'What about building 7'?

[LSSBB]

What I am interested in is the vertical failure.

Regardless of what you imagine occurred for 1.75 seconds hidden inside of WTC7, the perimeter columns remained visibly intact.

And suddenly, not progressively, for 8 storeys, ALL of the perimeter column support vanished.

There was nothing progressive about that 2.25 second 100 foot vertical drop.

Had there been a progressive total vertical failure, the building would have tilted and fallen towards the side that initially started failing (presumably the east side).

Clearly this did not happen!


<pointless eyewitness explosion report bickering removed>

Please show the math, including moment resisting frame load distribution, to support your tilt conjecture. Please also include the amount the building did actually tip. Otherwise, you are just using your "making stuff up" as evidence to support your case. And there was no 2.25 second vertical drop - please look at the acceleration graph for the exterior again, a verticle drop does not have acceleration going above g.

You have no evidence of a vertical drop. Just drop it. (Pun intended)

 

[WilliamSeger]

Don't forget "delayed action gravity" - AFAICS first explicitly referenced by T Szamboti. It accounts for those time based anomalies - where movement starts then nothing happens for several minutes. OR "loud banging noise" followed several minutes later by collapse.

Is that anything like the delayed action momentum transfer that caused JFK's accelerating "back and to the left," two Zapruder frames after getting shot from the grassy knoll?

 

[jaydeehess]

Additionally, I have over 30 years experience in the TV broadcast industry working as a sound and video editor. It is very difficult to record clear, understandable audio in a noisy environment.

Negated! I too have 30 years in broadcast TV, as a tech. My college courses included math and physics. Yours?
In addition, before transferring to an electronics course in college , I was enrolled as a physics major in university.
(changed to electronics as it would get me a job immediately on grad)

So, I have similar experience in recording sound, and I have greater background in physics.

 

[jaydeehess]

What I am interested in is the vertical failure.

Regardless of what you imagine occurred for 1.75 seconds hidden inside of WTC7, the perimeter columns remained visibly intact.

And suddenly, not progressively, for 8 storeys, ALL of the perimeter column support vanished.

..

First of all....
Blind men and an elephant.

Then, OMG all the perimeter columns remain visibly intact.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T1oceE_67MM


,,, and again. www.youtube.com/watch?v=tzGJs-uyaSYIn fact this collapse took a very loooong time when measured from first tilt. really slow at first, then a bit quicker , and finaly, at the end , it went over quite fast.

That hush-a-boom stuff is all over the place!

Third, what part of core led collapse would require perimeter columns to show a progression of failure, and given that the lower quarter of the building was not visible in videos, how do you determine what they looked like anyway?
Oh, yeah, you just make #### up.

 

[tsig]

​

And you your point is?

Without attempting to prove his case as it supposedly relates to WTC7, jaydeehess can make any statement he wishes.



Again, what is your point?

We are not talking about a single column.

We are talking about what created a condition where ALL the supporting columns, internal and external, failed in unison and allowed WTC7 to D R O P unresisted for 100 feet.



[qimg]http://i1265.photobucket.com/albums/jj515/Miragememories/WTC7Comp-7302014_zpscb34b8b8.png[/qimg]



So it boils down to your selective incredulity.

The 'what was or wasn't heard' argument.

Yet you and your supporters never comment on how silent were the events that you believed did happen.

The silent buckling failure of the mammoth column 79.
The silent collapse of the east penthouse.
The silent gutting of WTC7 in the seconds prior to its global collapse.

Clearly these events must have generated high volume sound. Microphones flooded by a streetscape cacophony of noise are easily over-modulated making it near impossible to distinguish individual sounds.

You also ignore human hearing.

Explosions were reported by a number of eyewitnesses.

Barry Jennings who was trapped inside WTC7 after an explosion blew out the stairwell he was using to evacuate, reported clearly hearing repeated internal explosions, yet they were not recorded, or noted, by outside observers.

If he was trapped inside the building and heard explosions then why did he survive?

 

[tsig]

What I am interested in is the vertical failure.

Regardless of what you imagine occurred for 1.75 seconds hidden inside of WTC7, the perimeter columns remained visibly intact.
And suddenly, not progressively, for 8 storeys, ALL of the perimeter column support vanished.

There was nothing progressive about that 2.25 second 100 foot vertical drop.

