'What about building 7'?

[Sabretooth]

Why is WTC7 focused on exclusively? Other buildings collapsed that day, yet Truthers only stick to WTC7. So other buildings can collapse from fire and falling debris, but not WTC7?

Because "it wasn't hit by a plane". At least, that's usually the starting point.

A lack of knowledge of building construction, fire science, and physics tends to accompany their preconceived conclusions that, somehow, someway, the government is out to kill us.

Basically, if they don't understand it, it must be a conspiracy.

 

[Gamolon]

qimg]http://i1265.photobucket.com/albums/jj515/Miragememories/BlockBuildingReducedComp_zpsf3155abe.png[/qimg]
For the purpose of illustration, I present a building made of blocks.

So you mean to tell me that you think that the way the wooden block "floors" and "girders" of your model are stacked on top of one another is representative of how WTC7 floors, girders, and BEAMS were put together?

Stacked on top of each other?

 

[beachnut]

...

I prefer to ask you -- how can there be 2.25 seconds of free fall at Building 7 without some additional energy source removing 8 stories of structure abruptly from beneath the upper structure?

Since silent explosives don't exist, and thermite was a fantasy of a failed professor who went nuts, Dr Jones;

The answer is, the interior failed first, the interior was falling prior to the exterior.

911 truth followers and dadeets no understanding of physics when it comes to 911.

dadeets has problems with reality, he makes up fantasy about 911, and he is not using science, and he ignores the interior collapsing first.

dadeets has fantasy for his version of 911, where passengers were in on it, and the ones who might talk are murdered - and he ignores the fact their remains were in the Pentagon and a field in Pennsylvania - not news Griscom can't figure why WTC 7 took over 16 seconds to collapse.

... all four airliners allegedly hijacked on 9/11 were flown by the conspirators themselves and therefore that (1) they did not crash and (2) most of their co-conspirator passengers survived (co-conspirators considered security risks and any innocent passengers would have been murdered in cold blood). ... - dadeets 11 December 2009

The OP is based on ignorance, an inablity to face reality - how does 911 truth and dadeets fail to understand the interior collapse?
dadeets, is David L. Griscom, Ph.D., Research Physicist, retired from The Naval Research Laboratory, Washington, DC, has no clue what is going for 911 issues.

 

[pgimeno]

Because the column is heavily restrained. Granted that between beam k3004 to the NE of the column, and beam D3004 to the SE of the column there is no beam tying C79 to C38, there is however H3016, P3016, and B2002, all heavily restraining the column.

So I fact-checked this and guess what I found?

- The connection of beam H3016 failed, as did that of two other beams next to it.
- Beam P3016 connected to the girder whose walk-of gerrycan disputes, A2001. And there is no dispute on the failure of the connection between that girder and column 79, therefore such beam didn't restrain C79 in any possible way.
- Girder B2002 buckled.

Maybe Gerrycan was confused and meant A2002 instead of B2002? Alas, buckled too.

So much for column 79 being "heavily restrained" from displacing East due to expansion of the girder between C76 and C79.

 

[pgimeno]

Why is WTC7 focused on exclusively? Other buildings collapsed that day, yet Truthers only stick to WTC7. So other buildings can collapse from fire and falling debris, but not WTC7?

Brainster explains it quite well here:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10482447&postcount=11

As I have pointed out on SLC, the focus on WTC-7 is a stalking horse. Suppose we granted them the notion that WTC-7 was a controlled demolition. Who, outside of Silverstein's insurers, would care? Nobody died in WTC-7.

It's really part of a longish "logic" chain. The idea is that if WTC-7 was a controlled demolition, then that implies preparation, which implies foreknowledge, which implies that the towers (where people most certainly did die) may have also been controlled demolition.

 

[Spanx]

So I fact-checked this and guess what I found?

[qimg]http://www.formauri.es/personal/pgimeno/xfiles/11-s/H3016-P3016-B2002-C79.jpg[/qimg] [qimg]http://www.formauri.es/personal/pgimeno/xfiles/11-s/NCSTAR1-9vol2fig11-35.png[/qimg]​

- The connection of beam H3016 failed, as did that of two other beams next to it.
- Beam P3016 connected to the girder whose walk-of gerrycan disputes, A2001. And there is no dispute on the failure of the connection between that girder and column 79, therefore such beam didn't restrain C79 in any possible way.
- Girder B2002 buckled.

Maybe Gerrycan was confused and meant A2002 instead of B2002? Alas, buckled too.

So much for column 79 being "heavily restrained" from displacing East due to expansion of the girder between C76 and C79.

Not being a structural engineer or a piano player I have a question about beam P3016. With the beam being on the angle it is, would the expansion of this beam walk off at an earlier point due to losing a full connection at the furthest point ?

 

[Miragememories]

Why is WTC7 focused on exclusively?

Other buildings collapsed that day, yet Truthers only stick to WTC7.

So other buildings can collapse from fire and falling debris, but not WTC7?

In case you did not notice, the topic of this thread is 7WTC and not other buildings.

What other buildings totally collapsed on 9/11 "from fire and falling debris"?

"Mr. Jowenko's implosion opinion about 7WTC was clearly on topic and obviously unpopular because his views cannot be dislodged by the usual character assassination.

I attempted to show how even a simple construction could not be coaxed into collapsing in the manner of 7WTC without a lower floor implosion, but apparently that was just too challenging a concept for the deniers, who in typical fashion, resorted to mockery as a form of rebuttal."

"In case you missed it, your "model" doesn't prove/disprove anything other than your lack of education in physics.

Don't go claiming victory because the rest of understand just how silly your argument was."

You only serve to prove that no matter how much an argument is simplified, there will always be someone who requires an even simpler explanation.

The simple point I wanted to "illustrate", as opposed to "model", by using a building of blocks, was that, even an extremely under-engineered structure has zero probability of collapsing under gravity in a pattern similar to 7WTC on 9/11 without human intervention.

It is difficult to imagine a modern 47-storey office tower with all its interconnected steel, suddenly plummeting to the earth it such a manner.

I am not saying it could not happen because obviously it did.

What I am saying is that it did not happen for the reasons that the NIST claimed.

If it was possible for random debris damage and several floors of roaming office cubicle fires to create the high speed, virtually symmetrical collapse of 7WTC, than it stands to reason that the failure mechanism should be easy to simulate in conditions where most of the structure's collapse-resisting elements were removed, and humans were free to delegate fires, and pick away at the supports.

All I ask is that someone show how several levels of unfought fire and a similar degree of external debris damage could make a simple wooden block structure total collapse so symmetrically.

I predict that without a designed core implosion, the structure will either topple or only partially collapse.

It is absolutely ridiculous to suggest that the east penthouse collapse was part of a complete internal collapse that left the external facades virtually unscathed.

Facades that were strongly anchored to the internal structure yet revealed little more than some window breakage.

Furthermore, when the final global collapse of 7WTC took place, the east side and the west side were dropping in virtual sync and for 8 storeys or more of freefall and near freefall acceleration.

We know for a fact that this can be done by a human engineered lower floor core implosion.

We only know that there is a lame NIST hypothesis that claims this can be engineered by random debris damage and roaming fires.

 

[turingtest]

...
Furthermore, when the final global collapse of 7WTC took place, the east side and the west side were dropping in virtual sync and for 8 storeys or more of freefall and near freefall acceleration.

We know for a fact that this can be done by a human engineered lower floor core implosion.

We only know that there is a lame NIST hypothesis that claims this can be engineered by random debris damage and roaming fires.

Just out of curiosity, MM, are you a believer in ID/creationism "theory" (as opposed to the TOE)? I only ask because that last little bit of yours struck me as eerily similar to one of their core arguments- that because a thing (or event) looks like something that could be designed/engineered, it therefore must be.

 

[Dave Rogers]

All I ask is that someone show how several levels of unfought fire and a similar degree of external debris damage could make a simple wooden block structure total collapse so symmetrically.

Build us a wooden block structure the exact size of WTC7, and we'll be happy to show you how symmetrically it collapses.

Dave

 

[JayUtah]

The simple point I wanted to "illustrate", as opposed to "model", by using a building of blocks, was that, even an extremely under-engineered structure has zero probability of collapsing under gravity in a pattern similar to 7WTC on 9/11 without human intervention.

Still begs the question that you created a comparable structural system.

It is difficult to imagine a modern 47-storey office tower with all its interconnected steel, suddenly plummeting to the earth it such a manner.

Why?

What I am saying is that it did not happen for the reasons that the NIST claimed.

Only because you and a few other patently unqualified people can't bother to imagine that real structures don't behave the way you guess they do. I'm sorry to inform you that your presumption is not a yardstick against which authenticity can be reliably measured.

 

[grandmastershek]

It is absolutely ridiculous to suggest that the east penthouse collapse was part of a complete internal collapse that left the external facades virtually unscathed.

Facades that were strongly anchored to the internal structure yet revealed little more than some window breakage.

Meanwhile watever magical mechanism of combined explosives and/or thermite did not either. While you present your personal incredulity as evidence, there is no reason to believe the internal collapse had to show signs on the exterior, even though you noted some in your post to create your Texas Sharpshooter.

Meanwhile we are supposed to believe that whatever mechanism you think cut the columns simultaneously likewise had no visible or audible signs.

 

[Wolrab]

The topic of this thread is points NIST might have got wrong?

Let's look:



Nope.

ETA: I loved your model. You weren't serious, that's up there with Dick Gages "boxes".

How do you measure ED in AE911 members... a Dick Gauge.

 

[gerrycan]

So I fact-checked this and guess what I found?

[qimg]http://www.formauri.es/personal/pgimeno/xfiles/11-s/H3016-P3016-B2002-C79.jpg[/qimg] [qimg]http://www.formauri.es/personal/pgimeno/xfiles/11-s/NCSTAR1-9vol2fig11-35.png[/qimg]​

- The connection of beam H3016 failed, as did that of two other beams next to it.
- Beam P3016 connected to the girder whose walk-of gerrycan disputes, A2001. And there is no dispute on the failure of the connection between that girder and column 79, therefore such beam didn't restrain C79 in any possible way.
- Girder B2002 buckled.

Maybe Gerrycan was confused and meant A2002 instead of B2002? Alas, buckled too.

So much for column 79 being "heavily restrained" from displacing East due to expansion of the girder between C76 and C79.

You're confused.
Even in NISTs analysis the column retains lateral support from East and West until after the girder has walked off its connection.

 

[beachnut]

You're confused.
Even in NISTs analysis the column retains lateral support from East and West until after the girder has walked off its connection.

Where do you get these fantasy silent explosives and no product thermite from? Is it magic, is that your claim?

http://911blogger.com/news/2014-03-07/being-smeared-911-truther-msm#comment-260973

Has this silly tactic you use worked to fool anyone? What engineering school did you go to? Why is no one from your engineering school supporting the CD claims?
Wait, you don't make claims, you make tangential off topic BS to the claims you don't make, hoping to fool people into falling for a fantasy, the claims you can't make due to lack of evidence. Has it worked yet.

What claims are you hiding in "the deep end".

 

[Richard the G]

Mirage

Lets pretend you are correct. Lets pretend that column 79 was precut, ready to fail and it just needed a few ounces of magic thermite to fall. And you then would agree that yes it was a controlled demolition. Wow arent you clever.

You see perhaps the distance between sense and senseless is not far.

 

[pgimeno]

You're confused.
Even in NISTs analysis the column retains lateral support from East and West until after the girder has walked off its connection.

Why do they say that the expansion of the girder between C76 and C79 displaced C76 to the west and C79 to the east, then?

 

[gerrycan]

Why do they say that the expansion of the girder between C76 and C79 displaced C76 to the west and C79 to the east, then?

In NISTs theory, column 79 didn't begin to lose East-West lateral support until after the floors failed, and the floors failed after the girder walked off the seat at column 79. The girder failed because of the thermal expansion of the floor beams to the East of it.
They clearly point to the thermal expansion of the floor beams as being right at the start of their supposed initiating event.

 

[pgimeno]

In NISTs theory, column 79 didn't begin to lose East-West lateral support until after the floors failed, and the floors failed after the girder walked off the seat at column 79. The girder failed because of the thermal expansion of the floor beams to the East of it.
They clearly point to the thermal expansion of the floor beams as being right at the start of their supposed initiating event.

You keep making stuff up. NIST said that during their analysis, column 79 was pushed to the east by the girder between 76 and 79. That happened pre-collapse, in the ANSYS model, not in the global LS-DYNA model. The column had not lost lateral support over multiple floors yet.

Did the expansion of the beams have a role on the walk-off? Sure it did, and a crucial one! Just not the only one, as you pretend all the time.

You're oversimplifying NIST's words to your convenience. NIST says their simulation shows the girder walked off the seat; they don't say any beam expanded by the length of the walk-off distance. You built a strawman of an argument.

You've been caught in multiple mistakes and misrepresentations. Try to be more rigorous if you want to argue in the technical field, please.

 

[beachnut]

In NISTs theory, column 79 didn't begin to lose East-West lateral support until after the floors failed, and the floors failed after the girder walked off the seat at column 79. The girder failed because of the thermal expansion of the floor beams to the East of it.
They clearly point to the thermal expansion of the floor beams as being right at the start of their supposed initiating event.

Page number please.

 

[BasqueArch]

<snip>
Of the girders that connected the core columns to the North face it was one of the shortest spans.

It's to the west of the girder https://www.metabunk.org/sk/E16_17-East-Detail.jpg-20131013-120039.jpg
<snip>

Which girder in that drawing is much longer than girder A2001. The lengths look pretty close to me.