A Structural Reevaluation of the Collapse of World Trade Center 7

originally posted by: PublicOpinion

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?

Have you seen their 'simulation'? It's a joke

originally posted by: frugal My son told me that the building was not designed to have a plane crash into it and be held up.

the architects who actually designed the towers disagree.

a reply to: PublicOpinion

Who is doing damage control now?

Again. The question is...

What real life mechanism from the video, audio, physical, seismic evidence is stated in the study that removed the resistance of the columns. Does the study say fairies magically made the columns simultaneously disappear.

Example. During an implosion: a cutting charge is used to cut the column, then a kicker charge is often used to ensure the cut ends misalign.

Hulsey removed columns as needed to make his model behave how he wanted. No crap, if you remove columns your model is going to fail. Now, what real life mechanism as proven by Hulsey’s study would make the the columns simultaneously fail. Where is there evidence of such an event in the video, audio, physical, seismic evidence?

I don’t think you are using the term pulled correctly. You mean like pull a team from a fire? Or you mean to attach cables to a wall to pull it in a specific direction. I think the turn for felling a building in its own footprint is implosion or demo. It is not pulled.

a reply to: PublicOpinion

“Pulled” is a manual process used for small buildings.

Demolition
en.m.wikipedia.org...

For small buildings, such as houses, that are only two or three stories high, demolition is a rather simple process. The building is pulled down either manually or mechanically using large hydraulic equipment: elevated work platforms, cranes, excavators or bulldozers. Larger buildings may require the use of a wrecking ball, a heavy weight on a cable that is swung by a crane into the side of the buildings. Wrecking balls are especially effective against masonry, but are less easily controlled and often less efficient than other methods. Newer methods may use rotational hydraulic shears and silenced rock-breakers attached to excavators to cut or break through wood, steel, and concrete. The use of shears is especially common when flame cutting would be dangerous.

a reply to: neutronflux
'Implosion' and 'demo' are indeed terms of the trade.
However, this from the same Marrs book I cited earlier:

"The term "pull" is industry slang for the controlled demolition of a structure as voiced by a New York fire commander who told TV news of "pulling" the heavily damaged WTC Building 6.
Some years later as spokesperosn for Silverstein Properties Inc. tried to explain that all Silverstein meant was "pull" the firemen out of the building. His explanation did not fly with knowledgable researchers since all firemen had been withdrawn from Building 7 that morning."

a reply to: frugal

how come no other buildings in neighborhood fell then?

Another theory is that WTC7 was supposed to be hit by plane #3 and instead of finding "surprises" inside the building it was decided to drop it also....(we'll cover it later)

a reply to: PublicOpinion

Read your OP and I'd run across that story yesterday and it pretty much confirmed what I'd believed all along, i.e., WTC 7 was "brought down" by controlled demolition charges. I would guess that's pretty much been the conclusion of a great many observers and researchers.

That said....................

(Hate to sound like HRC, but......) At this point..........what does it really matter?

originally posted by: TonyS
a reply to: PublicOpinion

(Hate to sound like HRC, but......) At this point..........what does it really matter?

Well, if it can be proven that WTC7 was brought down in a controlled event, then it casts major doubt on the entire story we were all but force fed. It 'suggests' that there are people who planned and perpetrated an operation that claimed ~3000 American lives and led to two major wars. Those people are still out there. What's next? That might matter...

originally posted by: Gandalf77
a reply to: neutronflux
'Implosion' and 'demo' are indeed terms of the trade.
However, this from the same Marrs book I cited earlier:

"The term "pull" is industry slang for the controlled demolition of a structure as voiced by a New York fire commander who told TV news of "pulling" the heavily damaged WTC Building 6.
Some years later as spokesperosn for Silverstein Properties Inc. tried to explain that all Silverstein meant was "pull" the firemen out of the building. His explanation did not fly with knowledgable researchers since all firemen had been withdrawn from Building 7 that morning."

Can you cite and quote the actual context from the fire commander?

This is what I can actually quote.

The “pull it” statement is a false argument. The term “pull” as used by Silverstein is referring to pulling firefighters from a burning building.

www.911myths.com...

WTC 7 Pulled

Larry Silverstein said that WTC7 was "pulled", intentionally demolished.

I remember getting a call from the, er, fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, "We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it." And they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse.
www.serendipity.li...

As in pull rescue operations.

Like

Final group was pulled from Thai cave just before water pump malfunction
www.cbsnews.com...

Or even better...

Pull" = Withdraw firefighters from danger?

Contents
Main 9/11 Links Page
Yes.

It certainly was used that way on 9/11. Again and again, “pull” is how firefighters and EMTs describe the afternoon withdrawal from the area in and around WTC 7. In the accounts I’ve read, excluding Larry Silverstein’s, “pull” is used 30 times to refer to the withdrawal of WTC firefighting and rescue operations. 27 of those references are about WTC 7. Add Silverstein’s statement and we’ve got 32 references to “pull” meaning “withdraw.” My survey was not exhaustive.

Here’s a summary of the first-person accounts I’ve read. All but a few are from first responders:

41 – People who specifically mention the severity of the WTC 7 fires
29 – People who specifically mention extensive damage to WTC 7
104 – People who mention the FDNY order to withdraw from WTC 7 area
36 – Number of times “Pull” is used to mean “withdraw rescuers”
39 – Other witnesses who say the collapse of WTC 7 was expected
Download an Excel spreadsheet breakdown of these accounts

Doubters, please read the following accounts in full.

I issued the orders to pull back the firefighters and define the collapse zone. It was a critical decision; we could not lose any more firefighters. It took a lot of time to pull everyone out, given the emotionalism of the day, communications difficulties, and the collapse terrain." FDNY Chief of Operations Daniel Nigro, "Report from the Chief of Department," Fire Engineering, 9/2002)

I do remember us being pulled off the pile. ...We were down by the pile to search or looking around. 7 World Trade Center was roaring. I remember being pulled off the pile like just before. It wasn't just before. It was probably an hour before 7 came down. –Firefighter Kevin Howe

Hayden: By now, this is going on into the afternoon, and we were concerned about additional collapse, not only of the Marriott, because there was a good portion of the Marriott still standing, but also we were pretty sure that 7 World Trade Center would collapse. Early on, we saw a bulge in the southwest corner between floors 10 and 13, and we had put a transit on that and we were pretty sure she was going to col-lapse. You actually could see there was a visible bulge, it ran up about three floors. It came down about 5 o’clock in the afternoon, but by about 2 o’clock in the afternoon we realized this thing was going to collapse. 



Firehouse Magazine: Was there heavy fire in there right away?

Hayden: No, not right away, and that’s probably why it stood for so long because it took a while for that fire to develop. It was a heavy body of fire in there and then we didn’t make any attempt to fight it. That was just one of those wars we were just going to lose. We were concerned about the collapse of a 47-story building there. We were worried about additional collapse there of what was remaining standing of the towers and the Marriott, so we started pulling the people back after a couple of hours of surface removal and searches along the surface of the debris. We started to pull guys back because we were concerned for their safety. 



sites.google.com...

a reply to: neutronflux

Lol.

But he said pull "IT".

a reply to: Gandalf77

Well, if it can be proven that WTC7 was brought down in a controlled event

How many years has there been video, photographic, audio, seismic data?

And now the truth movement has a model that shows if you magically make all the columns at a specific floor disappear, the model will collapse. That was $300,000 spent on the obvious.

Now what real life mechanism is there evidence of as supported by the video, photographic, audio, seismic evidence that has been around 18 years?

Wow. Just Fk'n Wow! I've been gone from here for over a year. I can't believe that when I come back, This is still being discussed. What the hell is there to discuss? Controlled Demolition brought down all 3 buildings. Trust Your Eyes for Godz Sakes. Simple. Done. Wow. Just WOW!!

TheAbove

Exactly!!!

a reply to: neutronflux

More testimony:

"What happened with Building 7 is incredibly suspicious. I have video that shows how curiously small the rubble pile was, and how the buildings to either side were untouched by Building 7 when it collapsed. It had not been hit by an airplane; it had suffered only minor injuries when the Twin Towers collapsed, and there were only small fires on a couple of floors. There's no way that building could have imploded the way it did without controlled demolition. Yet the collapse of Building 7 was hardly mentioned by the mainstream media and suspiciously ignored by the 9/11 Commission."

--Kurt Sonnenfeld, director of broadcast operations for the FEMA's National Emergency Response Team and its official videographer. He was sent to Ground Zero on 9/11. He filmed for a month and produced 29 tapes.

And let's not forget that both CNN and the BBC reported on the collapse of WTC7 almost a half hour before it even happened. In the case of the BBC, when reporter Jane Standley was reporting live about the collapse, WTC7 could be seen in the background during the actual report. Conveniently enough, Richard Porter of BBC said that they no longer have the tapes of their own 9/11 coverage.

a reply to: Gandalf77

So, no evidence of columns being actively cut simultaneously from the video, photographic, audio, seismic evidence.

a reply to: neutronflux

"By 2010, there was still no explanation for the collapse of Building 7 that satisfied the members of Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth. Furthermore, their attempts to gain access to the NIST's Building 7 collapse-analysis data have been rebuffed. 'Most troubling is the reason given for the denial,' wrote retired NASA flight engineer Dwain Deets for OpEdNews. 'The Director of NIST has determined that release of the information might jeopardize public safety. [emphasis in original.]"

Marrs, p. 111

a reply to: Gandalf77

Richard Porter of BBC said that they no longer have the tapes of their own 9/11 coverage.

Porter is the former script writer for Top Gear, not head of the news or archive.
He is most famous for getting decked by Clarkson.

originally posted by: contextual
a reply to: Gandalf77

Richard Porter of BBC said that they no longer have the tapes of their own 9/11 coverage.

Porter is the former script writer for Top Gear, not head of the news or archive.
He is most famous for getting decked by Clarkson.

To clarify: Richard Porter was a spokesperson for BBC.
He made those statements in a BBC press release.

a reply to: Gandalf77

By 2010, there was still no explanation for the collapse of Building 7 that satisfied the members of Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth.

Why would there be. They make money by keeping the mythology of conspiracy alive. State a definitive answer, they are out of business.

Most troubling is the reason given for the denial,' wrote retired NASA flight engineer Dwain Deets for OpEdNews. 'The Director of NIST has determined that release of the information might jeopardize public safety.

So no new building codes were a result of the NIST investigation. Seems like the NIST investigation has increased public safety. New Codes Richard Gage thinks are are not needed.

So. Still no evidence of columns being actively cut simultaneously from the video, photographic, audio, seismic evidence.