Had there been a progressive total vertical failure, the building would have tilted and fallen towards the side that initially started failing (presumably the east side).

Clearly this did not happen!




I do not rely AE911 videos for reference.

Thanks to FOIA requests, I have copies of most of the original 9/11 WTC7 recordings.

Additionally, I have over 30 years experience in the TV broadcast industry working as a sound and video editor. It is very difficult to record clear, understandable audio in a noisy environment.




Again, I repeat, if you think the pre-implosion sounds of WTC7 should have been quite audible, WHY, do we not hear in the recordings, or from eye witnesses, the sound of the east penthouse crashing though the roof?

Why do we not hear the buckling collapse of the massive column 79 which supposedly started it all.

Why do we not hear the horrendous noise of WTC7's interior steel structure supposedly collapsing?

You readily accept that inaudibility but deny the credibility of inaudible alternative sounds of internal destruction.

Citing the 'spin' placed on what Barry Jennings said is not the same as recounting what Barry Jennings actually claimed.

Have you ever looked at where those lower stairwells were located in WTC7 and compared that to the known damage caused by WTC1 at 10:28 am.


[qimg]http://i1265.photobucket.com/albums/jj515/Miragememories/JenningsComp_zps4d4d6fff.png[/qimg]

Barry Jennings never recanted what he heard and saw.

He claimed in a documented interview that he experienced the collapses of WTC2 and WTC1 after his aborted evacuation attempt via the demolished WTC7 6th floor stairwell.

Michael Hess who was with Jennings at the time claimed in an interview that he thought the explosion had come from the basement of WTC7.

Neither of their testimonies is a fit for debris from above pummelling halfway through the 6th floor of WTC7

They were hidden yet were visible intact. Hummm....

 

[JayUtah]

They were hidden yet were visible intact. Hummm....

I think he's trying to say that his critics describe a progressive failure among interior columns that can't be seen in any of the photography, but that what he can see in the videos -- i.e., the facade, presumably connected to the perimeter columns -- isn't moving. He wants to examine only the behavior of the perimeter columns which he infers from the behavior of the visible facade, and ignore everything else.

 

[jaydeehess]

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=ff1_1210707903
There's those visibly intact perimeter columns suddenly giving out again.

 

[erwinl]

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=ff1_1210707903
There's those visibly intact perimeter columns suddenly giving out again.

And a few hours before. This building was completely intact. Right up to the moment a coffee vending machine short circuited.

That was all it took. And, most likely, some very defective, or wrong designed, sprinkler installation.

 

[LSSBB]

I think he's trying to say that his critics describe a progressive failure among interior columns that can't be seen in any of the photography, but that what he can see in the videos -- i.e., the facade, presumably connected to the perimeter columns -- isn't moving. He wants to examine only the behavior of the perimeter columns which he infers from the behavior of the visible facade, and ignore everything else.

That's because he apparently doesn't understand that the moment-resisting frame can keep the building exterior intact while the interior collapses.

 

[GlennB]

I think he's trying to say that his critics describe a progressive failure among interior columns that can't be seen in any of the photography, but that what he can see in the videos -- i.e., the facade, presumably connected to the perimeter columns -- isn't moving. He wants to examine only the behavior of the perimeter columns which he infers from the behavior of the visible facade, and ignore everything else.

But MM is being inconsistent (surprise?). He has previously stated that the freefall period can only be explained by simultaneous removal of all vertical support over a full 8 storeys, and that - by his definition - must include exterior columns at the same time as core columns.

So explaining the 1.75 second build-up of acceleration towards g still eludes him. His arguments are close to clueless, and he isn't likely to acquire a clue any time soon.

 

[LSSBB]

FYI here is an interesting presentation from Purdue regarding problems with Moment Resisting Frames identified from the Northridge earthquake in 1994 and the resulting design change recommendations by FEMA.

https://engineering.purdue.edu/~jliu/courses/CE697R/CE697R_MRFp1_F12.pdf

WTC7 construction predated Northridge by a decade, FYI...

 

[jaydeehess]

And a few hours before. This building was completely intact. Right up to the moment a coffee vending machine short circuited.

That was all it took. And, most likely, some very defective, or wrong designed, sprinkler installation.

