"100 Critical Points About 9/11 "

[Mick West]

Mick... the people at NIST themselves after much gymnastics admitted free-fall was in play for at least part of the collapse of WTC7.
Free-fall means zero structural resistance.
Fires possibly weakening local parts of the steel structure can't be responsible for sudden total structural failure no matter how much pimped 3D models NIST produces.
There had to be other forces at play responsible for the sudden total failure of the building's structural integrity.

Very true, if there was a "sudden total failure"

Are you at all familiar with what happened to the Penthouse? At what point after the "sudden total failure" began did the penthouse fall?

 

[hiper]

Very true, if there was a "sudden total failure"

Are you at all familiar with what happened to the Penthouse? At what point after the "sudden total failure" began did the penthouse fall?

NIST's model is absurd. Do we have to believe the whole steel structure imploded and seconds later the 'shell' of the building followed suit?

 

[Mick West]

NIST's model is absurd. Do we have to believe the whole steel structure imploded and seconds later the 'shell' of the building followed suit?

That's sure what it looks like in the videos, does it not?

Why else would the penthouse fall though the building?

 

[hiper]

That's sure what it looks like in the videos, does it not?

Why else would the penthouse fall though the building?

So the 'shell' stays upright for some seconds while everything inside implodes...and all this magic solely because of fire.
It seems I have finally arrived in the twilight zone.

 

[Met Watch]

So the 'shell' stays upright for some seconds while everything inside implodes...and all this magic solely because of fire.
It seems I have finally arrived in the twilight zone.

Why are you ignoring the damage WTC 7 sustained when part of Twin Towers fell on it?

 

[Mick West]

So the 'shell' stays upright for some seconds while everything inside implodes...and all this magic solely because of fire.
It seems I have finally arrived in the twilight zone.

I'm not sure what your objection is. Clearly the insides of the building collapsed first. Agreed?

 

[hiper]

I'm not sure what your objection is. Clearly the insides of the building collapsed first. Agreed?

The penthouse collapsing doesn't imply that the entire steel structure under it was failing.
If the steel structure under the penthouse had collapsed like you say the facade of that part of the structure would have collapsed to.
You and NIST make it sound like the facade of the building is somehow disconnected form the steel structure by design.
The facade is obviously totally connected to and an integral part of the steel structure so that any failure of the latter would simultaneously affect the former.
This again is NIST pimping their model to fit the preset collapse by fire conclusion.

 

[Mick West]

The penthouse collapsing doesn't imply that the entire steel structure under it was failing.
If the steel structure under the penthouse had collapsed like you say the facade of that part of the structure would have collapsed to.
You and NIST make it sound like the facade of the building is somehow disconnected form the steel structure by design.
The facade is obviously totally connected to and an integral part of the steel structure so that any failure of the latter would simultaneously affect the former.
This again is NIST pimping their model to fit the preset collapse by fire conclusion.

Here I've isolated just the bit of the video where the penthouse starts to fall. Look at the front of the building under the penthouse, all the way down (as far ay ou can see). Notice the disruption, just in that area.

Clearly something is happening on every floor under the penthouse. The thing that fits this best is a failure of column 79.

Can you explain what you think is happening in terms of it being a controlled demolition?

 

[Mick West]

I'd recommend downloading the video, then making it as big as possible, and scrubbing back and forth over various sections. You can really see what's going on:View attachment 3111

 

[mynym]

I'd suggest that he wrote it with "compelling" as the goal.

But what we are concerned with is accuracy, not skill in rhetoric. Can you point to some precise points that he claims NIST got wrong? Preferably something with numbers.

By the same token I'd suggest that NIST wrote their reports with their careers and donuts as the goal.

I'm not sure which is more compelling, the imaginary furnaces of fire apparently fueled by office furniture or the relatively symmetrical aspects of what seemed to be free fall. So here are his claims with respect to free fall:

...common arguments for the controlled demolition of 7 has been based on the observation that its downward acceleration approximated that of a free-falling object. This could have happened, critics of the official account have pointed out, only if explosives of some sort had removed all of the buildings structural columns. Otherwise, even if the upper part of the building had started to come down, the lower part would have stopped or at least slowed down its descent. NIST's Draft for Public Comment: In its Draft for Public Comment, which was issued on August 21, 2008, NIST countered this argument by claiming that the time that it took WTC 7 to collapse shows that it was not falling freely. NIST wrote:

The time the roof line took to fall 18 stories was 5.4 s[econds].... Thus, the actual time for the upper 18 floors of the north face to (Apse, based on video evidence, was approximately 40 percent longer than the computed free fall time and was consistent with physical principles.

6) NIST repeated this claim in a Q and A document ("Questions and Answers about the NIST WTC 7 Investigation"), which was issued the same day as the Draft Report.

