A Structural Reevaluation of the Collapse of World Trade Center 7

a reply to: frugal

Too bad this report isn't about either of those buildings, straw man much?

Also, students typically know very little and are mostly influenced by their instructors. I'm sure there's no chance of being indoctrinated to a certain belief in college these days...

Jaden -----rolls eyes

originally posted by: CriticalStinker

originally posted by: mrthumpy

originally posted by: PraetorianAZ

originally posted by: mrthumpy

originally posted by: PraetorianAZ
WTC 7 Collapsed on its own footprint and it was not hit by a plane. So you're saying we designed a building so bad that fires and a single column failing would bring the whole thing down on itself? I guess some people can't smell the bullsh*t because they have been standing in it too long.

Did you forget about the 1000ft skyscraper?

Are you talking about the piece of debris that fell and hit WTC 7? The piece of debris that probably weighed 1-100th the weight and load-bearing strength of WTC 7 and didn't even do significant damage? Sure it destroyed some columns and floors but nothing that building wasnt designed to withstand.

You don't consider a 14 storey gash down the south face of the buiding to be significant? OK then

Again, the official explanation is that that building number 7 collapsed due to fire.... So the gash on the exterior of the building was not significant in terms of structural integrity.

-Per NIST

Why did Pretorian bring up the lack of aircraft impact?

a reply to: mrthumpy

I said

"I'll look into that, thank you".

I'm not planning to ignore critical inquiries but the cherrypicking made me giggle.
Do you even know what an ad hominem fallacy is? It's not an ad hominem attack btw.

a reply to: PublicOpinion

In fact, it’s the classic truth movement strategy. Say it cannot be this, but never state what is more credible.

The report claims fire collapse was not possible. (Strange WTC 5 has documented fire related structural failures). But the report never provides a more credible cause of collapse? Especially anything supported by the video, audio, physical, seismic evidence

originally posted by: mrthumpy

originally posted by: CriticalStinker

originally posted by: mrthumpy

originally posted by: PraetorianAZ

originally posted by: mrthumpy

originally posted by: PraetorianAZ
WTC 7 Collapsed on its own footprint and it was not hit by a plane. So you're saying we designed a building so bad that fires and a single column failing would bring the whole thing down on itself? I guess some people can't smell the bullsh*t because they have been standing in it too long.

Did you forget about the 1000ft skyscraper?

Are you talking about the piece of debris that fell and hit WTC 7? The piece of debris that probably weighed 1-100th the weight and load-bearing strength of WTC 7 and didn't even do significant damage? Sure it destroyed some columns and floors but nothing that building wasnt designed to withstand.

You don't consider a 14 storey gash down the south face of the buiding to be significant? OK then

Again, the official explanation is that that building number 7 collapsed due to fire.... So the gash on the exterior of the building was not significant in terms of structural integrity.

-Per NIST

Why did Pretorian bring up the lack of aircraft impact?

My guess would be because building number 7 wasn't impacted by an aircraft.

a reply to: neutronflux
a reply to: neutronflux

Damage control from what? The Hulsey report gives no conclusion on what caused the collapse of WTC 7.

Except, of course, one reads the conclusion.
Geez. Metabunk? Okay then, pinned for reading later.

In fact, it’s the classic truth movement strategy. Say it cannot be this, but never state what is more credible.

Except that they did offer explanations. Classic damage control strategy:
deny, deny, deny, just saying.

originally posted by: CriticalStinker

originally posted by: mrthumpy

originally posted by: CriticalStinker

originally posted by: mrthumpy

originally posted by: PraetorianAZ

originally posted by: mrthumpy

originally posted by: PraetorianAZ
WTC 7 Collapsed on its own footprint and it was not hit by a plane. So you're saying we designed a building so bad that fires and a single column failing would bring the whole thing down on itself? I guess some people can't smell the bullsh*t because they have been standing in it too long.

Did you forget about the 1000ft skyscraper?

Are you talking about the piece of debris that fell and hit WTC 7? The piece of debris that probably weighed 1-100th the weight and load-bearing strength of WTC 7 and didn't even do significant damage? Sure it destroyed some columns and floors but nothing that building wasnt designed to withstand.

You don't consider a 14 storey gash down the south face of the buiding to be significant? OK then

Again, the official explanation is that that building number 7 collapsed due to fire.... So the gash on the exterior of the building was not significant in terms of structural integrity.

-Per NIST

Why did Pretorian bring up the lack of aircraft impact?

My guess would be because building number 7 wasn't impacted by an aircraft.

So what? According to you the damage made no difference. Why bother bringing it up at all?

There's a pretty good chance it was another one of those record-seeking missles.
I hear they were going around that day.

a reply to: PublicOpinion

You

Except that they did offer explanations. Classic damage control strategy, just saying.

Then it should be easy for you to quote from the Hulsey report what mechanism removed the resistance of columns.

originally posted by: mrthumpy

originally posted by: CriticalStinker

originally posted by: mrthumpy

originally posted by: CriticalStinker

originally posted by: mrthumpy

originally posted by: PraetorianAZ

originally posted by: mrthumpy

originally posted by: PraetorianAZ
WTC 7 Collapsed on its own footprint and it was not hit by a plane. So you're saying we designed a building so bad that fires and a single column failing would bring the whole thing down on itself? I guess some people can't smell the bullsh*t because they have been standing in it too long.

Did you forget about the 1000ft skyscraper?

Are you talking about the piece of debris that fell and hit WTC 7? The piece of debris that probably weighed 1-100th the weight and load-bearing strength of WTC 7 and didn't even do significant damage? Sure it destroyed some columns and floors but nothing that building wasnt designed to withstand.

You don't consider a 14 storey gash down the south face of the buiding to be significant? OK then

Again, the official explanation is that that building number 7 collapsed due to fire.... So the gash on the exterior of the building was not significant in terms of structural integrity.

-Per NIST

Why did Pretorian bring up the lack of aircraft impact?

My guess would be because building number 7 wasn't impacted by an aircraft.

So what? According to you the damage made no difference. Why bother bringing it up at all?

I think he was providing context to his post, which by all accounts seem to be accurate.

originally posted by: CriticalStinker

originally posted by: mrthumpy

originally posted by: CriticalStinker

originally posted by: mrthumpy

originally posted by: CriticalStinker

originally posted by: mrthumpy

originally posted by: PraetorianAZ

originally posted by: mrthumpy

originally posted by: PraetorianAZ
WTC 7 Collapsed on its own footprint and it was not hit by a plane. So you're saying we designed a building so bad that fires and a single column failing would bring the whole thing down on itself? I guess some people can't smell the bullsh*t because they have been standing in it too long.

Did you forget about the 1000ft skyscraper?

Are you talking about the piece of debris that fell and hit WTC 7? The piece of debris that probably weighed 1-100th the weight and load-bearing strength of WTC 7 and didn't even do significant damage? Sure it destroyed some columns and floors but nothing that building wasnt designed to withstand.

You don't consider a 14 storey gash down the south face of the buiding to be significant? OK then

Again, the official explanation is that that building number 7 collapsed due to fire.... So the gash on the exterior of the building was not significant in terms of structural integrity.

-Per NIST

Why did Pretorian bring up the lack of aircraft impact?

My guess would be because building number 7 wasn't impacted by an aircraft.

So what? According to you the damage made no difference. Why bother bringing it up at all?

I think he was providing context to his post, which by all accounts seem to be accurate.

Ah, creating a narrative. OK

Building 7 was designed to be used as an emergency control center. Was`nt it specially constructed for that very purpose ? With reinforced structural supports and added strength to the floors ect. It should not have fallen into its own foot print after an office fire.

originally posted by: mrthumpy

originally posted by: CriticalStinker

originally posted by: mrthumpy

originally posted by: CriticalStinker

originally posted by: mrthumpy

originally posted by: CriticalStinker

originally posted by: mrthumpy

originally posted by: PraetorianAZ

originally posted by: mrthumpy

originally posted by: PraetorianAZ
WTC 7 Collapsed on its own footprint and it was not hit by a plane. So you're saying we designed a building so bad that fires and a single column failing would bring the whole thing down on itself? I guess some people can't smell the bullsh*t because they have been standing in it too long.

Did you forget about the 1000ft skyscraper?

Are you talking about the piece of debris that fell and hit WTC 7? The piece of debris that probably weighed 1-100th the weight and load-bearing strength of WTC 7 and didn't even do significant damage? Sure it destroyed some columns and floors but nothing that building wasnt designed to withstand.

You don't consider a 14 storey gash down the south face of the buiding to be significant? OK then

Again, the official explanation is that that building number 7 collapsed due to fire.... So the gash on the exterior of the building was not significant in terms of structural integrity.

-Per NIST

Why did Pretorian bring up the lack of aircraft impact?

My guess would be because building number 7 wasn't impacted by an aircraft.

So what? According to you the damage made no difference. Why bother bringing it up at all?

I think he was providing context to his post, which by all accounts seem to be accurate.

Ah, creating a narrative. OK

Was it hit by an aircraft? No.

Did it fall into it's own footprint? Yes.

Was it engineered to survive office fires? Yes.

Is it the first steel structure to fall due to fire (other than the two towers who were hit by planes)? Yes.

Those are valid points and questions. Personally, I don't think 9/11 was a conspiracy to the full extent many claim it is... But I do think there are some questions to be asked, and I think we should do our best to keep conversations truthful.

originally posted by: CriticalStinker

originally posted by: mrthumpy

originally posted by: CriticalStinker

originally posted by: mrthumpy

originally posted by: CriticalStinker

originally posted by: mrthumpy

originally posted by: CriticalStinker

originally posted by: mrthumpy

originally posted by: PraetorianAZ

originally posted by: mrthumpy

originally posted by: PraetorianAZ
WTC 7 Collapsed on its own footprint and it was not hit by a plane. So you're saying we designed a building so bad that fires and a single column failing would bring the whole thing down on itself? I guess some people can't smell the bullsh*t because they have been standing in it too long.

Did you forget about the 1000ft skyscraper?

Are you talking about the piece of debris that fell and hit WTC 7? The piece of debris that probably weighed 1-100th the weight and load-bearing strength of WTC 7 and didn't even do significant damage? Sure it destroyed some columns and floors but nothing that building wasnt designed to withstand.

You don't consider a 14 storey gash down the south face of the buiding to be significant? OK then

Again, the official explanation is that that building number 7 collapsed due to fire.... So the gash on the exterior of the building was not significant in terms of structural integrity.

-Per NIST

Why did Pretorian bring up the lack of aircraft impact?

My guess would be because building number 7 wasn't impacted by an aircraft.

So what? According to you the damage made no difference. Why bother bringing it up at all?

I think he was providing context to his post, which by all accounts seem to be accurate.

Ah, creating a narrative. OK

Was it hit by an aircraft? No.

Did it fall into it's own footprint? Yes.

Was it engineered to survive office fires? Yes.

Is it the first steel structure to fall due to fire (other than the two towers who were hit by planes)? Yes.

Those are valid points and questions. Personally, I don't think 9/11 was a conspiracy to the full extent many claim it is... But I do think there are some questions to be asked, and I think we should do our best to keep conversations truthful.

So what?

No it didn't

Steel frames are known to be vulnerable to fire

What examples are you comparing it to?

a reply to: mrthumpy

The bottom claim in my last post was a bit disingenuous now that I look at it.

That said, I still don't see why you are so oppose to Pretorian's post. It's merely presenting questions.

a reply to: CriticalStinker

Did it fall into it's own footprint? Yes.

Then how did it do this?

By Oystein

the fall of the north wall onto the roof of Fiterman Hall

www.metabunk.org...

Didn't the fall of WTC 7 block streets also?

originally posted by: CriticalStinker
a reply to: mrthumpy

The bottom claim in my last post was a bit disingenuous now that I look at it.

That said, I still don't see why you are so oppose to Pretorian's post. It's merely presenting questions.

Because the poster is just repeating the same things that all Truthers come out with as though they were true/significant. Like free fall or own footprint

The collapse of WTC7 (Salomon Brothers Building) is what got me really looking at the original 911 story.

From Jim Marrs' book "The Terror Conspiracy Revsited: What Really Happened on 911, And Why We're Still Paying the Price":

"Craig Bartmer, a NYPD officer on 9/11, walked around Building 7 shortly before it fell. He recalled, "I saw a hole. I didn't see a hole bad enough to knock a building down, though....Yeah there was definitely fire in the building, but I didn't hear any...I didn't hear any creaking, or...I didn't hear any indication that it was going to come down. And all of a sudden the radios exploded and everyone started screaming 'get away, get away, get away from it!'...It was at that moment...I looked up, and it was nothing I would ever imagine seeing in my life. The thing started pealing in on itself...Somebody grabbed my shoulder and I started running, hearing ''boom, boom, boom, boom, boom.'.' I think I know an explosion when I hear it...Yeah it had some damage to it, but nothing like what they're saying...Nothing to account for what we saw....I am shocked at the story we've heard about it to be quite honest."

So earthquakes cause some/one buildings to fall but not others, no structural damage either, that’s just dumb
And your son is American so he is better than other coloured engineers

You sound as logical as your argument and if your opinion of coloured engineers is a reflection of your opinion of US higher education, why would anyone study there

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: PublicOpinion

You

Except that they did offer explanations. Classic damage control strategy, just saying.

Then it should be easy for you to quote from the Hulsey report what mechanism removed the resistance of columns.

You're aware that this is structural reevaluation?

4.6 Results of Core Column/Exterior Column Failure Analysis

Finding that NIST’s scenario was not feasible and that the simultaneous failure of all core columns would not result in the observed straight-down collapse, we then simulated the simultaneous failure of all core columns over 8 stories followed 1.3 seconds later by the simultaneous failure of all exterior columns over 8 stories. The dynamic analysis results for this simulation are shown below, side-by-side with two videos of the collapse.

Based on this analysis, we found that the simultaneous failure of all core columns followed by the simultaneous failure of all exterior columns produces almost exactly the behavior observed in videos of the collapse. Specifically, the simulated velocity and acceleration of the building in our SAP2000 model matches almost exactly with the motion measured by David Chandler (Chandler, 2010), including the approximately 2.5 seconds of free fall, shown in Figures 4.21, 4.22, and 4.23 below.

P. 118 in the PDF

...which would imply they somehow "pulled it". Right?

It is our conclusion that the collapse of WTC 7 was a global failure involving the near simultaneous failure of all columns in the building and not a progressive collapse involving the sequential failure of columns throughout the building. Despite simulating a number of hypothetical scenarios, we were unable to identify any progressive sequence of failures that could have taken place on September 11, 2001, and caused a total collapse of the building, let alone the observed straight-down collapse with approximately 2.5 seconds of free fall and minimal differential movement of the exterior.

P. 123/124 in the PDF

Next item on the list: Mick West and metabunk.
Any other critiques for me to check out?