'What about building 7'?

Status
Not open for further replies.
cooperman said:
The problem with the column 79 theory is this:

People expected 7 to collapse all day. People on the scene described the collapse as "imminent". One firefighter said "There is no way to stop it". Debunkers will tell us that every man and his dog knew that the collapse was imminent and it was no surprise. Well if that is the case, how did they all know on the afternoon of 9/11 that column 79 would fail? If it hadn't the building would have stood.

You describe it as a design flaw. Did the FDNY know about this design flaw? If not, how did they KNOW it would collapse?
Click to expand...
I don't think column 79 was a design flaw. In fact the building did what it was designed to do. It lasted long enough so everyone could get safely out. (besides it's original purpose)

The FDNY knew it was a long span truss design which is inherently dangerous and prone to failure in fires. Couple that with what they saw for damage and I think the made the wise choice to keep everyone the hell out.
 
Miragememories said:
No, the WTC 7 would still have collapsed because the fires were not a requirement for the success of the controlled demolition.

A steel framed building like WTC7 sustaining a total collapse due to fires was implausible and unprecedented.

Yet, the NIST, having no politically acceptable recourse, and years overdue on their final report, went with a lame fire theory in order to avoid another Watergate...WTC7gate.

MM
Click to expand...

So, when should we expect yours, or any other truthers' paper showing NIST wrong? Do you plan on having it published in any kind of respectable journal?
 
cooperman said:
The problem with the column 79 theory is this:

People expected 7 to collapse all day. People on the scene described the collapse as "imminent". One firefighter said "There is no way to stop it". Debunkers will tell us that every man and his dog knew that the collapse was imminent and it was no surprise. Well if that is the case, how did they all know on the afternoon of 9/11 that column 79 would fail? If it hadn't the building would have stood.

You describe it as a design flaw. Did the FDNY know about this design flaw? If not, how did they KNOW it would collapse?
Click to expand...

FDNY knows that when buildings lean, and have huge bulges over many storys of the structure, that the building is going to collapse.

FDNY also knows that engineers who were there, who had a transit on the building, watching it's structural integrity go from bad to worse, know what they are talking about.

It is speculation to say that if Column 79 did not fail, that it would have stood.
 
"Reports that say that something hasn't happened are always interesting to me, because as we know, there are known knowns; there are things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns -- the ones we don't know we don't know."
D Rumsfeld

Hi, Hate to use that quote but it is what I think when I read a few of these topics.
We conjecture about what we see, or think we see in videos and pictures but what if we are not seeing everything. To say one building fell on another caused visible damage but did not contribute to the eventual collapse of the building it fell on is making unsupported assumptions. While I may be making assumptions I still have that visible damaged to start with. You cannot knock off a corner of a structure and not cause other damage. These buildings are often treated as if they are solid pieces. They are not. The damage produced at one corner may result in damage we do not see either internally or in areas not being viewed and recorded.
There were hints the structure was undergoing stress. It was screaming. When you push or pull or twist material in manners they were not designed to be pushed or pulled or twisted they eventually fail. Like the lines the Navy uses to moor a ship. If you pull those lines hard enough they create warning sounds (modern synthetic lines do not and so the sailors attach what they call a "tattletale") Just because the exact moment was not predictable does not mean those on site were clueless. They knew enough to get out and stand off and sure enough the building fell. Why does anyone need "PFM" to explain it?
I think we waste time on the mechanics without explaining the "why" Why were these building pre rigged to collapse. Explain that and then we can figure out the hows
 
Last edited:
DGM said:
I don't think column 79 was a design flaw. In fact the building did what it was designed to do. It lasted long enough so everyone could get safely out. (besides it's original purpose)

The FDNY knew it was a long span truss design which is inherently dangerous and prone to failure in fires. Couple that with what they saw for damage and I think the made the wise choice to keep everyone the hell out.
Click to expand...

Perhaps I should have used the words "Unique Structural Design". NIST themselves, IIRC, stated that it was structural issues unique to the building that contributed.

