WTC7 and the NIST free fall failure

[achimspok]

No, you're not right to interpret Hayden's words that way. All he's saying here is that the realisation that the building would collapse occured at about 2pm.

If anything, this would suggest the fires were intense.

That's a pretty funny interpretation of
Firehouse: Was there heavy fire in there right away?
Hayden: No, not right away,...

In other words, the translation for truthers is "fire" means "collapse" and "no" means "soon". OK. You are the debunker. Is he talking about WTC7 or about Shanghai in 1887?

 

[achimspok]

actually it was 12pm when that "engineer" said it would collapse 5 hrs later and was "right on the money."

history commons:

(12:00 p.m.) September 11, 2001: Engineer at WTC Site Predicts Collapse of Building 7 An engineer at the World Trade Center site correctly predicts that WTC Building 7 is going to collapse. Deputy Chief Peter Hayden of the New York Fire Department will later recall: “We had our special operations people set up surveying instruments to monitor, and see if there was any movement of, [WTC 7]. We were concerned of the possibility of collapse of the building. And we had a discussion with one particular engineer there, and we asked him, if we allowed it to burn could we anticipate a collapse, and if so, how soon?” The engineer apparently predicts correctly that WTC 7 will collapse and also the time it will take before it comes down. As Hayden will continue: “And it turned out that he was pretty much right on the money, that he said, ‘In its current state, you have about five hours.’” Hayden will not reveal the name of this engineer. [BBC, 7/6/2008] WTC 7 will collapse at about 5:20 p.m. (see (5:20 p.m.) September 11, 2001), indicating that the engineer makes his prediction around midday or shortly after. [CNN

Yes, that's real world experience, I guess.
With this kind of experts they were even able to evacuate the building minutes prior to the WTC2 collapse.

 

[GlennB]

That's a pretty funny interpretation of
Firehouse: Was there heavy fire in there right away?
Hayden: No, not right away,...

So what event do you think "right away" relates to?

 

[achimspok]

I was thinking of posting something similar myself...but then I read your post.

Once again...this is why the vast majority of experts produce a collective yawn and laugh at the arguments that MT, FEMR, and ARCH keep repeating.

Intelligent post. Should be nominated.

Short description:
building fell in free fall - expertise: yawn and laugh
no evidence for a huge fire - expertise: yawn and laugh
bulge in a corner that wasn't there - expertise: yawn and laugh
witness reports - expertise: yawn and laugh

Convincing! (yawn and laugh)

 

[achimspok]

So what event do you think "right away" relates to?

He was asked about the fire at 2o'clock.
He answered.
event = fire at 2o'clock

They neither talk about the collapse hours later nor about the night shift one day before.

 

[achimspok]

I am still working on roof level, but I am going with the 4mph from the historical data I linked to earlier.

I missed the link but I remember that number in the NIST report. They got it from the airplane crash reports. It's the wind speed at ground level measured at the airports.

 

[GlennB]

He was asked about the fire at 2o'clock.
He answered.
event = fire at 2o'clock

That's an interpretation of "right away" that must be unique to you.

"Right away" here is synonymous with "immediately". "Was there heavy fire in there immediately" must relate to the event that started the fire, not some arbitrary time when a conversation took place.

Is English your first language?

 

[femr2]

Now, why would the wind speed at 7WTC be different from the tops of 1WTC?

Might be, might not. Zero chance of being exactly the same. All manner of factors apply.

I'll give you a hint. It has alot to do with the height of the building.

From a very simplistic viewpoint, sure, height makes a difference in general. Don't think there would be a huge difference between your two, rather odd, stated heights (aprox. 1300 feet up versus aprox 750 feet).

Yes, it makes a HUGE difference. Thank you.

Really ? So you measured it then ? If not, I recommend not making such definitive assertions.

I am still working on roof level, but I am going with the 4mph from the historical data I linked to earlier.

Might want to start with finding the height of the buildings then. And going with a value from one specific time in an unknown location ? Does your value originate from WTC1/2/somewhere else ? Altitude ?

I simply asked a question, as I had not been an active poster in this thread, and as such, had not seen where the value came from. Hence, my question.

Nonsense.

Now, do you agree, or disagree that the wind speed at floor 20 or so at 7WTC would be much different than at the 90th floor of 1WTC?

Disagree. Might have been at times, might not at others, especially with all those heat sources funneling around the joint, coastal winds, ...

Do you agree or disagree that the turbulance wind around 7WTC would be different than around 1WTC?

Agree. Different at every location on t'planet.

Do you agree or disagree that 6WTC would have been down-wind and a substantial distance away from 7WTC that it's smoke would not likely have been mixed with the smoke from 6WTC?

Disagree. Localised wind direction changing all the time. General wind direction not necessarily predominant in localised area.

Just say you're none too sure about the wind speed eh. This is all pointless without multiple context based measurement anyway.

 

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

This whole thread is for getting attention by obvious trolls who don't like the answers given to them.

I say let this thread die out, noone respond to it, don't feed the trolls!

I'm only going to link to Implosion World:

http://www.implosionworld.com/wtc.htm

Question: DID THE WORLD TRADE CENTER TOWERS ACTUALLY “IMPLODE”?

No. They collapsed in an uncontrolled fashion, causing extensive damage to surrounding structures, roadways and utilities. Although when viewed from a distance the towers appeared to have telescoped almost straight down, a closer look at video replays reveal sizeable portions of each building breaking free during the collapse, with the largest sections--some as tall as 30 or 40 stories--actually “laying out” in several directions. The outward failure of these sections is believed to have caused much of the significant damage to adjacent structures, and smaller debris caused structural and cosmetic damage to hundreds of additional buildings around the perimeter of the site.

Question: WHY DID THEY COLLAPSE?

Each 110-story tower contained a central steel core surrounded by open office space, with 18-inch steel tubes running vertically along the outside of the building. These structural elements provided the support for the building, and most experts agree that the planes impacting the buildings alone would not have caused them to collapse. The intense heat from the burning jet fuel, however, gradually softened the steel core and redistributed the weight to the outer tubes, which were slowly deformed by the added weight and the heat of the fire. Eventually, the integrity of these tubes was compromised to the point where they buckled under the weight of the higher floors, causing a gravitational chain reaction that continued until all of the floors were at ground level.

Question: DID THE TERRORISTS PLANT ANY BOMBS IN THE BUILDINGS IN ADVANCE TO GUARANTEE THEIR DEMISE?

To our knowledge there is no evidence whatsoever to support this assertion. Analysis of video and photographs of both towers clearly shows that the initial structural failure occurred at or near the points where the planes impacted the buildings. Furthermore, there is no visible or audible indication that explosives or any other supplemental catalyst was used in the attack.

This also goes for WTC7!

 

[traviss]

There are many of us who simply want questions answered, who do not assert the US government had a hand in it or allowed it to happen. This doesn't make us trolls...it makes us Thinkers. We simply have questions to which the answers inadequately respond. This says nothing of our sanity or gullibility.

 

[JimBenArm]

There are many of us who simply want questions answered, who do not assert the US government had a hand in it or allowed it to happen. This doesn't make us trolls...it makes us Thinkers. We simply have questions to which the answers inadequately respond. This says nothing of our sanity or gullibility.

What are those questions? The stuff asked here is the same old junk that was asked five years ago, and all those questions have been answered. None of the ones asking those questions is satisfied because the answers don't line up with their paranoid beliefs. If you have legitimate questions (excuse me if I'm >ahem< skeptical of that), by all means, post them.
However, if they are a rehash of the same-old same-old, I will laugh and point at you mercilessly.

 

[Dragon37]

There are many of us who simply want questions answered, who do not assert the US government had a hand in it or allowed it to happen. This doesn't make us trolls...it makes us Thinkers. We simply have questions to which the answers inadequately respond. This says nothing of our sanity or gullibility.

I would have to turn this around on you a bit and ask if you have read official reports on the matter and what questions of those reports do you have and why? A great many questions people have had have been answered but some simply do not believe those answers out of incredulity. Also, some questions are also simply irrelevant.

I might add that I don't appreciate the above hilighted line. You are insinuating that those of us who accept the official reports are not thinkers and I can tell you that you are 100% wrong.

 

[Senenmut]

Yes, that's real world experience, I guess.
With this kind of experts they were even able to evacuate the building minutes prior to the WTC2 collapse.

experience?????luck????
http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110161.PDF

"A few minutes later, John came to me and said you
need to go find Chief Ganci and relay the following
message: that the buildings have been compromised, we
need to evacuate, they're going to collapse."

"I said the buildings are
going to collapse; we need to evac everybody out. With
a very confused look he said who told you that? I said
I was just with John at OEM. OEM says the buildings
are going to collapse; we need to get out."

"He escorted me over to Chief Ganci. He said,
hey, Pete, we got a message that the buildings are
going to collapse. His reply was who the **** told you
that? Then Steve brought me in and with Chief Ganci,
Commissioner Feehan, Steve, I believe Chief Turi was
initially there, I said, listen, I was just at OEM.
The message I was given was that the buildings are
going to collapse; we need to get our people out. At
that moment, this thunderous, rolling roar came down
and that's when the building came down, the first tower
came down."

of coarse the firefighters had a different view:

"Now you know, again, this
is not a scene where the thought of both buildings
collapsing ever entered into my mind.
I was there in 1993, 14 minutes after the
bomb went off. I operated some 16 hours at the
building and with all the post-incident critiques and
debriefings with various agencies. We were always told
by everyone, the experts, that these buildings could
withstand direct hits from airplanes. That's the way
they were designed. They went through all of this
architectural stuff, way beyond the scope of my
knowledge.It was hit by an airplane. That's okay.
It's made to be hit by an airplane. I mean I think
everyone may have believed that. We were all told
years ago it was made to be hit by an airplane."

 

[achimspok]

experience?????luck????
http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110161.PDF

"A few minutes later, John came to me and said you
need to go find Chief Ganci and relay the following
message: that the buildings have been compromised, we
need to evacuate, they're going to collapse."

"I said the buildings are
going to collapse; we need to evac everybody out. With
a very confused look he said who told you that? I said
I was just with John at OEM. OEM says the buildings
are going to collapse; we need to get out."

"He escorted me over to Chief Ganci. He said,
hey, Pete, we got a message that the buildings are
going to collapse. His reply was who the **** told you
that? Then Steve brought me in and with Chief Ganci,
Commissioner Feehan, Steve, I believe Chief Turi was
initially there, I said, listen, I was just at OEM.
The message I was given was that the buildings are
going to collapse; we need to get our people out. At
that moment, this thunderous, rolling roar came down
and that's when the building came down, the first tower
came down."

of coarse the firefighters had a different view:

"Now you know, again, this
is not a scene where the thought of both buildings
collapsing ever entered into my mind.
I was there in 1993, 14 minutes after the
bomb went off. I operated some 16 hours at the
building and with all the post-incident critiques and
debriefings with various agencies. We were always told
by everyone, the experts, that these buildings could
withstand direct hits from airplanes. That's the way
they were designed. They went through all of this
architectural stuff, way beyond the scope of my
knowledge.It was hit by an airplane. That's okay.
It's made to be hit by an airplane. I mean I think
everyone may have believed that. We were all told
years ago it was made to be hit by an airplane."

3rd plane in, no 3rd plane in, evacuate 7 anyway, no one warns the firefighters in 2, strange, very strange

 

[Dave Rogers]

There are many of us who simply want questions answered, who do not assert the US government had a hand in it or allowed it to happen.

This is a claim. We are skeptics, and evaluate claims based on evidence. Evidence for this claim might take the form, for example, of you paying attention to the answers you receive, rather than instantly dismissing them because you don't like the conclusions they suggest. I'll look forward to evaluating this claim of yours based on the evidence you provide.

