'What about building 7'?

[grandmastershek]

I note that it was you that posted the intentionally misleading image, so do not talk to me about moving goalposts.

LOL! Reality is misleading? Oh the "truth".

I stand by what I said and what I showed.

Like I said, not like reality has ever had an impact before.

As a professional photographer and video editor, I am quite aware of perspective.

Great, then deal with the facts instead of just standing by your claims.

Feel free to explain how the series of image captures above, taken from a video of 7WTC's collapse, represent a false perspective of the relatively level roofline.

Simple, look at the image showing it leaning. If it was level it should show as much at all angles.

There is no photo illusion being deliberately created on my part.

Nor on mine. All I show is the the level of other buildings in comparison, which shows 7 out of level.

 

[Dave Rogers]

LOL! Reality is misleading? Oh the "truth".

He rejected your reality and substituted his own.

Dave

 

[grandmastershek]

He rejected your reality and substituted his own.

Dave

Well, we have observed MM make self negating, and unfalsifiable claims before. EG- It was a classic controlled demolition, but not so classic to avoid arousing suspicion. Doublespeak at it's finest. This recent foray is unsurprising.

 

[Georgio]

All that tonnage of structural steel ripping free of those façades without the occurrence of the kind of easily observable damage that was seen on the south side façade when it was struck by WTC1 debris.

No gaping holes, falling bricks, or large dimples.

Can someone go into this in more detail? Shouldn't the building have crumpled inwards from the top down (facade included) and continued like that if it was being pulled inwards by the internal destruction? Shouldn't the facade have been obviously pulled inwards from the top to the bottom?

 

[pgimeno]

Can someone go into this in more detail? Shouldn't the building have crumpled inwards from the top down (facade included) and continued like that if it was being pulled inwards by the internal destruction? Shouldn't the facade have been obviously pulled inwards from the top to the bottom?

It was pulled inwards, enough for the north façade's center to flex to the south, but the downwards component dominated. The outer moment frame was attached to the core through beams, which pulled it down as the core fell. That's how I imagine it happened.

 

[Spanx]

Can someone go into this in more detail? Shouldn't the building have crumpled inwards from the top down (facade included) and continued like that if it was being pulled inwards by the internal destruction? Shouldn't the facade have been obviously pulled inwards from the top to the bottom?

The trouble is, the collapse was at the bottom of the building ( the bit you can't see in MM's pics ) there is hardly any footage of wtc7 during these hours which is no surprise due to loss of life and destruction. I can honestly say it's not the sort of place I would have chosen to enter at that time.

MM keeps pointing out the that the structure was solid which is correct for the top of the building (the bit we can see in his video pics) the penthouse obviously went somewhere, as to whether it caused damage to the exterior facades on the other side of the building we have no way of knowing.

As you have seen MM has all the answers to everything We can't see. I call it fantasy.

 

[LSSBB]

Can someone go into this in more detail? Shouldn't the building have crumpled inwards from the top down (facade included) and continued like that if it was being pulled inwards by the internal destruction? Shouldn't the facade have been obviously pulled inwards from the top to the bottom?

The highlighted word, "Shouldn't", can only be determined by appropriate thorough engineering analysis and not layman eyeballing and pontificating. As pgimeno noted, the moment frame resistance to other forcesis they key. "moment frame" refers to the method of construction of the exterior shell, which serves a purpose of making the shell rigid and resistant to collapse in more ordinary circumstances.

Understand that the building did stay rigid and resist collapse long enough for all inhabitants to evacuate and survive.

 

[Miragememories]

"All that tonnage of structural steel ripping free of those façades without the occurrence of the kind of easily observable damage that was seen on the south side façade when it was struck by WTC1 debris.

No gaping holes, falling bricks, or large dimples.

Façade walls that had no outside lateral bracing were amazingly not pulled inwards when all their internal connections were supposedly being pulled downward by your "funnel effect"."

Can someone go into this in more detail?

Shouldn't the building have crumpled inwards from the top down (façade included) and continued like that if it was being pulled inwards by the internal destruction?

Shouldn't the façade have been obviously pulled inwards from the top to the bottom?

