'What about building 7'?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Miragememories said:

Their hypothesis's initiation calls for column 79 to be dislodged and buckled, as a result of expanding "pushing" girders, created by heat induced steel expansion, over 5 sequential floors.

The girders have to push against resisting structural steel, without sagging, through a precise distance, in order to achieve column failure.
Click to expand...

What? A citation describing what you refer to would be in order.

That is not what section 5.4.1 of NCSTAR 1-9A, or section 8.2 of NCSTAR 1-9 say.
 
Last edited:
Miragememories said:
​



I think we all know the "extent" of those "raging", migrating office cubicle fires that supposedly brought the steel-structured 7 WTC down at high speed.

There is nothing special about the ability of fires to briefly rage.

It is the where, when, and how much, that make for, "special".

In a nutshell, the office cubicle fires were insufficient cause.

There was not enough fire, of sufficient strength, duration, and location, to produce the necessary "special".

The NIST hypothesis fails because it cannot achieve its goal by the means they suggest.

Their hypothesis's initiation calls for column 79 to be dislodged and buckled, as a result of expanding "pushing" girders, created by heat induced steel expansion, over 5 sequential floors.

The girders have to push against resisting structural steel, without sagging, through a precise distance, in order to achieve column failure.

If the high, sustained temperature required to do this was ever produced, it would also weaken the pushing strength of the expanding steel girder causing it to sag, and column 79 would not fail.

So, no I do not think that Mr. Jowenko's lack of a complete knowledge regarding all that afflicted 7 WTC on 9/11 is at issue.

A year or so after he did that interview, now more familiar with 7 WTC, Mr. Jowenko, in a phone interview, unreservedly repeated his professional belief as a demolition engineer, that what he observed in the video of 7 WTC collapsing was a controlled demolition.
Click to expand...


SO many wrong assumptions and outright lies.........another day in trooferville :rolleyes:
 
Oystein said:
I highlighted the foundation and structure of Jowenko's argument logic at that point.

I believe he was not yet informed about, or had not fully digested, the extent of the fires that raged through #7 for hours.
Click to expand...

As GlennB hinted, it is even deeper than this. When the interview starts, Danny Jowenko is already of the belief that he has heard in a news broadcast from NOS Journaal in Netherlands, that the WTC 7 was demolished some time after 9/11.


At 1:06 he says:
Jowenko:I remember that they told they've imploded it, it smoked for days
Click to expand...

Then at 18:09
Jowenko:I'm sure that I've heard in the journal that it's been imploded, that buildings were weakened.

Journalist: Then its should be here in the official report, and then whole research should not be needed.

Jowenko: You should replay those journals from 9/11, could you not somewhere at the NOS..?

Journalist: I'll try that, I'll check it.
Click to expand...

It looks like this is the only thing Jowenko (mistakenly) knows about WTC 7 when the interview starts. He looks completely flabbergasted when the journalist tells him that WTC 7 collapsed the same day. From then on the whole interview deteriorates into wild uninformed speculation, on how this could be possible, combined with some very prejudiced views on how things works in the States. He ends up unrealistically speculating that WTC 7 was a hurried demolition as part of some kind of insurance scam, to save money, because it would be to expensive to repair the damage WTC 7 sustained when the towers collapsed.

And as usual it is worth mentioning; that he does not believe that WTC 1 and WTC 2 collapsed for any other reasons than aircraft impact and fire.
 
Last edited:
Oystein said:
How do you know he was more familiar with 7 WTC then? Assuming the recording we have heard is genuine. (Perhaps this question is answered in the interview - I don't recall that, and don't have it handy at the moment)
Click to expand...

Here it is, it is very short:

He sounds just as uniformed and prejudiced as in the first interview, especially about the professional integrity of his colleagues in the States. I doubt he knows anything more about WTC 7 at this stage, than the few bits and pieces shown to him by the journalist in the first interview.
 
Last edited:
Miragememories said:
​



I think we all know the "extent" of those "raging", migrating office cubicle fires that supposedly brought the steel-structured 7 WTC down at high speed.

