WTC7 and the NIST free fall failure

[achimspok]

Is your dog named Richard Gage? I saw a BBC documentary where he went as far as to say there were no fires in 7 WTC. I can't see your dog being that stupid though. Perhaps your dog could explain it to Gage and spok?

LOL, I saw a BBC documentary where R. Rotanz saw the upper 20 floors on fire "burning inferno". No, a dog cannot be that stupid. And you can't explain anything by an argument.

 

[achimspok]

A surveyor could do it. Hell, I could do it.



Do you realize how many Chiefs the FDNY has?

Again, a surveyor could have predicted it. I could have with a transit.



Ok. So, it's your OPINION that they knew his name, but wouldn't divulge it? That makes no sense whatsoever.

Ask anyone who has worked on an aircraft carrier. There are people that they do not know on board. And that is only ~5000 people. Double that!

I neither talk about a ship-boy nor about any FDNY member. A surveyor could not have predicted it. You could not have predicted it.
At least you need a team, the equipment, the knowledge to distinguish between sway and lean, the trust of the chiefs, a voice that will be heard - hence, they need to know you and your ability because their decisions will be based on your expertise.
If you have all the necessary things and predict a collapse that led to any decision then neither your name would disappear nor your team nor your data nor your contact to the decision makers.

 

[Justin39640]

I neither talk about a ship-boy nor about any FDNY member. A surveyor could not have predicted it. You could not have predicted it.
At least you need a team, the equipment, the knowledge to distinguish between sway and lean, the trust of the chiefs, a voice that will be heard - hence, they need to know you and your ability because their decisions will be based on your expertise.
If you have all the necessary things and predict a collapse that led to any decision then neither your name would disappear nor your team nor your data nor your contact to the decision makers.

The news (I had 1010 WINS on all day on 9/11) was reporting that 7WTC was leaning and in danger of collapse all afternoon.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

ATTENTION PEOPLE. For those still quacking about smoke over wtc 7 being all from WTC 5 & 6:
Footage unequivocally shows the smoke emerging from the the building:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iVDZH1WCnk0
Starting 45-50 seconds in all the way to the 2 minute mark.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KjhvYUi8P6s
This one shows it from the onset of the footage.

Enough of the silly notion that the smoke was coming purely from the adjacent structures. The video doesn't isolate a single instance in time like a still shot does, so there's doubt with this.

The people monitoring the building were concerned? Yes, like everybody who saw an airplane that day.

As I told Senemenut (sp?) before. Fear of another aircraft attack has nothing to do with it. It may have been a factor on that particular day, but firefighters know full well that collapse is ALWAYS a risk in a situation where fires are burning. It doesn't matter if it's a house, or a skyscraper. It doesn't matter if they think the risk is of partial or total collapse, they take a huge risk by entering building in that condition. Being RIGHT about it doesn't change it, and infact that's why most rational people don't consider the idea that people were right this time around to be of any significance. You need to SHOW that their knowledge cannot be accounted for with concerns that are epressed on a near daily basis, which often times come to fruition unfortunately in some form or another. You have failed to do so.

 

[achimspok]

Yeah, its funny that Truthers think they solved the "greatest crime of the century".

We should define the meaning of great. After 10 years of the century I tend to interpret the Iraq war and the collapse of Lehman Brothers Inc. as the "greater crimes of the century" so far. ...one case of more innocent dead victims, one case of a higher sophisticated plot...

 

[beachnut]

We should define the meaning of great. After 10 years of the century I tend to interpret the Iraq war and the collapse of Lehman Brothers Inc. as the "greater crimes of the century" so far. ...one case of more innocent dead victims, one case of a higher sophisticated plot...

Free-fall? No more free-fall, or, another Saddam lover; good for you. What has happened to the free-fall stuff, or is this political claptrap your evidence in disguise. Conspiracy theories, the failed 911 truth ones, are they all based on nonsense? Where is the evidence, and why does 911 truth keep all of the evidence hidden?

I see why 911 truth would see the Iraq war as evidence for free-fall. And Lehman Brothers, a direct link! Bravo. This is good stuff.

 

[LightningTeg]

We should define the meaning of great. After 10 years of the century I tend to interpret the Iraq war and the collapse of Lehman Brothers Inc. as the "greater crimes of the century" so far. ...one case of more innocent dead victims, one case of a higher sophisticated plot...

Were you there that day? Standing 100's of feet from WTC7? No, you weren't.

Those firefighters were, and there word and news images and video are what we have to go by other then scientific study's like the NIST report. At the very minimum, that is our evidence.

Your evidence is purely speculation.

 

[achimspok]

ATTENTION PEOPLE. For those still quacking about smoke over wtc 7 being all from WTC 5 & 6:
Footage unequivocally shows the smoke emerging from the the building:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iVDZH1WCnk0
Starting 45-50 seconds in all the way to the 2 minute mark.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KjhvYUi8P6s
This one shows it from the onset of the footage.

Enough of the silly notion that the smoke was coming purely from the adjacent structures. The video doesn't isolate a single instance in time like a still shot does, so there's doubt with this.


As I told Senemenut (sp?) before. Fear of another aircraft attack has nothing to do with it. It may have been a factor on that particular day, but firefighters know full well that collapse is ALWAYS a risk in a situation where fires are burning. It doesn't matter if it's a house, or a skyscraper. It doesn't matter if they think the risk is of partial or total collapse, they take a huge risk by entering building in that condition. Being RIGHT about it doesn't change it, and infact that's why most rational people don't consider the idea that people were right this time around to be of any significance. You need to SHOW that their knowledge cannot be accounted for with concerns that are epressed on a near daily basis, which often times come to fruition unfortunately in some form or another. You have failed to do so.

ATTENTION PEOPLE. For those still quacking without reading first. Nobody has stated that the smoke was coming purely from the adjacent structures. NIST didn't do so, I didn't do so.
For those still linking the same snippet of the Spak video for the 3rd 4th 5th... time without understanding the argument.

In that video we see without any doubt that the SW corner of floor 29/30 is on fire prior to noon.

A little later that fire went dead (exactly as observed by NIST). It's about noon and we see a nice spiral of bright smoke billowing up along the edge of the building. That appearance might be mistaken as smoke from all floors just like Rotanz interpreted it as "burning inferno" but...

...a little change of the wind shows that most of the windows are unbroken. Hence, the smoke couldn't have come from undamaged windows. It's kind of impossible. Furthermore the presented fire didn't spread far before dying down.

Instead of a burning inferno we witness a nice spiral of bright smoke that does exactly what the flow pattern of wind predicts. Nothing more and nothing less.

So what tells a picture like that?

It shows a lot of smoke that looks like coming from the building. According to sun and shadows that image was taken in the afternoon. In the afternoon the fires at 22 and 19 already went dead hours earlier. Nevertheless we see two puffy extensions looking like coming from 22 and 18. But there was no reported fire at 18.
Hence, these extensions in the smoke are either part of the billowing up smoke or part of photo manipulation.

The same linked video helps us to see that there is no smoke from 19 or 18 at about 1pm. Instead we can identify two sources of heavy smoke. One source is the debris right below the damaged corner. The other source is WTC6. Furthermore, there is no visible smoke or fire or soot from 11,12,13 right below the intersection of both smoke columns.

Right at that time the NIST simulation reached 500°C-1000°C in exactly that area.

At about 2pm fire was observed at the east face at 11 and 12.

These fires will consume the entire floors while NO fire above floor 13 and after 1pm was observable at the east, west or north face.

So the initial question was, what is the difference between the early fires (prior to 1pm) at 19, 22, 29, 30 and the later fires (after 2pm) at 7,8,9,11,12,13?

Finally the remaining later fires spread through the floors...

...while the simulated fires are a little more purposeful.

floor 12

floor 7

 

[achimspok]

Free-fall? No more free-fall, or, another Saddam lover; good for you. What has happened to the free-fall stuff, or is this political claptrap your evidence in disguise. Conspiracy theories, the failed 911 truth ones, are they all based on nonsense? Where is the evidence, and why does 911 truth keep all of the evidence hidden?

I see why 911 truth would see the Iraq war as evidence for free-fall. And Lehman Brothers, a direct link! Bravo. This is good stuff.

You don't need to be a Saddam lover to count the bodies, Beachnut!

The evidence for free fall are already presented.
Where is your 300° wind?
...or maybe any evidence for the NIST "stage 1" slow onset of motion due to buckling?
...or maybe any evidence for the engineer who predicted the collapse 5 hours in advance?
...or maybe any evidence for 15 or 20 floors on fire and the answer to the question: Why did all these invisible fires do not spead to the West or East or North?
...or any explanation how the wrong precondition let to the right result (right in the sense of hypothesis but not in the sense of observation)?

Any idea?

 

[achimspok]

Were you there that day? Standing 100's of feet from WTC7? No, you weren't.

Those firefighters were, and there word and news images and video are what we have to go by other then scientific study's like the NIST report. At the very minimum, that is our evidence.

Your evidence is purely speculation.

Strange opinion. Analyzing news images and videos is all I did. At the very minimum, that is my evidence. And I really try to understand what the firefighters have to say as long as the images and videos do not contradict those recollections.
I'm pretty sure that is the right way because otherwise we have witnesses for planes without windows, blue logos, missiles, explosions, flashes, caved in streets, incinerated bodies, twisted local elevators, blown away machine shops, a warned runaway mayor, countdowns, ...
And they all were there that day.

 

[The Platypus]

More like all you did was fall for some conspiracy websites that spoon fed you images and videos. You are hardly the first cult drone we've seen recite the same nonsense.

If your cult has all these "witnesses" of all those things, and they are so credible and infallible, then why hasn't your cult accomplished anything or done anything about it, except for ranting and raving like crazy people, pestering people on the internet for the last 10 years?

 

[GlennB]

achimspok - here's a diagram of that area rotated by 29° to a N-S orientation and with a N wind idicated.

Bearing in mind that the Verizon and P.O. buildings occupied their entire block up to nearly 20 storeys, can you explain why the Verizon doesn't have a 'wind effect' plume of smoke barreling up its facade? Its lower section (before the major step-back) is, after all, double the height of WTC6 and it is opposite WTC6

In fact why is there virtually no smoke seen at all to the W of WTC6, at any time?

In proposing your theory you seem to be considering WTC7 as a lone entity. It wasn't. It had massive buildings to each side and to the N.

Anyway, please illustrate using your 'wind effect' diagrams both in plan and elevation.

 

[triforcharity]

What is the wind direction, Alienentity?
Who predicted the collapse based on which data?

NorthWEST, as I have ALREADY showed you. Numerous times.

An engineer sent from the OEM. (If it really THAT big of a deal that yo uknow his name, why don't you contact the OEM or the NYC Buildings Department)

The data was determined from a transit. Do you know what that is?

You're probably in a worse position than you can imagine. All you do is arrogant rethoric as you learned it in 9 years of blind discipline to some baseless non-arguments. Simply answer a question!

Wow, temper tantrums and everything!

 

[achimspok]

achimspok - here's a diagram of that area rotated by 29° to a N-S orientation and with a N wind idicated.

[qimg]http://i250.photobucket.com/albums/gg274/sap-guy/WTCayout.jpg[/qimg]

Bearing in mind that the Verizon and P.O. buildings occupied their entire block up to nearly 20 storeys, can you explain why the Verizon doesn't have a 'wind effect' plume of smoke barreling up its facade? Its lower section (before the major step-back) is, after all, double the height of WTC6 and it is opposite WTC6

In fact why is there virtually no smoke seen at all to the W of WTC6, at any time?

In proposing your theory you seem to be considering WTC7 as a lone entity. It wasn't. It had massive buildings to each side and to the N.

Anyway, please illustrate using your 'wind effect' diagrams both in plan and elevation.

Congratulation! Now your arrow is close to reality.

Firstly, here is what the wind causes. I hope you see it.

Secondly, let's consider the source of the thick smoke.

Thirdly, let's consider that there is less wind at ground level (as high as the lower buildings)

Fourthly, let's consider the smoke billows up from the upper floors of WTC6

And last but not least we have thick smoke from the rubble that damaged the SW corner of WTC7.

In the following image you see pretty good at which level both sources combining. It's about floor 15.

So take the SW corner of WTC7 and the "WTC6" letters in your graphic and you see that a wake effect of the Verizon is pretty unlikely.

Later that day we observe a similar effect at the east face. This time it is of course the smoke from 8, 12, 13 WTC7. Nevertheless, there is no evidence for any fire other than listed by NIST.
The "south face obscured by smoke" images are totally misleading. Rotanz's inferno never happened. And there is no clue for 15 or 20 floors on fire.

 

[triforcharity]

I neither talk about a ship-boy nor about any FDNY member.

That's called a comparison. Please look up the definition.

A surveyor could not have predicted it. You could not have predicted it.

Really? Damn near any member of FDNY could have looked at that building and said "It's unstable, and at risk of collapse". It's basic firefighter safety 101.

At least you need a team,

Nope. Sorry.

the equipment,

Eyeballs are standard issue.

the knowledge to distinguish between sway and lean,

How about pitch and yawl? (How about a bulge?)

the trust of the chiefs, a voice that will be heard - hence, they need to know you and your ability because their decisions will be based on your expertise.

Engineer: Hi. I'm Jim. Engineer from the NYC Department of Buildings. OEM sent me. Here's my ID.

FDNY: Great Jim. This way please.