"To conclude this section I would like to briefly mention NIST’s simulation of the final global collapse of WTC 7. Of course we are all very familiar with what actually transpired during the final moments in the life of WTC 7 because of the numerous well-known videos of this dramatic event, as discussed in Chapter 5 of NCSTAR 1-9. These videos typically present an unobstructed view of at least the upper third of WTC 7 and permit the collapse to be followed for 4 - 5 seconds. The videos show the upper section of WTC descending very smoothly as an intact structure with the roofline remaining essentially horizontal until it passes behind buildings in the foreground. The only significant distortion of the boxed-shaped Building 7 that is noticeable after the façade begins its downward motion, is the formation of a slight kink on the eastern side of the north face.

Now consider NIST’s version of the final moments of WTC 7 as exemplified by the computer-generated simulacra of Figure 12-69 of NCSTAR 1-9. These images of the final collapse of WTC 7 from the north, west and south show very extensive buckling of the exterior columns especially near the mid-height of the building. It is simply astounding that, even though these computer generated images of a crumpled and severely distorted Building 7 look nothing like the video images of the real thing, NIST nevertheless concludes: “the global collapse analyses matched the observed behavior reasonably well.”

Based on the NIST computer model, yes, the façade should have been quite visibly pulled inwards from the top to the bottom.

This is the best computer-modeled simulation that the NIST could produce and which they were comfortable publishing in their final report.

Even allowing for the imperfections expected in a computer rendering vs. an actual video record, it is quite clear that the NIST's data called for a collapse result that most certainly would have resulted in visual façade damage greater than some minor window breakage.

The NIST's PROJECTED INITIAL GLOBAL COLLAPSE OF 7WTC

The ACTUAL INITIAL GLOBAL COLLAPSE OF 7WTC

I do not see any valid comparison which supports the NIST's belief that "the global collapse analyses matched the observed behavior reasonably well.”

 

[JSanderO]

Greening got it wrong! Actually it seems almost "everyone" got it wrong in some manner or other.

But there is no evidence for explosives... and no one can truly know much about what was going on behind the facade aside from the fires and the collapse of the EPH and the WPH... the rest is speculation... some of it sensible and some of... like instantaneous destruction of 81 columns over 8 floors (AE911) completely without basis of logic or reality.

 

[JayUtah]

Even allowing for the imperfections expected in a computer rendering vs. an actual video record, it is quite clear...

<snip>

I do not see any valid comparison which supports the NIST's belief that "the global collapse analyses matched the observed behavior reasonably well.”

Aren't we fortunate that these extensive, complex computer models have never required any skill, experience, or training to interpret? Whatever did we do before the invention of magic computers that would completely eliminate the need for any sort of well-honed professional judgment.

 

[BasqueArch]

What MM is saying is that when the floors collapsed they should have pulled in the exterior walls, except that when the floors collapsed because the core columns were exploded, the floors should have pulled in did not pull in the exterior walls.
This proves that when floors collapse they pull in the exterior walls, except when they don’t. This means the building was exploded.

 

[WilliamSeger]

In a computer rendering vs. an actual video record, it is quite clear that the NISBased on the NIST computer model, yes, the façade should have been quite visibly pulled inwards from the top to the bottom.

This is the best computer-modeled simulation that the NIST could produce and which they were comfortable publishing in their final report.

Even allowing for the imperfections expected iT's data called for a collapse result that most certainly would have resulted in visual façade damage greater than some minor window breakage.

The curtain walls were not included in the NIST model, which is much more difference than "imperfections expected in a computer rendering". The steel box frames that held the granite panels and window frames were 24" outboard of the columns and beams, giving a lateral rigidity to the combination that isn't reflected in the simulation.

 

[Crazy Chainsaw]

The curtain walls were not included in the NIST model, which is much more difference than "imperfections expected in a computer rendering". The steel box frames that held the granite panels and window frames were 24" outboard of the columns and beams, giving a lateral rigidity to the combination that isn't reflected in the simulation.

Yes infact the steel framing and the facade can
Be considered independent, weakly conected structures.

What MM is refering to the strait line not level roof,
Occurs because there is no resistance left,
To do damage to the steel reinforced top as it falls.
He neglects however other aspects that prove a
Systimatic structual failure, from his own posts.

