Continuation: 'What about building 7?'

[chrismohr]

Well Oystein I DID bring up your EPH question in my reply to Ziggi above. I was asking about that at the same time you posted!
Ozeco41 I admit I am a 911aholic. I hope you'll hang around and correct me if I make mistakes.

 

[jaydeehess]

Chris, you are forgetting, or have missed, that Tony also speculates / claims that the drop of the EPH was not caused by column failure low down in the core, but high up, only a couple or so floors below the roofline, and then (I think that's what he implies) stops. A local event unrelated to the global collapse. Why would the perps do that? I am not sure Tony has provided an explanation for that.

Yes he has, and its about as high quality as most of his proclamations. He says it was required to make sure that heavy equipment in the NE corner of the EPH would not fall off to the north or east and cause damage to surrounding structures like the P.O. or the Fitterman Building (Oops).

 

[Grizzly Bear]

I propose (with some admitted vanity) a measure for quality of posts in this subforum: It is inversely proportional to the percentage of questions and challenges that T.Sz. quotes and replies to. (Lately, I have been ignored with about 4 questions; I like to think this means they are good and pertinent questions )


ETA: Oh darned!

I should have read the remaining posts before replying - you ninja'd me!

At the end of the day, no matter how crazy a theory is, you're dealing with someone who has finite time on hand to address comments when they get a flood of them. I am by no means trying to excuse evasion, since it happens far more often than just occasionally with perfectly reasonable, polite responses, but it's a factor nevertheless. Therefore, if my comments get ignored, I ask again when it becomes relevant and occasionally, my arguments receive a response.

I also understand though that such claims also warrant the criticisms... But the volume of responses and the many times harsher tones can discourage that.... and in many cases I suspect it also gives a "stepping stone" to jump on them in leiu of the reasoned arguments.

AND... well... I've read and had enough experience with these recycled discussions to know more or less the kind of response to expect.

 

[jaydeehess]

Chris, your posted picture brings up another interesting point.. It looks like the white building to the left is the Fitterman building. It was heavily damaged by the collapse of WTC 7. The corner on #7 in the photo shows it leaning away from the Fitterman, meaning that it either rotated after this was taken and fell onto the Fitterman, or that the lower floors of #7 pushed out to the NE and hit it.

As I pointed out to TSZ, the eastern third and western 2/3rds of WTC 7 were of very different construction below the eighth floor.

 

[tsig]

As I have explained asserted in detail on this thread, the chances of the North Tower causing fires on ten floors in WTC 7 that weren't observed for nearly two hours after the North Tower fell are essentially non-existent. It is obvious that you are not impartial and just trying to keep the door for criminality closed.

FTFY

Causes of the fire in 7:

1) two large burning buildings nearby collapsing

2) ninja arsonists.

You make the call.

 

[Norseman]

Chris, your posted picture brings up another interesting point.. It looks like the white building to the left is the Fitterman building. It was heavily damaged by the collapse of WTC 7. The corner on #7 in the photo shows it leaning away from the Fitterman, meaning that it either rotated after this was taken and fell onto the Fitterman, or that the lower floors of #7 pushed out to the NE and hit it.

As I pointed out to TSZ, the eastern third and western 2/3rds of WTC 7 were of very different construction below the eighth floor.

I have to correct you on that one. The white building is 101 Barclay Street. The Fiterman Hall is hidden behind it. The part of WTC 7 we can see between 101 Barclay and the Verizon Building is the northwest corner falling away.

 

[jaydeehess]

I have to correct you on that one. The white building is 101 Barclay Street. The Fiterman Hall is hidden behind it. The part of WTC 7 we can see between 101 Barclay and the Verizon Building is the northwest corner falling away.

My bad. Thank you, I am always open to correction
I should have noted the sun angle..
Is there a map showing 101 Barclay in relation to WTC7.

 

[NoahFence]

My bad. Thank you, I am always open to correction

Such is the most glaring difference between rational people and truthers.

 

[Norseman]

My bad. Thank you, I am always open to correction
I should have noted the sun angle..
Is there a map showing 101 Barclay in relation to WTC7.

