Marc Powell
The UAF study does not address the fact that the collapse was silent… except for the clatter of a crumbling steel frame building. There is no way that all 82 columns over eight floors could be simultaneously explosively severed without so much as making a peep. That alone should be a clue that fire actually did cause the collapse.
Dr. Hulsey also ignores the gentle east-west swaying of the building that began a few seconds before the falling of the east penthouse and continued until the beginning of global collapse. It is covered in depth in the NIST report and is clearly visible to anyone with access to the CBS video of the collapse taken from West Street. The swaying was an indication of internal failures that NIST scientists determined to have resulted in external columns between the 7th and 14th floors becoming insufficiently braced so as to buckle. That is what resulted in the short interval of free fall that truthers like architect Robert McCoy go on and on about but in actuality is trivial.
-----
Robert McCoy
9th August 2021
Mark,
Actually the explosives used, and well documented by others, were of the incendiary type that produce the necessary heat to melt, and or soften, the steel so as to cause the collapse. Very little sound, if any, would have escaped the building enclosure itself because the type of explosive used produces very little sound. Fire alone does not produce sufficient heat to cause the steel to fail. Additionally, there was most likely an ample amount of ambient sound/noise a the time of the collapse. And don't forget, the building has a design safety factor of between 3 and 4 times the anticipated dead load, live load, and wind, plus it was fully fireproofed to between 2, 3 and 4 hour protection depending on where the steel and decking is in the building.
As for the swaying, all tall buildings sway naturally with the wind. I would not be surprised if Building 7 were to sway 18″ or more naturally at any time on any given day. And from the videos we know the wind was blowing that day.
-----
Marc Powell
9th August 2021
Mr. McCoy,
I have seen your interviews in various 9/11 truth films and know you to be a reasonable person. So, I can't understand how you can make such speculative statements in this forum with such conviction. You, of all people, should know that there is no explosive or incendiary in existence that is capable of silently and without flash or blast wave instantly cutting through thick structural steel. I am aware of the paper that was published several years ago claiming that unreacted thermite (thermate, nano-thermite, etc.) was found in the WTC dust and have read it in its entirety. However, I found it to be unconvincing. The tests performed by scientists on the suspicious "red/gray chips" were flawed and showed the heavy influence of confirmation bias and disregard for conflicting evidence. And if you read the paper very carefully you will find only one brief mention that the red layer on the red/gray chips they tested (the part alleged to contain thermite) was only between 10 and 100 microns thick, and much of that material was an inert polymer binder. Now, there is no way that a film of exploding paint as gossamer thin as a baby's hair can blow through 4"-thick structural steel. It's thermodynamically impossible, and that alone should have clued the scientists in that what they were looking at really was nothing more than paint flakes. And, in fact, an independent researcher (James Millette) tested red/gray chips found in dust samples in his possession and found them to be flakes of ordinary primer paint with an adherent layer of mill scale… exactly what might be expected in the dust from the collapse of a steel structure. So, incendiary explosives are not well-documented, there is no evidence of their use on 9/11 and there is no scientific validity in speculation that they offer any kind of reasonable explanation for the collapse.
With regard to the utter silence of the Building 7 collapse, please watch this video:
Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_5XAUUnBYpY
The collapse was so silent that an EMT being interviewed on camera didn't know anything was happening behind her until it was pointed out by others. You can't seriously be proposing that the collapse seen but not heard in the video was the result of explosive controlled demolition. Why do you suppose it is that videos of the collapse presented in 9/11 truth films (some of which feature your interview) do not include the soundtrack?
Now, regarding the swaying of WTC 7 that NIST documented but that Dr. Hulsey ignored, please take a look at this video:
Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nqbUkThGlCo
If you mark the upper right corner of the building you will be able to clearly visualize the east-west swaying of about 12 inches that occurred between the falling of the east penthouse and the start of global collapse. NIST analysis determined that the swaying actually started several seconds before that. Does it seem likely to you that sudden wind gusts caused the building to start oscillating right before it collapsed or does it seem more likely that Dr. Hulsey ignored the movement of the building because it conflicts with his hypothesis? By the way, Dr. Hulsey claims that the three columns under the east penthouse gave way first at about the 44th floor level causing the penthouse to descended only a few stories into the building. The area where the explosive demolition of the columns supposedly occurred is in direct line-of-sight with the camera which was less than a half-mile away. Do you really think such an event would not be audible on the soundtrack and would not cause windows to break? I don't think so and you shouldn't either.
-----
Robert McCoy
14th August 2021
Dear Mark,
I have reviewed your response of 080821 to my previous responses regarding your comments. I have several questions and responses to your comments.
First, I would like to know to whom I am responding. Your Quora Bio lists you as a 'former Civil Engineer'. That tells me nothing. I have been quite open about my background as an Architect and experience with tall buildings. However, I know nothing about yours. As a 'former civil engineer' what does that mean? Are you retired? Were you licensed and where? If so, why the word 'former' in your background description. And what branch of civil engineering were you involved in? And for how long? And what are/were your significant accomplishments?
Secondly, I could not get the videos you included to play, initially. They were blocked and cited as non-factual information, in essence, they were cited as misinformation. However, the videos themselves were included in the response today and I could play them.
The first video of the lady not being able to hear the collapse behind her, is misleading. She is obviously several blocks away and there are buildings between her and Building 7. Plus, the fact that she was standing in a street with busses, cars, fire engines, and other ambient noise generators that would have muzzled the sound at her obvious distance from the event. Remember, the collapse was initiated at the lower floors and continued at the lower floors as the mass of the building descended into the rubble pile.
The second video does not indicate to me any movement of the tower to the east, again, the video was shot from a distance that would make it impossible to detect any movement in Building 7, even 18" as I indicated before as a potential movement due to wind. And you must remember there was some wind blowing that day.
As for the explosives used, the incendiary characteristics would not make as much sound, as say dynamite would make. Secondly the larger charges would have been on the columns in the center of the building, the smaller charges at the perimeter, and all sound would have been shielded, or muffled, by the building enclosure itself. In addition, the steel was enclosed in fireproofing that would have contributed to the muffling/suppressing of the sound.
You next discussed the red/grey chips found in the rubble. And yes, there are multiple tests on such sample. And they all do not agree. However, your statement that the flakes were paint is simply not true. The steel is not painted prior to applying the fireproofing. I have only one building where the steel was not painted. And the paint used was green in color. Steel, or I should say, miscellaneous iron, in any building is generally painted with a red paint as a rust inhibiter. But it does not receive fireproofing.
One more point, the steel in some instances exhibits a significant amount of erosion from the explosives. That is the result of the steel being oxidized, or burned, due to the explosives used. In fact, it is a characteristic of the incendiary explosives used. It is not a characteristic of other types of explosive charges.
And one final point on this issue; the fireproofing was noticeably absent from the steel in the rubble and as it was being hauled away. In fact, there was very little fireproofing in the debris pile. BUT we did see a large plume of ash drift away from the buildings as they collapsed. And there was a significant amount of dust everywhere. That dust and ash were the fireproofing, concrete deck, and other concrete and materials. It was caused by the fireproofing 'encapsulated' to keep the asbestos contained, and the 'encapsulating' material contained incendiary material. Additionally, the metal decking and the concrete topping were also missing in the debris pile, another sign of the type of incendiary explosive used.
Please do not split hairs with your interpretation of the videos or the lab reports. There is enough misinformation, and patently false information already out there. We do not need more.
Robert
-----
Marc Powell
14th August 2021
Robert,
I prefer not to divulge too much personal information. However, I will say that I am semi-retired and work in a field of civil engineering unrelated to structural engineering. That said, I did take college courses in design of reinforced concrete structures and indeterminate steel structures. So, I am not exactly a babe in the woods when it comes to technical issues such as the building failures in NYC on 9/11.
The YouTube videos I referenced in my previous post are in the public record and are entirely accurate and unaltered. The movements of Building 7 in its lead-up to the collapse are well documented in the NIST Building 7 Investigation, Appendix C. The building was initially at rest. The east-west oscillations began six seconds prior to the falling of the east penthouse and continued for an additional seven seconds until the start of global collapse. They were a reaction to internal failures and not due to wind gusts as you suggest. The oscillations are readily visible in the CBS video if you place a marker on your monitor at the upper right (northwest) corner of the building. The final oscillation before the beginning of global collapse took the building only six inches to the east and eight inches to the west, so don't expect to see a lot of movement. But, whatever movement there was is a major clue to what was going on inside the building and cannot be ignored. Wouldn't you agree that any analysis that concludes that all the columns were removed almost simultaneously (by something other than fire) should also be able to explain the oscillations leading up to the collapse? Dr. Hulsey failed to address this issue… or even acknowledge it in his exhaustive investigation and the reasons for that should be obvious.
I will address the other issues you raised in additional posts as my time allows.
Marc Powell
14th August 2021
Robert,
Continuing with my response to your response.
It is my understanding that steelwork used in the construction of steel frame buildings leaves the factory with a prime coat finish. The World Trade Center twin towers were no exception. Here is a picture that shows how the steel looked prior to the application of SFRM:
Here is a picture of the bar trusses after the application of SFRM:
I have only seen red iron oxide paint used as a prime coat on structural steel. That is what was used on the twin towers and flakes of it were claimed to contain "thermitic material" by 9/11 truth scientists.
As you said, "There is enough misinformation, and patently false information already out there. We do not need more." That being the case, please vet information you provide and avoid offering opinions and speculation for which there is no evidence.
------
Robert McCoy
20 August 2021
Dear Mark,
I am surprise, but not really, at your reluctance to disclose your CV. However, your response did tell me what I needed to know to evaluate your comments. As such, I will respond this one last time.
To Quote you, however, which included a quote from me, "As you said, 'There is enough misinformation and patently false information already out there. We do not need more.' That being the case, please vet information you provide and avoid offering." If you mean following the NIST report, then you are welcome to it. However, I know, based upon my extensive experience designing and constructing tall buildings, that it is a 'propaganda' document, designed to deliberately mis-lead the public. And in all the comments you have made to me so far, all you have done is attempt to cast doubt on what I have said, all without anything factual to back up your comments. Please use a little common sense the next time you try to cast doubt on someone else's comments.
Please do not comment to me again as you have nothing further to add to our understanding of what happened on the fateful day.
Several factors were not considered by you, CBS, or NIST as well as Hulsey re the perceived alleged oscillation of the Building 7. All of which really add nothing to the discussion. For instance:
1.
The distance of cameras, including the one you cited, could easily have vibrated imperceptivity at the moment the collapse ensued. That movement could have been caused by any one of a number of factors, such as the traffic on the street next to the camera. There is a heavy fire engine passing in the photo captured. Or the operator having his or her hand resting on the camera or tripod. Or simply the wind.
2.
Keep in mind that even the slightest movement of a camera will magnify the movement of any object as far away at WTC7 was when It began the collapse.
3.
Additionally, air movement, such as heat rising, or a sudden movement caused by the exhaust of a passing vehicle could easily have distorted the image as recorded. Or simply a heat wave passing between the camera and WTC7.
4.
Or as you allege, the movement was caused by initiation of the collapse itself.
5.
Keep in mind, as I commented previously, all tall buildings move laterally naturally. Some caused by wind, some by earthquakes, or just the sun on one face vs. cold air on the opposite face. The distance you allege is insignificant and had no effect on the collapse.
We really do not know, nor do we have enough factual or scientific evidence to adequately explain any perceived movement such as you allege.
You are simply splitting hairs to make a point, that truthfully cannot be made from the evidence. However, it is entirely possible the penthouse collapse did cause some movement. How much, if any, we cannot adequately determine from the evidence we have to date.
And please do not cite the NIST report as factual. From my perspective and knowledge, it is no more factual than a Dr. Zuss book would be explaining 9/11.
Also keep in mind that the NIST studies for all of the buildings were to only investigate up to the moment of the start of the collapse, nothing further. Nor were they required to state the cause of the collapse. They simply were tasked with determining a 'possible' cause of the collapse.
Next you stated that "…steelwork used in construction of steel frame buildings leaves the factory with a prime coat finish." Yes, some steel does leave the fabrication shop with a prime coat of rust inhibitor paint. BUT NOT ALL! Especially steel for tall buildings. That coating interferes with the adhesion of the fireproofing and the welding. The photos you included do appear to be prime coated. However, the photo on the right shows' signs of oxidation or some other material such as dust or salt build up. I do not know how those outside columns were fireproofed. If the fireproofing was done with say fiberglass insulation, I would have expected the steel to be coated with a rust inhibitor paint.
Additionally, we do not know how long before erection the steel was fabricated or where it was stored. All of these would have been contributing factors.
The erection photos I have seen, however indicate to me that most of the steel was not coated with a rust inhibitor paint. One further note on these two photos; they seem to have a reddish cast to everything. Notice the grey concrete mat foundation has a reddish cast to it and the sky appears to be red, or pink as well.
I have never had the steel for a tall building leave the fab shop with a rust inhibitor paint, with the one exception I mentioned earlier. In fact, the weld joints are polished so as to receive the weld material and seal the construction joint tighter and stronger when welded.
On the other hand, I have seen 3 and 4 story wood and steel frame buildings with the steel coated in a rust inhibitor paint. That steel will not receive spray-on fireproofing. It will simply be covered with gypsum board for the fireproofing rating required. I suspect those are the buildings you are familiar with.
The second photo showing the fireproofing on the interior adds nothing to this discussion.
One final note: I have designed a number of buildings with structural steel used in the roof framing and it has been furnished to the job site with a rust inhibitor paint finish. We subsequently painted the steel with a protective coat of exterior paint. The exposed steel contributed to the overall character and grace of the building. Steel, when used appropriately can be very handsome.
.
) detail if there is any SERIOUS ( 