Cters constantly reject facts and logic, and will
Continue to do so.

 

[Animal]

What MM is saying is that when the floors collapsed they should have pulled in the exterior walls, except that when the floors collapsed because the core columns were exploded, the floors should have pulled in did not pull in the exterior walls.
This proves that when floors collapse they pull in the exterior walls, except when they don’t. This means the building was exploded.

The exterior walls not being pulled inward is much more indication of a fire induced collapse than a CD. The connections on the beams failed due to fire, so when Col 79 failed, the connecting beams fall away rather than pull the exterior inward.

Another troofer fail

 

[Miragememories]

"Even allowing for the imperfections expected in a computer rendering vs. an actual video record, it is quite clear that the NIST's data called for a collapse result that most certainly would have resulted in visual façade damage greater than some minor window breakage."

"“the global collapse analyses matched the observed behavior reasonably well.”

"I do not see any valid comparison which supports the NIST's belief that "the global collapse analyses matched the observed behavior reasonably well."

"Aren't we fortunate that these extensive, complex computer models have never required any skill, experience, or training to interpret?"

I fail to see how any amount of learned, or creative, interpretation, could make this computer simulation;

Bear any resemblance to this record of reality.

I do not see any valid comparison which supports the NIST's belief that "the global collapse analyses matched the observed behavior reasonably well.”

"What MM is saying is that when the floors collapsed they should have pulled in the exterior walls, except that when the floors collapsed because the core columns were exploded, the floors should have pulled in did not pull in the exterior walls.

This proves that when floors collapse they pull in the exterior walls, except when they don’t. This means the building was exploded."

Of course that is not what I said, or meant to say.

What I have said, is that the only reasonable engineering explanation for the collapse of 7WTC is the one that demolition expert, Mr. Jowenko stated in his interview.

A core implosion was engineered on the lower floors of 7WTC which caused the whole structure to drop downward.

As the building dropped, the inside and outside structure was crushed from the bottom up, under its own, now unsupported weight.

The NIST would have us believe that it all started with a single column failure.

That column 79, lost lateral support on 5 floors, buckled, and then fell.

For column 79's imagined descent, it had to have been pulling hard and ripping free of all its lateral floor to perimeter wall connections, from the top down, while the east penthouse supposedly dropped along with it.

Miraculously, in spite of all this pulling activity placed on the the north face of 7WTC, it was left with little visible damage until the onset of global collapse.

"The curtain walls were not included in the NIST model, which is much more difference than "imperfections expected in a computer rendering".

The steel box frames that held the granite panels and window frames were 24" outboard of the columns and beams, giving a lateral rigidity to the combination that isn't reflected in the simulation."

Regardless of how the NIST handled the building's perimeter, the simulation provided a visual depiction of the predicted shape of the building at the time of global collapse.

I see no likeness to the known recorded reality in the computer depiction.

Furthermore, the NIST described what they hypothesized was actually occurring inside 7WTC, which has been the primary basis for my disagreement.

 

[DGM]

I fail to see how any amount of learned, or creative, interpretation, could make this computer simulation..........Bear any resemblance to this record of reality.

It showed how the most distinct aspect could happen, the disappearance of the penthouses.

Your focus is wrong. The lower floors were going first so the rest of the building had no choice but to follow. The decent of the penthouse is the true place to focus if you want to understand the collapse.

 

[JayUtah]

I fail to see how any amount of learned, or creative, interpretation, could make this computer simulation;

Bear any resemblance to this record of reality.

Then I'll just let you think about that until it clicks.

 

[JayUtah]

What I have said, is that the only reasonable engineering explanation for the collapse of 7WTC is...

You're not an engineer. Can you explain why all the actual engineers disagree with you?

 

[DGM]

You're not an engineer. Can you explain why all the actual engineers disagree with you?

I find it telling that "truthers" choose to make their starting point for the collapse half way through. They don't like to deal with the disappearance of the penthouses or the kink.

Those are the important features, the "truthers", as usual are late to the party.

 

[GlennB]

I find it telling that "truthers" choose to make their starting point for the collapse half way through. They don't like to deal with the disappearance of the penthouses or the kink.

And ....

Yep. Meanwhile MM's idea of the "level roof line" includes the kink.

Plus: