WTC 7 revisited...

Originally posted by gottago
Am I clear now?

Yes... thank you. The seconds counter I assume was a refrence point and quite frankly is a non issue. The point I was making is the collapse in the video I posted CLEARLY shows WTC7 took a LOT longer to collapse than most truthers will state. I will agree it is a bit misleading as the video ends at 26 seconds...and would lead some people to think the collapse was 26 seconds. that being said...can you point to me a video from a 911 Truther site that shows the entire collapse that shows the left side of the penthouse collapsing?

If you look at the video is shows collaspe start time at 5.08 seconds of the timer. Then Penthouse collapse does not start until 11:28 seconds. That is 6.20 seconds from the time the left side of the penthouse collapsed to the time the penthouse collapses. Ther rest of the timing I guess would have to be pure specualtion as we can not see the ground level. The estimate of approx. IMO 18 seconds would be pretty close as compared to seismic data that was translated and video that is available to us. What you have to consider is how much time was there a collapse happening prior to the initial collapse of the left side of the penthouse. With all evidence considered I'm not sure how a short time estimate can hold.

Gottago... if it was 6 + seconds between left penthouse collapse and the start of the rest of the collapse... what data are you using that suggests the collapse can not be at LEAST 13 seconds?




Edit to Add.. and spelling

[edit on 27-7-2007 by CaptainObvious]

Originally posted by CaptainObvious
Thank you for admitting to me that there was a collapse at the MAdrid building. ( i bolded it for you) I did say that is was a partial collapse...

Isn't this the whole point of the argument really? That building 7 should have only partially collapsed like the Windsor Tower?

The point you are missing is that the Windsor Tower did not globally collapse into it's own footprint in a matter of seconds. It took hours to become the mess you see in the pictures. It didn't go from a fully standing building to a complete collapse in a matter of seconds like WTC 7.

And how can you say only the concrete remained standing? I can see lots of steel still intact after being engulfed for 24 hours or so. WTC 7 had sporadic fires for only 7 hours. Maybe you need a new monitor?

I don't know how anybody with any sense can think a building would globally collapse from asymmetrical damage and sporadic fires. This has been said many times, but if that was possible why bother with specialised demolition companies?

You pointed out that the penthouse dropped, well done, you pointed out the classic sign of a controlled demolition. Take out the central columns first so the building falls inwards, which is exactly what it did....



Any demo company would have been proud of that job...

WTC 7 was a classic controlled demolition.

Don't believe me? What about these guys...

A Dutch demolition expert Danny Jowenko (right), who owns a demolition company and has been in the business for almost 30 years, concluded in September 2006 that WTC 7 "is controlled demolition. [...] A team of experts did this. This is professional work, without any doubt."

Hugo Bachmann, a Swiss professor emeritus for structural design and construction, said in Tages-Anzeiger : "In my opinion WTC 7 was with great probability brought down by controlled demolition done by experts". In addition, Jörg Schneider, another Swiss Professor emeritus for structural design and construction, interprets the existing videos as indices that "WTC 7 was with great probability brought down by explosives".

www.youtube.com...

Originally posted by CaptainObvious
Gottago... if it was 6 + seconds between left penthouse collapse and the start of the rest of the collapse... what data are you using that suggests the collapse can not be at LEAST 13 seconds?

Why do you keep arguing irrelevant points? 13 seconds or 30 seconds it's still too fast, and too symmetrical, to have been caused by asymmetrical damage and fires.

Why don't you try to answer why it fell symmetrically into it's own footprint?
Why don't you try to explain how office fires could get hot enough to cause steel columns to globally fail? Remember your argument for the fires being hot enough to cause 1&2 to fail was because of the jet fuel? So what is your excuse for 7?

Originally posted by 2PacSade
I'm still trying to figure out how the columns that were not "engulfed by fire" managed to fail in concert with the ones that supposedly were.

Any thoughts? That's how this building fell. Total collapse. Just doesn't make sense to me. . .

2PacSade-

Going ONCE - Going TWICE-

Anybody got an answer for me why all the columns failed at once? How could whatever percentage of breached columns allow a "kink" to manifest itself & then all the columns within the core & perimeter of this 47 story building to fail all at once?

Can someone explain this to me? This building was not burning symetrically, how did it fall that way?

2PacSade-

Originally posted by ANOK
Isn't this the whole point of the argument really? That building 7 should have only partially collapsed like the Windsor Tower?

No. WTC was not designed the same way Windsor was. Windsor was not hit by tons of debris from a collapsing skyscraper. You are not comparing apples to apples here. Please visit the sites that I have posted that describe the construction of the Windsor building and you will see why the comparison of these two buildings is not appropriate.

Originally posted by ANOKThe point you are missing is that the Windsor Tower did not globally collapse into it's own footprint in a matter of seconds. It took hours to become the mess you see in the pictures. It didn't go from a fully standing building to a complete collapse in a matter of seconds like WTC 7.

And how can you say only the concrete remained standing? I can see lots of steel still intact after being engulfed for 24 hours or so. WTC 7 had sporadic fires for only 7 hours. Maybe you need a new monitor?

Maybe you can point out the steel that did not collapse above the 17th floor. Thank you

Please explain to us how (not knowing what interior damage was done) the building should have collapsed. I am not a CD expert, i wont even attempt to guess. What i will do is do by what the evidence shows. I will listen to the countelss firefighters that were on scene. I will look at the translation of the seismic evidence by the professionals.

To show some foreign scientists a tape of a building collapsing ... and them saying it looks like a CD is NOT prrof of a CD.

I still want to hear from some witnesses or firefighters that can contradict what all the others are quoted as saying... ie: some firemen than state that the fires were not intense...that the building was NOT leaning... or groaning... etc.

Originally posted by ANOK
Why do you keep arguing irrelevant points? 13 seconds or 30 seconds it's still too fast, and too symmetrical, to have been caused by asymmetrical damage and fires.

The discussion was the timing of the collapse Anok... and i was showing a video that rarely (if ever) shows up at a truther site.

Originally posted by ANOKWhy don't you try to answer why it fell symmetrically into it's own footprint?
Why don't you try to explain how office fires could get hot enough to cause steel columns to globally fail? Remember your argument for the fires being hot enough to cause 1&2 to fail was because of the jet fuel? So what is your excuse for 7?

First of all...don't you think I'd be working for NIST if I could answer that. And I NEVER said 1&2 failed becasue of fire alone... please refrain from putting words in my mouth.

Look, I can't tell you HOW the building collapsed...what I can tell you that there is not ONE SHRED of evidence that the building was demolished via controlled demolition. What you have here is 100% pure specualtion.

ok.. i have to go back to the real world and make supper for my family...I'll be back later.

BTW... great thread Anok... mature debates going on in here for a change.

Originally posted by CaptainObvious

*snip*

. . .I still want to hear from some witnesses or firefighters that can contradict what all the others are quoted as saying... ie: some firemen than state that the fires were not intense...that the building was NOT leaning... or groaning... etc.

So if these individuals were to come forward as you desire you're saying you would abandon your current beliefs & hop the fence?

I don't care what any "witness" says, WTC 7 fell the way it did on 9-11 because it was supposed to. . . You could build 100 WTC 7's & hit them with everything up to strategic nukes & they wouldn't catastrophically collapse!

I don't require any witnesses to tell me what to believe with respect to this event. Physics & science & math, etc. prevail.

Again for the third time;

-Going ONCE - Going TWICE- Going a THIRD time-

Anybody got an answer for me why all the columns failed at once? How could whatever percentage of breached columns allow a "kink" to manifest itself & then all the columns within the core & perimeter of this 47 story building to fail all at once?

Can someone explain this to me? This building was not burning symetrically, how did it fall that way?

2PacSade-

if what damaged WTC7 was WTC1 raining debris on top of it, i find this picture a little odd since WTC1 is still standing,



this picture is simply stunning... who would have thought that fire could have made this building, WTC7, fall straight down and not even cover that road next to its base.




Judy Woods WTC7 page

Ya I posted it and it was blown over like typical..

Photographic Analysis of Damage to WTC7 and Critical Errors in NIST's Estimations

And ATS Post
Photographic Analysis of the WTC7 Hole - NIST Debunked

This was blasted all over the net so.. And NOBODY, I MEAN NOBODY has said anything about it.

And it wasn't space beams.. Geez you people cant even answer question on how it was done.

TO people who believe this space beam theory look at This post and see how much theory went into the making of this asinine conspiracy. They cant even answer questions about it..

It was from Bsbray and some guy named CB_Brooklyn.

[edit on 7/27/2007 by ThichHeaded]

Originally posted by ANOK
Hmmmmm where are all you de-bunkers now?

I don't think anyone can genuinely say that WTC 7 (let alone WTC 1&2) fell of its own accord, that it was a fire that caused it to collapse. Only the ignorant or the foolish could truly believe that.

They've got away with it because people are indifferent. They simply don't care as long as they have TV, booze and food. Its a disgrace, all those people...dead. When the general public finally wake up (in the not-to-distance future) and realise that all the technology they are now dependent on, the phones they use, the passports they own and the ID cards they have make them effective slaves to the few elite, they'll be sorry that no-one stopped it when they could. Too little to late.

My advice...take care of yourself, get a decent education, a good high-paid job, don't get drawn into debt and try to stay one step ahead of inflation and interest rates. Gotta play the game.

Trust no-one.

Originally posted by 2PacSade
-Going ONCE - Going TWICE- Going a THIRD time-

Anybody got an answer for me why all the columns failed at once? How could whatever percentage of breached columns allow a "kink" to manifest itself & then all the columns within the core & perimeter of this 47 story building to fail all at once?

Can someone explain this to me? This building was not burning symetrically, how did it fall that way?

Well I'll give it a try. It can't without CD.

You see, if you check out the building's plans, and if you can understand them, you'll see that much of the lower structure, up to about the 8th floor is a dense web of columns and trusses that allowed part of the north face of the building to be effectively built around a ConEd substation. So it was actually much stronger than it would have been otherwise.

Second point--the shape of the building itself. It is not a rectangle but a trapezoid that flares out to the northeast and northwest, as if you'd added triangular flanges to its short faces. Since the disputed NIST-reported damage was claimed to be near the middle of the south face--the short one--these wedges of building would actually act as buttresses. You have much more building mass to the north that could not possibly have been undermined, and the structure is further secured by the reinforced lower floors.

Finally, you had the NYC emergency bunker on floors 23 & 24, which was also structurally reinforced for all the obvious reasons, and acted as a band of extra reinforcement at the building's midpoint.

Okay, now let it burn and knock a hole in the south side. Even a big one. What's going to happen?

Well, you don't need to be Einstein to see that it shouldn't go anywhere. And even if the damage was somehow enough to initiate a collapse, it would have occurred in the damage area, above the reinforced lower floors, and below the reinforced bunker. A slow, agonizing toppling. And the bunker would have held the upper structure together in a mass.

A nasty, toppling, slumped-over tower with an intact base is what you would have got.

It certainly wouldn't give up all inner structural integrity at one moment, collapse down upon itself in a neat pile no more than 4 stories tall, and then have molten steel in its basements still yellow hot many weeks later.

So, when does NIST finally release its sub-contracted fairy tale?

[typos]

[edit on 27-7-2007 by gottago]

if what damaged WTC7 was WTC1 raining debris on top of it, i find this picture a little odd since WTC1 is still standing,

WTC7 was hit by debris from WTC 1 (north tower - one with antenna)
As you can see WTC 1 is still standing. What you see is collapse of WTC 2

As for office fires warping steel - office buildings are fire traps, contain
large amount of fuel in form of paper (office buildings have tons and tons
of it) along with synthetic (plastics) which most office furnishings are
made of (desks, computer equipment, chairs, cubicle dividrs, etc)

WTC7 burned for 7 hours with no attempt to extinguish it. More than
enough time to heat steel to failure point (more fire proofing rated for
4 hours, assuming is intact)

Progressive collapse is when stuctural members are stressed to failure,
when one member fails, loads are transferred to adjacent members, which
if overstressed will fail, transferring loads.... Failure will start in one point
and progress from there. As pointed out South face of WTC 7 was
smaller side of trapeziod, also south face heavily damaged by debris and
fires most intense there (broken windows provided fresh air to fuel them)
WTC7 fell not in own footprint, but toward north and west, toward the
undamaged sides of the building.

Originally posted by thedman

Progressive collapse is when stuctural members are stressed to failure,
when one member fails, loads are transferred to adjacent members, which
if overstressed will fail, transferring loads.... Failure will start in one point
and progress from there. As pointed out South face of WTC 7 was
smaller side of trapeziod, also south face heavily damaged by debris and
fires most intense there (broken windows provided fresh air to fuel them)
WTC7 fell not in own footprint, but toward north and west, toward the
undamaged sides of the building.

No- It fell symetrically straight down into it's base. . .and here is a picture of it on the 19th of Sept 2001. It's looking out the 4th story window of 140 West St., ( the Verizon building ). You can see WTC 5 in the top right corner of the photo.



2PacSade-

spelling

[edit on 27-7-2007 by 2PacSade]

Here is another photo from over Building 7. The white building is on the left. Note the debris from building 7 which crossed the street and landed on top of the white building.

"white building" is 30 West Broadway which is north of Barclay St





Here is map of site




WTC 7 collapse started in South/east sides of building with North face
falling on top of pile.

Conspiracy sites like to bring up the 'Symmetric Collapse' of building 7 and claim that the building should have fallen over to the south. They show grainy, dark photos of debris piles which were taken well after 9/11 and a debris pile with a grayish, smoky image of building 7 in the background. They deceptively show the north side which was relatively free of damage. As if the Tower should have reached over to the other side of the building and damaged that side too.

Picture is taken from north (bottom) to south (top)

Eerily, the north face is on the debris pile as if a shroud were laid gently over the dead building. It fell over after the majority of the building fell. This indicates that the south side of the building fell before the north. It's almost as if the buildings last words were "[This] did it!..".

Originally posted by CaptainObvious
No. WTC was not designed the same way Windsor was....

Jeez it's so tedious arguing with people who have no clue how structures act when damaged. So what if it wasn't designed the same? Who is making that claim? Certainly not me. But you miss the point entirely. Any building of any design is not going to collapse straight down into it's own footprint from asymmetrical damage and sporadic fires. How many times does this have to be repeated? WTC 7 was a much more over engineered building than the Windsor tower, so it IS a good comparison.
And again asymmetrical damage would not have caused a global symmetrical collapse, no matter what the design is.

Maybe you can point out the steel that did not collapse above the 17th floor. Thank you

Again so what? The building after being on fire for 24 hours did not collapse symmetrically into it's own footprint. Who cares about the 17th floor?

Please explain to us how (not knowing what interior damage was done) the building should have collapsed.

What damage on the inside of the structure? You can't even provide proof of this huge gash you all claim it had. But again mute point because a building with asymmetrical damage WILL NOT fall symmetrically into it's own footprint. And I'll keep repeating that until you finally get it, which I can see maybe a while... You are just being silly if you can't figure out for yourself how it should have collapsed. Or actually NOT collapsed. There was no reason for it to collapse, period.

To show some foreign scientists a tape of a building collapsing ... and them saying it looks like a CD is NOT prrof of a CD.

It's more proof than you have of your claim. The NIST report also doesn't prove ANYTHING. You all always ask for statements from professionals and when they are presented you just dismiss the claims. So what if they're 'foreigners'? What has that got to do with it? All you 're doing now is showing your true bias. I'm a foreigner too, and to me you're a foreigner, does it make any difference?

I still want to hear from some witnesses or firefighters that can contradict what all the others are quoted as saying...

You don't need witnesses when the obvious is staring you in the face. But even if they were supplied you'd just dismiss them like the other experts who disagree with your governments claims. The building was leaning? So why did it fall symmetrically into it's own footprint then?

Aren't you one of the de-bunkers who claims to be here to learn the truth hey, CausticFox? Maybe you should start with some physics classes and then maybe go visit a foundry and see what it really takes to make steel malleable.

Originally posted by thedman
Eerily, the north face is on the debris pile as if a shroud were laid gently over the dead building. It fell over after the majority of the building fell. This indicates that the south side of the building fell before the north. It's almost as if the buildings last words were "[This] did it!..".

How can you even believe this claim when you can clearly see in the video that WTC 7 fell with all four corners at the same time?

Does it look like the south side fell before the north?...



It falls like a classic demo. Kink in the middle so the building falls in on itself which it clearly did...That doesn't happen from asymmetrical damage however you try to spin it. I don't care what your de-bunker websites say, use your own eyes and your own brain and quit letting other people do your thinking for you.




But anyway back to the topic, I notice none of you have contradicted my OP about the smoke...

[edit on 28/7/2007 by ANOK]

We can discuss this flat into the ground (pardon the pun) but I dated (past tense) a guy that worked for a controlled explosive demolition company. and he said that when he saw the videos his mind kept saying "no way possible" but his heart was saying "They wouldn't"

he also said "J, do you know how difficult it is to make a building fall that perfectly?"



edited for spelling

[edit on 28-7-2007 by darkheartrising]

Just measure the vertical distance the building fell in the first 6 seconds of the WTC 7 collapse.
Then compute the acceleration, which is equal or even faster than fall time in a vacuum.
This has all been done for you already a long time ago by students of prof. Jones physics classes at his university.
For them, it was the main reason to start to believe there was more to it than just a progressive collapse by fire and external damage by WTC 1 building parts.
They just put a red line at the top of the building, and another one after 6 seconds fall time at the same spot, now fallen several meters lower.
They knew the floor heights.

To the fireman, Thedman :
Look up some posts of mine at this forum about the fire boats that were speeding in to help with a LOT of pumping power and hose lines.
Strangely, these lines were aimed at lost buildings, WTC 5 and 6, heavily damaged already and with raging fires pouring out all sides, with definitely no inhabitants at all, they were evacuated before both WTC 1 and 2 collapses.

You should try to find out who ordered these strange firefighting techniques to the NYFD captains.
You will end up at a senior aide of Giuliano.
A guy who has managed to stay out of the limelight so well, nearly nobody knows how many orders originated from his cell phones.
I have posted his name one time here, as far as I know, nobody reacted by digging deeper into this man.

One should really dig much deeper in the person and deeds of former mayor Giuliano, in the past and present.

Originally posted by ANOK
Jeez it's so tedious arguing with people who have no clue how structures act when damaged. So what if it wasn't designed the same? Who is making that claim? Certainly not me. But you miss the point entirely. Any building of any design is not going to collapse straight down into it's own footprint from asymmetrical damage and sporadic fires.

This is utter ignorance! To think that structures should act the same when they are different designs is crazy!! There is a VAST difference between concrete and steel when it comes to fire protection ands heat transfer. Anok..yo uknow this! I don't care how "over engineered" you calim it to be. If it was so "over engineered" why whas the NEW wtc7 built with concrete?!

You claim that any building can't collapse into its own footprint... etc....
Please tell me with your knowledge of Physics, how this is NOT possible. I'm not saying you are 100% wrong.. iwould like to know why this Can not happen.

Originally posted by ANOK
Again so what? The building after being on fire for 24 hours did not collapse symmetrically into it's own footprint. Who cares about the 17th floor?

Anok, you cliamed you said there was steel left on the windsor building. I was only asking that you point it any above the 17th floor.

Please explain to us how (not knowing what interior damage was done) the building should have collapsed.

Originally posted by ANOKWhat damage on the inside of the structure?

I will not post anymore photos of the gash. IT is in the video I posted on this thread (i believe its the third) The point I am trying to make is that we do not know the extent of the damage inside WTC7...therfore you can not draw an educated conclusion as to why it collapsed in the manner in which it did.

Originally posted by ANOK
So what if they're 'foreigners'? What has that got to do with it? All you 're doing now is showing your true bias. I'm a foreigner too, and to me you're a foreigner, does it make any difference?

Don't spin my words or accuse my of being biased. I'd like to know how much research these men did on the collaspe...were they allowed access to all the evidence? Has NOTHING to do with where they reside. Stick to the topic Anok and don't try to attack ME.

What witnesses have I dismissed? If I have.. please point them out so that I may explain why. Fact is.... EVERY fireman that was on the scene at WTC7 know the building was going down...not because it was laced with explosives, but because they saw the building leaning...they heard the building "moaning", etc etc... there is not ONE story that contradicts the FDNY firefighters, and commanders that were on the scene. NOT ONE!

Originally posted by LaBTop
Just measure the vertical distance the building fell in the first 6 seconds of the WTC 7 collapse.

LaBTop, the first 6 seconds of the collaspe was the penthouse collapsing...then it was at least another 6 seconds after that.