'What about building 7'?

[Miragememories]

"The buckling required for this "freefall" portion, which only affects some of the perimeter, takes place in the seconds before the "freefall." As NIST explains in thorough detail, an eight-story section of the lower perimeter, now unbraced and heavily loaded, buckles. This absorbs energy but leads to little vertical displacement. However, once buckled, those columns have almost no remaining strength, so the next phase is the "free fall."

That "free fall" by the way is approximate. Also it was only measured on one face, and rotation can artificially inflate the apparent downward velocity. You cannot say there was no energy dissipation during this period, only that it was relatively little. But that's what we already expected."

"From NIST NCSTAR 1-9, WTC 7 Global Collapse Analysis

"In Stage 2, the north face descended at gravitational acceleration, as exterior column buckling progressed and the columns provided negligible support to the upper portion of the north face. This free fall drop continued for approximately 8 stories (105 ft), the distance traveled between times t = 1.75 s and t = 4.0 s.

...a freefall descent over approximately eight stories at gravitational acceleration for approximately 2.25 s, and a decreasing acceleration as the north face encountered resistance from the structure below."

"And then concluded:"

"So much for the NIST's explanation in thorough detail.

Your depiction of what the NIST supposedly reported about free fall is fanciful ad-lib."

"That's not all they had to say now is it?"

In the context of free fall, yes.

From what I could tell after reading the whole chapter, Mackey took liberties with the NIST overall global collapse analysis, adding language of his own choosing.

What I quoted was all that I could find of the NIST's supposed detailed explanation of the WTC7, 8 story free fall.

Keep in mind, that little tidbit was a huge leap for the NIST, given that only a few months earlier, after years of investigation and computational analysis, the NIST had somehow overlooked the 8 story free fall and were denying its existence.

Quite the oversight.

MM

 

[T.A.M.]

Once again....

IT WAS NOT FREEFALL OF THE ENTIRE BUILDING FOR 8 STORIES OR 2.25 SECONDS. IT WAS FREEFALL OF THE NORTHERN FACE DUE TO COLUMN BUCKLING.

please stop misrepresenting the words of the hardworking scientists at NIST without any proof of your allegations.

TAM

 

[DGM]

In the context of free fall, yes.

From what I could tell after reading the whole chapter, Mackey took liberties with the NIST overall global collapse analysis, adding language of his own choosing.

What I quoted was all that I could find of the NIST's supposed detailed explanation of the WTC7, 8 story free fall.

Keep in mind, that little tidbit was a huge leap for the NIST, given that only a few months earlier, after years of investigation and computational analysis, the NIST had somehow overlooked the 8 story free fall and were denying its existence.

Quite the oversight.

MM

Is it just that you don't understand the words?

 

[Miragememories]

The part where you interpret "Global collapse" = "entire building fell at free fall for 2.25 seconds".

TAM

You will have to provide a link because I don't see such a statement is this thread.

MM

 

[The Big Dog]

Is it just that you don't understand the words?

Man, i took the time to explain the whole damn thing to him, yet he persists in dumbasshatery.

 

[T.A.M.]

Amazing.

Absolutely incredible denial.

[qimg]http://img529.imageshack.us/img529/1149/normalcbsb7montno3.jpg[/qimg]

The NIST has already said that global collapse occurred when we the north face begin to
drop.

No where do they suggest the north face was a lingering facade as you facetiously attempt to do.

MM

You implied it here. Were you not trying to imply that because global collapse had started, that the free fall of 2.25 seconds was for the ENTIRE BUILDING?

If I am wrong, then please clarify.

TAM

 

[Miragememories]

"In the context of free fall, yes.

From what I could tell after reading the whole chapter, Mackey took liberties with the NIST overall global collapse analysis, adding language of his own choosing.

What I quoted was all that I could find of the NIST's supposed detailed explanation of the WTC7, 8 story free fall.

Keep in mind, that little tidbit was a huge leap for the NIST, given that only a few months earlier, after years of investigation and computational analysis, the NIST had somehow overlooked the 8 story free fall and were denying its existence.

Quite the oversight."

"Is it just that you don't understand the words?"

Au contraire.

The NIST write volumes about the WTC7 global collapse but have precious little to say about what is to the best of my knowledge an incredibly unique event. 8 complete stories of free fall induced by office contents fires.