One of the questions was: in videos, it appears that WTC 7 is descending in free fall, something that would not occur in the structural collapse that you describe. How can you ignore basic laws of physics?

NIST gave the following answer (in a document that has since been removed from its website):

WTC 7 did not enter free fall. According to NIST analysis of WTC 7 video, the building collapsed 18 stories in 5.3 seconds [sic: NIST usually said 5.4 seconds]. if the building exhibited free fall, this " would have taken just 3.9 seconds. The actual collapse time exceeded the free fall time by 40 percent."

To say "the actual collapse time exceeded free fall time by 40 percent" was to say that the building's acceleration was only 51 percent of that of gravity. Even that would have been an incredibly fast descent in a fire-induced collapse (if such were possible). But by saying that the building's acceleration was only 51 percent of that of a free-falling object, NIST was at least able to contradict the widespread claim that it had come down in free fall.
In his technical briefing on August 26, 2008, NIST's lead investigator, Shyam Sunder, explained why WTC 7 could not have come down in free fall:

[A] free fall time would be an object that has no structural components below it.... What the... collapse analysis shows, is that same time [sic] that it took for the structural model to come down from the roof line all the way—for those 17 floors to disappear--is 5.4 seconds. It's about 1.5 seconds, or roughly 40 percent, more time for that free fall to happen [sic]. And that is not at all unusual, because there was structural resistance that was provided in this particular case. And you had a sequence of structural failures that had to take place. Everything was not instantaneous.

Sunder thereby summarized the two main reasons even if he did not clearly distinguish between them—why NIST could not endorse the idea that WTC 7 had come down in free fall. (1) The upper floors could not have come down in free fall, because that could have happened only if nothing of the lower floors had remained to provide structural resistance. And (2) the collapse could not have been "instantaneous," meaning that all of the supporting columns had failed simultaneously, because NIST espoused a theory of "progressive collapse," in which the failures occurred sequentially over a period of time.

David Chandler's Response to MST's Draft Report: Sunder's statement at the technical briefing, quoted above, was made in response to the following question from high-school physics teacher David Chandler:

Any number of competent measurements using a variety of methods indicate the northwest corner of WTC 7 fell with an acceleration within a few percent of the acceleration of gravity. Yet your report contradicts this, claiming 40 percent slower than free can such a publicly visible, easily measurable quantity be set aside.6'

[Skipping ahead...] [....]
NIST'S Final Report on WTC 7: In its final Report, NIST still uses the early start time, thereby claiming that the upper 18 floors took 5.4 seconds to collapse. It also continues to use the average descent rate. NIST can thereby continue saying that the building took 40 percent lon than free-fall time to collapse. All of these elements are contained in the following summary statement:

The time that the roofline took to fall 18 stories... was approximately 5.4 s[econds]. The theoretical time for free fall was approximately 3.9 s[econds]. Thus, the average time for the upper 18 stories to collapse, based on video evidence,.., was approximately 40 percent longer than the computed free fall time.

Within this unchanged framework, however, NIST goes beyond its former approach by dividing this 5.4-second period into three stages, in which it acknowledges the point on which Chandler had been insisting. After repeating the claim that the descent time of the upper 18 stories "was 40 percent greater than the computed free fall time," NIST says on page 607 of the long version of its Final Report:

A more detailed analysis of the descent of the north face found three stages: (1) a slow descent with acceleration less than that of gravity that corresponded to the buckling of the exterior columns at the lower floors, (2) a free-fall descent over approximately eight stories at gravitational acceleration for approximately 2.25 s[econds], and (3) a decreasing acceleration as the north face encountered resistance from the structure below.77 Although this is stated matter-of-factly, as if nothing extraordinary were being said, NIST's three-phase analysis includes, in Chandlers words, "a whopping 2.25 seconds of absolute free fall."

NIST has thereby contradicted its claim.... that "WTC 7 did not enter free fall." It now acknowledges that WTC 7 not only entered free fall but remained in it for 2.25 seconds which means that, for over two lower floors of the building were offering zero resistance.
NIST also admits this point in an updated version of its Q & A.... This is, of course, exactly what Sunder in his technical briefing of August 2008 had said could not have occurred.

(The Mysterious Collapse of WTC 7 by David Griffin :231-235)

 

[mynym]

Can you explain what you think is happening in terms of it being a controlled demolition?

Can you explain, according to your imagination, how the failure of a column would result in the observation of a symmetrical descent at speeds approaching free fall along the rest of the roof line also?

I suspect that I'm supposed to imagine the rest of the building behind there falling down first and then, suddenly, the front goes down. But as far as evidence that can actually be observed, as opposed to simulated or imagined... well... I'm not sure what to make of it.

 

[mynym]

I'm watching that video. If Mick is right... then whoever designed WTC 7 is, apparently, terrible at their job. They're not still designing buildings, are they? Because this was supposed to be an emergency management center, a secure government building and so forth. But then it collapses due to an antennae from the other towers falling on it? (In theory... hypothetically.... or in someone's imagination until lucky Larry Silverstien confirms it as an official report, I suppose.)

Think about it this way, the architects and engineers who question the official story do so at the risk of losing contracts and so forth. But where is the person who actually designed this thing, if it falls down when an antennae or debris hits it and so on?

 

[hiper]

Here I've isolated just the bit of the video where the penthouse starts to fall. Look at the front of the building under the penthouse, all the way down (as far ay you can see). Notice the disruption, just in that area.

Yes there is some disruption but we don't see the facade of the building under the penthouse collapsing which implies the steel structure was obviously not totally collapsing like in the NIST model.

Can you explain what you think is happening in terms of it being a controlled demolition?

What is happening is not due to some fires that have 'weakened' a local part of the building and that ultimately take it down in it's entirety.

What I am saying is that NIST's model is not what physically happened to WTC 7. NIST's model of WTC 7 is what they want people to believe happened to WTC 7.

 

[Mick West]

So why exactly do you think that the 2.25 seconds of near free-fall descent acceleration is inconsistent with the described collapse? Look at what NIST says again:

A more detailed analysis of the descent of the north face found three stages:
(1) a slow descent with acceleration less than that of gravity that corresponded to the buckling of the exterior columns at the lower floors,
(2) a free-fall descent over approximately eight stories at gravitational acceleration for approximately 2.25 s[econds], and
(3) a decreasing acceleration as the north face encountered resistance from the structure below.

The interior is mostly gone, removing all the lateral support of the exterior. Then once the exterior columns have buckled, then offer almost no resistance to the hundreds of tons that they once supported. Hence you get a portion of the collapse that is near free-fall.

Try this experiment (NOT TO SCALE, PRINCIPLE ILLUSTRATION ONLY). Take an soda can. Carefully stand on it with one foot, then with the other foot push in the side of the can. It will buckle, and then nearly instantly collapse, then slow down as it gets compressed at the bottom.

I'm going to try filming this. See you later.

 

[hiper]

So why exactly do you think that the 2.25 seconds of near free-fall descent acceleration is inconsistent with the described collapse?

Free-fall is happening over the entire length of the building. Possible local weakening on one side can't make the structure on the other side totally fail also.

 

[Mick West]

Yes there is some disruption but we don't see the facade of the building under the penthouse collapsing which implies the steel structure was obviously not totally collapsing like in the NIST model.

Why does it imply that? The exterior of the building was supported by columns in the exterior of the building. They need lateral support to not collapse, but it's not necessarily instant. It's not as if the outside of the building was leaning against the inside. The outside supported itself.

 

[Jazzy]

Can you explain, according to your imagination, how the failure of a column would result in the observation of a symmetrical descent at speeds approaching free fall along the rest of the roof line also?

I suspect that I'm supposed to imagine the rest of the building behind there falling down first and then, suddenly, the front goes down. But as far as evidence that can actually be observed, as opposed to simulated or imagined... well... I'm not sure what to make of it.

Not much imagination required, I'm afraid. Just a bit of knowledge.

If all you had were to be an intact WTC7, and all you did was remove the lateral restraints on that column from THREE floors, that column would SIT DOWN* immediately, even if cold. It was quite possible for a single dropping floor to snap the connections on impacting the next floor down. Once that happened, column 79 had ONE NINTH of its former load-carrying capacity. The destruction of the third successive floor connection would put even an intact building beyond its limits.

[video=youtube_share;3_U_cDK3Ma4]http://youtu.be/3_U_cDK3Ma4[/video]

See - Not much imagination required, I'm afraid. Just some engineering understanding.

And once that was away, the whole center of the building was a house of cards. The fascia had edge stiffeners which resisted some of the inwards drag of the falling interior, but finally overloaded itself and failed in buckling en masse about a third the way up. But by then the penthouse had gone before.

* Fall at a significant proportion of G. Approximating the truther idea of "free fall". Buckling failure, as it was in the towers, was catastrophic. There was insufficient redundancy in all three cases to withstand the consequences of the initial failure. They were ALL slender column/long-span beam structures which pushed the very limits of civil engineering, and were therefore exceptionally weak in those specific circumstances.

 

[Mick West]

Try this experiment (NOT TO SCALE, PRINCIPLE ILLUSTRATION ONLY). Take an soda can. Carefully stand on it with one foot, then with the other foot push in the side of the can. It will buckle, and then nearly instantly collapse, then slow down as it gets compressed at the bottom.

I'm going to try filming this. See you later.

Here you go

Filmed in 1/8th slow motion (240 fps, played back at 30 fps)

Here's the raw video if you want to frame-by-frame it

https://www.metabunk.org/files/CAN_CRUSH.mov

And a higher resolution video from another angle:

https://www.metabunk.org/files/CAN_CRUSH_LARGE.mov

 

[hiper]

Why does it imply that? The exterior of the building was supported by columns in the exterior of the building. They need lateral support to not collapse, but it's not necessarily instant. It's not as if the outside of the building was leaning against the inside. The outside supported itself.

In their model the entire steel structure under the penthouse collapses... if it had done so in reality it would have taken the facade with it. This did not happen.

The outside supported itself.

No Mick the facade is not magically disconnected and self supporting... it's NIST's pimping & tweaking of their model that makes this possible.

 

[JRBids]

I'm not sure which is more compelling, the imaginary furnaces of fire

You think the fire was imaginary? What's all the smoke?

 

[JRBids]

In their model the entire steel structure under the penthouse collapses... if it had done so in reality it would have taken the facade with it. This did not happen.

In your IMAGINARY SCENARIO, that is what would happen.

 

[Jazzy]

Free-fall is happening over the entire length of the building. Possible local weakening on one side can't make the structure on the other side totally fail also.

Well, it could do that because the steelwork was connected right across each floor. Steel structures are designed to spread their loads if possible. (But not designed to do that very well when the columns are slender and the beams long in span).

 

[Mick West]

No Mick the facade is not magically disconnected and self supporting...

The weight of the facade is supported by the facade columns. However it needs to be rigid.

When the interior columns collapse, that just left the exterior without rigidity, and as you can see from the video it twisted a bit, then buckled and collapsed. Just like my can did.

 

[Mick West]

Don't try this one at home kids!

Here I was trying to illustrate how buckling at the bottom of a column can bring the entire thing down, and how part of that collapse will have so little resistance that it will be essentially free fall.

Of course this is a far from perfect physical analogy. Factors of scale confound an easy demonstration, but the principles being demonstrate are:

A stable structure can support a lot of weight. Here a can supports around 150 pounds (part of my weight being taken by a chair).
It needs to be vertical to do this
When it buckles, it can hardly support any weight at all

 

[MikeC]

You can show that principle with a simple drinking straw (the kind that does not have built in bends!!) - put it vertically on a flat surface and push down on the higher end - it can take a lot of weight for what it is - but put a small dent in it half way down and it instantly collapses.

 

[Mick West]

Made a video of the above demonstrations:

​

 

[Oxymoron]

Well no wonder you think "they" blew it up, if you believe that all that happened to WTC7 was that dust fell on it.

So what.

The rest of us understand that at least seventy tons of WTC1 steelwork hit WTC7 at 120 mph. That's like a passenger train running into a terminus at full speed.

NIST said it was of no impact on collapse.

To remind you, column 79 failed because it lost its lateral support. Columns rely on their lateral supports, and will fail instantly by buckling instability when they are removed, even when cold.

All at once inc the concrete floor. Absolutely amazing.

[...]

In science, buckling is a mathematical instability, leading to a failure mode. Theoretically, buckling is caused by a bifurcation in the solution to the equations of static equilibrium. At a certain stage under an increasing load, further load is able to be sustained in one of two states of equilibrium: an undeformed state or a laterally-deformed state.
In practice, buckling is characterized by a sudden failure of a structural member subjected to high compressive stress, where the actual compressive stress at the point of failure is less than the ultimate compressive stresses that the material is capable of withstanding. For example, during earthquakes, reinforced concrete members may experience lateral deformation of the longitudinal reinforcing bars. This mode of failure is also described as failure due to elastic instability. Mathematical analysis of buckling makes use of an axial load eccentricity that introduces a moment, which does not form part of the primary forces to which the member is subjected. When load is constantly being applied on a member, such as column, it will ultimately become large enough to cause the member to become unstable. Further load will cause significant and somewhat unpredictable deformations, possibly leading to complete loss of load-carrying capacity. The member is said to have buckled, to have deformed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buckling#Flutter_instability

None of which is relevant [...]

When a slender column fails in compression by buckling, free fall is its only option. And all the columns throughout the WTC were "slender", in civil engineering usage.

[...]

[...]
I don't know how you get away with it. Must be double standards.

 

[Mick West]

[...]

I don't know how you get away with it.

You might have noticed that Jazzy was banned for a week last week?

If you find a post impolite, then report it, and it will be dealt with.

Back to science.

 

[Mick West]

NIST said it was of no impact on collapse.

No sure what you mean there. See pages 130 to 187 of NCStar 1-9 which goes into vast detail about the damage from WTC1.

https://www.metabunk.org/files/NCSTAR_1-9_WTC7_unlocked.pdf

The imagery of the collapse of WTC 1 indicates that the vast majority of debris fell relatively close to thetower and did not impact WTC 7 directly. However, there were at least a few substantial pieces of the
exterior steel frame that were expelled far enough to impact the south side of WTC 7. A substantial
amount of dust and small debris is likely to have struck the south face.

5.5.3 Summary of Debris Damage to WTC 7 Based on Visual Data
WTC 7 suffered structural damage to its southwest quadrant due to heavy debris falling from WTC 1
during its collapse. Most of the damage was on the south face. It is possible that some additional interior
damage occurred, since portions of the face were hidden by smoke or nearby buildings. Damage to the
west face primarily occurred along the southern edge. The north and east faces apparently did not sustain
damage that could be detected visually.

 

[mynym]

Not much imagination required, I'm afraid. Just a bit of knowledge.

So where did the architects and engineers that built WTC 7 graduate from? Because apparently they lacked basic knowledge.

It was quite possible for a single dropping floor to snap the connections on impacting the next floor down.

I suppose that's what one would have to imagine. Although, it is curious that what was observed was a descent that reached free fall speeds. So it would seem that even those imaginary impacts on the next floor down didn't do much after our simulation/imagination of a "progressive collapse" begins. (This is where Mick's soda can comes in, I'd imagine. Imagining things is usually fun... that's why I do it all the time. But then it's time for Occam's razor to trim back the bunk, too.)

And once that was away, the whole center of the building was a house of cards. The fascia had edge stiffeners which resisted some of the inwards drag of the falling interior, but finally overloaded itself and failed in buckling en masse about a third the way up.

That's a lot of imaginary buckling. Maybe it's so. Did they save all the buckled steel and investigate how it buckled so that the incompetent engineers that built it (who apparently needed "just a bit of knowledge") wouldn't design a building that way again?

But by then the penthouse had gone before.

I would note that this is the only observable evidence that you've provided for your imaginary scenario so far.

With respect to my imaginary scenarios that justify going with the most likely hypothesis in the case of WTC 7 instead of trying to invent what would seem to be an unprecedented event... there's actually a lot of evidence surrounding them. For an overview, see: (9/11 Synthetic Terror: Made in USA by Webster Tarpley) E.g., all the drills that were going on that day of another joint operation are standard operating procedure, while the false flag aspect to it has been used for centuries. In other words, WTC 7 is part of a larger picture that actually has precedent rooted in strong forms of evidence... unlike steel frame buildings collapsing at free fall speeds due to office fires and so forth. I'm all for science fairs... building models out of toothpicks, imagining things or running imaginary events through computers between doughnut breaks and so forth. But you have to look at the overall pattern of evidence and begin with investigating the most likely hypothesis to build up a theory for an event by imagining things in a way that's based on all possible lines of evidence too. I would note that if you know a conclusion in advance, whether "by standing order" or by normalcy bias and epistemic intertia then in some cases you may find yourself trying to include too much imaginary evidence to actually explain away observable evidence. (Or find yourself trying to use too many imaginary simulations and so forth.... although, I'm all for getting out some toothpicks and soda cans. The only thing about that is, I wonder why the people who were paid to design and build the building weren't aware that they shouldn't build it like a soda can, etc.)

 

[mynym]

You think the fire was imaginary? What's all the smoke?

Not at all. My imaginary scenario is that people went into the building and set more fires after the initial explosions and so forth that Barry Jennings reported. But that's just me. And I'm probably imagining things based on evidence that you probably know nothing about. Imagine that.

Anyway, back on the topic of free fall:

In his technical briefing on August 26, 2008, NIST's lead investigator, Shyam Sunder, explained why WTC 7 could not have come down in free fall:

[A] free fall time would be an object that has no structural components below it.... What the... collapse analysis shows, is that same time [sic] that it took for the structural model to come down from the roof line all the way—for those 17 floors to disappear--is 5.4 seconds. It's about 1.5 seconds, or roughly 40 percent, more time for that free fall to happen [sic]. And that is not at all unusual, because there was structural resistance that was provided in this particular case. And you had a sequence of structural failures that had to take place. Everything was not instantaneous.

[....]
[Vs...]
NIST has thereby contradicted its claim.... that "WTC 7 did not enter free fall." It now acknowledges that WTC 7 not only entered free fall but remained in it for 2.25 seconds which means that, for over two lower floors of the building were offering zero resistance.
NIST also admits this point in an updated version of its Q & A.... This is, of course, exactly what Sunder in his technical briefing of August 2008 had said could not have occurred. (The Mysterious Collapse of WTC 7 by David Griffin :235)

How did they miss the fact that WTC entered free fall or speeds approximating it in the first place? Apparently they needed a high school physics teacher to take the time to point that out to them. Is NIST as apparently incompetent as the engineers that built WTC 7 in the first place? (Those that designed and built it didn't have soda cans on the job to model buckling, I'd imagine. But now they do... I would hope. I mean, we're not going up into tall buildings that could collapse out from underneath us at free fall speeds if there are office fires fueled by highly flammable pens and so forth below, right? I wonder how many people here have climbed steel, bolted it together, etc. I think if more had then they might be less likely to imagine things about it. But that's probably just me.)

 

[mynym]

Back to science.

I realize that you have to use a model to illustrate a principle and so forth. But in the end it would seem that you have to be saying that the architects and engineers that built WTC 7 built it like a soda can, otherwise your model has little to do with anything.

So is that what you're saying, that they built an emergency management center and secure government building so that it was in some way like a soda can?

Because if you're right then I hope they're not still building other buildings between doughnut breaks. I can research this on my own... but anyone know who built this thing? (I mean, we all have to go the way of the Dodo but it seems to me that there's no reason to do it as quickly as possible.)

 

[Oxymoron]

No sure what you mean there. See pages 130 to 187 of NCStar 1-9 which goes into vast detail about the damage from WTC1.

https://www.metabunk.org/files/NCSTAR_1-9_WTC7_unlocked.pdf

The imagery of the collapse of WTC 1 indicates that the vast majority of debris fell relatively close to thetower and did not impact WTC 7 directly. However, there were at least a few substantial pieces of the
exterior steel frame that were expelled far enough to impact the south side of WTC 7. A substantial
amount of dust and small debris is likely to have struck the south face.

5.5.3 Summary of Debris Damage to WTC 7 Based on Visual Data
WTC 7 suffered structural damage to its southwest quadrant due to heavy debris falling from WTC 1
during its collapse. Most of the damage was on the south face. It is possible that some additional interior
damage occurred, since portions of the face were hidden by smoke or nearby buildings. Damage to the
west face primarily occurred along the southern edge. The north and east faces apparently did not sustain
damage that could be detected visually.

Well that does look impressive with all the different colours etc but let's look at what damage was actually done.

Green. No visible damage. Ok, just because it is not visible does not preclude it's existence but is it likely?

Red for danger = 'Possible' structural damage. A very small area. Even if that area were to collapse, it should be localised and not a uniform instant collapse of the whole.

Yellow = Windows broken. A large area in the diagram which is not borne out by photographic evidence.

Blue = Not visible. Not sure exactly what this means but anyway, the blue and yellow and green account for the vast majority of the diagram and under no reasonable rationale can they be considered as structurally damaged from that diagram.

Where is the absolutely massive steel core in this pic which should have survived? Why should the much weaker perimeter survive whilst the centre evaporates?

No fires or collapse here despite the blown out windows:

Damage Claims Versus Symmetric Collapse

Even if one accepts all of NIST's claims about extensive structural damage to WTC 7, and its claims about fires on several different floors, its collapse scenario is not remotely plausible. The alleged damage was asymmetric, confined to the tower's south side, and any weakening of the steelwork from fire exposure would also be asymmetric. Thus, even if the damage were sufficient to cause the whole building to collapse, it would have fallen over asymmetrically -- toward the south. But WTC 7 fell straight down, into its footprint.

http://www.wtc7.net/damageclaims.html

 

[BombDr]

I see a roof line falling straight down at what seem to be free fall speeds.

I don't see a building falling at free-fall speed so guess we need to disagree. What other direction would you suggest it fall? In any event, explosives are not the only wany to make buildings fall, as they discovered recently in Bangladesh.

This is imaginary or hypothetical, on all sides. But they wouldn't need to fire proof their charges if they were going into the building to clean up the mess from its failure to collapse earlier in the day when the entire area was covered in dust from the fall of the first two towers and so forth. Of another hypothetical, track how long it would have taken the plane that went down in PA to get there and use that as an estimate for when the building was supposed to collapse.

WTC 7 collapsed seven hours after tower two. Are you suggesting that United 93 was going to circle for 8+ hours and then strike the building?

Are you suggesting a demolition crew was standing by with the exact amount of explosives and charges, predicting some of 'their' planes would fail to reach their targets, ran into a burning building, placed several tonnes of explosives in the exact right spots, in record time, none of which caught fire nor made a sound, while the whole time the fire department and every news crew in NY is watching? Is that your theory?

In any case, you wouldn't need fire proof explosives if you were the people setting the fires in order to provide cover for the collapse of a building. Although, in theory, it probably wouldn't really matter given the epistemic inertia that most Americans have in such matters and as stupid as Team America, World Police usually is.

So your theory is now that the fires were actually arson? I have not heard this theory before, please explain it to me in more detail.

That seems to be an argument based on personal credulity.

I do not understand that answer, could you re-phrase please.

The reason that the hypothesis of structural collapse due to "weakened steel" in this case is because the whole roof line headed toward the ground in a relatively symmetrical way into essentially its own footprint at what seem to be free fall speeds.

