WTC 7 (Building 7)

Status
Not open for further replies.
So Michael Hess' initial interpretation of the events was an explosion in the basement, but he afterward came to the conclusion this was not the case. He offers no real 'timeframe' for these series of events, and suggests that, because he could not see the towers, they may have already fallen.
Barry Jennings on the other hand maintains his belief there was an explosion below him, going so far as to state he felt the force of it, and it blew him back. He also offers up indicators of timing, as he clearly states that the second plane struck while he was on the 23rd floor of WTC, which was at 9:03 am, and shortly after they were trying to make their escape of the building. So unless it took them an hour to climb down 17 floors worth of stairs, WTC debris doesn't exactly explain what they experienced.
The firefighters came. I was going to come down on the fire hose, because I didn't want to stay there because it was too hot; they came to the window and started yelling "do not do that, it won't hold you". And then they ran away. I didn't know what was going on. That's when the first tower fell.
Here he clearly states that he was communicating with firefighters who were driven to run away by the FIRST tower collapse.
When they started running, the first tower started coming down. I had no way of knowing that. And then I saw them come back... with more concern on their faces. And then they ran away again. The second tower fell.
So as they turned and ran the second time, the guy said "We'll be back for you". And they did come back, this time they came back with 10 firefighters.
Again he references his interaction with the firefighters, and their second retreat in the wake of the second collapse.
http://www.wanttoknow.info/008/hessjenningswtc7explosiontvbroadcast
just found this article on the subject, very much worth a read. Apparently Hess was rescued and conducting an interview by around 11 am several long blocks away from WTC. This, and a large portion of Jennings testimony, seems to directly contradict what NIST had to say about their experience. In fact, NIST is seemingly putting words in Jennings' mouth.

http://www.wanttoknow.info/officialsquestion911commissionreport
another good link from that site. Not directly related, but important I think.

"If this decision stands [to limit 9/11 Commission access to White House documents], I, as a member of the commission, cannot look any American in the eye, especially family members of victims, and say the commission had full access. This investigation is now compromised."
Senator Max Cleland – Former member of the 9/11 Commission, resigned December 2003.
 
I'm really fed up of people quoting Jennings's testimony. It is quite obvious he wasn't aware of what had been happening with WTC1&2, and had no regular time sense.

A building which had been burning for seven hours, and had been vacated of fireman an hour previously (according to some people they hadn't a clue what they were doing!), collapsed five hours after its fire insulation had time-expired, amazing...

And how many fuel tanks and electrical transformers did the building have? That many?

Poppycock.
 
It is quite obvious he wasn't aware of what had been happening with WTC1&2, and had no regular time sense.
How-so? Are you saying he's lying when he says he was on the 23rd floor when the plane struck? When the landing in the stairwell gave out? When the firefighters fled, and then fled again? Making it up? He 'imagined' it? I wondered when people would finally start crapping on Jennings himself. Mick was curt enough to avoid it. Figures you'd jump right in, Jazz.
A building which had been burning for seven hours,
on only a few floors.
collapsed five hours after its fire insulation had time-expired, amazing...
Has it ever happened before? Has it ever happened since? I'd say a shocking and unprecedented event qualifies as amazing, yes, in spite of your sarcasm. You frequently talk about the events of 9/11 following the impacts of the planes as if they were entirely expected and the only possible outcome. THAT, sir, is poppycock.
 
How-so? Are you saying he's lying when he says he was on the 23rd floor when the plane struck? When the landing in the stairwell gave out? When the firefighters fled, and then fled again? Making it up? He 'imagined' it? I wondered when people would finally start crapping on Jennings himself.
No, he was confused or mistaken. "….both buildings (the twin towers) were still standing. I was trapped in there for several hours, I was trapped in there when both buildings came down - all this time I’m hearing all kinds of explosions, all this time I’m hearing explosions".

The firefighters had many more reasons to flee than just two. You're the one that's crapping.

Mick was curt enough to avoid it. Figures you'd jump right in, Jazz.
It's not a comfortable situation for me either. But you're clinging to the rock and I'd like to prise your fingers off. The building was struck entirely accidentally by huge heavy pieces of WTC1 doing around 120 mph. It was a lightweight long-span slender insulated steel column structure built over a bridge beam spanning an entirely different structure and a void. Allowed to burn because there was no water main pressure.

on only a few floors.
That's a telling argument if the structure were a conventional r/c steel structure like the Empire State, but meaningless in terms of the structure that was actually there, which I've just described. If any column standing on the bridge were to be destabilized at a single point, so as to lose its footing, then the center of the building would be forced to collapse by sliding off the beam structures, leaving its slightly reinforced outside walls to remain standing and unnecessarily make fools out of truthers once more.

Has it ever happened before? Has it ever happened since? I'd say a shocking and unprecedented event qualifies as amazing, yes, in spite of your sarcasm.
It isn't amazing that a large steel structure with 2 hr protection collapses in a seven hour fire on sixteen floors.

You frequently talk about the events of 9/11 following the impacts of the planes as if they were entirely expected and the only possible outcome. THAT, sir, is poppycock.
It was possible for the planes to miss, or strike the tower too low down to penetrate the core. But they didn't.

The only possible outcome for either tower, when the planes penetrated, was collapse. Your dissonance is only to be expected. You bear a grudge of some sort, and constantly search to confirm your preconceptions. One by one the gaps you dance around will be filled in, and you'll have nowhere to dance. Nobody is going to notice.
 
