'What about building 7'?

[Animal]

delete

 

[Spanx]

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.

Gerry, it's all very well writing things like this but it means absolutely nothing.

Surely after all these years you have compiled something you can show to confirm your evidence ?

Have you not noticed pgimeno produces evidence and provides a link to his claims.

Where as you like to use things like, " mind your own business " " you are getting confused " Or just completely ignore valid questions. IMO this just shows ignorance and is nothing more than a bell ringing excersise.

Why not open a new thread or continue this one with all of your work including evidence and links etc ? You are obviously passionate about this subject why not show what you have got ?

 

[GlennB]

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.

This is such a stupid concept that the word "stupid" is inadequate.

 

[Spanx]

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.

Is there any evidence to suggest all external facades where virtually unscathed ?

 

[Animal]

This is such a stupid concept that the word "stupid" is inadequate.

Realistically describing his concept would result in the very least a yellow flag.

 

[Miragememories]

Gerry, sadly I see an all too familiar pattern of responses here.

From this page alone;

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

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

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.

You keep making stuff up.

You're oversimplifying NIST's words to your convenience.

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.

delete

You are obviously passionate about this subject why not show what you have got ?

Until such time as genuine rebuttal arguments appear, it would seem to make more sense to address the thread subject by discussing it only with people like myself who do not feel the constant need to disparage the argument and the arguer.

As you know, the whole basis for the NIST case regarding the mysterious, sudden, high speed plummet of 7WTC, centres around the steel expansion hypothesis which they cannibalized from their WTC1 and WTC2 collapse hypotheses.

The thing is, even if they could show (which they can't), that column 79 was dislodged and buckled because of steel expansion, it would not create the form of collapse that was clearly revealed by the many video recordings.

The left side (east) would not be in such immediate agreement with the right (west).

By the time the failure on the east side was communicated as overwhelming load to the west side (we are talking about an area roughly the size of a football field), the east side would have been leading the collapse dramatically.

The roofline descent on the east side would have been much further advanced or finished before its western portion joined in the action.

Anyone who pretends that the roof line maintained anything resembling "level", has seriously avoided or ignored reality. Weasel words will be grossly important in 3, 2...

The above image shows 7WTC in a later stage of its global collapse.

In spite of some individuals efforts to show otherwise, the videos show how comparatively level the actual roofline was during global the collapse of 7WTC.

7WTC was not made of wooden blocks held together by friction and mass.

A left side failure of solidly interconnected structural steel beams, girders and columns does not drop at near or at freefall acceleration and immediately convey that same amount of failure over to the right side.

This incredible occurrence cannot be achieved by some south side debris damage and several floors of unfought fires.

It can only be created by an engineered implosion of the building core on the lower floors.

In their hearts, your many detractors know this to be true.

By beating up on the messengers they hope to avoid facing the truth!

Is there any evidence to suggest all external facades where virtually unscathed ?

The image below shows the start of 7WTC's global collapse (following the collapse of the east penthouse).

I see some broken windows.

Supposedly 7WTC is but a shell at this point and its interior has been gutted.

All that steel connected to the outside facades should have pulled in huge sections of building face and not just caused some minimal window breakage don't you think?

 

[Animal]

Gerry, sadly I see an all too familiar pattern of responses here.

From this page alone;

Until such time as genuine rebuttal arguments appear, it would seem to make more sense to address the thread subject by discussing it only with people like myself who do not feel the constant need to disparage the argument and the arguer.

As you know, the whole basis for the NIST case regarding the mysterious, sudden, high speed plummet of 7WTC, centres around the steel expansion hypothesis which they cannibalized from their WTC1 and WTC2 collapse hypotheses.

The thing is, even if they could show (which they can't), that column 79 was dislodged and buckled because of steel expansion, it would not create the form of collapse that was clearly revealed by the many video recordings.

The left side (east) would not be in such immediate agreement with the right (west).

By the time the failure on the east side was communicated as overwhelming load to the west side (we are talking about an area roughly the size of a football field), the east side would have been leading the collapse dramatically.

The roofline descent on the east side would have been much further advanced or finished before its western portion joined in the action.

​

The above image shows 7WTC in a later stage of its global collapse.

In spite of some individuals efforts to show otherwise, the videos show how comparatively level the actual roofline was during global the collapse of 7WTC.