On page 10 in NIST NCSTAR 1-9. There it is given the address 123 Barclay Street. You can also a take look at Figure 5-4 on page 95, that shows an overhead view of the collapsed WTC 7. There Fiterman Hall is labelled as 30 West Broadway.

Or you may look in Google Maps, both addresses work. The new Fiterman Hall has been given the address 245 Greenwich Street. So it looks like there has been some readdressing of buildings since 9/11.

 

[Oystein]

At the end of the day, no matter how crazy a theory is, you're dealing with someone who has finite time on hand to address comments when they get a flood of them. I am by no means trying to excuse evasion, since it happens far more often than just occasionally with perfectly reasonable, polite responses, but it's a factor nevertheless. Therefore, if my comments get ignored, I ask again when it becomes relevant and occasionally, my arguments receive a response.
...

I have sympathy for that, and so I have patiently repeated my last few questions two or three times.
The oftener I have to repeat them, the certainer I get the honest answer would kill one of Tony's delusions ^^

 

[Ziggi]

No it isn't. Ok, we are down to two possibilities:

You either can't read for comprehension
Or you are a conscious, deliberate liar.

I'll give you a second chance., Please read again, this time for comprehension:


NCSTAR 1-9 (2008) page 363:

"As noted in Section 5.5, the debris from the collapse of WTC 1 created a gash in the west side of the south face of the building that stretched from the 17th floor down to the 5th floor."​

A graphic summary of the Section 5.5 findings is in Fig. 5-83 on page 173.

....Note that this describes two distinct areas of damage. The second ("For Columns 14A, 15, and 16 at the southwest corner...") is "refering to the damage to the south west corner". Please concentrate on the first!


Ziggi, please acknowledge in full sentences that you now have been schooled on NIST's 2008 claim about the HUGE GASH down the south face between floors 5 and 17, and how far they estimated the gash to extend into the interior!

Oystein, take a chillpill. This refers to the ONE gash at the south west corner, and NIST literally drew a picture of it, which you can see for yourself as figure 12-33. There is just ONE gash at the corner, and it extends slightly into the west face, and into the south face, the descriptions of which may have confused you into thinking there were two seperate gashes. The 2004 report did say there was another truly huge gash that scooped out 25% of the middle of the south face, but that non sense story had been abandoned in the final report.

 

[000063]

...
It seems the world is crashing in on those here who have been insisting the collapse of WTC 7 occurred due to natural circumstances. The reality is that it was a controlled demolition and all the fancy hand waving and spin artistry, of those who want to believe otherwise, won't change that simple reality.

Then why do you so steadfastly refuse to discuss the CD theory with us, if you're so confident?

I have, on several occasions in this very thread, asked Tony how long the gypsum dust, created by collapse, had, as collapse ensued, to settle out onto burning materials within WTC 1, and disrupt combustion, and cool materials below ignition temp of common office materials in WTC 7.

No response at all. In fact the last couple of TSz responses to my posts, he has addressed an 8-10 word portion of my post and ignores the rest.

Ah yes. The ergo method.

 

[Ziggi]

Don't laugh, but a few years ago MM claimed that was "a shadow".

Don´t laugh, but NIST went over these pictures in chapter 5 and claimed that this was just a missing granite panel that covered the steel columns, and not a huge gash.

 

[Spanx]

http://youtu.be/Cr4QQS6qNhs

Let's go round again

 

[NoahFence]

Don´t laugh, but NIST went over these pictures in chapter 5 and claimed that this was just a missing granite panel that covered the steel columns, and not a huge gash.

Got a link that backs up that assertion?

 

[Belz...]

Oystein, take a chillpill. This refers to the ONE gash at the south west corner, and NIST literally drew a picture of it, which you can see for yourself as figure 12-33. There is just ONE gash at the corner, and it extends slightly into the west face, and into the south face, the descriptions of which may have confused you into thinking there were two seperate gashes.

How about the one that ran the entire height of one face of the building ?