Again, it did not fall at free-fall speed and like all structures, if its integrity is compromised, it only has one direction to go.

From your link: [/SIZE]

Well, it sounds like they're going to do better than NIST already.

It was suggested a firework started the fire, not an RPG. Anyway, fire on steel = collapse.

 

[BombDr]

I think you might need a computer simulation of his imagination in order to see where he's coming from if he's getting his ideas about it from NIST. I'm curious, who ultimately ran the investigation and/or looked the families in the eyes and told them about how all the buildings generally collapsed due to fires and so forth?

Very emotive. Let's stick to facts.

 

[BombDr]

I had already read the FAQ that you linked to.

So what was Barry Jennings talking about when he reported an explosion and being blasted backward and so forth? (If only he could have built himself a little model out of toothpicks and donuts there and then, maybe he could have denied what happened based on imagining that it hadn't just happened. It's all just symbolic and modeling things, until it isn't.)

I can research this on my own but who, exactly, is responsible for the """"NIST"""" report? (I would note that, in the end... "I was only following orders." or "I was just a part of a bureaucratic system." may not cut it for those who collaborated to create these types of reports. It depends on what people think may happen within their lifespans, I guess. Because some of this stuff is apparently set to be declassified around 2030, as I recall. I'm just going off of memory, though.)

What was Barry Jenning's experience of explosions prior to 911? What is yours? Please define what an explosion means to you.

 

[Jazzy]

they lacked basic knowledge

Foreknowledge of the building being struck by a collapsing WTC1, which destroyed the mains water supply?

what was observed was a descent that reached free fall speeds

I didn't know free fall had a speed.

who apparently needed "just a bit of knowledge") wouldn't design a building that way again?

They needed that particular foreknowledge. I believe that that sort of "foreknowledge" cannot exist. The law of causaiity and the arrow of time preclude it..

what would seem to be an unprecedented event

That's hardly true. Column instability has 250 years of precedence.

I'm all for science fairs

That's nice to hear.

 

[mynym]

I don't see a building falling at free-fall speed so guess we need to disagree. What other direction would you suggest it fall? In any event, explosives are not the only wany to make buildings fall, as they discovered recently in Bangladesh.

Here is a good overview of the claims about free fall:
​

This video tracks the motion of the NW corner of Building 7 of the World Trade Center on 9/11 2001. The building was in freefall for a period of ~2.5 seconds. This means it was falling through itself for over 100 feet with zero resistance, an impossibility in any natural scenario. This period of freefall is solid evidence that explosives had to be used to bring the building down. In the final draft for public comment (August 2008) NIST denied that WTC7 fell at freefall. In the final report in Nov 2008 they reversed themselves and admitted freefall, but denied its obvious significance.
-----
[The WTC7 series has elicited a number of questions from people unclear on the details of how I did the measurements, compared to how NIST did them and how the representatives of NIST described their measurements. I have therefore created a WTC7 Measurement FAQ page: http://www.911speakout.org/WTC7-Measu... . I will also use this FAQ as a place of reference for other questions that arise as well.]

WTC 7 collapsed seven hours after tower two. Are you suggesting that United 93 was going to circle for 8+ hours and then strike the building?

No, I was suggesting or imagining that perhaps the plans of the conspirators didn't go according to plan and that even with all the compartmentalization and "fall back" plans for failure and cover up typical to some conspiracies things would still be likely to go wrong. As far as WTC 7 goes, I'm not sure what happened from the perspective of the conspirators. What do you suppose happened according to the official conspiracy theory with respect to the flight that ended up in the field in PA? I.e... where did the Muslim conspirators have it headed before something went wrong with their plan and so on and so forth? If it was headed toward the White House then that might make sense. Because then they would have had the economic center hit, the military hit and the final hit would have been the White House. Would that make sense according to how you're imagining a conspiracy theory having to do with Muslims, Bin Laden and so forth?

Are you suggesting a demolition crew was standing by with the exact amount of explosives and charges, predicting some of 'their' planes would fail to reach their targets, ran into a burning building, placed several tonnes of explosives in the exact right spots, in record time, none of which caught fire nor made a sound, while the whole time the fire department and every news crew in NY is watching? Is that your theory?

Not at all. I'm still working on a theory. But I'd tend to trust the dog that apparently thought it smelled explosives given that it seems like we aren't in Kansas anymore after operation cyclone in Afghanistan and so forth.

Operation Cyclone was the code name for the United States Central Intelligence Agency program to arm and finance the Afghan mujahideen prior to and during the Soviet war in Afghanistan, 1979 to 1989. The program leaned heavily towards supporting militant Islamic groups that were favored by neighboring Pakistan, rather than other, less ideological Afghan resistance groups that had also been fighting the Marxist-oriented Democratic Republic of Afghanistan regime since before the Soviet intervention. Operation Cyclone was one of the longest and most expensive covert CIA operations ever undertaken;[1]​ funding began with $20–30 million per year in 1980 and rose to $630 million per year in 1987.[2]​ Funding continued after 1989 as the Mujahideen battled the forces of Mohammad Najibullah's PDPA during the Civil war in Afghanistan (1989–1992) -Wikipedia

So your theory is now that the fires were actually arson?

