If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong. Part II

Crazy Chainsaw said:
The movement frame was what was designed to be resistant to wind loading, the granite was heavy it was clipped onto the movement frame, for cosmetic effect and for counter weighting the movement frame. To provide inertial loading of the movement frame, as I recall my conversation with the engineer that worked on the project, though I could be wrong it has been years since he explained the functions of the facade and movement frame.
Click to expand...

I don't see any specific wind shear structure other than the belt trusses which encircle the building. The moment frame was stiff and probably was the wind shear structure... but the curtain walls are intended to be as light as possible and not a counterweight. I have never heard of this.
 
I believe the building had a bulge which was measured by the transit... not that it was leaning. Any distortion from plumb and true would be of concern indicating that the frame was warping.
 
JSanderO said:
I believe the building had a bulge which was measured by the transit... not that it was leaning. Any distortion from plumb and true would be of concern indicating that the frame was warping.
Click to expand...
That's indeed what Hayden quote says.
...also we were pretty sure that 7 World Trade Center would collapse. Early on, we saw a bulge in the southwest corner between floors 10 and 13, and we had put a transit on that and we were pretty sure she was going to collapse. You actually could see there was a visible bulge, it ran up about three floors. It came down about 5 o’clock in the afternoon, but by about 2 o’clock in the afternoon we realized this thing was going to collapse.
​
http://www.911myths.com/html/wtc7_damage.html
 
JSanderO said:
I believe the building had a bulge which was measured by the transit... not that it was leaning. Any distortion from plumb and true would be of concern indicating that the frame was warping.
Click to expand...

You can't have a bulge without a lean above it unless the bulge went all the way around the building.
 
GlennB said:
Have you been to YouTube and watched a few videos of commercial cd's, of the that use explosives? They're accompanied by a series of very visible flashes and an unmistakable string of very loud cracks. No such thing happened at WTC7. CD on 9/11 is total nonsense.
Click to expand...

Explosive devices used in most commercial demolitions are designed to rip through solid steel and concrete. That makes the characteristic loud noise, as well as creates obvious rips in the steel. The photographic evidence and Arthur Scheuerman's witness account say that the steel did not show that kind of damage. The noises heard from all three buildings were not as loud as commercial cutter charges. If the three towers were demolished with explosive devices, they would have been more sophisticatedly implemented.
 
Last edited:
Crazy Chainsaw said:
The transit would have been placed on the leaning side of the building not the bulging side.
Click to expand...

The leaning "side"? Couldn't any slight perimeter deformation from heat affect the results showing this movement?

Also, where do they teach how to predict when a skyscraper will collapse by using this tool?
 
pgimeno said:
To compensate for their height, not for increasing their resistance to fire. They're just as vulnerable to fire as low rises.

Really?

What about WTC5? It suffered interior partial collapses.

What about One New York Plaza? It suffered interior partial collapses.

What about the Windsor building in Madrid? The core was concrete, the perimeter was steel.

[qimg]http://www.formauri.es/personal/pgimeno/xfiles/11-s/windsor-antes.jpg[/qimg] [qimg]http://www.formauri.es/personal/pgimeno/xfiles/11-s/windsor-despues.jpg[/qimg]

You're forgetting that the building had been receiving firefighting efforts for "almost 11 hours". That would reduce the danger of collapse.

Windsor building's fire was not fought in the top levels. See what was left.

[qimg]http://www.formauri.es/personal/pgimeno/xfiles/cache/slide0008_image013.jpg[/qimg]
Click to expand...

By "closest example", I meant a tall steel-framed building on fire that was abandoned due to fear that it might collapse.
 
pgimeno said:
Dodge. The time since the façade started to fall until it disappeared from view was greater than that of a free falling object. Sunder says that. He doesn't say that free fall didn't happen anywhere in that period. That's the point.

You haven't provided any evidence that NIST denied free fall. Are you willing to admit that NIST didn't, or will you avoid the question with another dodge?

And an additional point I made is that free fall means nothing anyway, despite so many people making a big deal of it. There's a thread dedicated to that very subject.
Click to expand...

Nope, not getting into that pointless debate. WTC 7's collapse lasted for as long as you wanted it to, but the motions of the building do show freefall. BTW where did you get "20 minutes" from?
 
Last edited:
MicahJava said:
Explosive devices used in most commercial demolitions are designed to rip through solid steel and concrete. That makes the characteristic loud noise, as well as creates obvious rips in the steel. The photographic evidence and Arthur Scheuerman's witness account say that the steel did not show that kidn of damage. The noises heard from all three buildings were not as loud as commercial cutter charges. If the three towers were demolished with explosive devices, they would have been more sophisticatedly implemented.
Click to expand...

So you're saying that these steel framed buildings were demolished using explosives that weren't designed to rip through steel and concrete?

Dave
 
Criteria said:
...
Hours later, the roofline showed no evidence of this progressing lean or any indication that “accumulated loading” was actually occurring.
Click to expand...
Prove it. Where is your data? Is MM your source for this claim of no evidence. How do you prove it?
 
MicahJava said:
Nope, not getting into that pointless debate. WTC 7's collapse lasted for as long as you wanted it to, but the motions of the building do show freefall. BTW where did you get "20 minutes" from?
Click to expand...

If you'd like to play the "skip" game then its your burden to show that "freefall" is a causality to the collapse and means anything to your contention that the overall findings that fires initiated the collapse is in question.

"Freefall" has and always will be too vague of a reference to deal with the initiating mechanism. It cannot be used as the determinate in isolation
 
Last edited:
Dave Rogers said:
So you're saying that these steel framed buildings were demolished using explosives that weren't designed to rip through steel and concrete?

Dave
Click to expand...

Back to 'Hushabooms' and Thermite.

I like the idea that the professional demolition companies aren't capable of being as professional and sophisticated as they can be.

Who did the WTC demolition? where did they get their techniques, training and experience?
 
waypastvne said:
You can't have a bulge without a lean above it unless the bulge went all the way around the building.
Click to expand...

Why not? I suppose your point is that a bulge means a shortening of the ht of the column. But if the bulge were a single column caused by the column center being pushed or perhaps bowing from expansion... why would the top have to lean?
 
MicahJava said:
Nope, not getting into that pointless debate. WTC 7's collapse lasted for as long as you wanted it to, but the motions of the building do show freefall. BTW where did you get "20 minutes" from?
Click to expand...

The FF motion... was basically the moment frame and the attached curtain wall and perhaps parts of the floors dropping down when the "structure" below it folded or was pulled in by the collapse of the transfer trusses and cantilever girders below floor 8.

The rest of the building... parts of floors and the core section dropped before the facade and it dropped inside and unseen from the outside aside from some tell tail signs such as the IB of the north face and the broken windows as the NW section of floors under the EPH collapsed.
 
Criteria said:
The FDNY acknowledged the use of a transit. They never produced any results that confirmed their fear that WTC7 might possibly be actively leaning and no such data was ever given to the NIST.

Supposedly hour upon hour, you believe the transit was measuring the WTC7’s active creep as it steadily and inexorably leaned.

Hours later, the roofline showed no evidence of this progressing lean or any indication that “accumulated loading” was actually occurring.
Click to expand...

Not that you can see from a stupid video on Richard Gage's website.
 
MicahJava said:
Explosive devices used in most commercial demolitions are designed to rip through solid steel and concrete. That makes the characteristic loud noise, as well as creates obvious rips in the steel. The photographic evidence and Arthur Scheuerman's witness account say that the steel did not show that kind of damage. The noises heard from all three buildings were not as loud as commercial cutter charges. If the three towers were demolished with explosive devices, they would have been more sophisticatedly implemented.
Click to expand...


OR!

They collapsed due to fire. Much quieter, and it has the added benefit of being what actually happened.
 
NoahFence said:
I love that last link. SOOOO funny. They had to use frequency filters to make it seem like there were explosions.

Dude. Just no.

From the distance they were from that building, if there were explosions capable of taking it down, they probably would have suffered trauma.
Click to expand...

You can hear the same noise in the last link on the CBS footage, too.

I've always wondered, if WTC 7 was only having relatively small partial collapses before the East Penthouse caved in, then why is does it make such a loud boom a moment before? Why on the CBS clip can you hear that but not the sound of the entire rest of the building coming down? What was going on inside the building that could possibly make such a loud noise before the East Penthouse fell?

BTW the Ashleigh Banfield footage uses a near-field microphone.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom