NEW: WTC7 and North Tower Collapse Video

reply to post by Griff


Thermal expansion occurrs all the time. Steel bridges, beams, everything expands and contracts with heating and cooling. On many bridges you can see small gaps at both ends of a bridge, this is for when the bridge expands from sun heating. Its not by much, but doing it enough without room, and it will weaken the structure.
Steel beams especially exposed to high temps will warp and bend from expanding. This is not something new, its common knowledge especially among firefighters and engineers. Which is why firefighters stay out of buildings on fire that have steel truss roofs. Very dangerous in fires.

And actually they are not contradicting it at all. The removal of the beam started the chain of events leading up to collapse. It was effectively "slow motion" collapsing. I'm serious. It does sound very confusing and complicated, and it is. But if you understand progressive failure and how buildings can fail, its not so bad. Stresses, strain, and loss of strength can destroy. One key structural part fails or is removed, and the whole structure can fail slowly.
Here are a few examples of different buildings falling over for no observable reason:

www.youtube.com...
www.youtube.com...
www.youtube.com...
www.youtube.com...

You see, a building can fail when its supports are weakend, or removed.
Firefighters saw WTC7 tilting similarily prior to collapse. This would indicate progressive collapse from fires inside weakening the structure. Why it didnt fall over like these buildings is obvious: it wasnt all concrete+steel. it was just steel. Steel will bend and snap, while a large concrete building will just fall over in more or less one piece as many misinformed conspiracy theorists inncorrectly assumed the WTCs should have behaved.

Many firefighters actually saw with their own eyes the building tilting. Hence the surveyor transit placed on it. Its purpose is to measure any movement of a building that is no longer structurally sound. They use this usually in earthquake prone cities where heavily damaged buildings that are still standing after a quake can be monitored if they are shifting or creeping down (ie slowly falling apart) while rescure workers are inside rescuing people. If it detects any slight movement, an alarm is sounded and they evac. It works by lasers. A laser is trained on the target building and it measures any movement of the building. Since WTC7 was slowly tilting over, they had to put a transit on it to measure the imperceptable creep of its failure. This is why many people "knew" about the danger of collapse, because of this simple observation. Just like the video of the building falling over in Japan after a quake. It was standing, but it was already damaged and tilting over slowly but surely. Finally it collapsed. Same thing at WTC7.

Did they place any other transits on other buildings? I don't know. They may have to WTC 5 and 6 afterwards during clean up, but I don't know if they did on 9/11 directly. One thing is for sure, they were worried about 7, and its condition. And I don't know who would think that you could get a group of men to run into a building like this to rig explosives within a few hours, and no one noticing. But FDNY did observe a large hole down the side of 7 that extended to a certain distance inside, and that was probably it. The large black gash we see later may have been a partial collapse already. Once it starts doing this, and tilting and everything, you know it must have taken a bad hit and the fires are making it worse.

Define severe please. Because all I see is partial floor collapse between columns. Columns are what hold buildings up. Not floors.

Floors provide lateral stability and "tie" the structure together. Without
the floors the walls lack stability and often collapse. When the floors
go usually bring the walls down with them....

The fifth floor functioned as a structural diaphragm, providing lateral stability and distribution of loads between the new and old caissons. Above the seventh floor, the building's structure was a typical tube-frame design, with columns in the core and on the perimeter, and lateral loads resisted by perimeter moment frames.[4]

Specifically, NIST's interim report on 7 World Trade Center displays photographs of the southwest façade of the building that show it to have significant damage. The report also highlights a 10-story gash in the center of the south façade, toward the bottom, extending approximately a quarter of the way into the interior.[41][3] A unique aspect of the design of 7 World Trade Center was that each outer structural column was responsible for supporting 2,000 sq ft (186 m²) of floor space, suggesting that the simultaneous removal of a number of columns severely compromised the structure's integrity.[42] Consistent with this theory, news footage shows cracking and bowing of the building's east wall immediately before the collapse, which began at the penthouse floors.[3] In video of the collapse, taken from the north by CBS News and other news media, the first visible sign of collapse is movement in the east penthouse 8.2 seconds before the north wall began to collapse, which took at least another 7 seconds.[3][43]

en.wikipedia.org...


Mod Edit: Use External Source Tags – Please Review This Link.