Maybe, I'd imagine that those later in the day may have been. It's not something that I'm all fired up about.

I have not heard this theory before, please explain it to me in more detail.

I think I'm going to to with NIST's version of the (pseudo) scientific method for now, just put some rather imaginative hypotheses out there while generally ignoring any more likely hypotheses with precedent and then eventually react to whatever theories and evidence other people come up with and so forth.

Anyway, fire on steel = collapse.

Not exactly.

I think you may have a lot invested in epistemic inertia. But imagine things this way.... if this event was designed to collapse the Left and the Right as the traditional Masonic pillars in politics and in the brains between our temples that give rise to the body politic then there's no use clinging to the old world order. This is going to be an interesting time to be alive as the ritual unfolds, I'd imagine. There again, what if the Center or the pillar of wisdom/Solomon holds? Imagine that. But imagining things is all bunk, I guess... except when it isn't.

Curious, that people basically imagined 911 scenarios before they happened and so forth: ​


And given that the best official reports that money could buy resulted in statements like this: "We couldn't even imagine that people would run planes into buildings." it would seem to me that conspiracy theorists should receive huge government grants and more of the bankster's paper ponzi to invest in more tin foil hats and so forth. Why not? At least they could imagine scenarios and therefore plan for it or react to it instead of siting around reading about Pet Goats, etc.

 

[BombDr]

I don't see a building falling at free-fall speed so guess we need to disagree. What other direction would you suggest it fall? In any event, explosives are not the only wany to make buildings fall, as they discovered recently in Bangladesh.

Here is a good overview of the claims about free fall: ​

Apologies, I can't watch the video where I am.

No, I was suggesting or imagining that perhaps the plans of the conspirators didn't go according to plan and that even with all the compartmentalization and "fall back" plans for failure and cover up typical to some conspiracies things would still be likely to go wrong. As far as WTC 7 goes, I'm not sure what happened from the perspective of the conspirators. What do you suppose happened according to the official conspiracy theory with respect to the flight that ended up in the field in PA? I.e... where did the Muslim conspirators have it headed before something went wrong with their plan and so on and so forth? If it was headed toward the White House then that might make sense. Because then they would have had the economic center hit, the military hit and the final hit would have been the White House. Would that make sense according to how you're imagining a conspiracy theory having to do with Muslims, Bin Laden and so forth?

I don't know where the plane was going? Is it relevant to how WTC7 fell?

Not at all. I'm still working on a theory. But I'd tend to trust the dog that apparently thought it smelled explosives given that it seems like we aren't in Kansas anymore after operation cyclone in Afghanistan and so forth.

I don't trust the dogs, and I work with them. Do you?

I think I'm going to to with NIST's version of the (pseudo) scientific method for now, just put some rather imaginative hypotheses out there while generally ignoring any more likely hypotheses with precedent and then eventually react to whatever theories and evidence other people come up with and so forth.

You crack on mate.

I think you may have a lot invested in epistemic inertia. But imagine things this way.... if this event was designed to collapse the Left and the Right as the traditional Masonic pillars in politics and in the brains between our temples that give rise to the body politic then there's no use clinging to the old world order. This is going to be an interesting time to be alive as the ritual unfolds, I'd imagine. There again, what if the Center or the pillar of wisdom/Solomon holds? Imagine that. But imagining things is all bunk, I guess... except when it isn't.

A little pff-topic perhaps?

Curious, that people basically imagined 911 scenarios before they happened and so forth: ​

Yes, curious. King Kong climbed up the Empire State building, and darn it, a bomber flew into it...

And given that the best official reports that money could buy resulted in statements like this: "We couldn't even imagine that people would run planes into buildings." it would seem to me that conspiracy theorists should receive huge government grants and more of the bankster's paper ponzi to invest in more tin foil hats and so forth. Why not? At least they could imagine scenarios and therefore plan for it or react to it instead of siting around reading about Pet Goats, etc

Off topic again.

 

[mynym]

Foreknowledge of the building being struck by a collapsing WTC1, which destroyed the mains water supply?

No, foreknowledge of how to build a building that won't collapse in itself if it's "struck" on the exterior or if there's a fire in it.

Who built this thing? And was there any insurance settlement on it like lucky Larry Silverstein had?

That's nice to hear.

Indeed. Would you like to make a model out of straws and soda cans and set some donuts on fire? Because I, for one, would like to see one if you could. You can do it, just use your imagination.