MM

 

[The Big Dog]

Au contraire.

The NIST write volumes about the WTC7 global collapse but have precious little to say about what is to the best of my knowledge an incredibly unique event. 8 complete stories of free fall induced by office contents fires.

MM

Face palm.

That bolded statement is a complete lie.

What a fraud MM is.

 

[Miragememories]

"What part of global collapse do you fail to understand?"

"The part where you interpret "Global collapse" = "entire building fell at free fall for 2.25 seconds"."

"Once again....

IT WAS NOT FREEFALL OF THE ENTIRE BUILDING FOR 8 STORIES OR 2.25 SECONDS. IT WAS FREEFALL OF THE NORTHERN FACE DUE TO COLUMN BUCKLING.

please stop misrepresenting the words of the hardworking scientists at NIST without any proof of your allegations."

"You implied it here. Were you not trying to imply that because global collapse had started, that the free fall of 2.25 seconds was for the ENTIRE BUILDING?

If I am wrong, then please clarify."

I did not see your earlier posts.

Well I see more than just the north face dropping.

Other than the internal collapse of the penthouses, I have not read or seen any reports that a significant portion of WTC7 had dropped in the seconds prior to the observed global collapse.

The reaction of the people outside watching seemed to fit the action observed when viewing the north face of WTC7.

It dropped and it left open air. Even the profile of the drop shows most of the building.

Surely you are not going to quibble over some debris dropping and claim that was a significant pre-collapse, and that only a north side facade was dropping in the videos?

MM

 

[DGM]

Au contraire.

The NIST write volumes about the WTC7 global collapse but have precious little to say about what is to the best of my knowledge an incredibly unique event. 8 complete stories of free fall induced by office contents fires.

MM

So you don't understand the words (don't feel bad it wasn't written for laymen). If you did you would stop insisting a whole 8 stores of the building collapsed at free-fall. You can post all the videos you want, none of them show what's happening inside the building. I see you don't like to talk about the penthouse much.

 

[triforcharity]

I did not see your earlier posts.

[qimg]http://img263.imageshack.us/img263/9872/set3sccompositeua1.png[/qimg]

Well I see more than just the north face dropping.

Other than the internal collapse of the penthouses, I have not read or seen any reports that a significant portion of WTC7 had dropped in the seconds prior to the observed global collapse.

The reaction of the people outside watching seemed to fit the action observed when viewing the north face of WTC7.

It dropped and it left open air. Even the profile of the drop shows most of the building.

[qimg]http://img529.imageshack.us/img529/1149/normalcbsb7montno3.jpg[/qimg]

Surely you are not going to quibble over some debris dropping and claim that was a significant pre-collapse, and that only a north side facade was dropping in the videos?

MM

Penthouse=/= debris.

Penthouse = Major structural damage to the interior.

 

[funk de fino]

You will have to provide a link because I don't see such a statement is this thread.

MM

Are you a coward?

 

[Miragememories]

Penthouse=/= debris.

Penthouse = Major structural damage to the interior.

Ah right.

But not so much damage that the connected perimeter walls and windows
revealed much until global collapse began.

All believed by you and the rest of the OCTers because the NIST computer simulation said so.

A simulation that bore little resemblance to the visual record.

That is quite the dodge.

MM

 

[twinstead]

By OCT mm do you mean the commonly-held narrative of the event? You appear to forget sometimes just how much of a minority your views represent.

I don't.

 

[triforcharity]

Ah right.

But not so much damage that the connected perimeter walls and windows
revealed much until global collapse began.

All believed by you and the rest of the OCTers because the NIST computer simulation said so.

A simulation that bore little resemblance to the visual record.

That is quite the dodge.

MM

The kink began and the penthouse fell, this is the start of the global collapse. Do you understand what "global" means in this context?

A simple yes or no would suffice.

 

[Fonebone]

Penthouse phollies

So you don't understand the words (don't feel bad it wasn't written for laymen). If you did you would stop insisting a whole 8 stores of the building collapsed at free-fall. You can post all the videos you want, none of them show what's happening inside the building. I see you don't like to talk about the penthouse much.

