10 story hole in WTC 7

[c6gunner]

Because there is a movie in which people say 'it is about to blow up', there are other movies in which 100s of people are watching in that direction before it collapsed, do you think they were standing 7 hours with their face in that direction ?

Really? Can you provide a link to these videos?

I doubt anyone would have stood looking at it for 7 hours, no. However, we have firefighters on record as saying that it was noticably leaning. This tilt would have kept increasing until the point of collapse. At a certain point, anyone with half a brain would probably stop, look at it, and think "holy crap, that thing's coming down any minute". From the on, yeah, they probably would have been watching it.

Anyway, I look forward to seeing those videos, any time you can dig up the link.

 

[einsteen]

mancman, the greening pancake model for wtc7 will give 8.5 seconds if it starts from the top (assuming E1=0) and will be faster if it starts at the bottom. If you blow up the bottom of wtc1 his formalism will give 9.2 seconds. Free fall one storey and the second stage of collapse will also be free fall because of the kinetic energy of the whole building.

 

[The Doc]

Post #243:

Einsteen said:
- wtc1,2, an architectural freak

Post #320

Einsteen said:
they were demolitions

Come on man.

 

[einsteen]

It is 8.3 seconds from the top

http://www.journalof911studies.com/articles/W7Kuttler.pdf

Kuttler used Greening's model.

 

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

OTers often quote the firefighters saying WTC 7 is going to collapse as if it were proof
I'm just saying that not all the chiefs thought WTC 7 was going to collapse

Did any of the chiefs that did not say they thought it would collapse actually say "I don't think it will collapse" or actually disagree with those that stated they thought it would; or were they just silent on the issue?

 

[Mancman]

mancman, the greening pancake model for wtc7 will give 8.5 seconds if it starts from the top (assuming E1=0) and will be faster if it starts at the bottom. If you blow up the bottom of wtc1 his formalism will give 9.2 seconds. Free fall one storey and the second stage of collapse will also be free fall because of the kinetic energy of the whole building.

8.5 or 8.3 seconds, all well and good.

But it clearly didn't collapse from the top. So such an analysis is fairly useless.

If we apply Greenings second stage to the 7 story collapse model, we'd have 174-25.9m = 148.1m of building left, with a starting velocity of 21.11m/s. Final velocity would be 57.87m/s, average of 39.49m/s, time of 3.75s + 2.36s = 6.11s.

 

[CurtC]

It is 8.3 seconds from the top

http://www.journalof911studies.com/articles/W7Kuttler.pdf

Kuttler used Greening's model.

That paper says

It was observed that the building collapsed in just 6.5 seconds. Could this possibly happen as aresult of pancaking floors collapsing from the top down?

And then goes on to show that a top-down collapse, such as what happened in the Twin Towers, can't explain the 6.5 second collapse of WTC7.

Well no duh! It clearly didn't collapse top-down! Why did he even bother to write this paper up?

 

[Belz...]

that image is consistent with the expected column damage.

Indeed. And this brings up an interesting question. If the building was so damaged that firefighters thought it would collapse, why was there any need to detonate explosives ?

 

[Belz...]

Do you say that wtc1,2 were controlled demolitions ?

No, I said this:

So this whole thing is due to the fact that you think only a controlled demolition can lead to a building collapsing ? That's kinda funny, considering your (alledged) stance on WTC1 and 2.

And it happened to be a question, which you didn't answer.

they were demolitions but uncontrolled although methodical.

Contradiction.

Also speculation, since you are yet to provide any evidence to support that claim.

But assume the top block fails we have for wtc1 an initial kinetic energy of 2.4GJ and per storey that amount will be released, mass accumulation will even give more. This energy picture is valid (although it is a requirement) but for wtc7 you have no initial momentum.[/QUOTE]

You have forgotten a very important and CONSTANT source of momentum.

Isn't it "show your math" what you guys always scream.

Yeah. Please do so.

 

[Belz...]

Well no duh! It clearly didn't collapse top-down! Why did he even bother to write this paper up?

Because winning is easier when you're fighting a strawman.

 

[aggle-rithm]

It is 8.3 seconds from the top

http://www.journalof911studies.com/articles/W7Kuttler.pdf

Kuttler used Greening's model.

Interesting. So why did they blow it up?

There must have been a really, really good reason, considering the financial bath taken by the building owners, the loss of the Con Edison substation, and damage to the surrounding infrastructure caused by the collapse. There must have been some massive payoff, one having nothing to do with propoganda, since its collapse went almost unnoticed in the wake of the terrorist attacks.

 

[Atomic Glee]

Patently ridiculous. It takes months to rig a building like 7 with complete, unobstructed access.

Hi all, first post here.

If I had the required number of posts to do so, I would love to show you all the photos I took of the prep work for the implosion of Landmark Tower here in Fort Worth, Texas. I live just a couple of blocks from where Landmark stood (2nd tallest building ever imploded), and had a great opportunity to photograph the prep work in detail. Let me tell you - it's NOT something that could even *possibly* be hidden from view.

 

[Atomic Glee]

I submit that indeed rigging a huge, occupied building with explosives and/or exposing and cutting columns (even at man minutes per column this would take quite a while) with nobody noticing or even more significant nobody commenting on it even in passing in the subsequent 5 years since the event, while not impossible, is so much more unlikely than the prevailing explanation as to safely be ignored.

Indeed (and once I hit 15 posts, I think, I can show the forum some photos I took of a *real* controlled demolition's prep work). A CD involves months and months of very, very conspicuous prep work. The idea that it could be "hidden" in a building *still in use* is absurd.

 

[aggle-rithm]

Hi all, first post here.

If I had the required number of posts to do so, I would love to show you all the photos I took of the prep work for the implosion of Landmark Tower here in Fort Worth, Texas.

My home town!

Interestingly, my wife and I were cleaning the garage this weekend when she found an old brick and tried to throw it away (women!). It was a brick from the Medical Arts Building in Fort Worth, which was demolished in the mid-seventies. I was one of the many witnesses of the event, and they let us in afterwards to collect souvenirs (not sure if they would still do that today, what with liability and all).

ETA: And here it is!

 

[MortFurd]

Sigh.... smokebombs was only mentioned in order to show that not all processes with a lot of smoke involve a lot of fire. No wtc7 didn't contain smoke bombs.

Why on earth is it for everyone here (I say here explicitly) so self-evident that a building implodes itself in such a way because some random damage and minor fire. I really don't get it

http://users.telenet.be/netdata2/afbeeldingen/horen-zien-zwijgen.jpg

Please remember to NOT hotlink; use URL's in the future.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: jmercer

"Random damage"

From the NIST report, page L22:

Looks like a 10 story chunk taken out of the corner, a good 1/3 the width of the building.

You seem to really not "get" reality.

 

[Atomic Glee]

My home town!

Interestingly, my wife and I were cleaning the garage this weekend when she found an old brick and tried to throw it away (women!). It was a brick from the Medical Arts Building in Fort Worth, which was demolished in the mid-seventies. I was one of the many witnesses of the event, and they let us in afterwards to collect souvenirs (not sure if they would still do that today, what with liability and all).

ETA: And here it is![/url]

Heh - the guy who runs fortwortharchitecture.com is a friend of mine!

The Medical Arts Building is my favorite "lost" Fort Worth building. It was gorgeous, and Burnett Plaza (the replacement) is...not so much. I should know - without getting too specific on location, I live across that park from the Medical Arts/Burnett Plaza site.

 

[jaydeehess]

What it increasingly comes down to is that there are two ways WTC 7 could have been brought down.
Mode 1) Impact damage from the collapse of WTC 1 weakened the structure and the subsequent fires further weakened key columns such that the column structure below the east penthouse was completely compromised. The collapse began there and falling debris and shifting load then compromised the ability of nearby columns resulting in a horizontal progression of the collapse ending as the perimeter frame also started to collapse. (the screenwall and west penthouse sink as the perimeter frame starts to fail and disappear from sight indicating that the column structure beneath them failed before the perimeter frame)

Mode 2) Explosives were loaded in such a way as to mimic 1) meaning that they were placed on the same columns that failed as per the NIST computer sims (barring any finding of a problem with the original simulations)


As to determining which of these is true we have two camps.
Camp 1) states that there was indeed damage to WTC 7 including damage in the vicinity of those key columns, AND that due to the obvious fire in the building, the presence of deisel fuel in the building and that one floor in the region involved is a mech floor with no windows, it is completely within reason to assume that there could easily have been fire in the vicinity of those key columns.

Camp 2) states that there is no definitive evidence of damage to those key columns and no definitive evidence that there was a substantial fire in the vicinity of those key columns and therefore Mode1 above cannot be said to have occured and therefore it is as likely to have been explosive demoltion.


Now Camp 2 manages to simply ignore the fact that Camp 1 has evidence of damage and evidence of fire while they have absolutly no evidence of explosives. No flahses of explosives going off, no loud crack of explosives going off. Furthermore Camp 1 often cites the NYFD as being involved in the supposed explosive demolitions yet it has never been the pervue of any municipal fire dept to use explosives in any manner.

 

[jaydeehess]

What the hell is this "Random damage"? Perhaps the genius means "minimal damage". It is indeed somewhat random in that one could not have predicted where the damage would precisly occur while of course there is some pattern to it in that it all occurs on the southen part of the building that being the area closest to and facing WTC 1&2.


I would have thought that a physicist would actually understand the meaning of the word "random".

Randomly positioned heavy damage impacted Banker's Trust but owing to the differences in what was damaged, how the building was constructed, and the amount/duration of fires, it managed to remain standing.

 

[Belz...]

Hi all, first post here.

If I had the required number of posts to do so, I would love to show you all the photos I took of the prep work for the implosion of Landmark Tower here in Fort Worth, Texas. I live just a couple of blocks from where Landmark stood (2nd tallest building ever imploded), and had a great opportunity to photograph the prep work in detail. Let me tell you - it's NOT something that could even *possibly* be hidden from view.

Welcome to the forum, Atomic.

 

[Coritani]

Hi all, first post here.

If I had the required number of posts to do so, I would love to show you all the photos I took of the prep work for the implosion of Landmark Tower here in Fort Worth, Texas. I live just a couple of blocks from where Landmark stood (2nd tallest building ever imploded), and had a great opportunity to photograph the prep work in detail. Let me tell you - it's NOT something that could even *possibly* be hidden from view.

Hi mate. You've reached the 15 post mark, which means you can now post links and the like. Could you please post those pictures? I'm very interested in seeing them.