WTC7 Penthouse Falling Window Wave

NCSTAR 1A p.5 [PDF p. 47]
 
Mick,
The supposed collapse of the columns under the east penthouse is being used to explain the window wave so the fact that there is no proof that this happened is very much on topic.
This is relevant because it appears to show the East Penthouse falling rapidly though the building, which is consistent with a collapse of C79/80/81 at a low level, well before the other columns failed.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
The supposed collapse of the columns under the east penthouse is being used to explain the window wave so the fact that there is no proof that this happened is very much on topic.
The question here is if the wave is evidence of the collapse of the penthouse through the building. It's not about other evidence of that collapse. Please stay on topic.
 
The question here is if the wave is evidence of the collapse of the penthouse through the building. It's not about other evidence of that collapse. Please stay on topic.
The east penthouse could not fall that fast unless the columns under the penthouse failed near the bottom of the building. You said as much in your first post by saying that the wave
is consistent with a collapse of C79/80/81 at a low level
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
The east penthouse could not fall that fast unless the columns under the penthouse failed near the bottom of the building. You said as much in your first post by saying that the wave
is consistent with a collapse of C79/80/81 at a low level
Indeed, so if the East Penthouse DID fall that fast (if the wave is evidence of a fall) then that's evidence of such a column failure.
 

Oystein

Senior Member
I see a lot of guessing and imagining going on on both sides of this debate.
For example, the light shining or not shining through the windows in front of the hollowed eastern part: Perhaps - I am guessing as anybody else does - the collapse created plenty of dustin inside of the walls that blocked light below the 46th floor?

Everybody sees what they want to see. The wave is evidence of times explosive charges going off top to bottom if that is what suits your bias.
 
Indeed, so if the East Penthouse DID fall that fast (if the wave is evidence of a fall) then that's evidence of such a column failure.
I see a lot of guessing and imagining going on on both sides of this debate.
For example, the light shining or not shining through the windows in front of the hollowed eastern part: Perhaps - I am guessing as anybody else does - the collapse created plenty of dustin inside of the walls that blocked light below the 46th floor?

Everybody sees what they want to see. The wave is evidence of times explosive charges going off top to bottom if that is what suits your bias.
What? Me biased? ;-)

This has been a very worthwhile discussion.The light thru the windows and the window wave are subject to interpretation so they really don't qualify as evidence for either side.
 

Nada Truther

Active Member
In WTC7 the floors had already collapse, and it was only partial, so the air could go both down, sideways, and out the back (south side, where there were many broken windows)
Not to mention the fact that we can't see what is happening on the other side of the building. That is the more damaged side. There may have been areas already open for dirt and debris to escape. With WTC 1 and 2, everything below impact was pretty well sealed up until the collapse.
 

Nada Truther

Active Member
the collapse created plenty of dustin inside of the walls that blocked light below the 46th floor?

Everybody sees what they want to see. The wave is evidence of times explosive charges going off top to bottom if that is what suits your bias.
I would imagine that each floor that collapses would have some things still hanging as they collapsed. This would create a sort of curtaining effect IF light were to shine through. Is it possible that this curtaining effect is the reason that we don't see light? Maybe.... There are certain factors that we will NEVER know and our individual Bias' will have to probably remain forever. That is a fact that most of use are going to have to struggle with.
 

Nada Truther

Active Member
True there was wind.... But, it looks like you can still see some smoke being pulled into the building as the penthouse falls. This video is not a good example to view that, as it is so far away, but IMHO, you can still see it. If what you are saying is that it is the pressure from the wind pushing the smoke in, rather than a vacuum created.... Doesn't there need to be a cavity fro the wind to push into? Wouldn't that cavity be from the penthouse drop? Wouldn't that cavity be too negligible to observe any movement if it were only a floor's worth of cavity?

Maybe I am interpreting your statement wrong, but it looks like smoke is going into the building, instead of away from...

Also, you can observe the penthouse wave in this video too.
 
True there was wind.... But, it looks like you can still see some smoke being pulled into the building as the penthouse falls. This video is not a good example to view that, as it is so far away, but IMHO, you can still see it. If what you are saying is that it is the pressure from the wind pushing the smoke in, rather than a vacuum created.... Doesn't there need to be a cavity fro the wind to push into? Wouldn't that cavity be from the penthouse drop? Wouldn't that cavity be too negligible to observe any movement if it were only a floor's worth of cavity?

Maybe I am interpreting your statement wrong, but it looks like smoke is going into the building, instead of away from...

Also, you can observe the penthouse wave in this video too.
I'm saying that the breeze was pushing the smoke away from WTC 7 and it was too far away to be sucked into WTC 7. This is straw grasping OMnsHO. ;-)
 

benthamitemetric

Senior Member
So I was doing some additional research on ground zero iron workers in connection with Mick's thread on the angle cut column cited by Richard Gage, and I came across a heretofore little-noticed book that recounts the experiences of such iron workers called Nine Months at Ground Zero: The Story of the Brotherhood of Workers Who Took on a Job Like No Other by Glenn Stout.

One of the first accounts related in the book is that of construction worker Bobby Gray who witnessed the collapse of WTC7 firsthand from somewhere 2-4 blocks away (near Chambers and W. Broadway) and recounts it as follows:

(Pg. 34.)

Interesting to note that the fire fighters in the area suspected collapse was imminent prior to the visible collapse of the penthouse. Of course conspiracy theorists will assert these fire fighters must have had foreknowledge of a planned demolition; however, given that there is zero evidence of that and Gray doesn't report any sounds of explosions or other indicia of a demolition, it seems much more likely that the fire fighters who were watching the building had observed changes to the structural integrity that could not be seen from the limited views we have on video from the north.

Also interesting to note is that, according to the same book, Gray had worked on WTC7 when it was being built:

(Pg. 29. Emphasis added.)

Another the account of another construction worker, Charlie Vitchers, is similar:

(Pg. 34.)

Note his impression of the fires were that they were so severe he thought all 47 floors were on fire (which we know wasn't the case based on photographic evidence). Again, however, another clear account of people on scene worried that the building would collapse and then watching the building collapse without any indication that there were explosives used. Vitchers even notes that the building was shaking before it came down, which is consistent with the NIST hypothesis that there were massive internal collapses prior to the collapse of the northern wall and inconsistent with Tony's theory of a discrete penthouse collapse event.
 
Last edited:

Alienentity

Active Member
I was just scrubbing over some WTC7 collapse video when I noticed something new to me. When the East penthouse falls though the building it creates a visible wave on the windows, presumable as they are twisted or pushed out somehow by the changes in pressure. The scale of the pressure is also visible by the smoke being sucked in at the top of the building.

Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wf1HcJ7GKsc

View attachment 30897
This is relevant because it appears to show the East Penthouse falling rapidly though the building, which is consistent with a collapse of C79/80/81 at a low level, well before the other columns failed.

I think some people, like @Tony Szamboti, have suggested that the East Penthouse actually only fell in a few floors, and that lower interior column failures were simultaneous, but this seems at odds with that.

You can kind of see this in the more familiar footage on the right, but the angle and lighting are not perfect, and there's more obscures.

Contrast has been adjusted individually on all three videos.
Hi Mick et al., it's been a looooong time! I circled back here after someone posted a comment on one of my collapse videos and I did a quick search to get back up to speed.
I just wanted to point out vis-a-vis the deformation of the facade that we had noticed and discussed this many years ago, particularly with regard to the evidence of the structure below the mechanical penthouse failing.
Whatever details people choose to focus on for discussion, in my view the most important fact which is habitually overlooked is that, at the time of that internal collapse and the disappearance of the penthouse, as well as at the moments when the entire facade began to fall, there were no explosions of any kind recorded by any video cameras in the area. Without a doubt, this provides the strongest refutation of any explosive controlled demolition theory, and the strongest support for the fire-induced collapse models.
To my knowledge (correct me if I'm wrong) there are no models of explosive CD concerning this collapse, whereas there are models of fire-induced collapse. As of 2018, it seems a large omission for the CD proponents if their arguments are to be taken seriously.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
To my knowledge (correct me if I'm wrong) there are no models of explosive CD concerning this collapse, whereas there are models of fire-induced collapse. As of 2018, it seems a large omission for the CD proponents if their arguments are to be taken seriously.
I believe that the Hulsey/Szamboti study is planning to show a model where eight floors worth of all the interior columns are simultaneously "removed". Perhaps @Tony Szamboti could explain how this happened silently.

The explosion sound issue is important, as it's fairly conclusive evidence in itself, especially if you are talking about simultaneous failure of multiple columns. However lots of people have no problem in imaging some kind of advanced secret technology of fast yet silent explosive cutting charges. While such thing have about as much basis as directed energy weapons, you're then face with the challenge of explaining the impossibility behind such a thing. So I think addition weight for argument from things like this window wave is still very useful.

It's hard to know what one thing might click with someone.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
I believe that the Hulsey/Szamboti study is planning to show a model where eight floors worth of all the interior columns are simultaneously "removed". Perhaps @Tony Szamboti could explain how this happened silently.
Hmm, although Hulsey says:

https://www.ae911truth.org/news/480-wtc-7-evaluation-nearing-the-finish-line-an-interview-with-dr-leroy-hulsey
Which is slightly surprising, as @Tony Szamboti has been saying it did not need the exterior columns to be cut, and he's working with Hulsey on the study.
 

econ41

Senior Member
I'm unsure which point the reference is to "this only as claimed by @econ41" but I have posted my position on both issues several ( :rolleyes: ) times:

If the reference is to "Tony working with Hulsey" I have not made any assertive comments to that end. However I have many times surmised that Hulsey is being "guided by" or "having his strings pulled by" T Szamboti - the main reason being his reliance on the T Szamboti "trade mark" debating trick of relying on false starting premises or assumptions. A feature I have consistently identified in Tony's work since my first on-line post in 2007. Notably with "Missing Jolt" and the three or four evolutionary developments of Tony's claims for WTC7. However I grew tired of being the "lone voice in the wilderness" some months after the Hulsey project started and I have limited myself to drawing attention to the impossibility of Hulsey's goal of "prove that fire could not cause collapse".

So - I would not be surprised if T Sz is pulling Hulsey's strings is as far as I go. I have no proof. Others may be paying more attention than me.

On the second issue "@Tony Szamboti has been saying it did not need the exterior columns to be cut," I cannot recall seeing any such claim by T Sz. My own position agrees with JSOrling - I think it is plausible that transfer truss failure could have created the ~8 story gap for the fall of the perimeter facades AND the strength of the moment frames maintained the unity of the perimeter after the core collapsed.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Not sure that's true. I remember this only as claimed by @econ41, but haven't seen any evidence.
Which bit? The first bit Tony has confirmed here:
As shown here, I have explained several times that there was no need to set charges on the exterior columns to produce the observed collapse of WTC 7.
The working with Hulsey comes from a couple of things, in my podcast debate with him he said:
(I did not know, other than him being a member of AE911, but it was not surprising)

The second, unfortunately I forget where I saw it, but I remember Tony discussing the removal of 8 floors in the context of what to expect from the Hulsey study. Perhaps on Facebook in one of the 9/11 groups. I could be wrong.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member

Oystein

Senior Member
No doubt Hulsey has consulted Szamboti going into the project. It is rather obvious that Hulsey had never read the NIST report independently from his AE911 job, but was put up to speed on the Truther take by them.

What I dispute or question is that Szamboti is "working with Hulsey on the study" - present tense. Not sure that being "in contact with them" amounts to "working with Hulsey".
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
What I dispute or question is that Szamboti is "working with Hulsey on the study" - present tense. Not sure that being "in contact with them" amounts to "working with Hulsey".
I guess I was extrapolating from things I remember reading, or was told in private. I don't know if he's currently working on it. But he has contributed to some degree. We'll see.
 

econ41

Senior Member
... We'll see.
That has been my attitude for some time. "Wait and see". In my case with absolute confidence that lots of active persons will address the detail level and almost certainly falsify Hulsey's methods.

Other than that my comments only go to the similarity of Hulsey's base level error (the impossible objective) with the same strategy that has been successful for T Szamboti since 2007. I haven't claimed that they are or must be or any other assertion about relationship of the parties. Only that Hulsey's foundation error is identical to Tony's 11 year consistent "trademark". And that it could be a coincidence but...."pulling the strings" satisfies Occam's Razor.

So - I'll wait for proof either way.
 

Jeffrey Orling

Senior Member
Column 44 could be pulled inward only if floor girders were still attached to the perimeter frame. It's possible they weren't.
If there was steel framed into the moment frame spandrel beam.. composite with the slab... and if the slab collapsed it would have to break free of the spandrel... exerting an inward force... or stay attached and pull the moment frame inward as it collapsed. Maybe
 

Joe Hill

Member
If there was steel framed into the moment frame spandrel beam.. composite with the slab... and if the slab collapsed it would have to break free of the spandrel... exerting an inward force... or stay attached and pull the moment frame inward as it collapsed. Maybe
"If the slab collapsed", could it not originate at the perimeter, thus pulling on it's corresponding core column as it fell?
Floor to perimeter connections seems to me an under studied part of the structure. I'm looking through the threads to see if the subject has been covered. Floor/perimeter connections may need a separate thread from this one, but I think it worthy to consider the "pressure waves" had something to do with floors detaching from the perimeter frame.
 
Last edited:
Top