WTC-7 Mysteries FINALLY Solved.

No one can dispute what is said here plainly, sanely and perfectly.
From someone of obviously great credibility and nothing to gain, but
a great deal to possibly lose.



That says all I have to say.

originally posted by: Informer1958
What Narrative in science to you support of the WTC 7 demise?

I've always looked to common sense. The building was damaged from what happened hours before, and on fire for a long time. Structural issues were inevitable.

a reply to: SkepticOverlord

The building was damaged from what happened hours before,

Damaged from what? I hope you are not going to say there was a huge gash on WTC 7, that has been debunked for many years. there are no conclusive photos that verify that fact. There was only one particular photo that showed a shadow covered up by smoke, no one could make out if the shadow was a gash.

I am convince those office firers where not enough to bring down a 47 story building at free fall. it defies physic.

Using common sense here, and why was there any broken concrete slabs found? Apparently most if not all the concrete was blown to bits.

a reply to: randyvs

Just to let you know that video was debunked a long time ago. In addition, you can find typical fires that have smoldered for days and weeks after a fire.

Civil engineers, architects, demolitions experts, and other experts dismissed explosives. AT time line 5:45, he speaks of spindles. let's take a look at the spindles he is referring to.

Photo #1

Photo #2

Now, let's take a look at who was responsible for cutting those so-called spindles.

Photo of Who Cut the So-called Spindles

To sum that up, conspiracy theorist not doing their homework to ascertain the rest of the story is why the Truth Movement is currently a laughing stock in the eyes of the world. In fact, I caught one Truther a few days ago reposting a hoaxed video that I posted to prove my point that Truthers were posting hoaxed and bogue videos and photos and spreading disinformation. The fact that you posted a bogus video that was already debunked underlines my point.

What better way to prove my point about Truthers posting hoaxed and bogus videos and photos and spreading disinformation than to let them prove it for me.

a reply to: Informer1958

Damaged from what? I hope you are not going to say there was a huge gash on WTC 7, that has been debunked for many years.

You made that up and here's the proof.

WTC 7 Damage

Boyle: There were four engines and at least three trucks. So we’re heading east on Vesey, we couldn’t see much past Broadway. We couldn’t see Church Street. We couldn’t see what was down there. It was really smoky and dusty."

So we go there and on the north and east side of 7 it didn’t look like there was any damage at all, but then you looked on the south side of 7 there had to be a hole 20 stories tall in the building, with fire on several floors. Debris was falling down on the building and it didn’t look good.

Boyle: There was a huge gaping hole and it was scattered throughout there. It was a huge hole.

debunking911.com...

So once again, you got caught making things up.

there are no conclusive photos that verify that fact.

Let's take a look because all of that smoke is not coming out one single window.

WTC 7 South Facade

a reply to: Informer1958


The sounds he heard had nothing to do with explosives.

a reply to: Informer1958

And yet, no one heard demolition explosions.

a reply to: Informer1958

This is some of the worst yellow journalism I have seen in years.

Based the fact that fire in conjunction with impact damage, was responsible for the collapse of WTC 1, WTC 2, and WTC 7, and fire alone was responsible for the internal collapse of WTC 5.

Facts, all facts.

a reply to: Informer1958

I agree. however are you going to dismiss BARRY JENNINGS testimony. He was in WTC 7 Doesn't his testimony count?

Not if it conflicts with testimony of firefighters who have said that fire was responsible for the collapse of WTC 7 and if his testimony conflicts with demolition engineers and experts who have said that they heard no demolition explosives as WTC 7 collapsed which was proven in videos as WTC 7 collapsed.

a reply to: skyeagle409

You made that up and here's the proof.

debunking911.com...

I see you are still using hearsay from one witness nothing else.
Where is you science and clearly seen photos to back up your claim?

debunking911.com...

I do not see a gash in this photo.

Stop calling me a lair by saying I am making things up, it only proves you are desprete at tearing down my credibility and attacking my character.

