Can someone explain the Penthouse on top of World Trade Center 7 collapsing right after an explosion is heard? Then the entire 47 story sky scraper dropping out of the sky about 5 seconds later? Never hit by any planes.
Surely you know the roof was pretty much on the ground before that 6.6 seconds started? That's the subject of this thread. The penthouse fell first, because the interior structure of the building collapsed, then the skin fell in essentially free-fall.The long-predicted event itself occurred in 6.6 seconds, the roof hitting the ground in half-a-second longer than it would have taken a ball dropped from it to do the same.
Sure, it was a unique event. But you've got to look at those various building individually. The part of the Windsor Tower that were steel framed and lacked adequate fireproofing collapsed very quickly, much quicker than WTC7. The building did not collapse totally because it had a concrete core, and the lower floors had been upgraded with fireproofing, and many were reached by fire hoses.And right, Mick. The WTC7 computer model as composed by NIST. It is rather convincing, as I said above. I might even accept it, if the data used to compose it wasn't classified and saw sufficient public review. That it remains classified in spite of many multiple requests for disclosure isn't at all encouraging. The claim that building 7 was the only steel structure to burn uncontrolled for nearly 7 hours is blatantly false. Spraying water at a fire doesn't mean its 'under control'. The Windsor Building fire which has been discussed here burned for 2 days, I wouldn't call that 'controlled', and though a partial collapse occurred, the building didn't crumble into nothing before even being close to fully engulfed.
There's another fire which burned for nearly a day. Malfunctioning water-main impeded firefighters efforts, leaving the fire to burn largely uncontrolled until the army came in and started dousing the building with helicopters much later in the event. Again, there was some partial collapsing, but even after spreading over 26 floors, the building didn't crumble down into dust.
NIST admitted that WTC7 fell at free fall speed for 100+ feet. How does a building fall faster than free fall?Sure, it was a unique event. But you've got to look at those various building individually. The part of the Windsor Tower that were steel framed and lacked adequate fireproofing collapsed very quickly, much quicker than WTC7. The building did not collapse totally because it had a concrete core, and the lower floors had been upgraded with fireproofing, and many were reached by fire hoses.
In that sense, no more than the Windsor Tower, which was also a unique event. Of the collapse of that freeway overpass due to fire - also unique.Being a unique event though, shouldn't investigating it thoroughly and forensically be of significant, if not paramount importance?
http://www.nilim.go.jp/lab/hdg/report/windsor1.pdf a hundred-and-fifty page summation of an investigation into the cause, spread, and effect of the Windsor fire, composed and finished the year-of, by the Japanese National Institute of Land and Infrastructure management. Alas its in Japanese, but it seems quite thorough, and English summations of their findings can be dug up I'm sure.In that sense, no more than the Windsor Tower, which was also a unique event. Of the collapse of that freeway overpass due to fire - also unique.
That's not the NIST report, that Astaneh-Asl's preliminary report from 2002, and it's on the WTC towers, not WTC7.http://www.ce.berkeley.edu/~astaneh/I-35W-webPage/Index-35W-Astaneh.html a page from our old friend Astaneh-Asl, who was a member of the team investigating the Oakland overpass collapse. Here is his report on the event, 10 pages long. http://www.ce.berkeley.edu/~astaneh...Paper-Steel_Bridges_June-2008-color-Final.pdf
Now take a look again at the NIST report. http://www.nistreview.org/WTC-ASTANEH.pdf It certainly seems a little longer on first glance, but if you actually read through them both side-by-side it becomes obvious how much more specific and detailed the investigation of the bridge-collapse was.
no mention whatsoever of a forensic examination of the evidence.NIST complemented in-house expertise with private sector technical experts; accumulated copious documents, photographs, and videos of the disaster; conducted first-person interviews of building occupants and emergency responders; analyzed the evacuation and emergency response operations in and around WTC 7; performed computer simulations of the behavior of WTC 7 on September 11, 2001; and combined the knowledge gained into a probable collapse sequence.
How long should it have taken?First, note the date on NIST's full report on building 7, that being 2008, 7 years after the event. Second, note the summary, where the information gathering methods are described:
no mention whatsoever of a forensic examination of the evidence.
Lots of places identify Assistant Chief Frank Fellini - see the links below - he's not hard to identify, so I don't think you can have done much searching!!Also, which fire department commander was Larry talking too..? I haven't ever once seen this fellow named,
In this interview he says they kept firefighters away from 7, and here he mentions establish a "collapse zone" around itnor has he ever come forward and said 'yep, I had that conversation, and nope, that's not what he meant.'
Because the bulk of the structure then proceeded to crumble into dust and debris. Partial collapses due to fire in steel structures aren't unheard of, but a complete collapse unquestionably is. That it happened once, horrible. That it happened twice, incredible. That it happened three times consecutively? Unbelievable. I don't see what the pent-house dropping first changes about that.So....when the penthouse falls from the roof to the ground before the rest of the building even moves..why do you consider that evidence of demolition?
That a steel building hadn't fully collapsed due to fire before that day does not rule out the possibility that it could happen.Unbelievable. I don't see what the pent-house dropping first changes about that.