There is nothing special about the ability of fires to briefly rage.

It is the where, when, and how much, that make for, "special".

In a nutshell, the office cubicle fires were insufficient cause.

There was not enough fire, of sufficient strength, duration, and location, to produce the necessary "special".

The NIST hypothesis fails because it cannot achieve its goal by the means they suggest.

Their hypothesis's initiation calls for column 79 to be dislodged and buckled, as a result of expanding "pushing" girders, created by heat induced steel expansion, over 5 sequential floors.

The girders have to push against resisting structural steel, without sagging, through a precise distance, in order to achieve column failure.

If the high, sustained temperature required to do this was ever produced, it would also weaken the pushing strength of the expanding steel girder causing it to sag, and column 79 would not fail.

So, no I do not think that Mr. Jowenko's lack of a complete knowledge regarding all that afflicted 7 WTC on 9/11 is at issue.

A year or so after he did that interview, now more familiar with 7 WTC, Mr. Jowenko, in a phone interview, unreservedly repeated his professional belief as a demolition engineer, that what he observed in the video of 7 WTC collapsing was a controlled demolition.
Click to expand...

Too bad the fire experts standing outside the building that day completely disagree with you and predicted the collapse well before it happened. Not to mention they made sure the building was evacuated and directed people to stay a safe distance back. Doesn't sound like a very well executed inside jobby job now does it?
 
Norseman said:
As GlennB hinted, it is even deeper than this. When the interview starts, Danny Jowenko is already of the belief that he has heard in a news broadcast from NOS Journaal in Netherlands, that the WTC 7 was demolished some time after 9/11.


...
Click to expand...

Also, at the start of this YT clip, when they are looking at "Bilderen van Gebouw number zeven" ("pictures of Building 7" - can refer to video, too), they apparently do so without sound, or sound set very low. Soon after, Jowenko speculates about "linear charges" (explosives), but had he watched the video without sound, he couldn't have failed to notice the complete absence of the BANG BANG BANG he must be so familiar with: http://www.jowenko.com/
 
jaydeehess said:
Originally Posted by Miragememories View Post


Their hypothesis's initiation calls for column 79 to be dislodged and buckled, as a result of expanding "pushing" girders, created by heat induced steel expansion, over 5 sequential floors.

The girders have to push against resisting structural steel, without sagging, through a precise distance, in order to achieve column failure.
Click to expand...
What? A citation describing what you refer to would be in order.

That is not what section 5.4.1 of NCSTAR 1-9A, or section 8.2 of NCSTAR 1-9 say.
Click to expand...
Still wondering about this characterization of the cause of initial col 79 failure. Anyone have an idea what MM is referring to?
 
Miragememories said:
​



I think we all know the "extent" of those "raging", migrating office cubicle fires that supposedly brought the steel-structured 7 WTC down at high speed.

There is nothing special about the ability of fires to briefly rage.

It is the where, when, and how much, that make for, "special".

In a nutshell, the office cubicle fires were insufficient cause.

There was not enough fire, of sufficient strength, duration, and location, to produce the necessary "special".

The NIST hypothesis fails because it cannot achieve its goal by the means they suggest.

Their hypothesis's initiation calls for column 79 to be dislodged and buckled, as a result of expanding "pushing" girders, created by heat induced steel expansion, over 5 sequential floors.

The girders have to push against resisting structural steel, without sagging, through a precise distance, in order to achieve column failure.

If the high, sustained temperature required to do this was ever produced, it would also weaken the pushing strength of the expanding steel girder causing it to sag, and column 79 would not fail.

So, no I do not think that Mr. Jowenko's lack of a complete knowledge regarding all that afflicted 7 WTC on 9/11 is at issue.

A year or so after he did that interview, now more familiar with 7 WTC, Mr. Jowenko, in a phone interview, unreservedly repeated his professional belief as a demolition engineer, that what he observed in the video of 7 WTC collapsing was a controlled demolition.
Click to expand...
Column failure can be triggered by weld
Failure and even the best investigation or
Modeling may not detect the actual associated
Factors that cause that.
Then it would take wayless heating and
Expansion to cause failure.
 