[edit on 11/7/2008 by Hal9000]

Originally posted by Griff

Originally posted by GenRadek
This was proof of severe structural damage.

Define severe please. Because all I see is partial floor collapse between columns. Columns are what hold buildings up. Not floors.

Rational people wonder what the purpose is to continually rant against the overwhelming preponderance of evidence you cannot possibly refute and never have? Exactly where do you 9/11 *SNIP* think your denial has gotten you in the last seven years?


Mod edit: No name calling allowed. The next time, the entire post will be removed.

Courtesy Is Mandatory: Read this link

[edit on 11/7/2008 by Hal9000]

Originally posted by Griff
But, then why does NIST say that one column caused the collapse? Shouldn't they state in their report and in their computer model that the entire building was tilting, leaning and partially collapsing all day? Hell, I'd believe that over thermal expansion any day.

So, why do the experts contradict this?

Have you read NISTs report? There are some statements from firefighters which are particularly relevant to this situation, and graphics which may illustrate why you are mistaken.

1pm:

They stopped at the 3rd floor level. The atrium was filled with dust but had no significant debris. As they observed the area, they heard the building creaking.
...
On the 8th or 9th floor, one of the group said he saw two elevator cars ejected from their shafts and in the hallway. Looking past the elevators, they could see a gaping hole in the south face from around the 6th to the 9th floors. They could see one floor below and two to three floors above that location. A lot of the core walls were destroyed, and one individual reported that he saw columns hanging from the floor above. They did not observe any fires at this time on the 8th floor or 9th floor, but the interviewee reported that they could hear fires burning well above where they were standing. Also, they continued to hear creaking noises in the building

NIST did report the damage to the building and their simulation shows growing vertical displacement with fire progression. Furthermore if you believe NISTs failure criteria is just "one column failing" then you have not read the report fully. As an engineer I'm sure you're aware of the importance of maintaining a low unbraced length in columns as this significantly contributes to their stability. Floor framing failures increase the unbraced length of these columns and this is what results in collapse, not a sudden immediate failure but a progressive collapse.

reply to post by GenRadek

Now I ask you a question first Sir!


WTC7 was falling apart all day.

Really! And what part of WTC7 was falling all day?

Like you said in another thread you just wait and pounce!

Please show proof and sources of WTC7 falling all day?

Do not respond to me with a question “you” answer this one please.

You still have not answer my question.

If you paid close attention to the initial impact of the North Tower on WTC7, you wll see a large chunk of the exterior columns fall and impact WTC7

Really! Do you have actual video proof to back your claim? Because I have never seen any videos of the north tower falling on WTC 7.

Afterwards the gash that was later photographed shows a partial collapse right down the south face, which would affirm the severe damage and instability.

As far as the photographs no one can make out what they are really looking at! The photos are very poor those pic wouldn’t be excepted in court of law because anyone can make any claim that it is a gash, or that it is a shadow, or that it was photo shop, or it was part of the building design or what ever. Until you can show a clear photo of the south side of WTC 7 after the two towers fell were they can clearly illustrate what that dark mark really is “you” have nothing.

Fire burned on numerous floors on the south side and some migrated to the north side

You do have the photos of the fires on the south side with this so call gash right?

There is nothing there that would create a "shadow" that straight and narrow especially since the sun would have been almost directly on it.

You have proof of this? Please show your sources?

The WTCs were already gone and nothing else could have blocked the sun to create any shadow.

You have verifiable proof of this? Please show your sources?

This was proof of severe structural damage.

You have not shown any proof of sever structural damage you only have mouth off what some else is claiming.
Your elaborate attempt to use those ridicules photos as proof to back your comspiracies theories holds no water.

Add to that firefighter accounts of the stability in question

Well yes that what some said but it is still not enough.

the leaning, twisting and observing how the building was slowly falling apart, it all adds up to structural failure brought on by fires and damage.

What? The leaning ,twisting? You have proof that WTC 7 was twisting and “leaning”.
Please show your proof with sources?

Now, for fun, if you could maybe show us proof where firefighters or someone saw a crew of 40+ people with heavy equipment, explosives, wires, etc. ran into wtc7 and managed to rig it all without anyone noticing, as the building was burning, leaning, and everything, and rig it all up in less then 3-5 hours.