He also offers up indicators of timing, as he clearly states that the second plane struck while he was on the 23rd floor of WTC, which was at 9:03 am, and shortly after they were trying to make their escape of the building. So unless it took them an hour to climb down 17 floors worth of stairs, WTC debris doesn't exactly explain what they experienced.

It makes more sense if you consider this account as well:

I actually worked at WTC7 and was there on 9-11. From the minute the first plane hit the towers, WTC7 was getting hit with debris.

In fact, when I finally got down to the lobby 45 minutes later, we were all forced to leave through the back since so much debris had hit the building and blocked the entrance.
Content from External Source
https://sites.google.com/site/wtc7lies/anin-depthlookatconspiracistclaimsaboutw
 
It makes more sense if you consider this account as well:

I actually worked at WTC7 and was there on 9-11. From the minute the first plane hit the towers, WTC7 was getting hit with debris.

In fact, when I finally got down to the lobby 45 minutes later, we were all forced to leave through the back since so much debris had hit the building and blocked the entrance.
Content from External Source
https://sites.google.com/site/wtc7lies/anin-depthlookatconspiracistclaimsaboutw

Why won't CT's talk to people who worked at WTC7? My friends and I who worked with at Salomon are eager to talk but I'm guessing you won't like the answers. http://tinyurl.com/n5xap
Content from External Source
I don't think it that easy... left no contact details :)

Yes, I am surprised there are not more people talking about what they experienced, from both sides. Guess there is always the verification issue though... are they really who they say?
 
So...on which floors would the explosives be safe from fire??
2, 1, B, P. One doesn't need to rig the entire building to bring down a steel-framed structure. The entire structure needs to be rigged when the building is mostly masonry.
No, he was confused or mistaken.
That's interesting, given he told precisely the same story every time he was interviewed, including specific details. If the interviews are any indication, it would appear that Jennings is considerably less confused then Hess, as where Jennings can offer specific details and a relatively thorough series of events, Hess' interview has little of those qualities, and seems to suggest he was the one in the more confused state. Not surprising given he was the older gentleman and wasn't employed in emergency services as Jennings was.
I was trapped in there for several hours, I was trapped in there when both buildings came down - all this time I’m hearing all kinds of explosions, all this time I’m hearing explosions"
relevance to your point? There's nothing particularly confused about this statement. He also clearly adds later many of these explosions he was hearing he believed to be the result of cars and trucks exploding outside. That doesn't change his rather specific account of being blasted off his feet from below while descending a stairwell in WTC 7 before the tower collapsed. He's just confused or mistaken though, and equally unworthy of any consideration. Just like all the other eye-witness accounts. Just like the obviously extraordinary collapse of the building itself. Just like the vast and unquestionable array of failures, some apparently deliberate or at least entirely unexplained, of the investigative teams involved. Just like the cruel joke that was the 9/11 Commission, an unquestionably inadequate and underfunded effort riddled with conflict of interest and insistent on dancing around a majority of the extremely important and legitimate questions being asked by the families of victims. Just like Bush and Cheney refusing to take questions publicly, separately, under oath or on the record.

The only possible outcome for either tower, when the planes penetrated, was collapse.
The Grand Master of Physics has spoken once more. Far be it for me to argue this ridiculously bold assumption.

It isn't amazing that a large steel structure with 2 hr protection collapses in a seven hour fire on sixteen floors.
Has it ever happened before? Has it ever happened since? Were the millions and millions of people who saw the building 7 collapse (many millions upon millions likely still haven't) not shocked, baffled, confused, angered, or otherwise inspired to powerful emotional response?
[h=2]a·maze[/h] [uh-meyz] Show IPA verb, a·mazed, a·maz·ing, noun
verb (used with object)1.to overwhelm with surprise or sudden wonder; astonish greatly.

2.Obsolete . to bewilder; perplex.



You bear a grudge of some sort, and constantly search to confirm your preconceptions. One by one the gaps you dance around will be filled in, and you'll have nowhere to dance. Nobody is going to notice.
well, that's all very poetic Jazzy, it's nice to see you branching out to more artful ways of judging and patronizing others. Frankly though, I don't feel like I'm the one who's doing the 'dancing'.
 
Right. It's simple- heck, even easy for AlQueda to execute complex, well coordinated attacks on America with minimal information shared and a minimal number of parties involved... as easy as, say, planning a wedding or a surprise birthday party.
Do you guys hear yourselves?
Have you forgotten your own arguments about how impossible it would be to coordinate an attack of this nature from the inside without thousands of thousands of people being in on it?
I can hear the response now, "There's a difference between terrorists flying planes into buildings and internal enemies planting bombs in them!" Right, right... one's easy as pie, the other is entirely impossible...

You think it would be easier to arrange a plot involving one group who plan out where in a building to strategically place charges which would then be installed by a another crew of demolition experts who would go in every night followed by a crew construction workers to open walls, plant charges, rebuild the walls, leave without a trace and repeat without alerting any of the occupants for months? Easier than me calling 10 couples and asking them to come over next Friday for a surprise party? Having worked in Manhattan for years, I would bet that many of the buildings had shifts of workers who were there 24 hours a day. One would think that the stock exchange, for example, would be unoccupied during the night. My brother in law used to work in IT and his job from midnight to 8 was working on the computers for the NY stock exchange. Those buildings probably weren't just sitting there empty every night from 5 PM till 9 AM.