Fonebone likes to talk about the 'penthouses' ---
The open air 'penthouse' on the western two thirds of the roof housed the air conditioning equipment
and condenser fans as well as the exhaust blowers.
The eastern third of the roof was a mechanical room enclosed penthouse.
Viewed from the north, the eastern 'penthouse' third of the roof that was the first section
to collapse, is the enclosed structure seen here on the left.
The air conditioning equipment is on the right. This WTC7 cameo is the north face of the WTC7
taken shortly after the WTC1 tower had collapsed.

The sunlit area north of the WTC7 building is mirrored in the windows of the
WTC7 tower clearly indicating the structure is not contorted to any noticeable degree
and there no broken windows.
No visible damage,fire, or smoke at any point of the WTC7 north face. Again , this still was taken
minutes after the second tower WTC1 collapsed.

Where is the raging inferno that the fire department couldn't battle ?

 

[superlogicalthinker]

Mackey's comment on wtc7

For one to say that over 100 feet of downward acceleration, in a natural collapse, is not remarkable, is the most asinine thing I have ever heard. I would like to debate you on this in public Mr. Mackey.
According to Sunder at NIST, there would have to be no structural components benith a structure to fall at free fall, yet there is free fall.

Someone tell me how this happenns without explosives.

I’m surprised flutter didn’t come to your mind. It came to mine. Maybe we should ask some structural-dynamics engineers specializing in flutter, and ask them what they think the probability is that a 767 could fly 100 knots beyond its dive speed.


I’m talking about flying well beyond its DIVE speed. This already is well beyond its MAX OPERATING speed.


That’s right. I feel cockpit simulators are inadequate to assess this situation. Flying well beyond the validated aerodynamics data base gives me no confidence in a simulator. The vibrations in the cockpit, warning lights going off, etc., means the cockpit simulator would be completely inadequate, particularly for a novice pilot.



Wow! Is this ever made up. In fact, I can’t even figure out what it is saying. You are saying a novice pilot’s actual precision would be about ten times greater than, what? Or is that, an expert pilot’s precision is about ten times greater than, again, what? What are we comparing it to?



What? You must have completely misunderstood what I said. I didn’t claim it could be totally neglected. I said I wouldn’t accept the word “Impossible” in place of “Improbable.” Now you are arguing that I’m saying these two words are the same???



A freefall drop of 8 stories is NOT remarkable??? -- I’m speechless.


and


Have you looked at any of the videos? The “free fall” is indistinguishable from the acceleration of gravity.

 

[TJM]

Fonebone likes to talk about the 'penthouses' ---
The open air 'penthouse' on the western two thirds of the roof housed the air conditioning equipment
and condenser fans as well as the exhaust blowers.
The eastern third of the roof was a mechanical room enclosed penthouse.
Viewed from the north, the eastern 'penthouse' third of the roof that was the first section
to collapse, is the enclosed structure seen here on the left.
The air conditioning equipment is on the right. This WTC7 cameo is the north face of the WTC7
taken shortly after the WTC1 tower had collapsed.

The sunlit area north of the WTC7 building is mirrored in the windows of the
WTC7 tower clearly indicating the structure is not contorted to any noticeable degree
and there no broken windows.
No visible damage,fire, or smoke at any point of the WTC7 north face. Again , this still was taken
minutes after the second tower WTC1 collapsed.

Where is the raging inferno that the fire department couldn't battle ?

Probably because that picture was taken sometime after the collapse of 2 WTC. The picture you posted seems to show the building before it caught fire. The lack of fire should be a clue.

 

[R.Mackey]

For one to say that over 100 feet of downward acceleration, in a natural collapse, is not remarkable, is the most asinine thing I have ever heard. I would like to debate you on this in public Mr. Mackey.
According to Sunder at NIST, there would have to be no structural components benith a structure to fall at free fall, yet there is free fall.

Someone tell me how this happenns without explosives.

Denied.

I already explained why it's totally ordinary and actually predicted by NIST's models. If you can't understand that, you have no business in this conversation at all.

 

[beachnut]

For one to say that over 100 feet of downward acceleration, in a natural collapse, is not remarkable, is the most asinine thing I have ever heard. I would like to debate you on this in public Mr. Mackey.
According to Sunder at NIST, there would have to be no structural components benith a structure to fall at free fall, yet there is free fall.

Someone tell me how this happenns without explosives.

You will not understand the explanation, you have delusions; Delusions are more fun and require no knowledge, no math, no physics, no effort. Stick with delusions, you can skip college.

Welcome, super truthy named new guy, welcome to JREF.