Worldwide Campaign to raise awareness of Building 7

[Pharaoh]

More than eight years after the tragedy of September 11, 2001, New York Supreme Court Justice Edward H. Lehner was hearing arguments in a courtroom less than a mile from Ground Zero about a ballot initiative to launch a new investigation of the 9/11 attacks. When the lawyer for the plaintiffs sponsoring the initiative explained that the 9/11 Commission report left many unanswered questions, including “Why did Building 7 come down,” the Judge replied quizzically, “Building what?”

Like Judge Lehner, millions of people do not know or remember only vaguely that a third tower called World Trade Center Building 7 also collapsed on September 11, 2001. In any other situation, the complete, free fall collapse of a 47-story skyscraper would be played over and over on the news. It would be discussed for years to come and building design codes would be completely rewritten. So, why does no one know about Building 7? And why did Building 7 come down?

The answers to these questions have far-reaching implications for our society. The goal of the “BuildingWhat?” campaign is to raise awareness of Building 7 so that together we can begin to address these questions.

Thank you for visiting BuildingWhat.org.
What is Building 7?

Building 7 was a 47-story skyscraper and was part of the World Trade Center complex. Built in 1984, it would have been the tallest high-rise in 33 states in the United States. It collapsed at 5:20 pm on September 11, 2001. It was not hit by an airplane and suffered minimal damage compared to other buildings much closer to the Twin Towers.

Watch footage of Building 7 collapse:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bWorDrTC0Qg&feature=play...

[Tippy]

1. K&R....

[hack89]

2. It did not suffer "minimal damage" according to the FDNY eyewitnesses. nt

[LARED]

3. Those that need to be aware probably are aware.

It would be discussed for years to come and building design codes would be completely rewritten. So, why does no one know about Building 7?

Codes have been rewritten based on the findings for the wtc towers and building 7 collapse. People that design and build buildings are in the loop.


And why did Building 7 come down?

Basically two primary things according to the experts.

1. A unique design
2. A uncontrolled fire.

[DeSwiss]

4. That's BS. n/t

[William Seger]

6. Um, no it isn't

There is absolutely no valid, rational reason to think that another investigation into WTC 7 would produce any conclusion significantly different from the NIST investigation. If Richard Gage has deceived you into believing otherwise, then your BS detector is seriously defective. If Gage succeeds in getting that new investigation, it's pretty clear that all he's got to bring to the table is a list of things he doesn't understand and a list of claims based on imaginary physics -- the most absurd being that the building was demolished by secret military silent explosives. Unless the "investigation" is conducted by a bunch of equally incompetent idiots, it'll be game over for Gage's scam.

[immune]

7. Well then

you should have nothing at all to worry about if a new investigation is launched. If you're so convinced Gage is a scammer and a fool, why not let him prove it to the world? It'd put a notch on your belt (at least here in the dungeon) and that couldn't be all bad.

Could it?

[SDuderstadt]

8. "Truther logic"

We should pay for another investigation so Richard Gage can prove he's an idiot.

Duh.

[immune]

9. Well hey,

aren't you the one who thinks its only money and there's always more of that wherever the old money came from? No worries, we've got a printing press.

[zappaman]

11. what does that have to do with the topic being addressed?

do you ever make sense?

[SDuderstadt]

12. Another stupid strawman argument from...

"immune".

It just never ends.

[immune]

13. What never ends is

that damned printing press. Gotta keep that puppy rolling out those billion dollar bailouts, but not a nickel for a real investigation.

[zappaman]

15. but what really smells

is the grass after it pours down rain and who knows how big a fish to fry?

[deconstruct911]

10. OCT logic:

If the government had something to hide they would reveal it in tax payer funded investigations. Right SDuderstadt?

[SDuderstadt]

16. The only thing that makes less sense than your question is...

why you're addressing it to me, dude.

[deconstruct911]

17. No matter how much money you throw at it

the outcome always stays the same. I agree that no more money should be wasted on the OCT.

[Christopfer7]

18. Post #14 was also addressed to you

Do you understand the significance of the 100 feet of free fall acceleration of WTC 7 ?

[William Seger]

24. Duh. The significance is...

... that about 8 floors suffered a progressive failure in a very short period of time and offered virtually no resistance to the fall. Gage claims that free-fall must equal controlled demolition, but that's simply silly, regardless of whether or not you understand why. Perhaps you should consider that there just might be a reason why Gage can't muster up a single competent engineer who can make that case with a valid technical argument. Gage doesn't even try to do that; he's content to sucker the rubes with specious logic and ridiculous assertions.

Now it's your turn: Do you understand the significance of the fact that this near-free-fall did not occur until the collapse was already well under way? Do you buy the argument that after somehow triggering a collapse that looks exactly like a progressive failure and the building was already doomed, the conspirators decided they needed to blow out 8 floors, and that they must have done so with secret military silent explosives?

[SDuderstadt]

27. Sorry, dude...

that doesn't make it a "controlled demolition".

[quickesst]

114. "dude"

I read all your posts until I got really tired of the "dude" insult to everyone who asked you a question, or replied to one. Richard Gage is not the only person asking for an independent investigation into 9/11. Pretending that anything different is not only insulting, but an attempt to minimize the support it deserves. Email, or call the victims, and those who lost loved ones in the debacle of 9/11 and tell them how fucked up crazy they are. And don't forget the "dude" signature you are familiarized with. I wonder if they will appreciate lt as much as you do. Thanks.
quickesst

[SDuderstadt]

115. Dude...

Please show me where I have ever "pretended" that Richard Gage is the only one calling for a new investigation of 9/11. I'd also love for you to show me where I have ever referred to ANYONE as "fucked up crazy".

Are you trying to see how many strawmen you can pack into a single post? And, be sure to complain to the moderators that "dude" is an "insult".

Too funny.

[terrafirma]

19. What if...

an independent investigation that Gage approved of came to the same conclusion as NIST.

Would you guys drop it?

Or start digging for connections as to how the investigators must've been tied to PNAC?

[William Seger]

22. Worry? LMAO

I can assure you, laughing my ass off is what I'll be doing if Gage gets his new investigation.

[ryan_cats]

117. He's been trying to prove it to the world since, what, 2006?

He's been trying to prove it to the world since what, 2006?

Do you have a link to any of the building's he's designed? I'd love to see what his style is. Is he a modernist, classical or period style and how does he incorporate his style with his clients who might want something else such as using certain styling motifs to satisfy his clients and his own artistic integrity. Finally, does he do his own structural engineering?

Thank you,

[Christopfer7]

14. WTC 7 fell at free fall acceleration for 100 feet

Do you understand the significance?

BTW: I knew WTC 7 was a controlled demolition before Richard Gage created AE911truth. The simple truth is here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ixwx19t2IMQ

[William Seger]

21. It fell at much less than free-fall for over 6 seconds

Do you understand the significance of that? Apparently not, and don't count on Gage's clowns to explain it to you, because they apparently do not, either.

Do you really think it matters that you and Gage don't understand the significance? Do you really think it matters that you and Gage think any free-fall means controlled demolition?

You "knew" it was a controlled demolition, huh? How did you "know" that without a shred of evidence implying that? You obviously have a non-standard way of "knowing" things. Wasn't it just because you can't understand how it could happen any other way? But why exactly do you think that people who DO understand how it happened should be impressed by your lack of understanding? Why do you think your lack of understanding should be sufficient to convince rational people that something ridiculously implausible must have happened? If the ridiculously implausible really happened, why do you not have a shred of actual, valid evidence for it?

Richard Gage and his "over 1300 engineers and architects" have manifestly failed to provide any evidence or reasoning that will stand up to review by experts. That is just a fact, my friend. Now, I wouldn't make any bets on whether or not he will get his new investigation, given the sad state of rational thinking in this country and the high level of both paranoia and gullibility, but only an ignorant fool would bet that a new investigation would uncover a controlled demolition based on the bullshit Gage is peddling. If you don't understand why I'm saying that, then you obviously haven't invested the effort it would take to have an informed opinion on the matter. Those of you who hitched your 9/11 conspiracy wagon to WTC7 simply made a bad decision, and if your ego won't let you admit that, then I guess you'll have to resign yourself to being ridiculed for it for the rest of your life.

[Christopfer7]

25. Ridicule is the rhetoric of those lacking substance

"It fell at much less than free-fall for over 6 seconds"

Denial/double talk

During that 6 seconds there was a period of 2.25 seconds of absolute free fall acceleration - within one tenth of one percent as calculated by NIST.


NCSTAR 1-A pg 45 (pdf pg 87)
"The slope of the velocity curve is approximately constant between about 1.75 s and 4.0 s, and a good straight line fit to the points in this range (open-circles in Figure 3-15) allowed estimation of a constant downward acceleration during this time interval. This acceleration was 32.2 ft/s2 (9.81 m/s2), equivalent to the acceleration of gravity g."

The acceleration of gravity for New York City is 9.802 m/s2

NCSTAR 1-A pg 45 (pdf pg 87)
"In Stage 2, the north face descended at gravitational acceleration, as the buckled columns provided negligible* support to the upper portion of the north face. This free fall drop continued for approximately 8 stories or 32.0 m (105 ft)"
*Negligible: too small to be worth considering

NCSTAR 1A pg 55 (pdf pg 970)
"The entire building above the buckled-column* region then moved downward in a single unit, as observed, completing the global collapse sequence."
*buckled-column was assumed, not observed.

[William Seger]

28. Willful ignorance is the rhetoric of the delusional

This is a pretty simple point: If the building had been demolished with Gage's magical silent explosives, then the free-fall would have started immediately, not well after the building was already irreversibly on its way down. What Chandler's analysis really shows is that the collapse doesn't really look like a controlled demolition at all, if you pay attention to the details.

But instead of doing that, Chandler and Gage ignore the totality of the data (and the obvious reason for it), focus on that 2.25 seconds, and make the ridiculous assertion that any free-fall equals controlled demolition. But this is another pretty simple point: Buckled columns do in fact provide negligible support, as the NIST report says, and broken columns provide exactly zero support.

You want substance? The progressive collapse hypothesis explains all of the knows facts and details, while the CD hypothesis completely ignores most of the facts. There is simply no real contest between the two.

Substance is exactly what these silly CD theories lack, my friend. "The top third falling sorta looked like a CD, so it must have been a CD" is not a substantial argument. "It didn't sound like a CD, so they must have used magical silent explosives" is not a substantial argument. These are perfectly ridiculous arguments, so if you're going to make them, you shouldn't be surprised when you're ridiculed.