Freefall and Building 7 on 9/11

Freefall is an embarrassment to the official story, because freefall is impossible for a naturally collapsing building. In a natural collapse there would be an interaction between the falling and the stationary sections of the building. This interaction would cause crushing of both sections and slowing of the falling section. I have done measurements on several known demolitions, using similar software tools, and found that they typically fall with accelerations considerably less than freefall. Building 7 was not only demolished, it was demolished with tremendous overkill. Freefall was so embarrassing to NIST that in the August 2008 draft release for public comment of their final report, the fact of freefall was denied and crudely covered up with the assertion that the collapse took 40% longer than "freefall time." They asserted that the actual collapse, down to the level of the 29th floor, took 5.4 seconds whereas freefall would have taken only 3.9 seconds. They arrived at their figures with only two data points: the time when the roofline reached the level of the 29th floor and an artificially early start time several seconds prior to the beginning of the obvious, sudden onset of freefall. They started their clock at a time between the collapses of the east and west penthouses when the building was not moving. They claimed they saw a change in a "single pixel" triggering what they asserted was the onset of collapse, but anyone who has worked with the actual videos will recognize that the edge artifacts in the image of the building make this an unrealistic standard. Furthermore, even if there was a tiny motion of the building at that point, it continued to stand essentially motionless for several more seconds before the dramatic onset of freefall collapse. The fact of a cover up in NIST's measurement is underlined in that the formula they point to as the basis for their calculation of "freefall time" is valid only under conditions of constant acceleration. They applied that equation to a situation that was far from uniform acceleration. Instead, the building remained essentially at rest for several seconds, then plunged into freefall, then slowed to a lesser acceleration. Their analysis demonstrates either gross incompetence or a crude attempt at a cover up. The scientists at NIST are clearly not incompetent, so the only reasonable conclusion is to interpret this as part of a cover up. (It is important to stand back occasionally and recognize the context of these events. This was not just a cover-up of an embarrassing fact. It was a cover-up of facts in the murder of nearly 3000 people and part of a justification for a war in which well over a million people have since been killed.)

I had an opportunity to confront NIST about the easily demonstrated fact of freefall at the technical briefing on August 26, 2008. I and several other scientists and engineers also filed official "requests for correction" in the days that followed. When they released their final report in November 2008, much to the surprise of the 9/11 Truth community, they had revised their measurements of the collapse of the building, including an admission of 2.25 seconds of absolute freefall. However, they couched the period of freefall in a framework of a supposed "three phase collapse sequence" that still occupies exactly 5.4 seconds.

www1.ae911truth.org...

Here is a scientific Report that clearly debunks your theories.

a reply to: skyeagle409

Not if it conflicts with testimony of firefighters who have said that fire was responsible for the collapse of WTC 7 and if his testimony conflicts with demolition engineers and experts who have said that they heard no demolition explosives as WTC 7 collapsed which was proven in videos as WTC 7 collapsed.

Are you calling Berry Jennings a lair? He was in the WTC 7 when it was exploding way before WTC 1 & 2 fell.

a reply to: skyeagle409

I have to post this because I know if I just put the link you will not read it, because it does not support your OS narratives.

The recurrence of 5.4 seconds, even in a completely revised analysis, is very puzzling until you realize its context. NIST lead investigator Shyam Sunder told the audience in the August 26, 2008 Technical Briefing that their computerized collapse model had predicted the collapse down to the 29th floor level would take 5.4 seconds, well beyond the 3.9 seconds required for freefall. From the events at the Technical Briefing it appears that a team headed by structural engineer John Gross dutifully fabricated a 5.4 second observation to exactly match the prediction. Anyone with any experience in laboratory measurement would have expected some amount of uncertainty between the prediction and the measurement. They would have been doing extremely well to come up with a computer model that would predict the collapse time within 10%. But no...their measurement exactly matched the prediction to the tenth of a second. Keep in mind that their computer model was constructed in the absence of the actual steel, which had long since been hauled away and destroyed. According to NIST's records, none of the steel from Building 7 remains. (Pause and ponder that fact for a moment. Anyone who has watched CSI knows the importance of preserving the physical evidence in a crime scene. Destroying a crime scene is in itself a crime, yet that is exactly what happened in the aftermath of 9/11, and it happened over the loud protests of the firefighters and others who had a stake in really finding out the truth.) Back to our story. NIST's computer model predicted 5.4 seconds for the building to collapse down to the level of the 29th floor. John Gross and his team found the time the roofline reached the 29th floor, then picked a start time exactly 5.4 seconds earlier to give a measurement that matched the model to the nearest tenth of a second. They took their start time several seconds prior to the actual start of freefall when nothing was happening. The building was just sitting there, with the clock running, for several seconds. Then it dropped, with sudden onset, and continued for 2.5 seconds of absolute freefall.

So, NIST now acknowledges that freefall did occur. How do they explain that? They don't. They simply state, without elaboration, that their three-phase collapse analysis is consistent with their fire induced collapse hypothesis. The only thing about the three-phase analysis that is consistent with their collapse hypothesis is the 5.4 second total duration, measuring from their artificially chosen starting time. In other words, they make no attempt to explain the 2.25 second period of freefall. They just walked away from it without further comment.

www1.ae911truth.org...

a reply to: skyeagle409

The fact remains that freefall is not consistent with any natural scenario involving weakening, buckling, or crushing because in any such a scenario there would be large forces of interaction with the underlying structure that would have slowed the fall. Given that even known controlled demolitions do not remove sufficient structure to allow for actual freefall, how could a natural fire-induced process be more destructive? Add to that the synchronicity of the removal of support across the whole width of the building, evidenced by the levelness of the roofline as it came down, and the suddenness of onset of collapse, and the immediate transition from full support to total freefall. Natural collapse resulting in freefall is simply not plausible. It did not happen. It could not happen. Yet freefall did in fact happen. This means it was not a natural collapse. Forces other than the falling upper section of the building suddenly destroyed and removed the supporting columns for at least eight stories across the entire length and width of the building.

The freefall of Building 7 is one of the clearest of many "smoking guns" that proves explosives were planted in the World Trade Center buildings prior to 9/11, 2001.

www1.ae911truth.org...

This is the Narrative that I believe. Not some stupid conspiracy theory.

----------------

a reply to: Informer1958

re you calling Berry Jennings a lair? He was in the WTC 7 when it was exploding way before WTC 1 & 2 fell.

I say he was mistaken because his testimony conflicts with other experts who were there and his testimony conflicts with facts and evidence.

a reply to: Informer1958

Just to let you know that you just posted more disinformation and I took the liberty to take a bit from your reference as proof that your reference is bogus. Let's do a review of your reference.

Your Reference

The freefall of Building 7...

Free fall of WTC 7. It never happened, so let's take a look at reality.

...
is one of the clearest of many "smoking guns" that proves explosives were planted in the World Trade Center buildings prior to 9/11, 2001.

Let's take a look and tell us at what time lines can explosives me heard in this video of WTC 7.




Since there are no explosions as WTC 7 collapses, simply proves that your references are nothing more than disinformation.

a reply to: Informer1958

The fact remains that freefall is not consistent with any natural scenario involving weakening, buckling, or crushing because in any such a scenario there would be large forces of interaction with the underlying structure that would have slowed the fall.

Further proof that your references are not playing with a full deck.

originally posted by: SkepticOverlord

originally posted by: Informer1958
What Narrative in science to you support of the WTC 7 demise?

I've always looked to common sense. The building was damaged from what happened hours before, and on fire for a long time. Structural issues were inevitable.

Agreed....

But not uniformly straight down into it's own footprint at free fall speed.

If a natural collapse then it would have collapsed in stages. bits falling off it over time... Not sudden and complete collapse.

a reply to: skyeagle409

Everythings debunked
Stop it you're kill'n me with your crap!

Pulling down steel frame buildings without explosives. Begin at time line 1:45.


P-U-L-L down of WTC 6 and WTC 7 with cables. The term, "Pull", does not apply to explosive demolition in the demolition world.



This steel frame building collapsed without the aid of explosives.

Totally Collapsed 21-Story Steel Frame Office Building

www.johnmartin.com...

And yes, other steel frame buildings have collapsed due to fire as well.

originally posted by: skyeagle409
Pulling down steel frame buildings without explosives. Begin at time line 1:45.

This steel frame building collapsed without the aid of explosives.

Totally Collapsed 21-Story Steel Frame Office Building

www.johnmartin.com...

And yes, other steel frame buildings have collapsed due to fire as well.

That building didn't collapse... the Demo company brought it down!

Who is the demo company?