That would be LITERALLY how that little scenario would play out.

If you have all the necessary things and predict a collapse that led to any decision then neither your name would disappear nor your team nor your data nor your contact to the decision makers.

Again, no team necessary. Only equipment needed was a transit and a piece of paper. Maybe a pen.

I am sorry you don't understand how big FDNY is, and how often we interact with other departments that we don't know. NYC Government has ~250,000 employees. And you think that I should know/remember ALL of them that I EVER meet?

Holy ****.

 

[achimspok]

NorthWEST, as I have ALREADY showed you. Numerous times.

An engineer sent from the OEM. (If it really THAT big of a deal that yo uknow his name, why don't you contact the OEM or the NYC Buildings Department)

The data was determined from a transit. Do you know what that is?



Wow, temper tantrums and everything!

You showed me nuerous times? LOL
It's NORTHNORTHwest! It's 355°! That was already discussed before you stamped your fat underlined upper case WEST. Some minutes later it might be 005° and you woud be totally wrong but just arrogant.

The answer "why don't you call the OEM" is very helpful. Great answer. Thanks.

 

[triforcharity]

You showed me nuerous times? LOL
It's NORTHNORTHwest! It's 355°! That was already discussed before you stamped your fat underlined upper case WEST. Some minutes later it might be 005° and you woud be totally wrong but just arrogant.

Im sorry, it's not MY fault that you couldn't understand NW when I said it back, oh, what 7 pages ago? The PREDOMINATE wind was out of the NW. Sometimes it would be due North, sometimes more west. It's called an AVERAGE for the entire day. Jesus H Christ on a pogostick.

You need to watch with the name calling BTW. I don't do it to you, don't do it to me.

The answer "why don't you call the OEM" is very helpful. Great answer. Thanks.

You didn't think about this BEFORE today? Holy christ. No wonder you can't figure out 9/11.

 

[leftysergeant]

I neither talk about a ship-boy nor about any FDNY member. A surveyor could not have predicted it. You could not have predicted it.
At least you need a team, the equipment, the knowledge to distinguish between sway and lean, the trust of the chiefs, a voice that will be heard - hence, they need to know you and your ability because their decisions will be based on your expertise.

Bollocks. You get a azimuth on one spot on the facade of the building. Then you get the aizmuth of a spot at another location higher up on a straight vertical line. Then go higher up and shoot another azimuth. If there is a discrepency, the building is leaning and, if there is no thread of loss of life if you leave it to burn, you drop back and cover exposures. Why are you trying to make this all so complicated? As badly as my math sucks, I can figure that crap out. Why can't you?

If you have all the necessary things and predict a collapse that led to any decision then neither your name would disappear nor your team nor your data nor your contact to the decision makers.

This is gobbledigook.

 

[Sabretooth]

Probably you are the one who is blinded by woo.

Good one!

The wind direction and the effect of the wind is an important factor here because the images of smoke billowing up the south face are totally misleading and were used to mislead.

No, it isn't. It's only misleading to investigooglers looking to prove the Easter bunny exists.

The people monitoring the building were concerned? Yes, like everybody who saw an airplane that day.

Quotemine noted. I was specifically talking about the people monitoring 7 and the concern that it may collapse. Don't take what I say out of context to fit in your garbage.

The people who predicted collapses have neither names nor faces nor data. The people who warned the Mayor disappeared in a midnight summer dream. The people monitoring the building saw a bulge in a corner that wasn't there anymore. The people monitoring the building saw fire at 20 floors but couldn't answer if it was one window or more windows.

BFD. So I guess that means it didn't happen then, huh?

At 1pm the evidence show no visible sign of the fires (neither fire nor smoke) allegedly ignited at 10:28 in the south of the floors 11, 12, 13.
Nevertheless huge fires developed at 2pm in the east.
Nevertheless at 1pm the NIST simulation already reaches 500°C-1000°C upper layer temperature at floor 12 in an area of a quater of a football field. That simulation was copied to floors 11 and 13. That's your woo.

Prove it. Your "evidence", so far, is nothing more than you intentionally misconstruing the facts and pure speculation.

 

[GlennB]

<snip>
So take the SW corner of WTC7 and the "WTC6" letters in your graphic and you see that a wake effect of the Verizon is pretty unlikely.
<snip>

Big post, loads of graphics and possibly some editing effort on your part. Sum total answer to my question? "a wake effect of the Verizon is pretty unlikely" with not a word of explanation, i.e. bare assertion.

Let me try again, phrased differently - why should WTC7 produce a wake effect at the level of WTC6's smoke but not The Verizon?