So let's make this substantial point again: Gage & Co have provided exactly zero valid, rational reasons for thinking a new investigation would produce any different conclusion.

[Christopfer7]

32. Talk around

"the free-fall would have started immediately"
Really? How the hell would you know?

WTC 7 imploded.
FEMA Chapter 5 pg 31
Loss of strength due to the transfer trusses could explain why the building imploded.

And landed mostly in its own footprint.
NIST L pg 33
The debris of WTC 7 was mostly contained within the original footprint of the building.

Implode is a demolition term which means getting a building to fall in on itself and land mostly in its own footprint.
http://www.implosionworld.com/cinema.htm

The focus on the 100 feet of free fall acceleration is because a progressive collapse provides resistance and free fall is not possible

Dr. Sunder said:
"a free fall time would be an object that has no structural components below it . . . 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."

In other words, the NIST progressive collapse hypothesis does not include a period of free fall acceleration because there is always structural resistance.

Their computer model bears this out. It is buckling but not breaking.

[AZCat]

34. I see you have missed the crucial difference...

between Sunder's "free fall time" and your "period of free fall acceleration". I am not surprised.

[Christopfer7]

35. There is no difference

Free fall is free fall regardless of what word you put after it.

The correct word is "acceleration".

[AZCat]

38. And there's the mistake.

Sunder appears to be talking about total elapsed time.

[Christopfer7]

40. No mistake

Sunder is talking in general when he says "a free fall time would be an object that has no structural components below it"
and specifically about the NIST model when he says "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."

[AZCat]

47. Of course he is.

You just don't get his distinction between the two cases.

[Christopfer7]

56. I understand what he said

"a free fall time would be an object that has no structural components below it . . . >>>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."

Keep reading that until you understand that he was saying: The NIST progressive collapse hypothesis does not include a period of free fall acceleration because there is always structural resistance.


Your refusal to accept that he said the NIST model does not fall at free fall acceleration id denial.

[AZCat]

70. No, you don't.

It's quite clear you misunderstand Sunder's point.

[Christopfer7]

82. Yes I do! ;-)

It's quite clear YOU misunderstand Sunder's point.

[AZCat]

94. I think this is an argument...

where we will not reconcile our opinions.

[Christopfer7]

99. The laws of physics are not a matter of opinion

Do you understand that free fall acceleration means falling thru air, no resistance?

[AZCat]

100. It is not the laws of physics that are the contentious item...

but rather the meaning of Sunder's statement.

[William Seger]

37. Either address the issue or stop wasting my time

> "the free-fall would have started immediately"
> Really? How the hell would you know?

Say what? If the collapse was initiated by blowing out columns, please tell me what you think would prevent the free-fall from starting immediately. Would the building have been too surprised to react immediately?

> The focus on the 100 feet of free fall acceleration is because a progressive collapse provides resistance and free fall is not possible.

But that's nonsense, and claiming that over and over doesn't make it true. Buckled columns provide negligible resistance, as the NIST report says, and broken columns provide exactly zero resistance. It's completely unavoidable, therefore, that there would be some periods of near-free-fall acceleration during a progressive collapse. You might make the claim less nonsensical by saying that you don't think there "ought" to have been a 2.25 second period of near-free-fall, but as I said, the NIST simulation shows why it happened. You and Gage are asking people to accept a ridiculously implausible theory based on absolutely nothing but how you think things "ought" to work. But you've admitted that you're a dyed-in-the-wool conspiracist who formed your theory first (you just "knew" it) and then set about sifting through the evidence, trying to make it sound like a rational conclusion. What I'm telling you is that you're not succeeding. The 2.25 seconds of near-free-fall is not impossible, so you can't use a false claim of impossibility as proof of a ridiculously implausible hypothesis.

As I said, the NIST theory explains all of the known facts, while the CD hypothesis (in addition to being ridiculously implausible) is compelled to ignore most of the known facts. There is really no contest between the two, and there is really no reason to doubt the outcome of new investigation.

[Christopfer7]

39. The issue is the free fall acceleration for 100 feet

"If the collapse was initiated by blowing out columns, please tell me what you think would prevent the free-fall from starting immediately."

Answer: nothing

As observed:

Columns 79, 80 and 81, under the east penthouse failed simultaneously.

About 8 seconds later, the other 21 core columns were removed (on 7 floors) east to west in 1 to 2 seconds. (a steel structure cannot break apart that fast)

During that time the exterior frame began to buckle as the interior columns and floor slabs pulled down on them. The roof line moved down ~3 feet at the northeast corner and ~7 feet where the kink developed.

Then all the exterior columns were REMOVED simultaneously on 7 floors and WTC 7 went into free fall acceleration for 100 feet.


The NIST hypothesis, which they admit is only a "probable collapse sequence" ten times in the final report, is based on the videos, photographs and witness statements.

Their entire hypothesis is based on observation and supposition so don't complain about my doing the same. I just described what can be seen in the videos. And don't give me the "they are the experts" crap. They were under the control of the Bush administration that had Zelikow control and compromise the 9/11 Commission. I found 5 frauds in the final report and two blatant lies that Shyam Sunder told in the Popular Mechanics so called "debunking" article. They are not trustworthy and your blind faith in them is neither warranted or wise.

NIST tried to find a way to have the observable collapse fit a pre-determined conclusion but failed.

You keep insisting that buckling columns (the exterior columns did not break in the NIST model) provide "negligible" resistance. You got that from the NIST report and it was intentionally misleading. It sounds like they provided some resistance when they did not. Free fall means NO resistance, falling thru air.
Negligible means: too small to be considered or virtually zero.

As Shyam Sunder said:
"a free fall time would be an object that has no structural components below it . . . >>>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."

Keep reading that until you understand that he was saying: The NIST progressive collapse hypothesis does not include a period of free fall acceleration because there is always structural resistance.

[William Seger]

41. LOL, so you do in fact believe...

... that after initiating a collapse that looks exactly like a progressive failure, after the building was already irreversibly headed down, the perps blew out the columns on 7 floors, using magical silent explosives?

No, you are not "doing the same" as NIST, because you are not even attempting to formulate a coherent hypothesis that is plausible and rational, and which fits all the evidence. You are simply asserting that the NIST hypothesis is impossible even though it clearly isn't, and that the CD hypothesis must be correct even though it clearly doesn't fit the evidence. Sorry, but it is most certainly not a matter of "blind faith" that rational people will prefer the NIST theory until something better comes along. "Blind faith" would be a better description of people who "knew" the building was demolished just from watching the videos and who keep insisting that the building was demolished even though the evidence refuses to support it.

[Christopfer7]

42. looks exactly like a progressive failure?

How can it look like something that has never happened to a high rise building?

It looks exactly like what has happened to high rise buildings that have been demolished by controlled demolition as Dan Rather, Brian Williams and most other people recognize immediately.
@ 0:20 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nvx904dAw0o
@ 2:28 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jwwb7ons5hM&feature=play...

"you are not even attempting to formulate a coherent hypothesis that is plausible and rational, and which fits all the evidence."

On the contrary, I'm stating the obvious and indisputable fact that free fall for 100 feet can only occur if all the supporting structure is removed. Free fall means falling thru air. Do you understand that?

You are using the "I can't figure out how they did it, therefore it did not happen" denial technique.

Keep reading this until you understand that he was saying: The NIST progressive collapse hypothesis does not include a period of free fall acceleration because there is always structural resistance.

Shyam Sunder:
"a free fall time would be an object that has >>>no structural components<<< below it . . . >>>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."

There is NO evidence that WTC 7 was a progressive collapse, only a half baked theory from a government agency controlled by an administration that systematically distorted scientific reports to fit their political agenda.
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?sec=technolo...

I believe my eyes and the laws of physics. You believe the BUSH/NIST hypothesis.

[William Seger]

46. Yes, it looks exactly like a progressive failure

... because even with the limited information we have from the videos, we can see that the failure started under the east penthouse and spread through the rest of the building over a period of time, and we can see that when the entire building began to fall, for the first 1.75 seconds it did not fall at free-fall acceleration: It fell at a slower rate consistent with column buckling and inconsistent with the columns being blown out. You and the AE911truthers completely ignore these facts because they don't fit your preferred conclusions.

> On the contrary, I'm stating the obvious and indisputable fact that free fall for 100 feet can only occur if all the supporting structure is removed. Free fall means falling thru air. Do you understand that?

LOL, I understand perfectly why you've glommed onto that assertion and will continue to repeat it regardless of what's said to you about it. But to keep making it, at the very least you need to prove that it was precisely free-fall, not "near" free-fall, and having seen many of the video analyses, I'm convinced that you cannot do that.

> You are using the "I can't figure out how they did it, therefore it did not happen" denial technique.

Nonsense; you're not paying attention to what I'm saying. I'm using the "we don't need a complicated and implausible explanation, especially one that doesn't explain all the facts, when there is a simple and plausible one that does" denial technique. But I'm not surprised that you didn't recognize it; conspiracist don't seem to have much use for that technique. It doesn't guarantee finding the truth, of course, but the general idea is that it will often keep you from falling for preposterous bullshit.

I find it amusing that you accuse Sunder of being a fraud and a liar, and then you use an out-of-context quote from him to try to make your case. For the record, Sunder was talking about the totality of the collapse seen in the videos, which is all that NIST had analyzed, and in that context he is correct: The overall average acceleration seen in those videos was less than free-fall because of the resistance of the structure.

> I believe my eyes and the laws of physics.

Really. You make that claim even as you deliberately ignore the evidence that doesn't fit your paranoid speculations, and assume that the "laws of physics" are whatever would be required to make your paranoid speculations true. No offense, of course, but the actual topic here is what another investigation would produce.

[Christopfer7]

49. Sweet sophistry

"we can see that the failure started under the east penthouse and spread through the rest of the building over a period of time"

It "spread" across 7 column rows covering about 150 feet in 1 to 2 seconds.

A steel frame building cannot fall apart that fast.

"entire building began to fall, for the first 1.75 seconds it did not fall at free-fall acceleration: It fell at a slower rate consistent with column buckling"

Correct. The exterior columns were buckling because the core columns had been blown and thru the floor beams they were pulling the exterior columns down and in as is done in a building implosion. Then 7 floors of the exterior columns were removed simultaneously to permit free fall acceleration for 100 feet.

"But to keep making it, at the very least you need to prove that it was precisely free-fall, not "near" free-fall"

The NIST calculation of 9.81 m/s^2 is one ~tenth of one percent greater than free fall acceleration in NYC - 9.802 m/s^2. Since things cannot fall faster than free fall acceleration it is safe to say the building fell at free fall acceleration.

"Sunder was talking about the totality of the collapse seen in the videos, which is all that NIST had analyzed, and in that context he is correct"

The first part of his statement he was speaking in general:
"a free fall time would be an object that has no structural components below it"

The second part he was talking about their computer model:
"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."


"I find it amusing that you accuse Sunder of being a fraud and a liar"

Popular Mechanics "Debunking" article March 2005
http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law...

"NIST's Sunder tells PM. "On about a third of the face to the center and to the bottom — approximately 10 stories — about 25 percent of the depth of the building was scooped out."

Shyam Sunder did not mention that there were two statements in direct conflict with the 10 story gouge on the same page. He did not say "possible damage". He stated it as a fact.

His statement is consistent with the damage described on pg 18 and depicted on pg 23 of the NIST Appendix L report as "Possible Region of Impact Damage by WTC1 Debris" and on pages 31 and 32 as "Approximate Region of Impact Damage by Large WTC1 Debris".
http://wtc.nist.gov/progress_report_june04/appendixl.pd...

Those graphics are fraudulent.

NCSTAR 1-9 vol.1: A graphic on page 183 shows the debris damage to WTC 7.
http://wtc.nist.gov/NCSTAR1/PDF/NCSTAR%201-9%20Vol%201....

There is no 10 story gouge as described on pg 18 of the NIST L report.
Shyam Sunder LIED about there being 10 story gouge that scooped out a large portion of the front of the building.


"Second, a fifth-floor fire burned for up to 7 hours. "There was no firefighting in WTC 7," Sunder says. Investigators believe the fire was fed by tanks of diesel fuel that many tenants used to run emergency generators. Most tanks throughout the building were fairly small, but a generator on the fifth floor was connected to a large tank in the basement via a pressurized line. Says Sunder: "Our current working hypothesis is that this pressurized line was supplying fuel for a long period of time."

Shyam Sunder is clearly talking about the pressurized fuel line feeding a fire on floor 5.
A diesel fuel fire on floor 5 was the "working hypothesis" at the time.

NIST Final 4-5-05 pg 38
"This finding allows for the possibility, though not conclusively, that the fuel may have contributed to a fire on Floor 5."
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/WTC%20Part%20IIC%20-%20WTC%207...

The "working hypothesis" was a farce. There were no fires reported on floor 5 at any time and there was no reason to think there was a fire in the north-east generator room on that floor.

NIST gave up the diesel duel fire hypothesis in their 12-18-07 Approach Summary report.

[William Seger]

52. That's bullshit

> It "spread" across 7 column rows covering about 150 feet in 1 to 2 seconds.

Say what? Where are you getting that from? It was over 6 seconds from the time the penthouse fell until the entire building started to fall. That's the progressive failure propagation time, and there's nothing unbelievable about it.

> A steel frame building cannot fall apart that fast.

Sez you. That's another example of you making naked assertions about the "laws of physics," as if naked assertions should be good enough to prove the implausible claim you're making. And then you'll dismiss experts who say that it can happen that fast because, well, that would just ruin your whole "impossible" argument, wouldn't it.

> Correct. The exterior columns were buckling because the core columns had been blown and thru the floor beams they were pulling the exterior columns down and in as is done in a building implosion. Then 7 floors of the exterior columns were removed simultaneously to permit free fall acceleration for 100 feet.

LOL, is that the "sweet sophistry" your posting title refers to? The issue you're trying to obfuscate is that during the first 1.75 seconds after total collapse began, the visible part of the building accelerated at a rate consistent with exterior column buckling, and inconsistent with exterior columns being blasted away by explosives. You're simply claiming to "know" that the interior columns were failed by explosives and not by the progressive collapse postulated by NIST, which is equivalent to claiming either x-ray vision or psychic remote viewing powers. Just as I said, you are speculating without substantiation that the perps somehow triggered a collapse that looks indistinguishable from a progressive collapse, but then with building already irreversibly falling, for some baffling reason they decided they needed to blow out 7 or 8 floors of exterior columns. Why would they do that? Just to show off those magical silent explosives they got from the military, perhaps? I have to assume that either you just don't realize how idiotic that argument sounds, or that you are the one guilty of sophistry. Frankly, I'm not much interested in figuring out which it is, since the topic here is what the likely outcome would be from another investigation.

> The NIST calculation of 9.81 m/s^2 is one ~tenth of one percent greater than free fall acceleration in NYC - 9.802 m/s^2. Since things cannot fall faster than free fall acceleration it is safe to say the building fell at free fall acceleration.

Here are some key concepts you need to look into: experimental error; margin of error; significant digits; false precision. There is simply no way that limited-resolution video analysis will support the precision necessary to say that it was exactly free-fall acceleration. Your claim, then, really amounts to saying that there should have been enough resistance to be measurable with video analysis. When you have some actual physics-based analysis to support that claim, then please do come back and share it with us. Until then, it's just another naked assertion about the "laws of physics" tailored to support your argument. Until then, the total lack of any evidence for magical silent explosives being used (as well as the total lack of any rational reason why blowing our 7 or 8 floors of exterior columns would be necessary when the building was already falling) suggests that your naked assertion is simply wrong.

I'm not sure why you think that slandering Sunder strengthens your ridiculously weak arguments, but if disagreeing with someone allows you to call him a liar and a fraud, then remember that "what goes around comes around."

[Christopfer7]

54. NIST model does not match the videos

"It "spread" across 7 column rows covering about 150 feet in 1 to 2 seconds."

"Where are you getting that from?"

The same videos that NIST used for their assumptions.
At 3:15 of this video the screenwall and west penthouse fall east to west in about 1 second and then the entire building goes into free fall.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v3mudruFzNw

NIST L pg 34
"Since the screenwall and west penthouse fell >almost simultaneously<, it is reasonable to assume that the horizontal progression captured all the columns that support these building parts."

It is NOT reasonable to "assume" that 7 rows of core columns spanning 150 feet failed "progressively" and yet "almost simultaneously".



"It was over 6 seconds from the time the penthouse fell until the entire building started to fall."

You are referring to the east penthouse. For that 6 seconds, the screenwall and west penthouse did not move. The columns supporting them were not failing during that time. If they were, the failure would propagate up to the screenwall and west penthouse.

NIST admits that their model does not match the observed collapse in that regard.
NCSTAR 1-9 Vol.2 pg 612
"The results of this scenario were consistent with the observations >except< that the screenwall on the roof fell downward >before< the west penthouse."


"a collapse that looks indistinguishable from a progressive collapse"

How can it be indistinguishable from something that has never happened?


"The NIST calculation of 9.81 m/s^2 is one ~tenth of one percent greater than free fall acceleration in NYC - 9.802 m/s^2. Since things cannot fall faster than free fall acceleration it is safe to say the building fell at free fall acceleration."

"Here are some key concepts you need to look into: experimental error; margin of error; significant digits; false precision. There is simply no way that limited-resolution video analysis will support the precision necessary to say that it was exactly free-fall acceleration."

NIST has scientifically proven and stated that WTC 7 fell at free fall acceleration. The measurement is so close that the difference is negligible. It does not have to be exact. You refuse to accept this reality and spin your sophistry in a vain attempt to deny an scientifically established fact.


* * * * *

"I'm not sure why you think that slandering Sunder strengthens your ridiculously weak arguments, but if disagreeing with someone allows you to call him a liar and a fraud . . . "

I pointed out the lies Sunder told in the PM "Debunking" article using statements from the NIST reports.

You are in denial.

[William Seger]

58. We don't seem to be getting anywhere

> At 3:15 of this video the screenwall and west penthouse fall east to west in about 1 second and then the entire building goes into free fall.

Uh, and your point is ...? Exactly what does the time between the west penthouse falling and the entire building falling have to do with anything? That would be the time between the interior columns under that penthouse failing and the exterior wall failing, and I fail to see anything peculiar about that happening within a second or so. The progressive collapse began when the east penthouse fell, so it was already well underway by the time either of those events happened, and we only have indirect evidence of what was happening inside. But that indirect evidence is completely consistent with a progressive collapse, regardless of the cause of the initiating event under the east penthouse.

>It is NOT reasonable to "assume" that 7 rows of core columns spanning 150 feet failed "progressively" and yet "almost simultaneously".

Uh, yes it is. Progressive failures happen very rapidly because load paths change instantaneously when elements fail, so it's not reasonable to "assume" anything else unless you can come up with a valid reason for why it should have taken longer. But all you have are naked assertions about what you think "ought" to happen, in contradiction of the experts.

> NIST admits that their model does not match the observed collapse in that regard.
NCSTAR 1-9 Vol.2 pg 612
"The results of this scenario were consistent with the observations >except< that the screenwall on the roof fell downward >before< the west penthouse."

Uh, and your point is ...? Do you have any conception at all of how complicated the actual event was? NIST had to do considerable simplification -- including omitting the "curtain wall" exterior -- to get their model down to 3 million elements, to make it practical to run on a cluster of computers. But the purpose was to study the important physics, not to create a visually-matching animation. Ironically, since it was necessarily a simplified model, I take the fact that it doesn't look exactly like the actual collapse as an indication that they did an honest job: If they had just faked the model, it would probably have looked more like the actual collapse, which would have been suspicious given the simplifications.

> How can it be indistinguishable from something that has never happened?

Baloney. This may have been the first time a progressive collapse was triggered by a fire, but it was certainly not the first time a progressive collapse has ever happened. It was indistinguishable from a progressive collapse by the very definition of a progressive collapse. We see evidence of interior damage ripple upward on the east side, followed by the east penthouse falling, followed by breaking windows across the north face, followed by the west penthouse falling, followed by a kink in the roof as the east-center started falling, followed by the entire building falling. Would it be possible to plan a demolition that looked exactly like that? Sure. Is there any evidence or any rational reason to think that's what was done? Absolutely none at all, and that's the point. You keep trying to claim that it must have been a CD because the NIST theory is impossible, but you are manifestly unable to demonstrate why it's impossible. Do you seriously expect people to accept a wildly implausible speculation that a round-the-clock occupied, guarded building was prep'ed for a CD, for no apparent reason, based on nothing but your unsubstantiated denials? You say I have "blind faith" in the NIST report, which is not at all the case: I'm quite willing to consider evidence and rational reason for any other explanation, and if it sounds more plausible than the NIST theory, then I'll be happy to accept it as a better explanation. You simply have failed to do that, and dragging this thread out doesn't seem to be improving the situation. I'll remind you again that the topic here is not really what you believe and don't believe -- who cares? -- but rather what you can or can't prove if there was another investigation.

> The measurement is so close that the difference is negligible. It does not have to be exact. You refuse to accept this reality and spin your sophistry in a vain attempt to deny an scientifically established fact.

Ahem... I'm claiming that the "difference is negligible" because at that point in the collapse the resistance of the structure below was negligible relative to the load. You haven't even made an minimal attempt to demonstrate why something else should have been expected! You just assert it, call your naked assertions a "scientifically established fact," and then accuse me of sophistry? LMAO, this is getting pointless and boring, but I'll play this game as long as you like, so keep posting.

> You are in denial.

You are a hypocrite. You are in denial that you simply have neither evidence nor rational reasons for your beliefs. My defense of the NIST theory is simply that it makes a hell of a lot more sense than your naked assertions. Deal with it.

[Christopfer7]

63. Because your mind is closed

WS: "Uh, and your point is ...?"

I clearly stated my point. "A steel frame building cannot fall apart that fast."
"It is NOT reasonable to "assume" that 7 rows of core columns spanning 150 feet failed "progressively" and yet "almost simultaneously".

WS: "Progressive failures happen very rapidly because load paths change instantaneously when elements fail"

Vertical failures happen all at once when the column is continuous but a horizontal collapse (if it could occur) would take time as NIST states in their final report. Here is a summary of the data:

Time line using data from NCSTAR 1-9 Vol.2 pages 579-585 (pdf 241-247)
-1.3s Column 79 failed (Group 1)
-0.5s Column 80 fails (Group 1)
-0.5s Column 66 fails (Group 8)
~0.0s Column 81 fails (Group 1)
0.0s Kink in penthouse visible
1.3s Columns 77 & 78 failing (Group 2)
2.5s Columns 77 & 78 fail (Group 2)
3.5s Column 76 fails (Group 2)
4.3s Columns 59, 62, 65 & 68 fail (Group 7) G6 & G8 loading
4.5s Columns 73 - 75 fail (Group 3)
5.3s Columns 60, 63 and 69 fail (Group 8)
5.3s Column 58 failed (Group 6)
5.5s Group 3 still failing
6.3s Columns 70 - 72 failing (Group 4)
6.3s Columns 61, 64 and 67 failed (Group 6)
At this time all the interior columns had buckled.

This is why they admit that their model does not match the observed collapse.
NCSTAR 1-9 Vol.2 pg 612
"The results of this scenario were consistent with the observations >except< that the screenwall on the roof fell downward >before< the west penthouse."



A horizontal collapse is highly unlikely. If one column fails, the girders connecting it to surrounding columns are pulling down and sideways on those columns, but there is a girder of equal strength on the other side plus the strength of the column to resist. The girder bending down will break away at the weakest point, the bolts or welds, before pulling the adjoining column sideways.


WS: "NIST had to do considerable simplification -- including omitting the "curtain wall" exterior"

Where did they say that?


WS: "This may have been the first time a progressive collapse was triggered by a fire, but it was certainly not the first time a progressive collapse has ever happened."

Please give an example of a progressive horizontal collapse in a modern high rise steel frame building.


WS: "you are manifestly unable to demonstrate why it's impossible."

Free fall acceleration is impossible in a progressive collapse. Even Shyam Sunder acknowledged that but your mind is closed.


WS: "I'm claiming that the "difference is negligible" because at that point in the collapse the resistance of the structure below was negligible relative to the load."

Bending columns always provide resistance as Shyam Sunder said about the NIST model. "There was resistance in this particular case" but your mind is closed to that.

It is clear in the NIST computer model that the exterior columns are folding up in a random manner >during the free fall< part of the collapse. Therefore it is not falling at free fall acceleration. The model does not match the observed collapse.
http://nate.flach.s3.amazonaws.com/WTC7_Debris_Impact_D...

Furthermore, in the model, the exterior columns are folding near the top. They stopped the collapse simulation video because that folding up would become more extreme like in the simulation with no debris damage. They don't show the top of the one with debris damage because it did roughly the same thing.

[William Seger]

64. Again with the hypocrisy?

It's a pretty simple principle, which I'm sure you've heard dozens of times: Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. But you're asking people to accept extraordinary claims based on nothing but hand-waving assertions. You're asking people to reject coherent and sensible explanations for what happened and replace them with an hypothesis that not only isn't backed by evidence, but has far more logical holes than substance. You're asking people to reject expert opinion by simply slandering them with lies you've picked up from bullshitters. Why are you doing that, when it's obviously not because of any evidence-based reasoning? You seem to be too closed-minded to even recognize the weakness of your arguments, much less consider that you might simply be wrong, so you make delusional excuses for why others don't find your arguments convincing. In short, you seem to be a stereotypical conspiracist.

But none of that is really relevant, nor is your opinion of me. The only thing relevant is the evidence, or in your case the lack thereof. I claim that if another investigation were to turn up convincing evidence of a controlled demolition, then I would accept it, because I claim that my objective is to have the best possible understanding of what really happened. Yep, that's just a claim, but you are in no position to dispute that claim until you actually have convincing evidence. And at any rate, if you could actually prove controlled demolition, it really wouldn't matter whether or not I accepted it; it would become accepted fact on its own merit. On the other hand, if another investigation came to the same conclusions as the NIST report, I'm quite certain that the vast majority of conspiracists would simply include those people into the vast conspiracy. I think I can safely assume that because they were already dismissing the NIST study out-of-hand and slandering the investigators before the report was even published! That is closed-minded, my friend.

But so much for editorializing; let's look at your latest nonsense:

> Vertical failures happen all at once when the column is continuous but a horizontal collapse (if it could occur) would take time as NIST states in their final report.

Jeez, of course it would take some time, as it obviously did! It took over 6 seconds, in fact. The issue is your totally unsubstantiated claim that "A steel frame building cannot fall apart that fast." So how fast can it fall apart, and how the hell did you reach that conclusion? Since there is exactly zero actual evidence of any explosives being involved at any stage, it would appear to me that your purely imaginary description of what should or should not have happened is simply wrong. (Which reminds me, I'm still waiting for your theory of how silent explosives work.) On the other hand, if there were a technical, science-based reason behind that "too fast" claim, why can't you or those AE91truth geniuses put it into a technical paper that can withstand peer review? Do you comprehend that that is how technical and scientific issues are settled, not by blathering on net forums? I'm certainly no expert myself, but I do have strong opinions about what makes sense to me and what doesn't, and I really don't think I can find the words to express how badly you are losing that contest with NIST. And every time you say crap like "blind faith" and "closed minded," I am literally laughing at you. But I digress ...

> A horizontal collapse is highly unlikely. If one column fails, the girders connecting it to surrounding columns are pulling down and sideways on those columns, but there is a girder of equal strength on the other side plus the strength of the column to resist. The girder bending down will break away at the weakest point, the bolts or welds, before pulling the adjoining column sideways.

The experts say you're wrong, the physics-based FEA model says you're wrong, and common sense says you're wrong provided you understand how the building was designed and have some elementary understanding of structural mechanics. In your imaginary description, you seem to be ignoring that when beams and girders broke away from columns, the columns lost the lateral restraint those floor structures provided. If that happened at only one floor for example, such that the unbraced height of a column simply doubled, then its resistance to buckling was reduced to 1/4 of what it was when that lateral bracing was there. If it happened at two floors very quickly, then buckling resistance was reduced to 1/9 of what it was. This is because buckling resistance is a function of the square of the unrestrained height. It doesn't matter that the columns may have been still restrained on one side or in one direction, because buckling will simply go the way of least resistance. Again, your imaginary physics have nothing to do with anything.

What conspiracists simply refuse to recognize is that the collapse of WTC7 was a direct result of its design characteristics. If WTC7 had a different design, it might not have collapsed, and if one of the other WTC buildings (or any steel building that's suffered a prolonged uncontrolled fire) had a different design, it might have collapsed. You don't need to be a structural engineer to know that steel-frame buildings are not all designed the same, and you don't need to be a genius to understand why it matters. The NIST report, which you claim to have read, goes into great detail about the specific design details that led to the collapse. One important one is that the beam-to-column connections were simple load-bearing "shear" connections, not the "moment" connections that are known to be much better at withstanding both thermal stresses and progressive failures. The part of the NIST model that was most accurate was that framing, and it found that those shear connections could not withstand the forces that you imagine would have prevented the collapse. Shear connections were used because moment connections are more expensive and the building code did not require them. The structural engineers for the building did not even detail most of the connections; they simply specified the gravity loads, and the steel supplier just used stock shear-connection designs to carry those loads. One of the important results of the NIST study is the recommendation that that's just not a good idea if you want your building to have the ability to withstand thermal stress and progressive collapse. Duh.

> WS: "NIST had to do considerable simplification -- including omitting the "curtain wall" exterior"
> Where did they say that?

The report, which you claim to have read, goes into a lot of detail about the building elements they did include. You won't find any mention of the curtain walls in there, and you won't see them anywhere in any of the graphics or animations. That's because they were not load-bearing walls, so they were presumed to be irrelevant to the cause of the collapse or the possible prevention thereof. However, they were certainly rigid enough to make a considerable difference in what the exterior would look like in the actual collapse, compared to the simplified model.

> It is clear in the NIST computer model that the exterior columns are folding up in a random manner >during the free fall< part of the collapse. Therefore it is not falling at free fall acceleration. The model does not match the observed collapse.

As I said, the main reason that is does not look like the observed collapse is because it includes many simplifications, such as the above curtain wall consideration but there were others. Read the report, uh, again.

> Please give an example of a progressive horizontal collapse in a modern high rise steel frame building.

WTC 7.

Steel structures have collapsed, and in fact many have collapsed due only to fire, such as the steel-frame part of the Madrid Windsor Tower. It just never happened before that a "modern high rise steel frame building" has completely collapsed. So I have to ask, do you think "modern high rise steel frame buildings" are protected against that possibility by their height, or is it some sort of magic spell? Or are 9/11 conspiracists simply full of shit faulty reasoning?

> Free fall acceleration is impossible in a progressive collapse.

Sez you, again and again, without any proof. Simple mechanical reasoning informs me that periods of near-free-fall acceleration are unavoidable in any structural collapse when the resistance becomes negligible, and that pure free-fall is unavoidable when the resistance becomes exactly zero, e.g. when columns are broken. The notion that the resistance remains relatively constant during a collapse, so the acceleration should remain relative constant and less than free-fall is just bone-headed ignorance. If it were a top-down collapse, like the towers, the free-fall periods would be most of a floor height, at each floor, because even columns that failed due to buckling would reach negligible resistance after buckling only a few feet. (But what actually happened in the towers and in WTC7 was that most of the columns did not fail in compression, but rather were pushed aside and broken at their end-to-end connections when the floor structures that provided lateral restraint were destroyed, so a lot of the falling would consist of pure free-fall. These are "little details" that physics teacher Chandler overlooked in his idiotic video about how an average 67% of free-fall meant that somehow the strength of the structure had been reduced to 2/3 of the dead load.) In the case of WTC7, what we apparently had was exterior columns on 7 or 8 floors buckling after the interior suffered progressive collapse and left them with no lateral support. During that buckling, the roof dropped about 7 feet at much less than free-fall. Even if the columns remained intact as they buckled, 7 or 8 floors of unrestrained and buckled columns would provide virtually no resistance, and any columns broken after buckling would provide exactly the same resistance as a column blown out by explosives: none. That's the simple, logical disproof of your repeated assertion that "free fall acceleration is impossible in a progressive collapse," so I'm really not interested in hearing yet another repetition of it. It isn't just unsubstantiated; it's inherently illogical to claim that only explosives could cause that effect.

I understand that you deny that, but I also understand that denial is all you've got. (Well, that and your theory that silent explosives were used to blow out those columns after the building was already heading down, for some completely incomprehensible reason. But of course, I must be too closed-minded to realize that the perps must have had some reason for doing that or they wouldn't have done it, and they must have had some way to do that or they would have been forced to use a different plan, huh. )

Wanna go a few more rounds? Bring it.

[Christopfer7]

71. Problems with Shyam Sunder and NIST

WS: "You're asking people to reject expert opinion by simply slandering them with lies"

I pointed out two false statements that Shyam Sunder made in the Popular Mechanics article.

1) He said "On about a third of the face to the center and to the bottom — approximately 10 stories — about 25 percent of the depth of the building was scooped out."

Shyam Sunder stated the 10 story gouge as a fact, not a possibility.

The final report shows the debris damage from WTC 1 and there is no 10 story gouge as described on pg 18 and depicted in graphics on pages 23, 31 and 32 of the NIST L report.

2) He told PM that "a fifth-floor fire burned for up to 7 hours"

The fires were listed in the 2004 NIST L report. There were no fires reported on the fifth floor at any time and no reason to think that there was a fire in the north east generator room of that floor. This did not change in the final report.

"Debris damage and diesel fuel fires" was the NIST "working hypotheses" until December 18, 2007.

* * * * *

C7: "Vertical failures happen all at once when the column is continuous but a horizontal collapse (if it could occur) would take time as NIST states in their final report."

MS: "It took over 6 seconds"

The videos show the failure of the core columns under the screenwall and west penthouse took about 1 second, going from east to west. In the NIST scenario, the progressive collapse across the core takes 6 seconds and results in the screenwall falling before the west penthouse.

A hypothesis is not valid if the results don't match the observed event. A real investigation would scrap such a hypothesis and try another.

[William Seger]

77. It's getting really hard to take you seriously

That's your basis for calling Sunder a liar and fraud? He could sue you for slander.

[Christopfer7]

72. Explosives confirmed at WTC

MS: "I'm still waiting for your theory of how silent explosives work."

Everyone was moved back five or six blocks from building 7. Reporters use directional microphones which are set to pick up what is a few inches in front of them so they don’t pick explosions most of the time.

This reporter heard an explosion but his microphone did not pick it up:
http://nate.flach.s3.amazonaws.com/9-11_11am_Jeff_Rosse...

You can faintly hear explosions in the clip discussed in this video.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ERhoNYj9_fg&feature=play...

There is an explosion at 0:11 of this video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XrnmbUDeHus&feature=play...

This video leaves no doubt that there was at least one big explosion in the lobby of WTC 1 after the planes had hit the buildings:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IO1ps1mzU8o

Here is a compilation of witnesses describing explosions:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F8XBxw7k8rk&feature=rela...

Deniers always say "explosions don't necessarily mean explosives" but they will never admit that what all these witnesses heard and felt was explosives going off. There are far too many to write them all off as "something other than explosives".

[William Seger]

76. Absurd nonsense

This is what controlled demolitions sound like (and you can easily find many more on YouTube):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8U4erFzhC-U

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ozHREnaocvM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=khD2gZkkSu0

Blowing out 7 or 8 floors in a building as large as WTC 7 would have created a sound that would easily have been heard in New Jersey. It would have also blown out windows for blocks. You might find a lame excuse for why one WTC 7 video doesn't have explosive sounds, but there's only one rational explanation for why none of them have it.

Yes, there was a well-known explosion in the elevator shaft of WTC 1, and the cause is also well known: jet fuel. But claiming that explosions in the basements of the towers when the planes hit caused the towers to collapse from the impact zones an hour and an hour-and-a-half later is just one example of how some 9/11 conspiracists don't even try to make their "theories" sensible. They just spew any kind of nonsense, hoping to sucker some new converts into the cult.

[Christopfer7]

81. Firefighters say three explosions in lobby - absurd?

The noise levels can be controlled somewhat:

There are over a thousand different types of explosives. (at 47:50)
We control noise levels (at 48:13)
You don't know how much noise levels can be reduced.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-13372315631594...

Nano-thermite was found in the WTC dust. It can be used as an incendiary or made into an explosive or a combination of both with varying acoustic results. You don't know what the possibilities are.


MS: "You might find a lame excuse for why one WTC 7 video doesn't have explosive sounds, but there's only one rational explanation for why none of them have it."

There are sounds of explosions that were picked up by a couple reporters microphones 5 or 6 blocks away in the second and third videos I posted.


"there was a well-known explosion in the elevator shaft of WTC 1, and the cause is also well known: jet fuel."

Incorrect. It would take at least 8 seconds for the jet fuel (kerosene) to fall down the elevator shafts to the lobby. It would have burned up in that time and the overpressure would have been equal on all floors.

Firefighters told of three explosions in the lobby after the plane hit.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IO1ps1mzU8o

[William Seger]

83. It's your interpretation that's absurd

If you believe that explosions in the lobby somehow caused the towers to collapse from the top down an hour and an hour-and-a-half later, then "absurd" is an understatement.

If you believe that shock waves strong enough to rip through that much steel could be "controlled somewhat" such that those faint noises in the videos even remotely resemble a controlled demolition, then "absurd" is an understatement.

> {jet fuel} Incorrect. It would take at least 8 seconds for the jet fuel (kerosene) to fall down the elevator shafts to the lobby.

Are you suggesting that those firemen went into the lobby before the plane crash and waited for it, or that they got into the lobby in less than 8 seconds after the plane crash? A quick check of when those documented explosions actually happened relative to the plane crashes might help you solve that mystery.

> It would have burned up in that time and the overpressure would have been equal on all floors.

Only if it was burning as it fell. Since the jet fuel explosions are well documented with eyewitness accounts, once again your imaginary description of what "ought" to have happened is not evidence of anything.

[CJvR]

84. Also...

...without the standard weakening of the buildnings for controlled demolition the quantity of explosives would go up several magnitudes. To smash the massive steel columns of the WTC you would probably need something along the lines of the Oklahoma bomb.

[deconstruct911]

85. No

just fire and gravity.

[Christopfer7]

87. You have no idea what is possible

You are thinking about conventional demolitions, this was clandestine. If you were to use your imagination thinking of how it could be done instead of thinking up reasons why it could not you might learn something, like Jon Cole did.

Just to give an idea of how easy it would be to use thermite.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5d5iIoCiI8g&feature=play...

[William Seger]

90. Yes, I do have an idea what is possible

I have a very, very clear idea that you cannot create a destructive shock wave capable of ripping through steel without also creating a very, very loud noise.

>You are thinking about conventional demolitions, this was clandestine. If you were to use your imagination thinking of how it could be done instead of thinking up reasons why it could not you might learn something, like Jon Cole did.

Silent explosives would require magic, not secret technology. "Thinking up reasons why it could not" -- provided they are valid reasons -- is how stupid theories are exposed.

> Just to give an idea of how easy it would be to use thermite.

Oh yeah, the Richard Gage Two-Step, which I believe we've already discussed: When he wants to explain why WTC7 didn't sound anything like a controlled demolition, he claims thermite. When he wants to explain the "sudden and simultaneous" column failures that he claims must have happened, he claims it must have been explosives. Somehow, he misses the fact that needing to claim both is really an admission that neither explanation fits the actual facts, whereas the NIST hypothesis does.

[Christopfer7]

86. Respond to the points please

Description of Straw Man

The Straw Man fallacy is committed when a person simply ignores a person's actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position.

MS: "If you believe that explosions in the lobby somehow caused the towers to collapse from the top down an hour and an hour-and-a-half later, then "absurd" is an understatement."

You did not address the fact that the firefighters said there were explosions in the lobby after they arrived. I don't know why these explosions happened when they did, only that they did occur and they could have been part of a controlled demolition.

There were numerous explosions reported in the basement, lobby, and other floors. These may have weakened the building but did not bring it down. I don't know why some went off as much as an hour and a half before the collapse, but that's what happened.

* * * * *

You said there were no sounds of explosions on any of the videos. I have shown that to be incorrect. They are "faint noises" and that is because of the nature of reporters microphones. The first video demonstrates that reporters microphones sometimes don't pick up explosions at all, and when they do they are faint.

Here is a loud explosion. This microphone is set to pick up voices 5 to 10 feet away rather than a few inches away so the explosion is much louder.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CcRs1fv8i3I&eurl=

Strawman
MS: "Are you suggesting that those firemen went into the lobby before the plane crash and waited for it, or that they got into the lobby in less than 8 seconds after the plane crash? "

No Those are very stupid questions.

* * * * *

C7 "It would have burned up in that time and the overpressure would have been equal on all floors."

MS : "Only if it was burning as it fell."

The explosions were almost immediate and out both sides of the buildings. Any jet fuel falling down elevator shafts would have been burning.

A kerosene "explosion" does not have a lot of pushing power because it burns over a period of seconds. Explosives burn in milliseconds.

[William Seger]

89. Strawman?! Bullshit, I responded directly to your points

> You did not address the fact that the firefighters said there were explosions in the lobby after they arrived.

Of course I did! From the witness testimony, I take it as a known fact that there were jet fuel explosions in the elevator shafts, and I have no trouble understanding how that could happen. You desperately want those explosions to be part of a controlled demolition to prop up your conspiracy delusions, so you make yet another naked assertion that it just couldn't happen. Because it just couldn't, apparently. I'm squarely addressing your "point" by telling you that I find the notion that explosions in the lobby played any part the towers' collapse -- much later and starting up where the planes hit -- to be a perfectly ridiculous theory, even if the cause of those explosions wasn't already known.

> I don't know why these explosions happened when they did, only that they did occur and they could have been part of a controlled demolition.

You accuse me of attacking a strawman and then immediately make the exact argument that I just dispensed with? Amazing; I don't think you quite understand the term. You don't know why those explosions happened, while I'm pretty sure I do know, and your only challenge to that understanding is denial. You think they could have been part of a controlled demolition, while I think that's beyond illogical and well into idiotic. What is left to be "addressed"?

> I don't know why some went off as much as an hour and a half before the collapse, but that's what happened.

You already know that explosions can be caused by things other than demolition explosives, and you already know that things that sound like explosions could instead be large things falling (e.g. elevators), but you keep offering up the same invalid logic, explosive sounds -> controlled demolition, even while admitting that you can't even fit it into a coherent theory? Amazing.

> You said there were no sounds of explosions on any of the videos. I have shown that to be incorrect.

Actually, what I said was that there were no sounds remotely resembling a controlled demolition of a large building, and you have shown that to be correct.

> Here is a loud explosion. This microphone is set to pick up voices 5 to 10 feet away rather than a few inches away so the explosion is much louder.

LOL, last year, I determined the time of that video fairly accurately from the position of the sun: It was sometime around 10:25 in the morning, plus or minus a few minutes, so it was either between the two tower collapses or possibly just after the second one. Again, it's irrational to think that explosion (IF it's real) has anything whatever to do with WTC7 collapsing many hours later. In fact, that sound may not even be real. A poster on JREF claims that when that video was first posted on YouTube, he noticed that the sound track had been altered; the voices were exactly the same audio on both tracks, indicating it had been recorded with a mono mic, while the explosive sound was slightly different on the two tracks, indicating that it had been recorded with stereo mics. He claims that when he pointed that out to the YouTube poster, the original video disappeared and was replaced soon after with a version where the explosion was also mono. There doesn't seem to be any way to verify that account now, but it isn't really necessary: Not only is the timing all wrong for it to be evidence of a controlled demolition, you're still at least a few hundred such explosions short of a rational theory.

> Any jet fuel falling down elevator shafts would have been burning.

Uh-huh. Unless it wasn't.

> A kerosene "explosion" does not have a lot of pushing power because it burns over a period of seconds. Explosives burn in milliseconds.

Kerosene fumes burning in an enclosed space like an elevator shaft would be a high-pressure explosion, with no quote marks. People who were actually there say that's what happened because they clearly smelled the jet fuel fumes. You say it didn't, because... uh, you don't believe it could.

Are we there yet?

[deconstruct911]

91. So all they would have needed was one FAE bomb

in the basement to create the jet fuel smell phenomenon. Although they don't use that type of explosive much anymore (to my knowledge), it certainly has the capability to ruin your day or even an elevator shaft.

[Christopfer7]

92. Denial, diversion and double talk

Recap:

It is claimed by NIST in their final report on WTC 7 that there were no sounds of explosions on any of the videos. This is not true. Sounds of explosions were picked up by some reporters microphones. These were faint on some cases because reporters microphones are set to pick voices in front of them a few inches away.

This reporter heard an explosion but his microphone did not pick it up:
http://nate.flach.s3.amazonaws.com/9-11_11am_Jeff_Rosse...

You can faintly hear explosions in the clip discussed in this video.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ERhoNYj9_fg&feature=play...

There is faint but clear explosion at 0:11 of this video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XrnmbUDeHus&feature=play...

Here is a video containing the sound of a large explosion about the time WTC 1 went down. This microphone is set to pick up voices 5 to 10 feet away rather than a few inches away so the explosion is much louder.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CcRs1fv8i3I&eurl=

Trade Towers explosions:
Firefighters tell of three explosions in the lobby of one of the towers after the plane had hit:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IO1ps1mzU8o

Here is a compilation of witnesses describing explosions:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F8XBxw7k8rk&feature=rela...

* * * * *

C7: "You did not address the fact that the firefighters said there were explosions in the lobby after they arrived."

WS: "Of course I did! From the witness testimony, I take it as a known fact that there were jet fuel explosions in the elevator shafts"

The firefighters arrived after the plane hit so the explosions they experienced could not have been jet fuel falling down the elevator shafts and you know that.

* * * * *

WS "Actually, what I said was that there were no sounds remotely resembling a controlled demolition of a large building"

Denial, the "phone call" explosion could be a blast from a CD as could the others.


WS "last year, I determined the time of that video fairly accurately from the position of the sun: It was sometime around 10:25 in the morning, plus or minus a few minutes"

The North Tower was destroyed at 10:28


WS: "it's irrational to think that explosion (IF it's real) has anything whatever to do with WTC7 collapsing many hours later"

Correct. That video was just to demonstrate that a microphone set to pick up voices 5 to 10 feet away instead of a few inches away, picked up a very loud sound of an explosion. My bad for not specifying that.


WS: "A poster on JREF claims . . . "

Someone from JREF made an unsubstantiated claim that "the explosive sound was slightly different on the two tracks". Even if the sound was "slightly different" on one track, it would not appreciably change the sound of the explosion heard.

The firefighter on the phone flinches at the sound and then another firefighter says "We gotta get back, shit is exploding". They heard a very loud explosion.

* * * * *

C7: "A kerosene "explosion" does not have a lot of pushing power because it burns over a period of seconds. Explosives burn in milliseconds."

WS: "Kerosene fumes burning in an enclosed space like an elevator shaft would be a high-pressure explosion"

Please show a source to justify that statement.
The elevator shaft was not entirely enclosed. Any overpressure would escape where the jet fuel entered the shaft and then outside the building as observed. Note that the jet fuel explosion did not blow out the windows on the side, it blew out thru the holes and broken windows caused by the plane.


WS: "People who were actually there say that's what happened because they clearly smelled the jet fuel fumes."

One person said they smelled kerosene, none of the others did.

The people who were actually there described multiple explosions.

This survivor describes four:
The first explosion caused the elevator to drop, the second blew the elevator doors >in< and the third threw him against the wall. In a post on the SEIU forum he tells of a fourth explosion when firefighters are trying to rescue him.

Larry King interview:
ARTURO GRIFFITH, WTC SURVIVOR: Well, I was on my way from B-2 to 49th floor. And as I took off, it was amount it was a matter of seconds -- five, six, seven seconds, I don't know. And there was a loud explosion and the elevator dropped. And when the elevator dropped there was a lot of debris and cables falling on top of the elevator. And I just -- I just put my hand over my said and I said, oh God I'm going to die. But I didn't know what was happening.

When the elevator finally stopped, they had an explosion that bring the doors inside the elevator, and I think I'm sure that that was what broke my leg. And then they had another explosion and the panel that threw me, you know, against the wall, and I guess I was unconscious for a couple of minutes because somebody else was in the elevator with me, and they say that they was trying to get my attention and they didn't get no response from me.
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0110/06/lklw.00....

Post at the SEIU forum:

Arturo said there was another fireball some time later when he was being rescued.

Arturo Griffith was in a freight elevator when the building was attacked. The elevator dropped to B1 (the basement level), fell below the landing. He was trapped in the elevator beneath debris and unconscious. He remembers seeing a beam of light. He called out. The smoke was so thick; Arturo could not see his own hand. So his rescuers had to follow his voice to find him.

'I don't know who saved me. It was so black and smoky. I couldn't see nothin',' Arturo said. 'When they got me out, I told them there was someone else down there, a woman. They went back to get her. Seconds after they pulled her out, a ball of fire came down the shaft. They almost got killed.'
http://web.archive.org/web/20021101235538/http://911dig...

[William Seger]

93. "Denial, diversion and double talk" is a perfect description of your performance

Perhaps you should stop and reconsider why it is that you have failed to make a single valid point that has the slightest significance to the events of 9/11.

As I look over your latest failogram and consider the time it's gonna take to respond, it's really hard to find any motivation to do so. Maybe I will later. Maybe not.

[Christopfer7]

95. Dodge - adopt a superior attitude and refuse to respond at all

You did not and will not address the points directly so you accuse me of what you are doing, fain indifference and bow out.

Fair thee well.

[SDuderstadt]

96. "fain indifference"

Luckily, your work as a "contractor" must not require an understanding of the English language.

Seger kicked your ass, dude.

[Christopfer7]

98. Absurd and non-reply repiles

WS: "I take it as a known fact that there were jet fuel explosions in the elevator shafts"

Absurd answer
The firefighters arrived after the plane hit so the explosions they experienced could not have been jet fuel falling down the elevator shafts and you know that.

* * * * *

Unsubstantiated answer
WS: "Kerosene fumes burning in an enclosed space like an elevator shaft would be a high-pressure explosion"

Please show a source to justify that statement.

It is just a baseless assumption that kerosene vapor can create high-pressure explosions.

* * * * *

Non-answer
WS: "People who were actually there say that's what happened because they clearly smelled the jet fuel fumes."

Even if there was a kerosene explosion it would only account for one explosion.

The people who were actually there described explosions in the lobby and elsewhere after the planes hit.

Did you watch these videos?

Trade Towers explosions:
Firefighters tell of three explosions in the lobby of one of the towers after the plane had hit:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IO1ps1mzU8o

Here is a compilation of witnesses describing explosions:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F8XBxw7k8rk&feature=rela...

[SDuderstadt]

101. I would reply to your post, but...

I am "faining" indifference.

You realize that no one here is taking your goofy bullshit seriously, right?

[deconstruct911]

102. You realize YOU isn't everyone, right?

nt

[SDuderstadt]

103. Sorry...

I should have noted that you were taking his goofy bullshit seriously.

Not that that is a surprise or anything.

[Christopfer7]

104. The deniers last stance

You cannot deny that these firefighters experienced explosions in the lobby of one of the towers, nor can you deal with the consequences of what that means. So you do as all deniers do; go away as William Seger did, deny the obvious, change the subject, and/or insult the messenger.

Those who can deal with reality will understand the significance of what is said in these videos.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IO1ps1mzU8o
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ozTnINH6Yls&feature=play...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SY95decSS_I

There are numerous statements like these:

Arthur de la Bianco - B-2 Tower 1
"I was heading up to the hundred and sixth or seventh floor in an elevator and around the 70th floor I heard - lights flickered in the elevator and a rumble and I then heard people screaming on the radio I'm trapped, get us out, get us out . . . . When I got up to the concourse level it was just like gun fire and then just three big explosions. And the elevator banks came down and the windows and the glass and the stainless steel and the marble just started pushing us and we just started running to get out of there and it pushing us through the rubble like 25 to 50 feet . . . ."
At 0:30 http://www.youtube.com/watch?gl=US&hl=uk&v=tQ5qVkJ0-hs



September 12, 2001
New York City

Louie Cacchioli, 51, is a firefighter assigned to Engine 47 in Harlem.

We were the first ones in the second tower after the plane struck. I was taking firefighters up in the elevator to the 24th floor to get in position to evacuate workers. On the last trip up a bomb went off. We think there was bombs set in the building. I had just asked another firefighter to stay with me, which was a good thing because we were trapped inside the elevator and he had the tools to get out.

The 9/11 Commission was a cover-up.

(Firefighter Louie) Cacchioli was called to testify privately , but walked out on several members of the committee before they finished, feeling like he was being interrogated and cross-examined rather than simply allowed to tell the truth about what occurred in the north tower on 9/11. "My story was never mentioned in the final report and I felt like I was being put on trial in a court room," said Cacchioli. "I finally walked out. They were trying to twist my words and make the story fit only what they wanted to hear. All I wanted to do was tell the truth and when they wouldn't let me do that, I walked out. ... It was a disgrace to everyone, the victims and the family members who lost loved ones. I don't agree with the 9/11 Commission. The whole experience was terrible."

[SDuderstadt]

105. Let us know when the...

indictments are handed down, dude.

[deconstruct911]

106. Also this

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1eSVsid7eKE

[William Seger]

107. LMAO. No, the "deniers last stance" is ...

... that if you claim a great many incredible things, but don't have jackshit for convincing evidence of anything at all, there is simply no rational reason for believing your delusions have anything at all to do with reality. Oddly enough, that's also the "deniers" first stance, but things just never seem to progress beyond that point. I'm sure you'd like to claim that's because "deniers" are just in denial, but that's simply not true: To claim that, you need to ignore that your weak arguments have been refuted.

I'm sure you already know most of the arguments against this "explosions = controlled demolition" bullshit, and I believe you really do know how stupid it is to assert that explosions in the lower part of the building caused the tower to collapse much later and up where the planes hit, but you keep right on saying it over and over. And expect to be taken seriously?

If you will recall, the actual topic of this thread was that there is no rational reason to think another investigation of WTC 7 would produce any different result. You've been given every opportunity to present your case for why you think it would, and as far as I'm concerned, your failure is documented.

Nighty night.

[zappaman]

97. looks like all your points were addressed

and refuted.
nice job, seger

[Christopfer7]

108. They were not. When all is lost, deniers just claim victory

Seger did not refute the firefighters hearing explosions that destroyed the lobby. He sighted the possibility of a jet fuel explosion despite the fact that he knew that the firefighters arrived after the plane hit the building.

[SDuderstadt]

109. "He sighted (sic) the possibility"

I have a hard time taking someone who says "sighted" when they mean "cited" seriously.

For the record, I don't remotely believe you're a contractor either.

[Christopfer7]

110. Never mind the point, find a mistake and criticize

It is very important to maintain a attitude of superiority when ignoring the facts.

Those who can deal with reality will understand the significance of what is said in these videos.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IO1ps1mzU8o
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ozTnINH6Yls&feature=play ...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h5Mlw1r1Pec
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SY95decSS_I
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_A9X_8flGeM

You cannot deal with that reality because you cannot deal with the implications.

And your posts are without substance:

"fain indifference"
Luckily, your work as a "contractor" must not require an understanding of the English language.
Seger kicked your ass, dude.

I would reply to your post, but...
I am "faining" indifference.
You realize that no one here is taking your goofy bullshit seriously, right?

Sorry...
I should have noted that you were taking his goofy bullshit seriously.
Not that that is a surprise or anything.

Let us know when the...
indictments are handed down, dude.

[SDuderstadt]

111. It's not my fault that...

no one here is taking you seriously, dude.

P.S. If you are going to "sight" me, don't forget to put my words in quotation marks.

[Christopfer7]

112. I really appreciate

your pointing out my misteaks. Yuve been most helpfull.

How do you know what everybody thinks? Are you psychic or just conceited?

[SDuderstadt]

113. Conceited about being psychic?

Nah.

[Gravel Democrat]

53. helicopter photo of wtc7 at 3:05 pm shows massive raging fires

[deconstruct911]

55. SEC office space on fire as shown.

[ryan_cats]

43. I have a slightly off topic question

Christopfer7, do you know what the cores of WTC 1,2 and 7 were made of?

Sorry for the thread hijack.

[LARED]

44. Great question nt

[Christopfer7]

45. Answer to your "off topic" sarcastic question

47 Steel columns

[LARED]

48. What was sarcastic about the question? nt

[Christopfer7]

50. Why did you ask?

Your question implied that I did not know which came across as insulting. William Seger has been insulting in nearly every post so I was a bit defensive.

I forgot to mention that WTC 7 is a core and perimeter frame like the Trade Towers. The beams in this graphic are the ones that supposedly "thermally expanded" and pushed the girder off its seat which led to a cascading failure of 8 floors and that caused the collapse of column 79 which then caused a total collapse in about 16 seconds.


I have been a contractor for 37 years and I have read all the FEMA and NIST reports on WTC 7. I have a detailed picture of the framing, fire progression, debris damage, location of the diesel tanks, supply lines and generator rooms - in my head.

When NIST released their 1,000 page draft report in August of 2008, it took me less than an hour to notice that they had the fire on floor 12 burning at 5:20 p.m., and that was supposedly the cause of the collapse. I knew from memory that the fire on floor 12 had burned out at least one half hour earlier.

NIST L pg 26
Around 4:45 p.m., a photograph showed fires Floors 7, 8, 9, and 11 near the middle of the north face; Floor 12 was burned out by this time.

It could not have caused the thermal expansion that supposedly initiated the collapse, at 5:20 p.m.

[ryan_cats]

73. Get over yourself

The people that have been here a while know why I (not Lared who you responded to) asked the question.

Do you live in Santa Barbara?

Look up concrete core; you'll see the madness of someone whose name is very close to yours.


As for your other 'observations'.
"NIST's Sunder tells PM. "On about a third of the face to the center and to the bottom — approximately 10 stories — about 25 percent of the depth of the building was scooped out."

Are you saying this is a lie? Just look at the very top of the middle of the roof; do you see the damage?




Small fires:



Oh yeah, that small gouge, for one thing, this is not related to the first pic. It is a picture of even more damage done to WTC7.

[Christopfer7]

75. That long gouge is a fraud and the smoke is from WTC 6

In the final report on WTC 7, NIST stated that the debris damage had little to do with the collapse that started at the other end of the building.
They showed the debris damage in a graphic on page 183. The long gouge in your first photo and the 10 story gouge 1/3 the width from floor 10 to the ground are not there.

Column 15 is the south west corner and column 22 is the center of the south face.



NIST Part IIC - WTC 7 Collapse page 20 (April, 2005)
The orange area is the 10 story gouge described on page 18 and depicted in the graphics on pages 23, 31 and 32 of the NIST L report (June, 2004)



* * * * *

The smoke from WTC 6 is being pulled into a low pressure area caused by the breeze coming from the north west. The same thing occurs at the north east corner. Note that there were no fires above the 13th floor in this photo:

[William Seger]

78. Okay, that does it

You have no idea what you're talking about.

[Christopfer7]

79. That post is factual

It's all information from the NIST reports.

What in particular do you have a problem with?

[William Seger]

80. No, it is completely disingenuous

As clearly stated in the preliminary report, that description of the gouge came from eyewitness accounts. It was included in the preliminary report for the obvious reason that, at the time, it was a good candidate for at least being involved in the cause the collapse. It was omitted from the final report for the simple reason that further study of all the available evidence did not confirm those verbal accounts. There was indeed a gouge, as you have seen from photos right here, but it wasn't in the position described nor was it as severe as described. That is to say, the original witness was simply mistaken. There is nothing nefarious about any of that. This reminds me of the original theories about the towers' collapses not withstanding scrutiny, and conspiracists trying to make a case for fraud out of NIST's simply discarding theories that didn't stand up to scrutiny.

The second claim about the smoke coming from WTC 6 is neither "factual" nor "from the NIST reports." It's a conspiracist's claim based only on photos where you can't really tell where the smoke is coming from, and deliberately ignoring photos where you can.

Your arguments are becoming increasingly disingenuous, and I can longer take you seriously enough to waste much time responding to you.

[Christopfer7]

88. Shyam Sunder was disingenuous

WS: "As clearly stated in the preliminary report, that description of the gouge came from eyewitness accounts . . . . . There was indeed a gouge . . . but it wasn't in the position described nor was it as severe as described. That is to say, the original witness was simply mistaken. There is nothing nefarious about any of that."

Correct. The nefarious part is:
NIST ignored the two statements in conflict with the "floor 10 to the ground 1/3 the width gouge" and depicted it on page 23 as "Possible region of impact damage" and on pages 31 and 32 as "Approximate region of impact damage".

Shyam Sunder stated the "floor 10 to the ground 1/3 the width gouge" as a fact, not a possibility in the PM "debunking article", when he knew it was not a fact.

NIST L pg 18 (pdf pg 22)
"Damage to the south face was described by a number of individuals. While the accounts are
mostly consistent, there are some conflicting descriptions:"

"middle one-fourth to one-third width of the south face was gouged out from Floor 10 to
the ground"

Conflicting accounts on same page:
1) "No heavy debris was observed in the lobby area as the building was exited, primarily white
dust coating and black wires hanging from ceiling areas were observed"

The 10 story gouge would have left a pile of debris in the lobby including the 10 floors of the exterior wall taken down and what hit it.