Not to mention the thousands of people who would have been working on the rigging and reconstruction. The plot, as it was, involved a handful of terrorists, who convinced 4 pilots to do a suicide mission (there seem to be no dearth of middle easterners willing to blow themselves up), and convince about 16 more men who may or may not have known they were on a suicide mission, to perform an operation that from start to finish took an hour or so. Sounds simpler to me.
 
(there seem to be no dearth of middle easterners willing to blow themselves up)
Woof.
You think it would be easier to arrange a plot involving one group who plan out where in a building to strategically place charges which would then be installed by a another crew of demolition experts who would go in every night followed by a crew construction workers to open walls, plant charges, rebuild the walls, leave without a trace and repeat without alerting any of the occupants for months? Easier than me calling 10 couples and asking them to come over next Friday for a surprise party? Having worked in Manhattan for years, I would bet that many of the buildings had shifts of workers who were there 24 hours a day. One would think that the stock exchange, for example, would be unoccupied during the night. My brother in law used to work in IT and his job from midnight to 8 was working on the computers for the NY stock exchange. Those buildings probably weren't just sitting there empty every night from 5 PM till 9 AM.
No. I don't think such an undertaking would be comparative to planning a wedding. That notion is entirely ludicrous. As is the notion that breaching several of the most stringent and well-equipped security barriers on the planet, each over a dozen times, and coordinating an airstrike on several targets using civilian hijacked jets as weapons all on the same day and generally at the same time, successfully making the most powerful defense-force in the history of mankind look like a bad joke, takes all the coordination of planning a wedding. I can't wrap my head around the thought, it's so thick.

Not to mention the thousands of people who would have been working on the rigging and reconstruction. The plot, as it was, involved a handful of terrorists, who convinced 4 pilots to do a suicide mission (there seem to be no dearth of middle easterners willing to blow themselves up), and convince about 16 more men who may or may not have known they were on a suicide mission, to perform an operation that from start to finish took an hour or so. Sounds simpler to me.
I've worked the office scene. Janitorial staff, security staff, various and ever-changing assortments of technicians and handy-men wander and work, with the workers often compelled not to socialize with them while they're working, because they're supposed to be working of course. The Bush family has an ownership interest in the firm that provided electronic security for the WTC. No 'slam dunk' or anything, but it's a somewhat odd coincidence that the Bush family would have a vested interest in the security of the buildings the destruction of which solidified George W.'s once shaky position as president, and allowed him to make a lot of his friends vast amounts of money blowing up middle-easterners. Not to make any implications about those who might work for this company nor suggest individual employees are responsible, but on the off-chance, however remote you might imagine it, that an internal conspiracy was in play, would it be so beyond possibility that a team of men, perhaps a very small one, with every reason to be there and full security clearance, might have moved from floor to floor over the period of a year, doing discreet work? "We're just taking down the dry-wall and putting in fiber-optic cable for the new network, checking for mold/spraying for bedbugs, ect.ect.ect." It seems to me like it would have to be an incredibly complex and extremely well coordinated effort to do it discreetly, but it doesn't seem like 'thousands of people would have to know', or like it would be impossible.
 
The acts themselves are difficult. But the question was about the amount of coordination required. Similar to a large wedding
 
The Bush family has an ownership interest in the firm that provided electronic security for the WTC. No 'slam dunk' or anything, but it's a somewhat odd coincidence that the Bush family would have a vested interest in the security of the buildings the destruction of which solidified George W.'s once shaky position as president, and allowed him to make a lot of his friends vast amounts of money blowing up middle-easterners. Not to make any implications about those who might work for this company nor suggest individual employees are responsible, but on the off-chance, however remote you might imagine it, that an internal conspiracy was in play, would it be so beyond possibility that a team of men, perhaps a very small one, with every reason to be there and full security clearance, might have moved from floor to floor over the period of a year, doing discreet work? "We're just taking down the dry-wall and putting in fiber-optic cable for the new network, checking for mold/spraying for bedbugs, ect.ect.ect." It seems to me like it would have to be an incredibly complex and extremely well coordinated effort to do it discreetly, but it doesn't seem like 'thousands of people would have to know', or like it would be impossible.

I think your Bush angel is tenuous. One of the Bushes was on the Board of Directors for a company that did some security work at the WTC, but it was terminated in 1998, and Bush's involvement with the company ended in 2000. The Port AUthority was in charge of security at the WTC. John O'Neill, who was killed, was in charge of security. You'd think HE would have known about it if it was an inside job.

What evidence do you have to prove any of what you are saying above, or are you just trying to instill doubt?
 
But the question was about the amount of coordination required. Similar to a large wedding
Again, I can't see how. Large weddings typically aren't planned with the American Military, Intelligence, and Police communities posing constant risk and raising frequent barriers.

What evidence do you have to prove any of what you are saying above, or are you just trying to instill doubt?
As I stated, I wasn't making any accusations, or suggesting the Bush connection was any sort of proof. I was addressing the idea that an explosives scenario was entirely impossible simply because it would require 'thousands' of professionals to be in on it, and 'someone would have talked by now'... something that frequently comes up and had again a few posts prior. I was also trying to emphasize why suggesting the explosives scenario was an absolute impossibility given how very difficult it would be to enact, while at the same time arguing that the terrorist attack on the world trade center as described in the official account would have been a relatively simple process requiring little coordination, is somewhat absurd.
 