Crazy Chainsaw said:
Column failure can be triggered by weld
Failure.

... and even the best investigation

..or Modeling

...may not detect the actual associated Factors that cause that.

Then it would take wayless heating and

Expansion to cause failure.
Click to expand...

A bad weld.

That's it?

A "bad weld" and "wayless heating" represent viable argument for the collapse of 7 WTC.

Too funny.
 
Originally Posted by Miragememories View Post


Their hypothesis's initiation calls for column 79 to be dislodged and buckled, as a result of expanding "pushing" girders, created by heat induced steel expansion, over 5 sequential floors.

The girders have to push against resisting structural steel, without sagging, through a precise distance, in order to achieve column failure.
Click to expand...
What? A citation describing what you refer to would be in order.

That is not what section 5.4.1 of NCSTAR 1-9A, or section 8.2 of NCSTAR 1-9 say.
Click to expand...
jaydeehess said:
Still wondering about this characterization of the cause of initial col 79 failure. Anyone have an idea what MM is referring to?
Click to expand...

Still waiting for clarification and reconciliation of the above, wrt NCSTAR 1-9, 1-9A

Anyone?
 
Last edited:
Miragememories said:
A "bad weld" and "wayless heating" represent viable argument for the collapse of 7 WTC.
Click to expand...

Please present your theory.

You remember? The one that requires removal of 100% of the vertical support over ~8 storeys in a synchronised manner?

The one that was 'supposed' to have happened at about 10:30 that morning?

After proposing an even remotely plausible theory you can then accuse others of being 'too funny'. Until then that regular jibe of yours always turns around to smack you in the face, though you don't realise it.
 
Miragememories said:
A bad weld.

That's it?

A "bad weld" and "wayless heating" represent viable argument for the collapse of 7 WTC.

Too funny.
Click to expand...

Not bad welds damaged welds would reduce,
The structures load carrying capacity.

It could be that multiple events associated
With the towers collapse and fires lead to microfractures
In the welds.

Such would only show up.on xray analysts,
Of the welds.
 
Wow, I leave the thread for a while as the discussion about who broke a window ( or did he?) was wearing a little thin - when I pop back - there's columns being pushed, beams sagging (or not)and welds developing micro fractures...... my life!

Let's get one thing straight - so long as nothing moves a building out of upright - none of it's columns need to be welded at all - they will be quite happy standing on the one underneath all the way from the roof to the ground and held that way by the gridwork of beams and floorpans. Obviously, it's a good idea to have them all connected in some way - and I suggest that they definately were - and very well - in fact so well, that it is inconceivable that a sufficient number suddenly developed cracks that lead to collapse!

It was a well known fact that large dimension stress frames were fabricated under floor seven of Building 7 in its remodelling for Salmon Brothers specification - this modification placed the upper 40 storeys on top of this frames with no other support underneath - therefore we have a scenario that fits what we all saw ( the penthouse sinking into the roof) - this was most probably caused by the beam of a frame bending into the void of floor six because the architect had removed the column from under it! All the video shows this floor to be substantially alight - I don't care what was burning - it looks pretty damn hot to me and quite good enough the weaken the structure in the worst possible place.

If explosives were used to cut any steelwork - they would have left telltale signatures that would have had to be spirited away in the clean up which involved hundreds of workers whom far from being evil governmint stooges were mostly good ol Noo Yawk building site labourers.
 
Last edited:
1stClassAlan said:
It was a well known fact that large dimension stress frames were fabricated under floor seven of Building 7 in its remodelling for Salmon Brothers specification - this modification placed the upper 40 storeys on top of this frames with no other support underneath -
Click to expand...

It is? I'm not sure I follow. :confused:
 
1stClassAlan said:
Thirteen years - and you still haven't checked out how the damn thing was built???

Go away and do it now! Make it your homework assignment for this week.
Click to expand...
What "remodel" are you talking about? The transfer system was part of the original design (on top of the sub-station).
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom