'What about building 7'?

[Quad4_72]

Heh Quad...hope all goes well.

Yah, same stuff, new faces (or possible socks). The latest thing is the "2.25 Seconds of Freefall" that they are parading around as their new holy grail.

Of course the truth, as I am sure you know, is misrepresentation and speculation in the absence of evidence.

Good times...good times.

TAM

2.25 seconds of freefall huh? Where the hell did they come up with that?

 

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

2.25 seconds of freefall huh? Where the hell did they come up with that?

I believe they got it out of NIST! The very same NIST that they said is "wrong".

Check it out on 911Blogger:

http://911blogger.com/news/2010-08-31/upper-part-wtc-7-drops-free-fall-225-seconds

 

[Quad4_72]

I believe they got it out of NIST! The very same NIST that they said is "wrong".

Check it out on 911Blogger:

http://911blogger.com/news/2010-08-31/upper-part-wtc-7-drops-free-fall-225-seconds

This part is the best:

My summation:
NIST has agreed there was freefall for 2.25 seconds. This implies 32.77 meters of the fall was without any obstruction from below. So therefore all column supports in at least eight floors must have been removed instantaneously, or at most within under 2.25 seconds. Thats 24 interior columns and 26 perimeter columns - 50 columns on 8 floors destroyed in under 2.25 seconds. Is this possible without additional explosive force, ie controlled demolition?

 

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

This part is the best:

Don't you just love how those idiots twist **** around?

 

[Andy_Ross]

Why is WTC7 so important that NISt, the Govt and the Firefighters involved would all fabricate a story that it was fire that destroyed the building?

What are they covering up?

 

[DGM]

Why is WTC7 so important that NISt, the Govt and the Firefighters involved would all fabricate a story that it was fire that destroyed the building?

What are they covering up?

If my "truthology" is correct, There was not enough "shock and awe" in the towers and Pentagon. The secret service plus the FBI and emergency command bunker were there.

Connect the dots!

 

[Miragememories]

"What is most telling is how you "have nothings" supporting the NIST WTC 7 collapse theory are making a mountain out of something for which you have so little information..a bulge."

"The relevent point is that the bulge indicated to the NYFD that there was a danger of collapse. Did they assume that this meant global collapse? NO the bulge was not indicative of a global collapse being imminent"

Strange how we have a multitude of firefighter quotes regarding WTC 7 opining that it was a virtual towering inferno, but only Deputy Chief Peter Hayden was making hay out of an observed bulge.

From my research, through a pile of interviews, Hayden was the only one talking about this mysterious bulge.

If the FDNY felt the bulge was so dramatic and compelling as you seem to think, why weren't the firefighters talking about it?

"The big story is with the NIST's bogus theory about column 79.

How could it collapse, pulling down the east penthouse and all the floors between 13 and the roof and only break a few windows on the north face?"

"Gee, I'm not sure."

Exactly, it can't.

"How, with all their budget, all their staff, and almost 7 years of investigation, could the NIST fail to see the 8-story free fall and arrogantly announce they had finally solved the collapse of WTC 7 in their final report for public comment?"

"They really did not fail to see it."

Exactly, they could not fail to see it. They just chose not to report it.

"Not until a high school teacher called them out, did they make the correction and add it to their final report a few months later. Absolutely amazing."

"Its still not relevent."

If nothing changed, why would the NIST decide what they previously hid from their public comment version of the report, now warranted revelation in their final report?

"And how about those fires that supposed caused the critical failure of column 79 at floor 13. This in spite of the evidence which argued the fires were moving away from that location some time before collapse. Fires which Dr. Greening calculated were way under-fueled for the task the NIST's computer simulation placed on them.

Yet you guys are all pre-occupied with a bulge far away from the point of controversy and in the known southwest corner damage location."

"Intense fire is still seen in the vicinity of col 44 at 4:40 pm on the 12th floor. Fires were also in the vicinity of col 44 on floor 13. Of course we simply cannot see col 79 and the fire there has to be determined by means other than direct observation. Dr. Greening's objections aside the beams in question would still have been heated by the fire and 600C is not out of bounds for an office fire."

Why do you so like to badger me about avoiding the math?

When presented with Dr. Greening's math that shows the fuel load did not match that required for the NIST's successful computer simulation, you choose to set his objections aside.

"The bulge is a big part of what caused the NYFD to determine that the structure was not to be entered and that it was in danger of a collapse and should be isolated with a safety perimeter. Given the unpredictable nature of collapses the PURDENT thing to do is have that perimeter extend outward from ALL sides of the structure.
THAT IS WHY it was done."

Like I said earlier, the bulge appeared to a concern only to Deputy Chief Peter Hayden within the FDNY. The firefighters on the scene were more drawn to the smoke and the fact that they were unable to fight the fires.

"The damage to the south face did not directly cause the global collapse. It contributed to the global collapse only in the way it progressed and the speed at which it occured.

Happy now?"

And Hayden's bulge in the southwest corner, was the farthest location from column 79 in the northeast corner.

MM

 

[Cl1mh4224rd]

If my "truthology" is correct, There was not enough "shock and awe" in the towers and Pentagon.

But most truthers assume that the general public doesn't even know that WTC7 collapsed that day.

 

[DGM]

But most truthers assume that the general public doesn't even know that WTC7 collapsed that day.

They also focus on the "three buildings" that collapsed. There's alot of things "truthers" fudge about.

 

[The Big Dog]

Strange how we have a multitude of firefighter quotes regarding WTC 7 opining that it was a virtual towering inferno, but only Deputy Chief Peter Hayden was making hay out of an observed bulge.

From my research, through a pile of interviews, Hayden was the only one talking about this mysterious bulge.

If the FDNY felt the bulge was so dramatic and compelling as you seem to think, why weren't the firefighters talking about it?


Like I said earlier, the bulge appeared to a concern only to Deputy Chief Peter Hayden within the FDNY. The firefighters on the scene were more drawn to the smoke and the fact that they were unable to fight the fires.

And Hayden's bulge in the southwest corner, was the farthest location from column 79 in the northeast corner.

MM

Well ****, maybe Hayden ought to be the first one up against the wall, when you mutts take control.

Or, wait a tick! Maybe because he had the surveyors transit, and the rest of the firemen did not? Did that occur to you, MM? Because that is how he reported seeing the bulge. WITH THE TRANSIT. So all the other firemen mentioned the huge roaring fire, and the guy who had a surveyors transit testified that the building had a huge *********** bulge in it.

Man, you are the worst *********** truther ever.

 

[beachnut]

Where is the physical evidence for the orbits of all the planets? These gullible fringe paranoid conspiracy theorist in 911 truth can't understand science, they are throwbacks to the middle ages. They can't understand gravity so they make up lies and wallow in ignorance, so of them do pretend engineering and study videos with no goals. They all share eternal failure.

The NIST model found what NIST thinks caused the global collapse.
Other people disagree, engineers disagree.
All rational experts agree fire did it.

911 truth is not rational, they are looking for MIB who did CD on 7. Silent, no blast effects explosives, or the insanity of thermite made up by Jones. 911 truth on track, the fast track to eternal failure. God speed 911 truth

 

[tsig]

What?

The peanut gallery require you to provide their responses?

I know what a bulge is.

But no one here knows anything about the WTC7 bulge other than its
rough location and that it supposedly spanned 3 floors.

There was no transit data that showed this visual sighting as having
any significance.

That must have been a short lesson Mr. Teacher.

MM

So the bulge was just a random happening and had nothing to do with the collapse?

 

[cooperman]

But most truthers assume that the general public doesn't even know that WTC7 collapsed that day.

Most people do not know that wtc7 collapsed that day. Even the ones that do, don't understand the significance.

I was watching some TV footage on youtube the other day and one reporter said, just after building 7 collapsed, that "a small building on the site has also now collapsed". I don't know in which universe a 47 storey building is considered small.

 

[cooperman]

2.25 seconds of freefall huh? Where the hell did they come up with that?

NIST included it in their final report after a high school teacher pointed it out to them

 

[twinstead]

I was watching some TV footage on youtube the other day and one reporter said, just after building 7 collapsed, that "a small building on the site has also now collapsed". I don't know in which universe a 47 storey building is considered small.

Maybe in a universe where a 110 story building had just collapsed? Just throwing it out there.

 

[DGM]

Even the ones that do, don't understand the significance.

Are you ready to give it a shot at explaining what that might be?

 

[funk de fino]

Most people do not know that wtc7 collapsed that day. Even the ones that do, don't understand the significance.

There is no significance.

I was watching some TV footage on youtube the other day and one reporter said, just after building 7 collapsed, that "a small building on the site has also now collapsed". I don't know in which universe a 47 storey building is considered small.

Did he see it or did someone tell him? Is 47 less than 110?

 

[Dave Rogers]

If NIST are such an amazing group of respected and experienced scientists, that we should trust to get it right, why did it take a "truther" to point out to them that there was a freefall period in wtc7's collapse?

They were most likely already well aware of it, and its explanation. Unfortunately, being sane and sensible, they knew it had no relevance whatsoever to the cause of collapse, and so failed to explain it to uninformed paranoiacs. I suppose they should have, given that they were forced to prove the blindingly obvious fact that explosives couldn't possibly have been involved in the collapse; but, when dealing with delusional ignorami, sanity can be a hampering factor.

Dave

 

[Dave Rogers]

Computer modeling isn't evidence,

Yes it is.

Dave

 

[The Big Dog]

Maybe in a universe where a 110 story building had just collapsed? Just throwing it out there.

Or a universe where TWO 110 story building had just collapsed, and thousands of people had died?

They don't understand the "significance" of it? The significance being that it allows hundreds of truthers to show off their lack of skills in logic?