[qimg]http://i1265.photobucket.com/albums/jj515/Miragememories/WTC7LevelCollapse-lowcontr_zps62091716.png[/qimg]


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

7WTC was not made of wooden blocks held together by friction and mass.

A left side failure of solidly interconnected structural steel beams, girders and columns does not drop at near or at freefall acceleration and immediately convey that same amount of failure over to the right side.

This incredible occurrence cannot be achieved by some south side debris damage and several floors of unfought fires.

It can only be created by an engineered implosion of the building core on the lower floors.

In their hearts, your many detractors know this to be true.

By beating up on the messengers they hope to avoid facing the truth!



The image below show the start of 7WTC's global collapse (following the collapse of the east penthouse).


[qimg]http://i1265.photobucket.com/albums/jj515/Miragememories/WTC7GlobalStartNW_zpsa9ce5648.png[/qimg]

I see some broken windows.

Supposedly 7WTC is but a shell at this point and its interior has been gutted.

All that steel connected to the outside facades should have pulled in huge sections of building face and not just caused some minimal window breakage don't you think?

A whole lot of engineering claims with nothing to back them up except a heaping serving of gish gallop personal incredulity. Served with a side of projection (if anything, troofers are the ones that deep down do not believe the BS they serve up.)

 

[Spanx]

The above image shows 7WTC in a later stage of its global collapse

I see some broken windows.

Supposedly 7WTC is but a shell at this point and its interior has been gutted.

All that steel connected to the outside facades should have pulled in huge sections of building face and not just caused some minimal window breakage don't you think?

I see two sides of a building, I can't see the lower part of the building where the collapsed took place. I also can't see the interior of the building, the penthouse must have either slipped off the side or fallen through the building. I can't say exactly what did happen but I can tell you what I can see. If you can see something else please tell.

 

[Ape of Good Hope]

Gerry, sadly I see an all too familiar pattern of responses here.

There's a reason for that.

 

[pgimeno]

Until such time as genuine rebuttal arguments appear, it would seem to make more sense to address the thread subject by discussing it only with people like myself who do not feel the constant need to disparage the argument and the arguer.

"genuine rebuttal arguments"?

BS, the column is tied and nobody claims any different, apart from you.

Gerrycan tried to disparage MY argument, even when I already proved that NIST said the opposite of what he claims.

Providing a quote where NIST said otherwise counts as "genuine rebuttal arguments" where I live.

Gerrycan has also claimed that NIST said that the beams expanded by 6.25" when NIST said no such thing, as I proved. The only quote he brought did not include NIST saying such thing. I called him on that, thus providing "genuine rebuttal arguments" to his claim.

Gerrycan also said:

That's not quite true. If the fires in a building are so intense that they distort the steel, do you think that the fire suppression systems will not have suffered such damage as to render them useless?
An example would be the chechnya luxury hotel fire in 2009. The suppression systems were rendered useless and the building burned for 29 hours, but did not collapse.

The example he brought was wildly inaccurate. The fire was in 2013, the suppression systems were in a perfect state and the building burned for 8 hours, and the claim that it did not collapse is a red herring since fire did not reach any internal elements. Noting those matters of fact are "genuine rebuttal arguments" too.

Aren't you happy that lies are allowed in this forum, MM? If they weren't, you could have been banned long ago.

 

[Wolrab]

Golly. I am so not sorry to have made a silly joke.

MM, what makes Danny Jowanko an expert on high rise demolitions?
I am a nurse, that doesn't qualify me to make statements about pediatric burn treatment other than to say it looks like a burn. I can't then state with any authority what caused a wound, such as the parent held the area over a flame or gasoline from a flaming car wreck caused it which is what DJ does with zero evidence.

 

[Crazy Chainsaw]

Gerry, sadly I see an all too familiar pattern of responses here.

From this page alone;









As you know, the whole basis for the NIST case regarding the mysterious, sudden, high speed plummet of 7WTC, centres around the steel expansion hypothesis which they cannibalized from their WTC1 and WTC2 collapse hypothese.

Not true the failure mode of the towers was from thermal induced weakening leading to buckling of the core columns, the falling upper block falls into the funnel effect of the outer perimeter Columns, and off center strikes cause failure of the welds rapidly breaking the remaining welds, weld failure of the core columns being the primary failure mode.

Building 7 Appears to be more thermal expansion causing bolt failure in column 79, do to the fact that the expansion rates of structural steel and 326 steel bolts are different such expansion leading to bolt overtention and stretching and eventually fracture of the 326 bolts.