 

[jaydeehess]

On page 10 in NIST NCSTAR 1-9. There it is given the address 123 Barclay Street. You can also a take look at Figure 5-4 on page 95, that shows an overhead view of the collapsed WTC 7. There Fiterman Hall is labelled as 30 West Broadway.

Or you may look in Google Maps, both addresses work. The new Fiterman Hall has been given the address 245 Greenwich Street. So it looks like there has been some readdressing of buildings since 9/11.

Ok, located it in Google maps then went to the map of the original WTC complex on Wikipedia. Thx.

 

[GlennB]

Don´t laugh, but NIST went over these pictures in chapter 5 and claimed that this was just a missing granite panel that covered the steel columns, and not a huge gash.

Mmmm ... where?

I'm seeing "granite and underlying truss damage" and "... on this basis it was concluded that structural damage was present between cols 19-21 through floors 44-47" (and elsewhere, reading on)

Not seeing, anywhere, that it was just missing facade, simply that missing granite is the minimum damage that can be concluded for any given floor.

Why deceive so gaily, Ziggi?

 

[Ziggi]

Ziggi, if you are asking about TU Delft, that building was something like 8 separate modules separated structurally with stairwells etc. The unit that collapsed was relatively separate from the other modules. Building Seven was connected by long-span trusses and had a completely different, much more unified design. One of the structurally unified sections of TU Delft, with steel-reinforced concrete and through fire alone, fell mostly straight down at a fast rate of speed. .

Long span trusses only connected the core to the perimeter, so that point can only be used to imply that the region outside the core was weak. The core columns were robust and according to NIST they had no debris damage and no significant weakening due to heat. Yet we are supposed to believe that the core collapsed before the damaged exterior.

Steel framed high rises are essentially built like modules Chris. This is the purpose of having so many columns; load from damaged columns can be spread to all the others, and this makes partial collapses more likely than total collapses.

This is why the jets could poke out huge holes in the big Towers without them collapsing. The designer of the Towers said they could withstand hurricane winds even if one whole side collapsed.

These buildings are not like a game of dominoes where the whole thing goes once the first domino is tipped.

This is why demolition of these structures is so tricky, and why those professionals have to very carefully rig the core columns AND make sure they go out at pretty much the same instant. If the core collapse is asymmetric the buildings fall to the side, you can see plenty of videos of that.

- NISTs computer simulation shows the same thing, the exterior collapses asymmetrically as the interior collapses asymmetrically.

Good point about the >g, if caused by yanks from the interior collapse, doesn't fit the timeline of the sudden perimeter wall collapse. It leaves me wondering how the CD explanation can explain it then..

Yes, the major revelation here is that over-g is not compatible with NIST´s story of how the building collapsed, natural collapse, or your previous "third force" storyline. You don´t really have to worry about explaining over-g because it has not been proven yet. Tony has said controlled demolition could explain over-g and if memory serves this would involve the core creating tension on the girders connecting it to the exterior, and them releasing this built up energy sort of like a compressed spring and pull on the exterior with a force for a brief moment. Tony is the man to explain this in detail.

The main thing to understand is that the entire core would have to be involved at the same time to pull down the exterior in a symmetric fashion.

what was symmetrical [/HILITE]about the interior CD riggings? The core columns? If so, which columns (such as Column 79) supported the Penthouses, and what in the CD scenario caused them to fail in such a way that the two penthouses went down first, asymmetrically?.

There is no evidence to suggest that the penthouses fell more than a floor or two. The purpose of that may have been to get the top sections of the exterior to start folding invard, to make sure the exterior would fold inward as the rest of the core was dropped. There may be other reasons as Tony has explained. The main portion of the core would have to have been dropped symmetrically to pull down the exterior symmetrically.

 

[NoahFence]

So Ziggi - you're just going to ignore this?

Originally Posted by Ziggi View Post
Don´t laugh, but NIST went over these pictures in chapter 5 and claimed that this was just a missing granite panel that covered the steel columns, and not a huge gash.

Got a link that backs up that assertion?

Mmmm ... where?

I'd hate to have to accuse you of bad form while debating....