You’re joking right? Because even the worst conspiracies theorists would not suggest that happened and we know that.

My opinion is the building may have been wired with explosives but it was not done that day. My opinion is it was done months in advance.







[edit on 11/7/2008 by cashlink]

Originally posted by SPreston

ThroatYogurt once again I must say thank you for posting TRUTH. I accidentally went to one of your threads and lo and behold; this TRUTH was staring me in the face.

Spreston, thank you for once again proving just how good of a researcher you are. Your reading comprehension skills are right up there with Ultima's.

Originally posted by cashlink
Really! Do you have actual video proof to back your claim? Because I have never seen any videos of the north tower falling on WTC 7.

This is a compilation of many videos of the collapse of WTC1. Debris is visible heading for WTC7 on many occasions: www.youtube.com...

Here are some frame extracts and subsequent photographs of the roof of WTC7:


The source for these images is NIST NCSTAR 1-9.

As far as the photographs no one can make out what they are really looking at! The photos are very poor those pic wouldn’t be excepted in court of law because anyone can make any claim that it is a gash, or that it is a shadow, or that it was photo shop, or it was part of the building design or what ever. Until you can show a clear photo of the south side of WTC 7 after the two towers fell were they can clearly illustrate what that dark mark really is “you” have nothing.

This is classic denial of evidence. Of course people can make out what they're looking at, there is a vertical failure of the exterior wall structure between two exterior column lines. There is no structure at Ground Zero which is sufficiently slender to cast a shadow to match the dark band visible, and there are numerous photos from many angles of this band. Not only this but there are firefighter accounts describing this damage, and clear photographs of the upper structure damage which could not possibly be a shadow.

I appreciate that perhaps you have only been exposed to a limited number of photographs, but NCSTAR 1-9 provides a multitude of sources and images you would have a hard time denying. I will paste a couple more here if needed. I have snipped many of your rather sillier questions as I can't believe you really want someone to lead you through identifying building heights and widths at Ground Zero. This should be common knowledge to a 911 researcher.

What? The leaning ,twisting? You have proof that WTC 7 was twisting and “leaning”.
Please show your proof with sources?

I'm not so sure I have heard "twisting" as a description of WTC7, but there are plenty of accounts indicating the building was not structurally sound, including firefighters using surveying equipment to measure the building's deflection. There's at least one video of a firefighter discussing WTC7 leaning. What proof would you like?

You’re joking right? Because even the worst conspiracies theorists would not suggest that happened and we know that.

My opinion is the building may have been wired with explosives but it was not done that day. My opinion is it was done months in advance.

Demolition explosives are not designed to withstand fires and will break down at even moderate to low fire temperatures. How did they survive?

posted by Shocka
wow i've never seen those either. very good find. you can see the detonation of the explosives in wtc7 and on one of the towers it looks like something blew the middle of the building right out the top. crazy.. star and flag

posted by dubiousone
Notice the difference between the WTC 1 and WTC 7 collapse? WTC 1 collapses from the top down, the upper floors disintegrate one after another on the way down and the bottom floors are the last to be destroyed. In WTC 7 the top floors ride the collapse all the way to the bottom, the upper floors disintegrate one-by-one as they reach ground level. You can see this clearly by watching the window wall on the right side.

Definite explosions heard in the Towers. At the end of video, a loud explosion heard across the river from Tower One and smoke emerging from the Tower One base.

There's a bomb in the building; Start clearing out. (New York City fireman)



BOMBS PLANTED IN WTC - Boom boom boom boom boom boom boom! (New York City fireman)



The Awesome Demolition of Tower One - SHOCK & AWE

Originally posted by SPreston
There's a bomb in the building; Start clearing out. (New York City fireman)

I notice you've posted this in a couple of threads. Do you know what building is being referred to in this quote?

BOMBS PLANTED IN WTC - Boom boom boom boom boom boom boom! (New York City fireman)

Similarly with this "quote", which part is actually a quote here?

Originally posted by GenRadek
reply to post by Griff

 

Thermal expansion occurrs all the time. Steel bridges, beams, everything expands and contracts with heating and cooling. On many bridges you can see small gaps at both ends of a bridge, this is for when the bridge expands from sun heating. Its not by much, but doing it enough without room, and it will weaken the structure.

Are you telling me buildings built in 1987 aren't built with this in mind? BTW, you don't have to explain structural engineering to a structural engineer.

Steel beams especially exposed to high temps will warp and bend from expanding. This is not something new, its common knowledge especially among firefighters and engineers. Which is why firefighters stay out of buildings on fire that have steel truss roofs. Very dangerous in fires.

Flimsy steel truss roofs are very different than floor trusses built with thermal expansion in mind. Remember that no plane hit this building to knock off the fire protection on the steel either.

And actually they are not contradicting it at all. The removal of the beam started the chain of events leading up to collapse. It was effectively "slow motion" collapsing. I'm serious. It does sound very confusing and complicated, and it is. But if you understand progressive failure and how buildings can fail, its not so bad. Stresses, strain, and loss of strength can destroy. One key structural part fails or is removed, and the whole structure can fail slowly.

If that beam was so integral for the building's structural stability, the engineers would have designed it better to not fail in a fire. Period.

Here are a few examples of different buildings falling over for no observable reason:

www.youtube.com...
www.youtube.com...
www.youtube.com...
www.youtube.com...

You see, a building can fail when its supports are weakend, or removed.

Thanks for proving that buildings don't just fall into themselves. I wonder why people think those videos have anything in relation to WTC 7.

Firefighters saw WTC7 tilting similarily prior to collapse. This would indicate progressive collapse from fires inside weakening the structure. Why it didnt fall over like these buildings is obvious: it wasnt all concrete+steel. it was just steel. Steel will bend and snap, while a large concrete building will just fall over in more or less one piece as many misinformed conspiracy theorists inncorrectly assumed the WTCs should have behaved.

Again trying to tell a structural engineer what buildings do.

Just like the video of the building falling over in Japan after a quake. It was standing, but it was already damaged and tilting over slowly but surely. Finally it collapsed. Same thing at WTC7.

Unlike the building in Japan, WTC 7 fell straight into itself. No comparrison at all.

And I don't know who would think that you could get a group of men to run into a building like this to rig explosives within a few hours, and no one noticing.

Since I don't believe that it was "wired" for demolition on 9/11, I see no point in you continuing to say this.

Either I'm right and it was demolished, or I'm wrong and it was designed and built #ty. Take your pick, because there are no other alternatives.

[edit on 11/8/2008 by Griff]

[edit on 11/8/2008 by Griff]

Originally posted by thedman
Floors provide lateral stability and "tie" the structure together. Without
the floors the walls lack stability and often collapse. When the floors
go usually bring the walls down with them....

Are you saying that this gash was the cause of collapse? Because you are contradicting NIST.

Originally posted by jthomas
Mod edit: No name calling allowed. The next time, the entire post will be removed.

Courtesy Is Mandatory: Read this link

[edit on 11/7/2008 by Hal9000]

Why the next time just the post removed? This poster continually does this along with thedman. Plenty of "twoofers" have been banned for far less.

[edit on 11/8/2008 by Griff]

Originally posted by exponent
As an engineer I'm sure you're aware of the importance of maintaining a low unbraced length in columns as this significantly contributes to their stability. Floor framing failures increase the unbraced length of these columns and this is what results in collapse, not a sudden immediate failure but a progressive collapse.

Then why didn't it collapse like this?

video.google.com...

BTW, notice that is also a steel framed structure. Also notice that there are no flashes and no "loud explosions heard for miles". I realize that they are behind a window, but according to posters around here, this should have been heard. And also, the posters that claim that other building's windows should have been busted from the explosives. Hell, the windows of the same building don't even bust from the explosives. I just proved you all wrong.

[edit on 11/8/2008 by Griff]

Originally posted by exponent
Demolition explosives are not designed to withstand fires and will break down at even moderate to low fire temperatures. How did they survive?

I guess the reports of soldiers burning C-4 explosives to keep warm in vietnam are just a myth then?

[edit on 11/8/2008 by Griff]

reply to post by Griff


Griff, you know as well as I that this is a never ending (or winning) battle. We have the people on the governments side of things saying that their stuff is fact supported by science. It just so happens that their science is also funded and employed by the government. Your science (engineering, mathematics and so on) experience and knowledge is not acceptable to these people because you are going against the 'government' science.

I have posted much less in these threads lately because the throatyogurts, exponents, cashlinks, etc. (sorry if I offend any of the debunkers by not naming them) are stuck in their rut and honestly believe they are right. Or at least have a job to do and will not bend from that job.

I'm currently going through the 911 commission report again, audio this time, and it just kills me how it reads like a novel instead of a report. Why would they glamour it up? I mean, they add in all of the thrilling adjectives and such to make it into a story instead of a report on the 'facts' that it is supposed to be. That right there should send up red flags to some people.

Anyway, keep up the good fight my friend. Keep presenting your actual expert experience. One day the actual truth may be released by the crooks that pulled it off.

Originally posted by dariousg
I'm currently going through the 911 commission report again, audio this time, and it just kills me how it reads like a novel instead of a report.

Unfortunately I downloaded it to my work computer and didn't have a chance to copy it to take home with me. Monday morning it's going right on my ipod though. BTW, I starred and flagged that thread.

posted by SPreston
There's a bomb in the building; Start clearing out. (New York City fireman)

posted by exponent
I notice you've posted this in a couple of threads. Do you know what building is being referred to in this quote?

Isn't it obvious? These fireman knew there were bombs planted in WTC 7 many hours before it was brought down by demolition charges. Did a nosy fireman find one of the demolition charges?

These same firemen already knew that there had been explosions in the Towers after the aircraft impacts. Many of us here are already convinced that the three skyscrapers were deliberately destroyed with demolition murdering thousands of people and firemen trapped inside. Why are you not convinced exponent? Do you have a personal stake in the outcome?

"There's a bomb in the building - start clearing out"...
"We got a secondary device in the building"
WMV download

Firefighters and police officers claim explosions and bombs in WTC buildings

Fireman: "There's a bomb in the building!"

Fireman: "Here we go again"

Fireman: "There's a bomb in the building, start clearing out."

Bystander: "Sorry? Did you say there was a bomb? What did you say?"

Fireman: "Bomb in the building! Start clearing out!"

Fireman: "We gotta get the ###### outta here!"

Fireman "There's a secondary device in the building!"

Fireman: "We got a secondary device!"

Fireman: "Got a secondary device in the building!"

Fireman: "Secondary device!"

Video:
video.google.com...

posted by SPreston
BOMBS PLANTED IN WTC - Boom boom boom boom boom boom boom! (New York City fireman)

posted by exponent
Similarly with this "quote", which part is actually a quote here?

If you bothered to watch the video, you would know wouldn't you?

9/11 NBC News broadcast

Secondary Devices in the Towers
WMA download

"Shortly after 9 o'clock ... [Albert Turi the Chief of Safety for the New York Fire Department] received word of the possibility of a secondary device, that is another bomb going off. He tried to get his men out as quickly as he could, but he said there was another explosion which took place, and then an hour after the first hit - the first crash that took place - he said there was another explosion that took place in one of the towers here, so obviously according to his theory he thinks that there were actually devices that were planted in the building.

One of the secondary devices he thinks that took place after the initial impact he thinks may have been on the plane that crashed into one of the towers. The second device - he thinks, he speculates - was probably planted in the building. ... But the bottom line is that he, Albert Turi, said that he probably lost a great many men in those secondary explosions, and he said that there were literally hundreds, if not thousands, of people in those towers when the explosions took place."

[Firefighter Louie] Cacchioli was called to testify privately [before the 9/11 Commission], but walked out on several members of the committee before they finished, feeling like he was being interrogated and cross-examined rather than simply allowed to tell the truth about what occurred in the north tower on 9/11. "My story was never mentioned in the final report [PDF download] and I felt like I was being put on trial in a court room," said Cacchioli. "I finally walked out. They were trying to twist my words and make the story fit only what they wanted to hear. All I wanted to do was tell the truth and when they wouldn't let me do that, I walked out. ... It was a disgrace to everyone, the victims and the family members who lost loved ones. I don't agree with the 9/11 Commission. The whole experience was terrible."

"I said, ‘Chief, they're evacuating the other building; right?’ He said, ‘No.’ . . . I said, ‘Why not? They blew up the other one.’ I thought they blew it up with a bomb. I said, ‘If they blew up the one, you know they're gonna blow up the other one.’ He said, ‘No, they're not.’ I said, ‘Well, you gotta tell them to evacuate it, because it's gonna fall down and you gotta get the guys out.’ He said, ‘I'm just the Battalion Chief. I can't order that.’ . . . I said, ‘You got a #ing radio and you got a #ing mouth. Use the #ing things. Empty this #ing building.’ Again he said, ‘I'm just a Battalion Chief. I can't do that.’ . . . Eventually this other chief came back and said, ‘They are evacuating this tower.’ . . . And sometime after that . . . I watched the north tower fall." [William Reynolds - Firefighter]
whatreallyhappened.com...

Edmund McNally phoned his wife Liz twice following the [WTC 2] aircraft impact. Mr McNally said in his second phone call "Liz, this was a terrorist attack. I can hear explosions below me." [NY Times]
Tom Elliott, WTC 2 survivor: They saw only two firemen going up. They told them there had been an explosion near the 60th floor. [csmonitor]

Kim White, WTC 1 survivor: "We got down as far as the 74th floor ... Then there was another explosion, so we left again by the stairwell." [People]

Originally posted by Griff

1- Remember that no plane hit this building to knock off the fire protection on the steel either.

2-If that beam was so integral for the building's structural stability, the engineers would have designed it better to not fail in a fire. Period.

3-Again trying to tell a structural engineer what buildings do.

4-Either I'm right and it was demolished,

1- Remember that it is fire PROTECTION and not fire proofing. Also remember that it is given an rating of how many hours said fire protection will prevent heating of the steel, which will result in severe structural damage.

2-Gee, I remember you complaining about the proposed regs that came out of this study of 7. You are aware that this is the primary mission of NIST, correct? They studied the collapse and are making new regs that should make buildings more resistant to fire induced collapses. So what's your point?

3- It's not about telling YOU. It's about correcting your lies/omissions/distortions of truth. Like I just did above. You make a true statement about fire protection NOT being removed, but not making the true statement that the fire protection will only work for a limited amount of time until the structure will be in danger. This is lying by omission, something I find particularly disgusting when coming from a structural engineer that not only knows better, but should be educating others. You fail miserably....

4- FINALLY, you've ended the whole disgusting sham about how you're "neutral" about 9/11. Too bad though, it was like comedy gold every time you tried to pass off this particular lie like anyone believed you. Thanks for finally admitting that you're politically motivated to say whatever in order to get some kind of .... whatever out of the experience.......

Here is the problem:

We keep hearing about all the damage that the WTC-7 recieved from the Tower collapsing. Even though, many buildings were damaged far worse or as bad and were on fire as well. Now keep in mind, those buidlings didn't do what WTC-7 did, but also keep in mind, that they didn't have offices like the CIA in there.

Now...

Look at the South Towers Collapse right next to the North Tower:



and...were is all the damage to that side?




All that steel weiging in excess of thousands of pounds hurled at high velocity didn't even leave what one would expect, in the supposedly "weak" building known as the North Tower, one would think we would see similar damage that the plane left, namely a huge gash.

Not saying there WASN'T ANY DAMAGE TO THE NORTH TOWER just that it does not seem to be anything that one were to expect, after seeing the supposed damage to WTC-7 supposedly coming from the Towers collapse.

There seems to be some kind of inconsistency here.



[edit on 8-11-2008 by talisman]

posted by talisman
Here is the problem:

We keep hearing about all the damage that the WTC-7 recieved from the Tower collapsing. Even though, many buildings were damaged far worse or as bad and were on fire as well. Now keep in mind, those buidlings didn't do what WTC-7 did, but also keep in mind, that they didn't have offices like the CIA in there.

All that steel weiging in excess of thousands of pounds hurled at high velocity didn't even leave what one would expect, in the supposedly "weak" building known as the North Tower, one would think we would see similar damage that the plane left, namely a huge gash.

Not saying there WASN'T ANY DAMAGE TO THE NORTH TOWER just that it does not seem to be anything that one were to expect, after seeing the supposed damage to WTC-7 supposedly coming from the Towers collapse.

There seems to be some kind of inconsistency here.

Diagram of WTC

Except that it was a corner of the South Tower facing the North Tower. Perhaps the core explosives mostly hurled the exterior wall sections at right angles to the wall. This side of WTC 1 below is at right angle to Winter Garden where this huge piece ended up.

by David S Chandler - Physics-Mathematics Educator - BS-Physics (IPS); MS-Mathematics

Original video