1. Joe Hill

    Joe Hill Member

    INTRODUCTION
    [Arthur Scheuerman in his book "Fire in the Skyscraper" postulated] the mysterious "kink" in the north face of Building 7 was the result of collapsing core columns pulling the north face inward:
    NISTKink.PNG
    http://www.crono911.net/docs/ScheuermanWTC7a.pdf



    Most researchers seem to concur, at least tacitly. I have reviewed much of the Building 7 content on this forum, and have found a few references of concurrence, but no discussion to the contrary. Some will ask, "What does it matter?" It matters a great deal. Understanding the motions of what we can see, reveals what is happening with what we can't see. More so, an accurate understanding of the Building 7 perimeter frame motions beg other pivotal questions, all of which are topics for separate threads. This thread focuses on motions of the perimeter frame through the first four floors of collapse. Understanding these motions will require a reassessment of many theories and assumptions about what was occurring out of view, inside the building, the lower north and west faces, the east and south faces, and and in what sequence. In my studies of WTC collapses, I have found no accurate assessment of these motions; the motions which created the north face crimp. This study is an attempt to correct the record. There was no inward motion of the north face of Building 7; it was not pulled inward.

    EDITORIAL NOTE

    This study is about the perimeter frame of Building 7. All references to "onset" refer to the perimeter frame, not "the building". I use the term "perimeter frame", rather than "moment frame", as it more quickly communicates the structural element under discussion for the casual, non-engineering oriented reader.

    PANEL 1 - REFERENCE LINES
    I used the well known West Side Highway video of collapse, as it offers the best view of the north face, and it was taken with a stationary camera.
    Panel 1 establishes base lines from which to measure/observe subsequent motion:
    B7visualanalysis1annotated.
    The 2 vertical lines establish position of the north vertical corners prior to any motion of the perimeter frame. Those lines are superimposed on each subsequent frame in order to easily see how the structure has moved. Location of each vertical line is determined by features on the two buildings in the foreground, which are stationary. I took great pains to ensure placement of the lines in subsequent frames is accurate. The vertical lines are exactly vertical in order to have a dependable line of reference. Of note, the NW corner of the structure is tilting slightly to the east. The far right edge of the white foreground building shows the same tilt, which means this pre-onset tilt is due to the camera not being exactly plumb.
    Horizontal reference is established with the indented roof line of the white foreground building, which easily shows downward motion.

    PANEL 2 - ONSET
    B7visualanalysis2Annotated.
    The first movement is the east corner moving to the east, as well as an apparent dip in the roof line. The west corner has not moved, and there is no downward motion. Note the entire visible east side has moved to the east. The east corner is virtually parallel to it's starting line. This is not a "localized deformation", as some researchers have asserted. The pivot point of this motion is far below what is visible. The entire east corner appears to be moving east. But how could it? The west corner hasn't moved. The building is not shifting to the east; only the east corner has moved. This one frame of onset has enough information to prove the north face was not being "pulled inward", but frames from further along in collapse will make it more clear. For this frame, let's examine the dip, or curve in the roof line and lines of the floors.
    If a straight line becomes curved, it's straight line measurement from end to end will be shortened. That is axiomatic, and should require no visual examples. It is fact therefore, that the straight line measurement between the corners of the roof line has shortened, not lengthened, as it appears at onset. It doesn't matter what direction the curve is making; the straight line measurement between the corners is shortened. It is impossible that the east corner is moving east, despite the appearance of it doing so. Casual observers would likely conclude the roof line curve is a downward dip. It isn't. A simple view of the roof line at near eye level reveals there is no downward roof line curve which approximates the curve noted in Panel 2:
    B7visualanalysisroofline.PNG
    This frame was taken at approximately four floors of descent. The roof line curve therefore, is on a horizontal plane. It is the street level camera angle that makes it appear to be on a vertical plane, or a dip. The curve is definitely "inward", relative to positions of the roof line corners. That does not mean inward relative to the original plane of the north face. This appears to be where NIST made their mistake. Additionally, note the bottom of the curve is not centered on the north face; it is located in the east half, close to where the crimp later develops. The importance of this fact will be shown further along in this analysis.

    PANEL 3 - ONSET OF DESCENT
    B7visualanalysis3annotated.
    The structure has dropped approximately 1/2 of a floor. It appears that the east corner has moved further east, but the west corner has made a noticeable tilt to the east as well, which seems to account for the further expansion of the east corner. The roof line curve has deepened, and lines of the floors display more curvature than in Panel 2.

    PANEL 4 - TWO FLOORS OF DESCENT
    B7visualanalysis4annotated.

    Panel 4 shows more east corner movement to the east. The west corner has tilted slightly more east, but the east corner movement to the east is more than the increased west tilt. The roof curve has deepened further, and again, that means the straight line measurement between the north roof corners has shortened more.

    PANEL 5 - FOUR FLOORS OF DESCENT
    B7visualanalysis5annotated.

    At four floors of descent, the east corner has again moved slightly east, and the west corner has tilted slightly more to the east. The two movements appear to offset one another, and only slight movement to the east is discernible for the remaining descent of the east corner. Most notable in Panel 5 is the first sign of the crimp; the roof line is now "V" shaped, rather than curved.

    PANEL 6 - FLOOR LINE COMPARISON
    B7visualanalysis6.

    This is an important piece of the puzzle. I've divided the north face into two "halves", with the crimp line as center. In the west half, the floor lines have not changed angle after four floors of descent, except for a slight angle attributed to the structure tilting east as it fell. Notice the east half indeed has changed angle considerably. If the north face were being pulled inward, both halves would have changed angles, as both halves would have to be pulled inward at onset. Note the entire visible east half has turned to face more to the camera.

    PANEL 7 - NORTH FACE MEASUREMENT COMPARISON
    B7visualanalysis7.

    I measured the two "halves" at pre-onset and after four floors of descent, then transposed the pre-onset lines on the latter. Virtually all of the apparent expansion to the east of the east corner is attributed to the east half alone. The west half has not altered it's orientation to the camera.

    CONCLUSIONS
    The north face is folding vertically. The motion is little different from a closing door:
    Closingdoorannotated.
    The east half of the north face is turning on an arc toward the camera, which accounts for the east corner expanding toward the east. If the north face were being pulled inward, the east corner (or both corners) would visibly be pulled inward with it. The following rough overhead diagram shows what is occurring at onset:
    B7visualanalysisNorthOverheadSketch.PNG
    Note that even though the straight line distance of corner to corner has shortened, the corner appears to have moved to the east from the viewing angle.
    Since the angle of the east vertical corner did not change, in other words, it remained relatively parallel to it's starting position, the motion can be said to pivot at a point far below what is visible. The entire east half of the perimeter frame is falling over to the north. This begs a few pivotal questions. Why did the entire structure then, not fall north with it (the west half fell to the south)? Why was there no deformation of the SW corner? Answers to those questions will reveal this one mistake by NIST led to other serious mistakes, but those are answers for another thread.
    Thank you for reading.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Jul 4, 2019
    • Informative Informative x 1
  2. Jeffrey Orling

    Jeffrey Orling Active Member

    The movement suggests that the entire building was rotating counter clockwise when viewed from above...the virtual pivot likely being the SW section of the core. East side failed first at lower floors and NE slabs collapses hollowing out that region. The portion of the moment frame on the north side was supported on massive cantilever girders spanning from the core to the moment frame supported by a series of columns set south several feet from the moment frame. The kink occurred at the transition between the girders (supported on a massive E-W girder at the north side of the core) and the NE region a 2 way slab (collapsed) WTC 7 sk TTF.

    The gross building movements occurred when the transfer structures between floor 5 and 7 failed... progressively and rapidly from east to west.
     

    Attached Files:

  3. Jeffrey Orling

    Jeffrey Orling Active Member

    7wtc rotation.JPG
     
  4. Joe Hill

    Joe Hill Member

    Thanks for responding Jeffrey, but no, your premise is incorrect. There was virtually no corresponding movement in the west half throughout collapse. The west half essentially fell down and over to the south; no rotational motion. It's as if the east and west halves of the perimeter frame fell as two separate entities, co-joined by the north wall. Additionally the west half never distorted. It's impossible that the rigid steel frame distort so much on one side and not distort commensurately on the other side. B7visualanalysisNWviewcomposit.
     
    Last edited: Jul 2, 2019
  5. Jeffrey Orling

    Jeffrey Orling Active Member

    There are no decent vids from the west, south or east. I inferred the motion based on what I can see on the north side. Con Ed occupied the north and west. Look at the columns which support the moment frame
     

    Attached Files:

  6. Joe Hill

    Joe Hill Member

    This thread is about understanding the motions we can see in the early stages of perimeter frame collapse. We can see what is happening with the north and west faces. I showed what is occurring with the north face, yet you post drawings that do not reflect what is occurring, and want me to jump to what columns out of sight are doing? That's clearly off topic; what is causing the motion, rather than the motion itself. Do you not agree with the motions I have illustrated? It's important to understand these motions before moving on. Otherwise, we are speculating, and trying to make the motions fit a preconceived theory.
    Your premise is, "The movement suggests that the entire building was rotating counter clockwise when viewed from above." I showed you a good view from the west which proves that not true. The east and west halves of the perimeter frame are behaving as two separate entities, not in unison as one. When you say "the building", are you including the core structure and floors? We know from debris patterns that would not be the case, so "building" could use clarification. Let's put aside theories and speculation for a bit, and focus on understanding the motions we can see. Doing so, then answering the key questions they present, will give us much better insight to the rest. In order to help you and any readers better understand the motions observed, here is a challenge for you or anyone who wishes to participate. I've drawn the north wall overhead, then added position of the north wall at two locations post onset. Your challenge is to draw the rest of the frame, the east, west, and south walls, to fit the red line, which represents the new position of the north face. It shouldn't be difficult. You have lines of fixed length to work with. I challenge you to do this, and let us know your results. It'll be an eye opener. B7drawchallenge.
     
  7. Jeffrey Orling

    Jeffrey Orling Active Member

    The entire building was rotating... and some of it was rotating more ;=) because the NE region had lost more axial support.
     
  8. qed

    qed Senior Member

    Is this a scientific fact, or speculation? I there any evidence in the literature?
     
  9. Jeffrey Orling

    Jeffrey Orling Active Member

    No it's not fact. This is what looks like is going on to me. The notion of scientific fact about the movements is elusive.
     
    Last edited: Jul 3, 2019
    • Agree Agree x 1
  10. qed

    qed Senior Member

    @Jeffrey Orling How does introducing personal speculation, your rotating building theory, help this argument?
    • How do you expect the OP to respond to it?
    • Rotation about what axis? At what velocity? What is your null-hypothesis? Can you make predictions? And what additional mechanisms are required for your theory to be true (occam's razor)? Wouldn't explosives also account for this rotation? Etc.
    If I were the OP I would feel very frustrated with Metabunk.

    Why don't we simply refute or accept the OP argument?
     
  11. qed

    qed Senior Member

    What is your source for these statements by NIST? I am struggling to source it from NIST. In particular the text to the right of the photograph? It would be useful to make sure this is precisely what NIST claims.
     
  12. Jeffrey Orling

    Jeffrey Orling Active Member

     
  13. Joe Hill

    Joe Hill Member

    Good question. That image has been in my files for several years, and I assumed it was an accurate assessment of statements by NIST. The image likely came from
    https://sites.google.com/site/wtc7lies/ or http://911blogger.com/search/node/building 7?page=2, two sites I studied years ago, but I can't be sure, due to so many of their links now broken. I can't find that image any where else with a search.
    The accuracy or inaccuracy of the text however, does not materially affect this thread, which is about understanding early motion of Building 7 perimeter frame, for which I have found no accurate assessment. Most, research I have found suggests the north wall was pulled inward, inside it's original plane, such as this:
    topview.
    Found here: http://www.sharpprintinginc.com/911...op=view_page&PAGE_id=293&MMN_position=622:622
    That is an inaccurate assessment due to the north and south face roof lines lengthening to make it work, as well as the west half of the north face distorting far beyond what can be observed (see Panel 6 in original post).
    I would like to know NIST.s take.
     
  14. qed

    qed Senior Member

    I do not think it is the north wall that is pulled, but the column at the "kink". But I stand to be corrected if you can find a better source.

    https://www.nist.gov/pba/questions-and-answers-about-nist-wtc-7-investigation

    I also think these events took place before the frames you are analysing. Even before the penthouse fell.
     
    Last edited: Jul 3, 2019
  15. Joe Hill

    Joe Hill Member

    Again, please define "entire building". We know there was rotation, or a twisting motion in collapse of the core and floors:
    7evidence_Twisted_Steel_Barclay_AnnotatedInset2.
    The floors however, were largely disassociated with the perimeter frame when it collapsed. We know that due simply to debris patterns; floors and core piled up in the foot print with floorless perimeter panels draped on top of the pile. I agree the perimeter frame may appear to "rotate", but that is due entirely to the two "halves" falling over in two opposing directions, pulling and pushing the north face in two directions.
     
  16. qed

    qed Senior Member

    Are we talking vertical rotation, or horizontal rotation? And about what axis? I am not seeing the rotation.
     
  17. Joe Hill

    Joe Hill Member

    Well, the "column at the "kink"" is part of the north wall. Neither were "pulled" inward, if that's your meaning. The curve and subsequent kink, then breaking of the north face, was due to the east corner falling to the north of the north face original plane, as I've illustrated:
    B7drawchallenge.
     
  18. qed

    qed Senior Member

    But surely this initiating event takes place before the frames you analysed? So your analysis looks at actions much later in the fall?
     
  19. Joe Hill

    Joe Hill Member

    I agree, but that's off topic. Understanding motion of the perimeter frame, and confronting the questions it poses (see OP) however, may very well lead to a different sequence of events prior to perimeter motion.
     
  20. Jeffrey Orling

    Jeffrey Orling Active Member

    Few things... your plan showing 57 columns on the perimeter does not apply from floor 7 down

    Why does the rotation have to be about a single fixed virtual axis? In fact that is very unlikely considering that the core structures were progressively failing.. I suspect the East side core structures (not perimeter) failed first and the failures progressed westward.
     
  21. qed

    qed Senior Member

    I am trying to see what you mean by rotation, because I am failing to see rotation. Axis aside, is it vertical rotation, or horizontal rotation?
     
    Last edited: Jul 3, 2019
  22. qed

    qed Senior Member

    Because that is the definition of rotation?
    [...The single axis may slide of course...]

    So that do you mean? Precisely?

    Is the building rotating about a point moving downwards close to g, or about some other point, in which case is that point stationary? Do you mean many separate random rotations, etc?

    I am just not seeing that "the entire building was rotating".
     
    Last edited: Jul 3, 2019
  23. Jeffrey Orling

    Jeffrey Orling Active Member

    Even you diagram shows that the east side of the perimeter moved north. But as it did not separate it appears to be rotating more or less at the vertical kink... which moves north less compared to the NE corner.. It's movement is like a door with the hinge at the kink. You diagram also shows the perimeter west of the kink also moves north, but much less and its hinge is at NW side. To measure these movements with any precision several camera locations would be needed and an established bench mark. Further there is reason to suspect that the collapse was not uniform and that the eastern portions decent may have let the western portion/ Essentially this means that the motion was complex because perhaps parts of the structure held a bit longer. But the gross description is a "rotations" counter clockwise viewed from above and some manner of rotation anti clockwise when seen from the north.

    If the motion were a uniform "drop" the debris would be in symmetrical/organized pile on the footprint. It was not so it suggests rotation and or translation at the structure became undone and descended. Axial support was not arranged in an even rectangular grid and so one would expect asymmetry in the descent.. especially considering that the failures progressed east to west on the north side.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  24. Joe Hill

    Joe Hill Member

    Both video and debris patterns show the two "halves" of the perimeter frame, divided at the crimp line (which did rip apart later in collapse), fell over in straight line, opposing directions. Neither half rotated. We can see the west face, and it shows no counter clockwise rotation. Other videos show the west half took a noticeable turn to the SW when the north face ripped apart, which would be clockwise.
    B7visualanalysisNWviewcomposit.
    Again, the key to this thread is we have two halves of the perimeter frame moving quite independent of one another, while joined by the north face. That fact is evident at onset and throughout collapse. What caused the east corner to fall north, bowing the north face as it did? Why did the west half show no commensurate distortion? How is it that a four sided solid can fall over in two opposing directions? If you will follow the logic of this thread and answer the challenge I offered, to draw the rest of the trapezoid to make it fit what we can see, you will find it virtually impossible for the trapezoidal solid to move as we can see. Something is missing from this puzzle.
     
  25. Jeffrey Orling

    Jeffrey Orling Active Member

    The north moment frame WAS colinear before the event. It wasn't one the event got going. The east side has to have rotated. There is no other way the co-familiarity was destroyed. PERIOD.

    It's hard to tell that the west part of the moment frame rotated... but it's hard to believe that the rotating East part did not at the least pull the west part as it rotated.

    Why do you think there was no lateral (northward) forces on the north face? There sure were on the East side. AND it was a dynamic dismantling of the structure as it collapsed.

    We can only model how the structure came apart and how the axial forces were resolved.

    Video analysis demands stabilized images and a vertical datum

    The angle DOES change LOOK at the stills
     
  26. Joe Hill

    Joe Hill Member

    I didn't state "co-linear". I stated "co-joined".

    False. A straight line falling over of the east half easily accounts for destroying the "co-familiarity", or pushing the east half north while bowing the north face. Structural remains and debris patterns show the SE corner fell straight line as shown:
    B7visualanalysiseastdirectiongraphic.PNG
    Because the west half was leaning and fell south. The northward motion of the east half was not enough to overcome the west leaning south, and pull the west half north with it. Neither was the south leaning west enough to pull the east half with it. The two opposing forces were essentially balanced by the north wall, eventually ripping the north wall apart at the crimp.

    Because it didn't.

    This should wake you up! Ding ding. Whether you think it rotated or fell straight line, there was no commensurate distortion in the west half, and you can't pretend, or "believe" it rotated. It clearly did not. WHY?

    Not in this case. The camera did not change location laterally, and we can see the west face did not alter orientation to the camera.
     
  27. Jeffrey Orling

    Jeffrey Orling Active Member

    ding ding. north facade did not separate into two parts.
     
  28. qed

    qed Senior Member

    That is interesting. Do you have a reference for this asymmetric pile?
     
  29. Joe Hill

    Joe Hill Member

    Of course it did. How else did the east corner get across 4+ lane Barclay, 15 stories up, while the west half of the north face was falling south?
    b7fitermandamageline.
    You can see the east corner disassociate with the north face in this clip:

    via GIPHY

     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  30. qed

    qed Senior Member

    @Joe Hill

    I have read your post carefully again, and cannot see the "mistake by NIST".

    • What did NIST say that you have proven wrong?
     
  31. Joe Hill

    Joe Hill Member

    I answered already:"The accuracy or inaccuracy of the text however, does not materially affect this thread, which is about understanding early motion of Building 7 perimeter frame, for which I have found no accurate assessment. Most, research I have found suggests the north wall was pulled inward"
    The thread is NOT about proving NIST right or wrong. IF NIST postulated the north face was pulled inward, they were wrong, but thanks to your question, I do not know what NIST's stance is on that issue. If you are looking for "how NIST was wrong", you have missed the point of the thread entirely.
     
  32. qed

    qed Senior Member

    • Given that NIST does not say this, can you support this with references? Any academic papers?
    Else you are debunking your own made up claim! I cannot find this anywhere outside "truther" communities.
     
    • Informative Informative x 1
  33. Joe Hill

    Joe Hill Member

    I already addressed that too, and I'm tired of repeating myself. This thread shows the north face was not "pulled inward", but was pushed to the north by the east half falling to the north. Do you dispute that claim?
     
  34. deirdre

    deirdre Moderator Staff Member

    I changed the OP to read "911 Truthers postulate"... be sure to hit the report button if you see mistakes like that!
     
    • Like Like x 1
  35. qed

    qed Senior Member

    While I have not studied the OP debunk in detail, I must note that if the OP's claim is that the building fell straight down, then it is strongly supported by the theory of gravity. So I can only agree that this is debunked.
     
    Last edited: Jul 4, 2019
  36. Joe Hill

    Joe Hill Member

    I've debated hundreds of "truthers", read a lot of their material, and have never seen that claim made by them. I did state in the OP, "I have reviewed much of the Building 7 content on this forum, and have found a few references of concurrence, but no discussion to the contrary." I unfortunately did not save those references from this forum in order to be able to quote them. It is fact however, that there has been no discussion about this topic, which is an important one. Instead of making a statement I do not know is true, "Truthers postulate...", may we change it to, "In the event it is assumed the north face was pulled inward..."?
     
  37. deirdre

    deirdre Moderator Staff Member

    no. the evidence of the claim you provided is a truther photo. not a NIST quote as you are claiming.
     
    Last edited: Jul 4, 2019
    • Agree Agree x 1
  38. Joe Hill

    Joe Hill Member

    Please cite where OP claims the building fell straight down.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  39. qed

    qed Senior Member

    Sorry if I misunderstood you. I have changed it to "if the OP's claim is that..."

    [... Honestly, the reason why I thought you were claiming this was the title of the thread "Debunked: "The North Face of Building 7 Was Pulled Inward" ...]
     
    Last edited: Jul 4, 2019
  40. deirdre

    deirdre Moderator Staff Member

    • Informative Informative x 2