Dave

 

[triforcharity]

Might be, might not. Zero chance of being exactly the same. All manner of factors apply.

You're confused again.

From a very simplistic viewpoint, sure, height makes a difference in general. Don't think there would be a huge difference between your two, rather odd, stated heights (aprox. 1300 feet up versus aprox 750 feet).

Odd stated heights? 1300 feet is aproximately the height of 1WTC. 750 feet is the aproximate height of 7WTC.

I KNOW that the wind speed would have been different. If you believe the
9m/s that achmi came up with, you would KNOW that there is a difference.

Really ? So you measured it then ? If not, I recommend not making such definitive assertions.

No, this is basic understanding. At ground level, the wind speed will be less than 1300' up.

Might want to start with finding the height of the buildings then. And going with a value from one specific time in an unknown location ? Does your value originate from WTC1/2/somewhere else ? Altitude ?

Gee, if only I had already done that...

My 4mph value comes from the historical data supplied by wunderground.com, which I had already explained to you.

Nonsense.

So, are you saying that I was an active poster in this thread? Or did it come from another thread that I was active in?

Here is my first post in this thread.

Now, want to explain this "nonsense" remark?

Disagree. Might have been at times, might not at others, especially with all those heat sources funneling around the joint, coastal winds, ...

So, you agree, but with limitations.

Agree. Different at every location on t'planet.

Oh sweet jesus on a pogo stick.....

Disagree. Localised wind direction changing all the time. General wind direction not necessarily predominant in localised area.

So, do you need a map to understand what I am saying? Here is one. You'll need to rotate it about 30 degrees or so to get the actual North heading, as it is wrong. Even if the wind was coming out of due North, it still wouldn't have mixed much with
5WTC's smoke. It would almost have to be coming from the East.

Just say you're none too sure about the wind speed eh. This is all pointless without multiple context based measurement anyway.

Wow. You love to argue semantics, don't you?

 

[twinstead]

Wow. You love to argue semantics, don't you?

The more untenable ones position becomes, the more one is likely to argue what the definition of "is" is.

 

[femr2]

You're confused again.

Nope.

Odd stated heights?

Yes.

1300 feet is aproximately the height of 1WTC. 750 feet is the aproximate height of 7WTC.

Very approximately. You're talking about ground level

I KNOW that the wind speed would have been different. If you believe the 9m/s that achmi came up with, you would KNOW that there is a difference.

LOL. You don't know the value, and neither do I. Measure it.

At ground level, the wind speed will be less than 1300' up.

Probably. Measure it, and then you can assert your original suggestion with confidence, rather than pointless posturing.

My 4mph value comes from the historical data supplied by wunderground.com, which I had already explained to you.

From Central Park.

Now, want to explain this "nonsense" remark?

Sure...

At the height of WTC1 I measured a speed of the wind of about 9m/s. That's not that slow.

I wasn't talking about 1WTC. I was talking about 7WTC.

Please follow along.

Asking me where I got the 9m/s value from, and your subsequent exclamations...when you responded to achimspoks statement yourself...is why I'm saying your exclamations about it are nonsense

So, do you need a map to understand what I am saying?

No. I am simply pointing out to you, repeatedly, that you don't know the wind speed at WTC7 at any particular time, and should measure it before stating it's Xm/s. Given the high probability of complex airflow effects I would suggest not bothering and simply say you're not sure about the wind speed, or direction.

 

[achimspok]

Windspeed at ground level = 9 knots = 4.6m/s = 10.2mph
So we have about 50% of the WTC1 windspeed (1300ft) at groundlevel.
Is it enough for a proper wake effect of the building? I say it is.

Source:

 

[tsig]

The more untenable ones position becomes, the more one is likely to argue what the definition of "is" is.

That is* the truth.

*if we mean 'is' as the 'state of being' yes

if we mean 'in existence' then no.