So the failures are distinctly connected to the structure of the buildings.

Such bolt failure lead to movement of Column 79, this gradually caused overloading of the structure, over a 30 minute time frame as indicated by the BBC video that reported the building had collapsed 30 minutes before compounded failure lead to final collapse.
Leaving the self surporting masondary façades to fall at free fall speeds.

The buildings construction determines the failure mode of the buildings, A Controlled Demolition takes advantage of the building energy transfer abilities to take the buildings down in a controlled manor.

The structure of the building will always determine failure mode, and energy transfer in failure.

 

[Spanx]

I for one hope Gerry takes MM up on his offer of discussion. Maybe he was intending on having discussion through PM

 

[carlitos]

I think Bill Smith said it well;[/color]

 

[chrismohr]

Not true the failure mode of the towers was from thermal induced weakening leading to buckling of the core columns, the falling upper block falls into the funnel effect of the outer perimeter Columns, and off center strikes cause failure of the welds rapidly breaking the remaining welds, weld failure of the core columns being the primary failure mode.

Building 7 Appears to be more thermal expansion causing bolt failure in column 79, do to the fact that the expansion rates of structural steel and 326 steel bolts are different such expansion leading to bolt overtention and stretching and eventually fracture of the 326 bolts.

So the failures are distinctly connected to the structure of the buildings.

Such bolt failure lead to movement of Column 79, this gradually caused overloading of the structure, over a 30 minute time frame as indicated by the BBC video that reported the building had collapsed 30 minutes before compounded failure lead to final collapse.
Leaving the self surporting masondary façades to fall at free fall speeds.

The buildings construction determines the failure mode of the buildings, A Controlled Demolition takes advantage of the building energy transfer abilities to take the buildings down in a controlled manor.

The structure of the building will always determine failure mode, and energy transfer in failure.

Chainsaw,
The BBC's misreporting of the collapse of Building 7 was a journalistic mistake. I think it was that reports of Building 7's imminent collapse were misinterpreted to mean the collapse had taken place. Also there may have been a very early report of Building 7's demise when it was still completely covered in dust right after the Towers' collapses. One of many boo-boos that day due reporting on the fly. There was some shifting and leaning and creaking before that but definitely not enough to say the building had collapsed by any direct observer.

 

[JSanderO]

When you have the hysteria and confusion you had about 9/11... at the time no one knew anything and it was ALL speculation and many reporters were trying to scoop as well... it's no wonder that it wasn't like a documentary all fact checked and so on.

Who cares what Peter Jennings or Ashley Banfield thought???? Since when are they experts at anything aside from reading from a teleprompter?

 

[GlennB]

I wonder where the command centre was that was in charge of the WTC7 demolition? We used to hear that WTC1+2 CDs wee controlled from 'the bunker' in WTC7, but that plan had to allow for the demolition of 'the bunker' itself, therefore multiple command centres?

What a crock

 

[Brass]

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

They like to think they know it. How many truthers are suddenly structural experts after seeing a movie on YouTube?

 

[Crazy Chainsaw]

Chainsaw,
The BBC's misreporting of the collapse of Building 7 was a journalistic mistake. I think it was that reports of Building 7's imminent collapse were misinterpreted to mean the collapse had taken place. Also there may have been a very early report of Building 7's demise when it was still completely covered in dust right after the Towers' collapses. One of many boo-boos that day due reporting on the fly. There was some shifting and leaning and creaking before that but definitely not enough to say the building had collapsed by any direct observer.

The building was damaged on fire and leaning, tilting and fire fighters were expecting a possible collapse when the BBC mistakingly aired the report that it had collapsed.
So it was most likely redistributing energy before the collapses.
The Cameras that caught the collapse were clearly preplaced and waiting for it.
A leaning building is a good indication of the building slow progressive collapse.

 

[CORed]

Gerry, it's all very well writing things like this but it means absolutely nothing.

Surely after all these years you have compiled something you can show to confirm your evidence ?

Have you not noticed pgimeno produces evidence and provides a link to his claims.

Where as you like to use things like, " mind your own business " " you are getting confused " Or just completely ignore valid questions. IMO this just shows ignorance and is nothing more than a bell ringing excersise.

Why not open a new thread or continue this one with all of your work including evidence and links etc ? You are obviously passionate about this subject why not show what you have got ?

I think he already has shown what he's got. Nothing.