That's what they want you to think. The coffee machine was just a false diversion that enabled a cadre of spooks to enter the building and load it up with hush-a-boom charges. It was an architecture studies building,,,,,,,yeah,,, think about it....

 

[Africanus]

Citing the 'spin' placed on what Barry Jennings said is not the same as recounting what Barry Jennings actually claimed.

Have you ever looked at where those lower stairwells were located in WTC7 and compared that to the known damage caused by WTC1 at 10:28 am.


[qimg]http://i1265.photobucket.com/albums/jj515/Miragememories/JenningsComp_zps4d4d6fff.png[/qimg]

This second image is a clear lie! The west corner wasn't the only part of building seven that was damaged by the collapsing north tower! I think you are quite aware of that fact as you're in the discussion for several years.

He claimed in a documented interview that he experienced the collapses of WTC2 and WTC1 after his aborted evacuation attempt via the demolished WTC7 6th floor stairwell.

And this claim is wrong as is his complete timeline.

Michael Hess who was with Jennings at the time claimed in an interview that he thought the explosion had come from the basement of WTC7.

That's interesting, which interview are you referring to?

 

[Iamafalser]

Had there been a progressive total vertical failure, the building would have tilted and fallen towards the side that initially started failing (presumably the east side).

Do you even read what you post? If a structure fails vertically then why would it tilt to the side?

(Hint: Which way does gravity point?)

(Further hint: Not to the east.)

 

[Justin39640]

The building was tilting, then it totally failed.

 

[Sabrina]

In relation to building 7, here is a simple statement based on everything I’ve learnt in the last 58 years :
Buildings cannot fall in or near free-fall acceleration except by controlled demolition. The simple explanation of this statement comes from Newtons 3rd law.
“For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction”.
When an object falls in free-fall acceleration, the only reaction is the planet being drawn towards the object with the same force as the object is being drawn towards the planet. (The object moves and the planet proportionately less due to a big difference in mass).
Because free-fall, by definition, requires zero resistance, this means there is no material getting in the way of the falling object. Nothing for it to interact with.
A building is held up by the material used to build it, so all this material has to be removed by some other force to allow free-fall. It can’t be the object falling that's clearing its own path down through the building material of the structure below it because, if it was, that would slow it down or stop it.
This means, if I understand Newtons 3rd law correctly, that Building 7 was a controlled demolition.
Simply put, the established and universally agreed 2.25 seconds of free-fall of Building 7 proves controlled demolition.
I am sorry if this statement hurts the feelings of some or contradicts the beliefs of others but that’s what this forum is for isn’t it? To have our beliefs challenged and to educate?
The fact of free-fall is confirmed by measurement which anyone can do and is admitted by NIST in their final report of November 2008; NIST NCSTAR 1A. Page 46, chapter 3, figure 3-15, “Downward velocity of north face roof-line as WTC began to collapse”.
I think we need a proper investigation into the destruction of building 7, recognizing these basic undeniable facts because we still don’t know who did it. We only know who has lied about it for 13 years and spent enormous amount of public funds on the ongoing effort to cover it up.
I wouldn’t think this will really meet the JREF definition of a CT because it’s just basic education and simple observation but I would like the seasoned critical thinkers of JREF to provide valid criticism on my understanding of Newtons 3rd law. People who can't spell truther and write twoofer or similar are beyond my comprehension. They are either more intelligent than me so I don't understand them or they are not able to confront the facts I am revealing and so they resort to name-calling to avoid intelligent debate.
Your comments and counter arguments please. Thank you.

So it appears this was another drive-by truthing where the author has failed to return to engage in any form of debate.

I therefore declare this line of inquiry invalid.

 

[Horatius]

.... and the resulting design change recommendations by FEMA.

Sometimes you Duh-bunkers make it too easy!!! [/Twoofer]

 

[Miragememories]

This second image is a clear lie! The west corner wasn't the only part of building seven that was damaged by the collapsing north tower! I think you are quite aware of that fact as you're in the discussion for several years.

Happy now?

As you can see, the damage from WTC1 debris fall is well away from the destroyed 6th floor stairwell.

 

[JayUtah]

As you can see, the damage from WTC1 debris fall is well away from the destroyed 6th floor stairwells.

Why does that mean it can't be the source of what the witness alleges to have heard? You're suggesting the debris had to fall directly on him in order for it to explain his observation. I don't share that assumption.