Sorry to be a bit late to this party - the collapse of WTC 7 is one of the "smoking guns" which undermines the official conspiracy theory of 9/11.

Having done a brief search of the forum, I cannot see any mention of any of the books of David Ray Griffin. However, he has written a number of excellent books on 9/11, and in particular his book on WTC 7 comprehensively demolishes the official theory, pun intended.

If you are looking to debunk the so-called "conspiracy theory" about WTC 7, you will have to debunk this book.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Mysterious-Collapse-World-Trade-Center/dp/1844370836

I'm not going to recap the whole book in this first post, but the official NIST collapse theory is laughable (fancy graphics notwithstanding). We are talking about an office fire (i.e. paper and furniture, i.e. pretty low temperatures), causing part of some floors to expand (somehow) and thereby cause the entire building to collapse, at free fall speed?

Over to you guys.
 
Sorry to be a bit late to this party - the collapse of WTC 7 is one of the "smoking guns" which undermines the official conspiracy theory of 9/11.

Having done a brief search of the forum, I cannot see any mention of any of the books of David Ray Griffin. However, he has written a number of excellent books on 9/11, and in particular his book on WTC 7 comprehensively demolishes the official theory, pun intended.

If you are looking to debunk the so-called "conspiracy theory" about WTC 7, you will have to debunk this book.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Mysterious-Collapse-World-Trade-Center/dp/1844370836

I'm not going to recap the whole book in this first post, but the official NIST collapse theory is laughable (fancy graphics notwithstanding). We are talking about an office fire (i.e. paper and furniture, i.e. pretty low temperatures), causing part of some floors to expand (somehow) and thereby cause the entire building to collapse, at free fall speed?

Over to you guys.

Perhaps you could be a little more specific? All the claims in the book have been addressed in many places.

Why don't you find part of the NIST report that Griffin debunks, quote (or reference) that part, and then explain how Griffin debunks it?
 
Perhaps you could be a little more specific? All the claims in the book have been addressed in many places.

Why don't you find part of the NIST report that Griffin debunks, quote (or reference) that part, and then explain how Griffin debunks it?

Sure, will do. I don't have the book to hand, but I have found a good article by Griffin which summarises the key points. It can be found at
http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-mysterious-collapse-of-wtc-seven/15201 which also includes all the references.

Below is a cut and paste of the final paragraphs together with the references 51 to 57. Hopefully this is specific enough - I could rewrite the article but to be honest it is clear and specific, so should provide a good starting point for discussion.

Fabrication of Evidence



But before describing its miracle story, I will point out three especially obvious examples of scientific fraud committed by NIST before it resorted to this desperate expedient. These examples all involve fabrication.


No Girder Shear Studs: NIST’s explanation as to how fire caused Building 7 to collapse starts with thermal expansion, meaning that the fire heated up the steel, thereby causing it to expand.


A steel beam on the 13th floor, NIST claims, caused a steel girder attached to Column 79 to break loose. Having lost its support, Column 79 failed, and this failure started a chain reaction, in which all 82 of the building’s steel columns failed. [51]


Without getting into the question of whether this is even remotely plausible, let us just focus on the question: Why did that girder fail?


It failed, NIST said, because it was not connected to the floor slab with sheer studs. NIST wrote:
In WTC 7, no studs were installed on the girders.
Floor beams . . . had shear studs, but the girders that supported the floor beams did not have shear studs.
This point was crucial to NIST’s answer to a commonly asked question: Why did fire cause WTC 7 to collapse, when fire had never before brought down steel-framed high-rise buildings, some of which had had much bigger and longer-lasting fires? NIST’s answer was: differences in design.


One of those crucial differences, NIST stated repeatedly, was “the absence of [girder] shear studs that would have provided lateral restraint.”


But this was a fabrication on NIST’s part. How can we know this? All we need to do is to look at NIST’s Interim Report on WTC 7, which it had published back in 2004, before it had developed its theory of girder failure.


This report stated that girders as well as the beams had been attached to the floor by means of shear studs. [52]


We have here as clear a case of fabrication as one will see, with NIST simply making up a fact in order to meet the needs of its new theory.


The Raging Fire on Floor 12 at 5:00 PM: NIST also contradicted its “interim report” in telling a lie about the fire in the building. NIST claims that there were very big, very hot fires covering much of the north face of the 12th floor at 5:00 PM. This claim is essential to NIST’s explanation as to why the building collapsed 21 minutes later. However, if you look back at NIST’s interim report, published before it had developed its theory, you will find this statement:


Around 4:45 PM, a photograph showed fires on Floors 7, 8, 9, and 11 near the middle of the north face; Floor 12 was burned out by this time.


Other photographs even show that the 12th floor fire had virtually burned out by 4:00. And yet NIST now claims that fires were still going strong at 5:00 PM. [53] We have here another clear case of fabrication.


Shear Stud Failure: A third case of fabrication involves shear studs again – this time the shear studs that connected to the steel beams to the floor slab.

NIST claims that, due to the failure of that crucial girder discussed earlier, the floor beams were able to expand without constraint. But each of these beams was connected to the floor slab by 28 high-strength shear studs. These studs should have provided plenty of restraint.


They would have, except for the fact, NIST tells us, that they all broke.


Why did they break? Because of what NIST calls “differential thermal expansion,” which is simply a technical way of saying that, in response to the heat from the fires, the steel beams expanded more than the floor slabs did.


But why would that have been the case? Steel and concrete have virtually the same “coefficient of thermal expansion,” meaning that they expand virtually the same amount in response to heat. If that were not the case, reinforced concrete – that is, concrete reinforced with steel – would break up when the weather got very hot or very cold. NIST itself points out that “steel and concrete have similar coefficients of thermal expansion.”


So why does NIST claim that the shear studs broke because of differential thermal expansion?


To understand this point, you need to understand that NIST’s theory is an almost totally computer-based theory. NIST fed various variables into a computer program, which then supposedly told it how WTC 7 would have reacted to its fires. So, what did NIST feed into its computer that caused it to say that the steel would have expanded so much more than the concrete slab that all of the shear studs would have broken? The answer is given in this bland statement:
No thermal expansion or material degradation was considered for the concrete slab, as the slab was not heated in this analysis.
When I first read this statement, I had to rub my eyes. Surely, I thought, I have mis-read the statement, because a few pages earlier, NIST had said: “differential thermal expansion occurred between the steel floor beams and concrete slab when the composite floor was subjected to fire.” The “composite floor,” by definition, is the steel beams made composite with the floor slab by means of the shear studs. So NIST had clearly said, in stating that the composite floor had been subjected to fire, that both the steel beams and the concrete slab had been heated.


But then in the eye-rubbing passage, NIST said: When doing its computer simulation, it told the computer that only the steel beams had been heated; the concrete floor slab was not. [54]


So of course the steel beams would have expanded, while the floor slabs stayed stationary, thereby causing the sheer studs to break, after which the steel beams could expand like crazy and bump into Column 79, which then causes the whole building to come down.


A comic book version of the official story of 9/11 has been published. [55] This was an exercise in redundancy, because the official reports already are the comic book version of what happened on 9/11. In any case, I come now to NIST’s miracle.


NIST’s Miracle



Members of the 9/11 Truth Movement had almost from the first been pointing out that WTC 7 came down at the same rate as a free-falling object, at least virtually so.


NIST’S Denial of Free Fall: In NIST’s Draft for Public Comment, it denied this, saying that the time for the upper 18 floors to collapse “was approximately 40 percent longer than the computed free fall time and was consistent with physical principles.”


Implicit in this statement is that any assertion that the building did come down in free fall would not be consistent with physical principles – that is, the principles of physics.


Explaining why not, Shyam Sunder said at a technical briefing:
[A] free fall time would be [the fall time of] an object that has no structural components below it. . . . [T]he . . . time that it took . . . for those 17 floors to disappear [was roughly 40 percent [longer than free fall]. 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.
Chandler’s Challenge: However, high-school physics teacher David Chandler challenged Sunder’s denial at this briefing, pointing that Sunder’s 40 percent claim contradicts “a publicly visible, easily measurable quantity.”


The following week, Chandler placed a video on the Internet showing that, by measuring this publicly visible quantity, anyone knowing elementary physics could see that “for about two and a half seconds. . . , the acceleration of the building is indistinguishable from freefall.”


Finally, Chandler wrote a comment to NIST, saying: “Acknowledgment of and accounting for an extended period of free fall in the collapse of WTC 7 must be a priority if the NIST is to be taken seriously.”


NIST Admits Free Fall: Amazingly, NIST did acknowledge free fall in its final report. It tried to disguise it, but the admission is there on page 607. Dividing the building’s descent into three stages, it describes the second phase as “a freefall descent over approximately eight stories at gravitational acceleration for approximately 2.25 s[econds]. “Gravitational acceleration” is a synonym for free fall acceleration.


So, after presenting 606 pages of descriptions, testimonies, photographs, graphs, analyses, explanations, and mathematical formulae, NIST on page 607 says, in effect: “Then a miracle happens.”


Why this would be a miracle was explained by Chandler, who said: “Free fall can only be achieved if there is zero resistance to the motion.”


The implication of Chandler’s remark is that, by the principles of physics, the upper portion of Building 7 could have come down in free fall only if something had removed all the steel and concrete in the lower part of the building, which would have otherwise provided resistance, and only explosives of some sort could have removed them.


If they had not been removed and the upper floors had come down in free fall anyway, even for only a second or two, a miracle would have happened.


That was what Sunder himself had explained the previous August, saying that a free-falling object would be one “that has no structural components below it” to offer resistance. Having stated in August that free fall could not have happened, NIST also stated that it did not happen, saying: “WTC 7 did not enter free fall.”


But then in November, while still defending the same theory, which rules out explosives and thereby rules out free fall, NIST admitted that, as an empirical fact, free fall happened. For a period of 2 and a fourth seconds, NIST admitted, the descent of WTC 7 was characterized by “gravitational acceleration (free fall).”


Knowing that it had thereby affirmed a miracle, meaning a violation of a law of physics, NIST no longer claimed that its analysis was consistent with the physical principles. In its Draft put out in August, NIST had repeatedly said that its analysis of the collapse was “consistent with physical principles.” One encountered this phrase time and time again. In its final report, however, this phrase is no more to be found.

NIST thereby admitted, for those with eyes to see, that its report on WTC 7, by admitting free fall while continuing to deny that explosives were used, is not consistent with the principles of physics. [56]


And yet the mainstream press will not report this admission. So the press continues to support the notion that anyone who questions the official reports on 9/11 is unfit for public service. [57]



51. See The Mysterious Collapse [by David Ray Griffin], 150-55.
52. For documentation and discussion of NIST’s claim about the lack of girder shear studs, see The Mysterious Collapse, 212-15.​
53. See The Mysterious Collapse, 187-88.​
54. For discussion and documentation of this point about failed shear studs, see The Mysterious Collapse, 217-21. As I point out in the book the contradictions between NIST’s final report and its 2004 interim report, involving the 4:45 fire and both claims about shear studs, were discovered by Chris Sarns.​
55. Sid Jacobson and Ernie Colón, The 9/11 Report: A Graphic Adaptation (New York: Hill and Wang, 2006).​
56. For documentation and discussion of this point about free fall, see The Mysterious Collapse, 231-41.​
57. I am referring to the fact that Van Jones, who had been an Obama administration advisor on “green jobs,” felt compelled to resign due to the uproar evoked by the revelation that he had signed a petition questioning the official account of 9/11. The view that this act made him unworthy was perhaps articulated most clearly by Washington Post columnist Charles Krauthammer. After dismissing as irrelevant the other reasons that had been given for demanding Jones’s resignation, Krauthammer wrote: “He’s gone for one reason and one reason only. You can’t sign a petition demanding … investigations of the charge that the Bush administration deliberately allowed Sept. 11, 2001 – i.e., collaborated in the worst massacre ever perpetrated on American soil – and be permitted in polite society, let alone have a high-level job in the White House. Unlike the other stuff … , this is no trivial matter. It’s beyond radicalism, beyond partisanship. It takes us into the realm of political psychosis, a malignant paranoia that, unlike the Marxist posturing, is not amusing. It’s dangerous….You can no more have a truther in the White House than you can have a Holocaust denier – a person who creates a hallucinatory alternative reality in the service of a fathomless malice” (Charles Krauthammer
, “The Van Jones Matter,” Washington Post, September 11, 2009 http://www.washingtonpost.com/wpdyn/content/article/2009/09/10/AR2009091003408.html
Content from External Source
 
Members of the 9/11 Truth Movement had almost from the first been pointing out that WTC 7 came down at the same rate as a free-falling object, at least virtually so.


NIST’S Denial of Free Fall: In NIST’s Draft for Public Comment, it denied this, saying that the time for the upper 18 floors to collapse “was approximately 40 percent longer than the computed free fall time and was consistent with physical principles.”

But it didn't fall at free fall speed!

Why this would be a miracle was explained by Chandler, who said: “Free fall can only be achieved if there is zero resistance to the motion.”


The implication of Chandler’s remark is that, by the principles of physics, the upper portion of Building 7 could have come down in free fall only if something had removed all the steel and concrete in the lower part of the building, which would have otherwise provided resistance, and only explosives of some sort could have removed them.

First of all, it DIDN'T FALL AT FREE FALL SPEED. So any conclusion he draws from his initial erroneous statement is b.s.

Secondly Chandler seems to think that unless the upper floors were falling through a void, they would have been STOPPED in their fall. "Momentum" anyone?
 
I would like to see those 'identical' coefficient's of expansion. I work with glass enamel, and the glass must be formulated for the metal you are using, copper, or steel or silver.
 
We are talking about an office fire (i.e. paper and furniture, i.e. pretty low temperatures), causing part of some floors to expand (somehow) and thereby cause the entire building to collapse, at free fall speed?

Over to you guys.

I really have to object to the assertion that the building collapsed at "free fall speed". No structure regardless of collapsing from demolition or structural failure will collapse at the same speed of an object in free fall. In order for each floor to collapse the structural integrity of the supports holding up the building will need to be overcome. This may take as little as 1/10th of a second lets say. Using some simple math that would mean that a building such as WTC7 it would take nearly 5 seconds longer than an object in true free fall because as each floor collapses we would be adding 1/10th of a second. This is not even taking into account that each pause is effectively arresting the acceleration rate of the object as it falls which you would not see with an object dropped from 47 stories. These sorts of statements by CT's are just meant to add some sort of authority to the claim that WTC7 was brought down by demolition as if the collapse by structural failure would behave somehow differently, but they are just not true. WTC7 did not collapse at anywhere close to an object in free fall.
 
Below is a cut and paste of the final paragraphs together with the references 51 to 57. Hopefully this is specific enough - I could rewrite the article but to be honest it is clear and specific, so should provide a good starting point for discussion.

Fabrication of Evidence

NIST Admits Free Fall: Amazingly, NIST did acknowledge free fall in its final report. It tried to disguise it, but the admission is there on page 607. Dividing the building’s descent into three stages, it describes the second phase as “a freefall descent over approximately eight stories at gravitational acceleration for approximately 2.25 s[econds]. “Gravitational acceleration” is a synonym for free fall acceleration.

Content from External Source

So with that statement that the collapse happened in three stage and the middle part was the part where free fall happened wouldn't that mean the collapse had already started before the supports failed across the eight floors? Why if the building had already begun collapsing would it be necessary to detonate support columns on eight floors? If free fall doesn't happen at the start of the fall your claim that the support structure was demolished by explosives can't be what caused the collapse.
 
And which one of those three would you like to discuss?

Let's talk about the shear stud failure issue, shall we? I have done a search of the forum and didn't find it referred to previously, apologies if I missed it.

The point is, if NIST used inaccurate assumptions or mechanisms as the basis for its computer model, then that computer model is not going to produce an accurate description of reality, simple GIGO principle.
 
Let's talk about the shear stud failure issue, shall we? I have done a search of the forum and didn't find it referred to previously, apologies if I missed it.

The point is, if NIST used inaccurate assumptions or mechanisms as the basis for its computer model, then that computer model is not going to produce an accurate description of reality, simple GIGO principle.

Shear studs were mentioned twice, but I assume you mean this?
Shear Stud Failure: A third case of fabrication involves shear studs again – this time the shear studs that connected to the steel beams to the floor slab.

NIST claims that, due to the failure of that crucial girder discussed earlier, the floor beams were able to expand without constraint. But each of these beams was connected to the floor slab by 28 high-strength shear studs. These studs should have provided plenty of restraint.


They would have, except for the fact, NIST tells us, that they all broke.


Why did they break? Because of what NIST calls “differential thermal expansion,” which is simply a technical way of saying that, in response to the heat from the fires, the steel beams expanded more than the floor slabs did.


But why would that have been the case? Steel and concrete have virtually the same “coefficient of thermal expansion,” meaning that they expand virtually the same amount in response to heat. If that were not the case, reinforced concrete – that is, concrete reinforced with steel – would break up when the weather got very hot or very cold. NIST itself points out that “steel and concrete have similar coefficients of thermal expansion.”


So why does NIST claim that the shear studs broke because of differential thermal expansion?


To understand this point, you need to understand that NIST’s theory is an almost totally computer-based theory. NIST fed various variables into a computer program, which then supposedly told it how WTC 7 would have reacted to its fires. So, what did NIST feed into its computer that caused it to say that the steel would have expanded so much more than the concrete slab that all of the shear studs would have broken? The answer is given in this bland statement:
No thermal expansion or material degradation was considered for the concrete slab, as the slab was not heated in this analysis.
When I first read this statement, I had to rub my eyes. Surely, I thought, I have mis-read the statement, because a few pages earlier, NIST had said: “differential thermal expansion occurred between the steel floor beams and concrete slab when the composite floor was subjected to fire.” The “composite floor,” by definition, is the steel beams made composite with the floor slab by means of the shear studs. So NIST had clearly said, in stating that the composite floor had been subjected to fire, that both the steel beams and the concrete slab had been heated.


But then in the eye-rubbing passage, NIST said: When doing its computer simulation, it told the computer that only the steel beams had been heated; the concrete floor slab was not. [54]


So of course the steel beams would have expanded, while the floor slabs stayed stationary, thereby causing the sheer studs to break, after which the steel beams could expand like crazy and bump into Column 79, which then causes the whole building to come down.
Content from External Source
 
Thanks for this PDF.

The phrase "No thermal expansion or material degradation was considered for the slab, as the slab was not heated in this analysis." is on p353

The phrase "In general, the steel framing heated more quickly than the concrete slab. Thus, even though steel and
concrete have similar coefficients of thermal expansion, differential thermal expansion occurred between
the steel floor beams and concrete slab when the composite floor was subjected to fire." is on p490

It appears that the expansion of the concrete slab should have been included in the computer model, but was not.
 
Thanks for this PDF.

The phrase "No thermal expansion or material degradation was considered for the slab, as the slab was not heated in this analysis." is on p353

The phrase "In general, the steel framing heated more quickly than the concrete slab. Thus, even though steel and
concrete have similar coefficients of thermal expansion, differential thermal expansion occurred between
the steel floor beams and concrete slab when the composite floor was subjected to fire." is on p490

It appears that the expansion of the concrete slab should have been included in the computer model, but was not.

Yes it was.

8.8 FINITE ELEMENT ANALYSIS OF THE NORTHEAST FLOOR FRAMINGSYSTEM
A finite element analysis of the northeast corner floor system was conducted to evaluate its response to
elevated temperatures and to confirm which failure modes needed to be accounted for in the 16-story
ANSYS model. A finite element model of the northeast corner was developed using the LS-DYNA
software that included the design details described in the previous section such as shear studs on the
beams and seat connections at the girder ends and exterior ends of the beams.

The structural framing was modeled in detail using shell elements. The boundary conditions were
selected to approximate the remaining portion of the structure that was not included in the model. The
girder and beam temperatures were assumed to be 500 °C and 600 °C, respectively, and the slab was
assumed to remain unheated. The boundary conditions and temperatures were selected to create
maximum shear forces on the stud connectors and beam and girder connections. Note that, in the detailed
finite element analyses of the 16-story ANSYS model (see Chapter 11), no boundary conditions were
applied to the floor slabs, and the temperatures of both the steel and concrete were derived from a thermal
analysis based on fire dynamics calculations.
Content from External Source
So where the slab was not heated it was in a limited analysis of the northeast corner floor done to determine the failure modes (the ways in which it might fail).

The full analysis used correct temperatures of both steel and concrete.
 
Yes, it's been explained numerous times. Explanations abound. All over the internet, bookstores, and libraries.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7_World_Trade_Center
The fires burned out of control during the afternoon, causing floor beams near column 79 to expand and push a key girder off its seat, triggering the floors to fail around column 79 on Floors 8 to 14. With a loss of lateral support across nine floors, column 79 buckled – pulling the east penthouse and nearby columns down with it. With the buckling of these critical columns, the collapse then progressed east-to-west across the core, ultimately overloading the perimeter support, which buckled between Floors 7 and 17, causing the remaining portion of the building above to fall downward as a single unit.
Content from External Source


What do you find lacking in these explanations?

It seems to me that the NIST WTC 7 report debunks the fire-induced collapse hypothesis by representing this computer model as its best attempt to prove the case. It is simply not sufficiently accurate to the evidence. It supposes an internal collapse before the collapse of the facade, but as soon as the facade starts to fall it begins to deviate markedly from the video evidence. It is extremely clear that if the model here had been allowed to run for another second it would not resemble the video evidence at all. The video evidence strongly suggests the simultaneous failure of columns. The NIST model here shows what fire might do, but fire cannot cause columns to fail simultaneously and if this is NIST's best attempt to model the video evidence then fire must be discounted completely.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
It seems to me that the NIST WTC 7 report debunks the fire-induced collapse hypothesis by representing this computer model as its best attempt to prove the case. It is simply not sufficiently accurate to the evidence. It supposes an internal collapse before the collapse of the facade, but as soon as the facade starts to fall it begins to deviate markedly from the video evidence. It is extremely clear that if the model here had been allowed to run for another second it would not resemble the video evidence at all. The video evidence strongly suggests the simultaneous failure of columns. The NIST model here shows what fire might do, but fire cannot cause columns to fail simultaneously and if this is NIST's best attempt to model the video evidence then fire must be discounted completely.

I think if the simulation were allowed to run, then it would fall straight down - there's nothing supporting it at that point - which is why they stopped the simulation.

Don't you think if it were as obvious as that, then all the hundreds of thousands of structural engineering students in the world would be able to see the problem?
 
I think if the simulation were allowed to run, then it would fall straight down - there's nothing supporting it at that point - which is why they stopped the simulation.
Really? It seems to me it is clearly falling away from the perspective of the model, which is to say, towards the damaged south side. The near vertical edge of the facade in the model moves in a way that is quite different to the observed direct fall of the facade in the video evidence. It seems to me that this deviation is increasing as the model runs on. It makes no sense to say a computer model would be stopped because it was accurately modelling an event. The model in this state represents less than half of the time the facade is seen to fall in the video evidence.

Don't you think if it were as obvious as that, then all the hundreds of thousands of structural engineering students in the world would be able to see the problem?
I certainly think hundreds of thousands of structural engineering should be allowed to test and examine the complete datasets of the ANSYS and LS-DYNA models NIST produced of this remarkable and unprecedented event in the history of structural engineering. It should be on every advanced structural engineering course as an object lesson in the remarkable power of fire to bring down buildings in near-symmetrical manner. But they can't, can they, because NIST has classified data and rendered its computer models untestable.

There's absolutely no scientifically credible reason to do so. Can you think of one? http://cryptome.org/wtc-nist-wtc7-no.pdf
 
I certainly think hundreds of thousands of structural engineering should be allowed to test and examine the complete datasets of the ANSYS and LS-DYNA models NIST produced of this remarkable and unprecedented event in the history of structural engineering. It should be on every advanced structural engineering course as an object lesson in the remarkable power of fire to bring down buildings in near-symmetrical manner. But they can't, can they, because NIST has classified data and rendered its computer models untestable.

But my question is why can't they see what you see? I presume you are not a structural engineer? So all those hundreds of thousands of students should be able to form an even more accurate evaluation than you did, just by looking at it.

So why aren't they all up in arms?

Back to the simulation, I thought the argument against it was that it was TOO accurate, and that they had fitted to the data to match the observed events. You are saying something different to most truthers then, that it's not accurate enough? Is that right?
 
I think what he is seeing is the near side falling toward the far side of the building. It is likely it did start to fall that way, untill it ran into the mass of the other side falling. It is almost an optical illusion.
 
I'm saying it doesn't much look like the event and you don't need to be a structural engineer to see that. Frankly I think a child could see how inaccurate the model is compared with the video evidence, but if you can't see it and if you think thousands of structural engineers would agree with you then that's your perspective.

I'm also saying it's bad science because some of the research data has been concealed for no scientifically credible reason. I don't know why scientists in general aren't up in arms about that either, but it's still the facts.
 
I'm saying it doesn't much look like the event and you don't need to be a structural engineer to see that. Frankly I think a child could see how inaccurate the model is compared with the video evidence, but if you can't see it and if you think thousands of structural engineers would agree with you then that's your perspective.

Then why do all the other truthers claim it's rigged to look TOO MUCH like the event?
 
Then why do all the other truthers claim it's rigged to look TOO MUCH like the event?
Never heard that myself, but if you say so. There's plenty of 'truther' stuff like this on youtube pointing out how inaccurate the NIST model is though
I guess if NIST had published all its data like a credible scientific investigation, it wouldn't be a question either way.
 
But if you can already tell it's inaccurate, then what would releasing the data tell you? Surely the only reason to question it would be if it were TOO accurate?

You think they deliberately fudged the data to make it less accurate?
 
But if you can already tell it's inaccurate, then what would releasing the data tell you? Surely the only reason to question it would be if it were TOO accurate?

You think they deliberately fudged the data to make it less accurate?
That's simply a matter of scientific principle. What credible publicly-funded scientific investigation doesn't publish all its research data and then uses the NCST Act to refuse FOIA requests from independent experts? There's nothing credible about that and absolutely no reason to do so. None.
 
That's simply a matter of scientific principle. What credible publicly-funded scientific investigation doesn't publish all its research data and then uses the NCST Act to refuse FOIA requests from independent experts? There's nothing credible about that and absolutely no reason to do so. None.

I'd certainly prefer it if they did. But they didn't. Are you going to base your entire argument on that?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top