Discussion in '9/11' started by Joe Hill, Jul 1, 2019.
Ok, that works well. Don't know how you found the original, but thanks.
I typed some of the text into google search.
heres the full pdf... where did you get the screen grab from?
I don't know; it's been in my files from years ago, and I embarrassingly assumed it was an accurate take by NIST. I still don't know that it was or wasn't.
hes a NYC fire chief. the book came out in 2006.
which I think, but don't quote me, was prior to the release of the NIST report?
One such reference of concurrence:
Found here: https://www.metabunk.org/wtc7-penthouse-falling-window-wave.t9398/
You don't have to justify any "debunk" if you have a claim of evidence. The only issue was that you said it was NIST who made the claim. And we now know it wasn't. So it's all good.
That screen grab in the OP is confusing and does make it look as if NIST perhaps was making the claim (although NIST doesn't really talk that way ) .
(and i'm only putting debunk there in quotes because I have no idea what you guys are talking about, so I personally have no idea if the claim was actually debunked or not. I'll assume it is since everyone so far seems to agree.)
It makes no sense that the west portion of the north facade including the curtain wall and the moment frame it was attached to... was pulled uniformly south toward the core. The visual record does not support this. What it does support is that the NE quadrant became detached structurally from the core and was pushed northward causing the moment frame and the curtain wall the "break"/ fold at the boundary between the initial failure of the eastern quadrant and the building to the West. This movement clearly involved a lateral component and may involved asymmetrical loss of axial support of the east quadrant. If one leg is removed from a four legged table, if the table falls toward the lost leg and would show lateral movement or twisting/rotation.
Please provide the evidence for your claim that the debris did not form a "symmetrical/organized pile on the footprint"?
What structure did it form?
I don't have the photographic evidence you are after. But I believe that the debris fell north and damaged Fitterman Hall much more than the two buildings to the East and West which were much closer to 7wtc. I suspect there are aerial photos which show this.
Most north, little east or west, what about south?
Please can you briefly sketch or describe the key asymmetry in the debris pattern, so that we can see why it "suggests rotation and or translation at the structure became undone and descended". In particular, what would we see different if the building did not rotate slightly?
I can't satisfy your question. I suggest you study the structure of the building from the ground up and not that it was far from "symmetrical" including the fact that it was build over the Con Ed sub station and was a trapezoidal shape. The EPH contained additional large asymmetrical loads to the east side of the plan. Much of the north moment frame was supported by cantilever girders which may account for the building's asymmetrical collapse favoring the North. The south side which was much shorter than the north also had a multi story column free interior volume on the south side.
The loads were asymmetrical... and the structure was asymmetrical as well!... and of course the failures were asymmetrical from the get go.
What about just briefly sketching or describing the key asymmetry in the debris pattern (that suggests to you that the building must have rotated)?
If the debris favored the north and east.... the east side of the north facade moved north.. THAT is the asymmetry showing it was not collapse straight down onto its footprint.
More to the north than the south, and, more to the east than the west?
What sort of differences are we talking, meters, 100 meters?
This thread is about if the north face of WTC7 was "pulled in" or not. Please stay on topic.
And I strongly encourage people to use diagrams and/or photos when making claims related to this topic. Verbal descriptions of complex 3D events can easily be misunderstood.
This is largely true, but a narrative can assist in explaining the development/progression over time. An animation is powerful but not something most people can create.
He said diagrams or photos. just draw it on a piece of paper and take a photo of it.
how do you draw time?
This may help:
The east wall is easily identifiable due to the granite between each window, not a feature of the north and south walls. Note the SE corner has made a near straight line, bisecting the SE angle near perfect; a straight line collapse by falling over to the north.
The south wall is laying east/west across the south side of the pile:
This confirms a collapse angle as shown previously, which is a straight line over to the north of the entire east half of the structure:
Hope this helps.
Editorial afterthought: To the best of my knowledge, NIST never correctly identified this initial movement of the perimeter frame. I am researching to confirm.
Do you have images like the first two but taken from and showing the other side?
This will help show if there is anything special about what we are seeing here.
It didn't bend.... it folded. Diagram is inaccurate.
Aerial looking east down Vesey Street shows south wall east/west across the pile, as well as debris piled up across Vesey Street from the west half of Building 7 falling south:
Aerial from the south shows the south wall east/west across the pile and the remains of the SE corner:
The north wall folded later in collapse. The north wall is bending, bowing at onset and the first few floors of descent. The diagram is an accurate depiction at onset.
Do you have a reference, or is that your opinion?
Separate names with a comma.