TAM:)
 
Bullwinkle2009 said:
"Reports that say that something hasn't happened are always interesting to me, because as we know, there are known knowns; there are things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns -- the ones we don't know we don't know."
D Rumsfeld

Hi, Hate to use that quote but it is what I think when I read a few of these topics.
We conjecture about what we see, or think we see in videos and pictures but what if we are not seeing everything. To say one building fell on another caused visible damage but did not contribute to the eventual collapse of the building it fell on is making unsupported assumptions. While I may be making assumptions I still have that visible damaged to start with. You cannot knock off a corner of a structure and not cause other damage. These buildings are often treated as if they are solid pieces. They are not. The damage produced at one corner may result in damage we do not see either internally or in areas not being viewed and recorded.
There were hints the structure was undergoing stress. It was screaming. When you push or pull or twist material in manners they were not designed to be pushed or pulled or twisted they eventually fail. Like the lines the Navy uses to moor a ship. If you pull those lines hard enough they create warning sounds (modern synthetic lines do not and so the sailors attach what they call a "tattletale") Just because the exact moment was not predictable does not mean those on site were clueless. They knew enough to get out and stand off and sure enough the building fell. Why does anyone need "PFM" to explain it?
I think we waste time on the mechanics without explaining the "why" Why were these building pre rigged to collapse. Explain that and then we can figure out the hows
Click to expand...

You are correct. That is why you don't find NIST stating directly that the debris played NO role. (1) they did play a role, they initiated the fires, (2) they (NIST) stated, based on their simulations, that IF THE FIRES remained unchanged in the scenario, but there was NO structural damage from WTC1, the building would still have collapsed as it did.

TAM:)
 
Hi, Roger that. If the building is going to fall without other reasons then fire then these other reasons do not really matter. It is impossible to determine what if any damage there was so why waste time on it.
I really do enjoy reading the techno stuff but it is not important to me. I want to know
1. WHO
2. WHY
and only then do I care about the how
 
triforcharity said:
So, when should we expect yours, or any other truthers' paper showing NIST wrong? Do you plan on having it published in any kind of respectable journal?
Click to expand...
There is no urgency.

I am still waiting for the NIST to respond to Dr. Greening's paper.

http://the911forum.freeforums.org/withering-critique-of-the-new-wtc7-report-t44.html

The NIST asked for public comment on their preliminary WTC7 Final Report.

Dr. Greening quickly complied.

In his paper, he questioned the validity of the numbers the NIST punched in for the fuel load used in their simulation and the NIST argument that column 79 would fail up to the East Penthouse.

Dr. Greening could not understand why the undamaged floors above floor 13 did not stabilize column 79 for a longer period than the 1 second the NIST allowed after the column supposedly began buckling.

If the NIST can't be bothered to respond to Dr. Greening, I see no urgency in submitting a paper of my own.

MM
 
Miragememories said:
There is no urgency.

I am still waiting for the NIST to respond to Dr. Greening's paper.

http://the911forum.freeforums.org/withering-critique-of-the-new-wtc7-report-t44.html

The NIST asked for public comment on their preliminary WTC7 Final Report.

Dr. Greening quickly complied.

In his paper, he questioned the validity of the numbers the NIST punched in for the fuel load used in their simulation and the NIST argument that column 79 would fail up to the East Penthouse.

Dr. Greening could not understand why the undamaged floors above floor 13 did not stabilize column 79 for a longer period than the 1 second the NIST allowed after the column supposedly began buckling.

If the NIST can't be bothered to respond to Dr. Greening, I see no urgency in submitting a paper of my own.

MM
Click to expand...

I'm not talking about replying to NIST. I am talking about YOU, or any other truther, replying to NIST. I am talking about YOU or any other TRUTHER publishing in a RESPECTABLE journal, showing NIST wrong.

The CTBUH agrees with NIST.
http://www.ctbuh.org/Portals/0/People/WorkingGroups/Fire&Safety/CTBUH_NISTwtc7_ DraftReport.pdf

I think they might know a thing or two about all buildings eh?

Does Dr. Greening still object to NIST's conclusions? Especially since his comments were on the DRAFT report, and not the FINAL report?
 
cooperman said:
Calm down.
Click to expand...
I thought I was!? I was calmly pointing out your deception at underplaying the fires

cooperman said:
Do you agree that any structural damage caused by the collapse of the towers played no role in the collapse of building 7?
Click to expand...

I agree that the damage did not play a role in INITITATING the collapse, which was the finding of NIST. I believe that, given the conditions, fire alone would have INTITIATED the collapse of WTC7, but to say the damage played no role in its collapse is not the findings of NIST
 
Last edited:
I have noticed when I mention to Truthers that Building 7 was severly damaged-and caught fire as a result of the falling towers, they just dismiss it with a wave of the hand..
 
Titanic Explorer said:
I have noticed when I mention to Truthers that Building 7 was severly damaged-and caught fire as a result of the falling towers, they just dismiss it with a wave of the hand..
Click to expand...
That's because it takes away from their primary focus, the 2.25 seconds of "free-fall. If you notice they don't like to talk about the rest (longest part) of the collapse either.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom