheney could hand you a confession and you would call him as liar.

If it was contradicted by the actual evidence, yes, I would. Barring proof of some sort of heretofore unknown technology for starters, any sort of MIHOP conspiracy is impossible. The next step would be to prove how it was used on 9/11. Then why. And so on.

You will deny everything, concede nothing and think up reasons not to believe forever because you cannot believe your government could be so evil.

It couldn't happen here. This is America and we are better than everyone else!

I live in Britain, and am not American, nor did I grow up there. Heck, Oystein is German.

And, of course, you don't actually prove anything, just rant about your appeal to magic.

...
I once again will point out that 9/11 Truthers of the no-plane variety also exhibit this characteristic, strongly and very obviously. They simply cannot or will not place evidence in context. That's the core of their misapprehension of reality.

It's common to literally every CT I've ever seen. 9/11, Apollo, Holocaust denial, Agent Provocateurs at Occupy protests.

...
So the building was visibly leaning from 8 blocks away. The FDNY used surveyors instruments to measure the lean and other pre-collapse structural deformations. Since this all happened before the collapse, the collapse itself was at no time ever symmetrical.

IIRC, he's been asked whether the firefighters were lying or not before. I think he usually dodges the question.

 

[R.Mackey]

Thank you all very much about the loudness of explosions.

The table that Alienentity linked to says that 194 dB is the loudest noise possible. Is that an absolute? Is the air incapable of transmitting a larger shockwave?

194 dB SPL corresponds to a true pressure difference of just over 100 kPa, or roughly equal to the mean atmospheric pressure at sea level. You therefore cannot create a true sound, i.e. a standing wave, of any greater magnitude -- you are creating vacuum in the nulls between waves, and there just isn't any more air to be found.

A shockwave, however, can in principle exceed this pressure, provided it (a) increases the local static pressure of the environment (either through generation of new gas or radiative heating of the entire atmosphere), or (b) it imparts enough raw kinetic energy to the air to create the effect through dynamic pressure (viz., it blows the air so hard that it behaves more like a solid than a liquid).

Neither of these situations is likely to occur, unless you're dealing with a tremendous overconcentration of explosives in a confined space, or unless you're studying destructive stellar phenomena.

Keep in mind that an explosive has other ways to inflict damage than by transmitting a shockwave through the atmosphere. It can, for instance, transmit through solid materials as well.

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Keep in mind that an explosive has other ways to inflict damage than by transmitting a shockwave through the atmosphere. It can, for instance, transmit through solid materials as well.

Hence the copper liner in shaped charges and explosively formed penetrators.

 

[atavisms]

Beyond astonishing that anyone could look at wtc7 (here you can hear a boom just before it starts to come down): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nqbUkThGlCo&lr=1 and not see this could only have been achieved with the use of explosives. For that exterior wall to come down in the rapid symmetrical manner, on all four sides, that it did, every perimeter column had to have been severed within an instant of one another. This is an undeniable commonsense fact yet on this post there is endless jabber about column 79 along with 67 pages of needless minutia on one side and denials on the other. wow.

NIST's fantasy theories are just that. What truly scientific endeavor would hold it's data from public scrutiny? Only one that had something to hide. This with regard to the wtc7 black box computer models they made...they refuse to share how they were made and tweaked. Even then, they look nothing like the actual event. If you cannot reproduce a phenomenon/result.. then it cannot be said to even exist, -at least not according to the scientific method at whose heart this principle lies.

 

[000063]

Beyond astonishing that anyone could look at wtc7 (here you can hear a boom just before it starts to come down): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nqbUkThGlCo&lr=1 and not see this could only have been achieved with the use of explosives. For that exterior wall to come down in the rapid symmetrical manner, on all four sides, that it did, every perimeter column had to have been severed within an instant of one another. This is an undeniable commonsense fact yet on this post there is endless jabber about column 79 along with 67 pages of needless minutia on one side and denials on the other. wow.

So, why were the explosives in WTC 7? Did the bad guys know exactly how it was going to be damaged?

NIST's fantasy theories are just that. What truly scientific endeavor would hold it's data from public scrutiny? Only one that had something to hide.

Good thing they have dozens of pages worth of report and a FAQ on their website, then.

This with regard to the wtc7 black box computer models they made...they refuse to share how they were made and tweaked.

Because they are based on proprietary software made over an extended period, worth tens of thousands at least. They use it all the time, yet Truthers, curiously, seem exclusively concerned with its use in WTC 7.

Also; http://fire.nist.gov/fds/downloads.html

Even then, they look nothing like the actual event.

Because they're broad generalizations, not meant to account for every toothpick. That would be impossible.

If you cannot reproduce a phenomenon/result.. then it cannot be said to even exist, -at least not according to the scientific method at whose heart this principle lies.

I see. So when else has a building been demolished via controlled explosives while on fire? Have any truthers ever tried to replicate such conditions?

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Beyond astonishing that anyone could look at wtc7 (here you can hear a boom just before it starts to come down):

No, you can't

and not see this could only have been achieved with the use of explosives.

No, it couldn't.

WTC7, just prior to the start of the 16 second collapse sequence. NIST is one of the few youtube vids that show the early part of the collapse sequence. East Mechanical Penhouse is marked.

Roofline of the EMP has buckled, the collapse is now underway, and probably has been for a few seconds prior to this. Some damage (circled in blue) has appeared on a window pane several floors directly underneath the collapsing penthouse.

Failure of the EMP continues, the majority of the structure remains on top of the building at this point, however the damage several floors below has gotten worse. three windows appear to be broken. Separated from eachother by intact windows. We know that this is not due to a blast event, because an explosive shockwave powerful enough to rend structural steel would have taken out every window on that floor, possibly others above and below. Explosive shockwaves don't pick and choose what they destroy in this manner.

The EMP is almost completely gone by this point. The damage several floors down is worse again. Having eliminated blast events as the cause, and since it started simultaneously with the beginning of the EMPs collapse, a more likely explanation is weakening and failure of nearby structural supports, twisting and distortion of the buildings frame has affected the windows closest to the initial failure. It is obviously this failure deep inside the main body of WTC7 which caused the collapse of the East Mechanical Penthouse and is directly related to the collapse of the building as whole.​

For that exterior wall to come down in the rapid symmetrical manner,

No, it didn't.

You went 0 for 3 on your first three points in a row.

 

[atavisms]

Yes, that's right. I also made a video with audio-time correction which demonstrates that no explosion occurred at collapse.

It was explosions and they occurred just before it collapsed. Muffled, but loud enough that many people nearby heard them.
You can hear the final one here clearly if you turn up your volume: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nqbUkThGlCo&lr=1

I was 12 blocks or so north, on the west side when it came down..and I didnt hear them but there are numerous first-hand accounts of those who did.
I did hear and feel the building crashing down the street shook,,,all ran at once with a collective gasp of fear from the rapidly advancing dust clouds and the knowledge that you were not sure if the if the buildings that surrounded us were next. My gf (w/whom Id spent most the day, -since about 10:30am, down ther. I knew something terrible was happening as soon as we came out of the subway that morning.. the air was acrid and right=away I see this car jetting up Church st. in the wrong direction, trailing white smoke..he makes a hard right on canal and comes to a screeching halt and the driver just tumbles right out onto his knees next to the car. (an undercover cop I later realized) he and the car were covered in white powder. Immediately some EMS guy rushed and poured water into his eyes. I'm like WTF is going on!.? I found out soon enough as every restaurant had the Tv going and we were just blocks from the site.
Both towers had already come down. There was some powder on vehicles coming out of the area.. smokey air...but nothing like what it looked like in the streets around 'ground zero' http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/photossurroundings.html
'from river to river (to quote Gov Pataki at the time) Canal is apprx 20 blocks north of the site.. We walked West along Canal and went south as far as a national guard roadblock allowed, -somewhere west of Church 5 or 6 blocks south of Canal. So pretty close but far enough back. When wtc 7 came down the 7 hours later my g/f started really freaking out and insisted I take her home. I did go back down there again until it was all cleaned up but the smoke in the air, the trail of it into the sky above the site...and the acrid odor from the fires that burned for months, were all daily reminders of the horrors that had been perpetrated in Lower Manhattan on a pristine Sept morning in 2001.

In the weeks that followed all of lower Manhattan below Houston was blocked off unless you could prove you had a reason to cross that boundary.
My neighbor's father was part of the Port Authority so I got graphic first-hand account of what he saw... and what the surrounding streets looked like in the hours and days following the attacks. You can see what remained of the Mighty Twin Towers: http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/photos/groundzero.html -what hope for people? Over 1000 of them still remain completely unaccounted for.

Even if WTC7 had been perfectly silent prior to it's collapse (it wasnt) there would still be an overwhelming amount of reason to believe it was engineered to come down when and how it did. All of engineering history serves as precedence for the basis of this conclusion. No building has ever come down that way that wasn't a CD. That's just the way it is.

 

[Oystein]

It was explosions and they occurred just before it collapsed. Muffled, but loud enough that many people nearby heard them.
You can hear the final one here clearly if you turn up your volume: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nqbUkThGlCo&lr=1
...

Here's a chore for you:

• open a new browser window
• plug in the characters "youtube.com" into the address line (without quote marks)
• Type the words "Explosive demolition" in the search field and hit "Enter"
• CRANK UP THE VOLUME
• Look at all the videos that you can find that show buildings as they are being demolished by explosive demolition
• Make it a point to watch as many different demolitions and from as many different points of view as you can
• Spend at least an hour doing nothing else but this
• Then go back to your WTC7 video
• Notice how you'll enjoy the quietness of the WTC collapse after the hundreds or thousends of INSANELY LOUD BANG BANG BANG BANG BANGs you heard during the hour before
• Notice how NOT A SINGLE explosive demolition is ever done without the BANGs being totally awesomely loud!

Come back and tell us what you learned.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

(I couldn’t find my E12/13 copy of the drawing)

This is wrong. Those horizontal " beam stubs" were not added to support this beam. They were braces added to stiffen the 26 foot long unbraced span perimeter girder/beam for wind at 3 of these typical locations on the building. 2 at the north perimeter walls, 1 at the south wall.

1) This beam had a contributing floor width area of ~ 6 feet, the other typical interior beams of ~ 9'-7", in order to reduce its load and help with the lateral bracing for the long span perimeter beam/girder. Shear studs on both beam and girder fixed it to the slab.

2) This beam size was W21x44, the other typical interior beams were W24x55. Had the engineers needed extra support for this beam they would have sized it larger as the others. You don't best vertically support a beam with lateral bracing, you increase its size.

3) The TOS for these 12” braces were dropped 7 1/2", for bracing near the center of these perimeter girders. SEs can spot that this is wind bracing for the perimeter girder and not beam supports.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
On the second claim that NIST omitted or changed things to suit their explanation, it’s wrong also.

NIST didn’t consider the vertical failure of the seat and its model included a seat stiffener at Col 79 not shown in the plans.

“Since vertical failure of the seat was not considered (Section 11.2.5), the connections at Columns 79 and 81 were both modeled as stiffened seats.” (NCSTAR 1-9 p.558) See “Figure 12-25 Seat connection in global model Column 79”. (p. 559)

Column 79 did not have a seat stiffener, but NIST included it in their modeling. This is the seat that failed under the girder. Had they modeled it without the stiffener, they may have discovered the seat bent and the girder slid off.

It doesn't matter what the beam stubs were intended for, they would make a difference in the buckling of that beam and affect the NIST claims. They were a significant contributor to the issue of whether that beam buckled as NIST wants to say and certainly should have been included in the model.

I also think the NIST connection detail at column 79 should be changed to use the actual 2" thick x 14" deep vertical plate which supported the 1" thick bearing seat.

Finally, it doesn't matter as the girder could not have walked off the seat in either the transverse or longitudinal direction and at least three of the other four beams framing into the girder would not have buckled. The NIST collapse initiation mechanism for WTC 7 is indeed impossible.

 

[beachnut]

...
Even if WTC7 had been perfectly silent prior to it's collapse (it wasnt) there would still be an overwhelming amount of reason to believe it was engineered to come down when and how it did. All of engineering history serves as precedence for the basis of this conclusion. No building has ever come down that way that wasn't a CD. That's just the way it is.

What a load of nonsense. Next time try going to engineering school. Your CD theory is delusional claptrap you can't defend with more than talk. Tony should know better. Why is your work total nonsense? Why can't you publish your work, your claims? You could be famous if your fantasy was reality.

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

It doesn't matter what the beam stubs were intended for, they would make a difference in the buckling of that beam and affect the NIST claims. They were a significant contributor to the issue of whether that beam buckled as NIST wants to say and certainly should have been included in the model.

I also think the NIST connection detail at column 79 should be changed to use the actual 2" thick x 14" deep vertical plate which supported the 1" thick bearing seat.

Finally, it doesn't matter as the girder could not have walked off the seat in either the transverse or longitudinal direction and at least three of the other four beams framing into the girder would not have buckled. The NIST collapse initiation mechanism for WTC 7 is indeed impossible.

Why do you describe the collapse of WTC7 as "symmetrical" when it was leaning prior to its collapse?