Why does it have to go to unbelievable? Why not just more incredible?Because the bulk of the structure then proceeded to crumble into dust and debris. Partial collapses due to fire in steel structures aren't unheard of, but a complete collapse unquestionably is. That it happened once, horrible. That it happened twice, incredible. That it happened three times consecutively? Unbelievable.
Exactly. Grieves, if you deny the explanations that Mick, MikeC, SR1419 and I have given to you while you listen with deaf ears, then I'm sorry, there's no one to blame here except for you. If you believe that the situation was poorly handled than that is fine, but don't go whining to us because you've been disprooven.Why does it have to go to unbelievable? Why not just more incredible?
The events of that day WERE incredible. Nobody denies that. But the explanations seem to fit. The way building 7 fell has been explained, and it makes sense.
Controlled demolition of building 7 that was somehow covered up is VASTLY more incredible, and simply does not fit the evidence.
Not a scientific surveyOops, they made the mistake of leaving the rating system enabled on that video. I'm afraid the majority of clear minded, free thinking people aren't buying the official story anymore.
Bit of a clarification here. The structural damage actually does account for the way, the manner, in which the building collapsed. It does not account for the initiation of the collapse, but it does great shape what happens afterwards.It collapsed due to the fires alone according to NIST, as the structural damage to the corner cannot possibly account for the way in which the building collapsed.
Thank you for the clarification, it really helped understand your point of view. I am not criticizing you, I just felt as if you were complaining for no reason. If you feel as if I criticized you, then I hope you accept my apologies. However...Actually clock, I answered his question quite directly with a 'No.' Seems you missed it.
I've also never denied that the building was on fire, nor that it suffered considerable damage to one corner. Structural damage to the bottom corner of a building is an understandable cause for a collapse, in the direction of that damaged bottom corner. Building seven didn't collapse due to structural damage though, remember? It collapsed due to the fires alone according to NIST, as the structural damage to the corner cannot possibly account for the way in which the building collapsed. It took them seven years to compose a believable account of the building 7 collapse, and even then the account seems entirely inadequate compared to the findings of an investigation of a far less significant event. The NIST report on building 7 isn't 'proof' of anything, and their 3D model would never be considered admissible in a court of law without disclosure of the data used to produce it.
debunking9111.com is so self-obsessed with its stated 'goal' that they frequently employ inaccurate, misleading, or flat-out false statements with which to do its 'debunking'. Now how about you lay off the personal attacks/criticisms, and try posting something that isn't a direct steal from/link too the same old overly biased and often demonstrably wrong website?
Why is debunking911.com a invalid source? You do not explain why it is so. As far as I can tell, there have not been any flat out lies, or misleading statements, as all categories seem pretty legit. If they weren't legit, then Mick or other debunkers on this website would have told me that I am wrong and full of baloney, but so far, no one has told me anything, so...debunking9111.com is so self-obsessed with its stated 'goal' that they frequently employ inaccurate, misleading, or flat-out false statements with which to do its 'debunking'. Now how about you lay off the personal attacks/criticisms, and try posting something that isn't a direct steal from/link too the same old overly biased and often demonstrably wrong website?
I'm not sure I understand this criticism. Why is one scenario more believable than the other? Are you saying the "straight down" nature of what happened is what is unbelievable?That they include an 'alternate scenario' in which the building hasn't suffered any damage, but the fires are still raging (I'm sorry, what..?), in which it collapses in a far more understandable fashion, isn't at all encouraging given that it's pure and undeniable fantasy, and yet portrays a more believable collapse-scenario.
|Thread starter||Related Articles||Forum||Replies||Date|
|FE Debunked with water tube level - 187 foot building 21.2 miles away below eye level||Flat Earth||0|
|Debunked: AE911T: CNBC Anchor Ron Insana claims Building 7 a Controlled Implosion||9/11||13|
|Debunked: "The North Face of Building 7 Was Pulled Inward"||9/11||66|
|Collapse of 12 Story Building in Miami Beach||Current Events||3|
|São Paulo High Rise Fire and Collapse - Wilton Paes de Almeida Building||Current Events||87|
|Debunked: WTC7 was the only building not on the WTC block that had a fire on 9/11||9/11||0|
|Bent Steel In Building Fires||Conspiracy Theories||1|
|First Interstate Tower Fire - Comparison with WTC Towers and WTC7||9/11||5|
|Have You Actually READ the NIST Report on Building 7?||9/11||12|
|Explained: Two Suns at Sunset - Harrow, UK [Reflection Off Building]||Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky?||19|
|Tehran Plasco Highrise Fire And Collapse - 9/11 WTC7, WTC1&2 Comparisons||9/11||84|
|Claim: Indigogo campaign to recreate 9/11 Plane Crash into Building||9/11||38|
|Rectangular building type objects on the surface of the moon [Like the Triangle]||General Discussion||3|
|Debunked: WTC7 vs. Chechnya's Tallest Building Fire (Grozny-City Complex)||9/11||24|
|WTC 7 (Building 7)||General Discussion||0|
|9/11: How hard is it to hit a building at 500mph?||9/11||930|
|BBC's Jane Standley Premature reporting of the collapse of WTC 7 (Building 7)||9/11||13|
|WTC: Were the planes drones, how hard is flying a 767 into a building?||9/11||58|
|Building 7 Explained by Edward Current||9/11||2|