2) "the atrium glass was still intact"

The 10 story gouge would have taken out most of the atrium glass.



* * * * *

WS: "The second claim about the smoke coming from WTC 6 is neither "factual" nor "from the NIST reports."

Incorrect

NIST NCSTAR 1-A pg 19 (pdf pg 61)
Between 12:10 p.m. and 1:00 p.m., there were fires at the southwest corners of the 19th, 22nd, 29th, and 30th floors. These fires grew large enough to break glass from nearby windows, but did not spread far before dying out.

NIST NCSTAR 1-9 Vol.1 pg 118 (pdf pg 162)
It was not clear whether the smoke was coming from lower locations within WTC 7 or was from fires near WTC 7 whose smoke was being drawn into a low pressure area formed on the face due to the flow of the prevailing wind from the north around the building. (Similar effects of the wind caused partial obscuration of the east and south faces of WTC 1 prior to its collapse, as discussed in NIST NCSTAR 1-5A.)

[ryan_cats]

116. Huh

There seems to be a rather lot of smoke billowing out of WTC7 on the left side. Are you seriously telling us that the smoke which is clearly billowing out of the windows is from building 6? What was 6, 8 stories? Look at the photo below and tell us that with a straight face. It looks like smoke is billowing out of the side windows on almost every floor. Now, you're trying to tell us that is a small fire, seriously?

[deconstruct911]

5. Building what?

nt

[Christopfer7]

57. Building what? URL

http://buildingwhat.org/

[William Seger]

59. Got a URL for "Building Why" ?

I haven't seen very many attempts at explaining why WTC7 would have been demolished on 9/11, but that could be because the ones I have seen are incredibly lame and laughable. No point in ruining a perfectly good conspiracy theory by trying to make sense of it, eh?

[Christopfer7]

60. The NIST investigation is a fraud and a farce

I don't know why they did it but a real investigation into "what" really caused the total destruction of WTC 7 will reveal "who" and "why".

The NIST report on WTC 7 is a fraud and a farce.

In addition to WTC 7 falling at free fall acceleration for 100 feet, which NIST has verified, there are a number of other problems.

1) The fire that supposedly initiated the collapse had gone out in the area of the collapse initiation over 1/2 hour before the collapse.

2) NIST lied about there being shear studs on the key girder that initiated the collapse.

3) NIST applied 4 hours of heating to the beams and girder despite the fact that the fires only burned 20 to 30 minutes an any location.

4) They applied this heat in 1.5 seconds which does not allow for heat dispersion.

5) They heated the beams but not the slab to get the shear studs to break. Concrete expands at 85% the rate of steel.

6) They said the girder was pushed off its seat and then they say it caused the beams to buckle and pull the same girder off its seat

You have not read the NIST reports on WTC 7 or you would know these things. You fanatically defend a report from an administration that systematically distorted scientific reports to fit their political agenda.
February 19, 2004
More than 60 influential scientists, including 20 Nobel laureates, issued a statement yesterday asserting that the Bush administration had systematically distorted scientific fact in the service of policy goals on the environment, health, biomedical research and nuclear weaponry at home and abroad.
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?sec=technolo...

[William Seger]

62. Uh-huh

[CJvR]

65. Sure.

It will reveal it was the fallout of religous lunatics, on a mission from Allah, destroying the WTC towers using civilian airliners as weapons A-Q.

[greyl]

20. Hopefully, these photos, videos, and links will help you.

More pics plus video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K0CU-teE0bQ

www.911myths.com/html/wtc7___silverstein.html

www.debunking911.com/pull.htm

www.jnani.org/mrking/writings/911/king911.htm

[Gravel Democrat]

23. More photos

"The idea that diesel fuel stored in Building 7 is to blame for the collapse was promoted by The New York Times in late 2001 and by FEMA's 2002 Building Performance Study. 1 This idea is also untenable. Fires were observed in Building 7 prior to its collapse, but they were isolated in small parts of the building, and were puny by comparison to other building fires.


(This photograph from FEMA's report, and others like it, appear to be the only evidence of emergent flames(in WTC 7))

"Let's imagine, contrary to the evidence, that debris from the tower collapses damaged Building 7's structure, that diesel fuel tanks exploded, and that incredibly intense fires raged through large parts of the building. Could such events have caused the building to collapse?"

"Not in the manner observed. The reason is that simultaneous and symmetric damage is needed to produce a collapse with the precise symmetry of the vertical fall of building 7. This building had 58 perimeter columns and 25 core columns. In order to cause the building to sink into its footprint, all of the core columns and all of the perimeter columns would have to be broken in the same split-second.

"Any debris from the towers impacting Building 7 would have hit its south side, and any columns damaged by it would almost certainly be perimeter columns on its south side. Any fuel tank explosion would only be able to damage nearby structure.

"The rapid fall-off of blast pressures with distance from the source would preclude any such event from breaking all of the columns in the building. (Furthermore the very idea of a tank of diesel fuel exploding taxes the imagination, since diesel fuel does not even begin to boil below 320º F. 2)

Fires have never been known to damage steel columns in high-rise buildings, but if they could, the damage would be produced gradually and would be localized to the areas where the fire was the most intense.

No combination of debris damage, fuel-tank explosions, and fires could inflict the kind of simultaneous damage to all the building's columns required to make the building implode. The precision of such damage required to bring Building 7 down into its footprint was especially great, given the ratio of its height to its width and depth. Any asymmetry in the extent and timing of the damage would cause such a building to topple..." (more at link)

http://wtc7.net/collapsecause.html

Engineers are Baffled Over the Collapse of 7 WTC, New York Times, 11/29/01
http://www.nytimes.com/2001/11/29/nyregion/29TOWE.html

Almost lost in the chaos of the collapse of the World Trade Center is a mystery that under normal circumstances would probably have captured the attention of the city and the world. That mystery is the collapse of a nearby 47-story, two-million-square-foot building seven hours after flaming debris from the towers rained down on it, igniting what became an out-of-control fire.

Engineers and other experts, who quickly came to understand how hurtling airplanes and burning jet fuel had helped bring down the main towers, were for weeks still stunned by what had happened to 7 World Trade Center. That building had housed, among other things, the mayor's emergency command bunker. It tumbled to its knees shortly after 5:20 on the ugly evening of Sept. 11.

The building had suffered mightily from the fire that raged in it, and it had been wounded by the flying beams falling off the towers. But experts said no building like it, a modern, steel-reinforced high-rise, had ever collapsed because of an uncontrolled fire, and engineers have been trying to figure out exactly what happened and whether they should be worried about other buildings like it around the country.--Much more at link http://www.nytimes.com/2001/11/29/nyregion/29TOWE.html



http://wtc7.net

Proof that Chinese steel is stronger than US Steel



http://photoblog.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2010/11/15/5468603...

Note that there is no estimate of how long the fire has burned, in this account:

SHANGHAI, CHINA (BNO NEWS) -- A skyscraper caught fire on Monday afternoon in the Chinese city of Shanghai and some people jumped from the windows to escape, state media reported.

The 30-storey apartment building in Jing'an District caught fire at about 2:00 p.m. as it was being renovated, state-run Xinhua newswire service said.

The news agency, quoting witnesses, said that a scaffolding initially caught fire, but the blaze later quickly spreading to the building. According to other reports, firefighters are trying to rescue residents and construction workers still trapped inside the building.

http://wireupdate.com/wires/12340/skyscraper-catches-fi...

Interestingly, this building had no sprinklers, according to this: http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2010-11-17-china-fir...

"...To meet that goal, the Shanghai building was being clad in energy-saving insulation. The city's fire chief reported that the welders' sparks lit nylon webbing that coated the bamboo scaffolding. The Economic Observer newspaper reported Wednesday that the insulating materials may have been flammable. Like many residential buildings in China, the structure that caught fire lacked a sprinkler system..."(much more at link)



Did WTC-7 have sprinklers?

[Bolo Boffin]

26. Yes, WTC 7 had sprinklers - connected to the city water mains.

Which were destroyed when the towers fell. The upper floors had a backup system connected to tanks. You don't see much evidence of fires there (although there is some). However, both main and back-ups in the lower floors were connected to the water mains.

Did the Shanghai building have structural elements encased in concrete?

[William Seger]

29. " simultaneous and symmetric damage is needed ..."

"... to produce a collapse with the precise symmetry of the vertical fall of building 7."

That's simply not true, and the NIST animation shows why there was neither "precise symmetry" nor any reason for the failures to all happen within a split second.

[whatchamacallit]

30. I recall the nist animation (cartoon) didn't visually match building 7's descent

not surprisingly, they modeled something else than what we saw.

[William Seger]

31. That's been discussed numerous times

Actually, all this crap has, so I seriously doubt that one more time will do it for you.

[Christopfer7]

33. The debris damage from WTC 1 had no effect

on the collapse initiation at the other end of the building.

The 10 story gouge 1/3 the width floor 10 to the ground and the 20+ story gouge in your photos 3 and 5, were fraudulent. The damage is shown on page 183 of the final report and neither of those two is there.
Column 15 is the south west corner and column 22 is the center of the south face.

[mrarundale]

74. "composite image"

what does that mean greyl? How come some of those pictures look kind of, I dunno, fake? I wonder why the Red Cross opened "shelters" when the hospitals couldn't even find any victims? Why do you think they couldn't find any victims, greyl? They found passports. Do you think they found passports, greyl?

[defendandprotect]

36. k/r

[CJvR]

51. Building who cares?

After the twin towers, the icons of the Manhattan skyline, and the Pentagon, the symbol of US military might, were attacked why would anyone notice an anonymous office block that quietly imploded without killing anyone?

Yeah if it had been in any of the 33 other states it would have been a spectacular event but not in NY on that day and place. I heard about WTC7 in the days after the attack ,as a third building collapsing, but forgot about it for years until I started to come across CD conspiracy paranoia.

[deconstruct911]

66. "the icons of the Manhattan skyline, and the Pentagon, the symbol of US military might"

Yea and WTC 7 was the symbol of financial fraud, also attacked on 9 11.

List of tenants in Seven World Trade Center

FL#
13. Salomon Smith Barney, Provident Financial Management, American Express Bank International, Securities & Exchange Commission, Standard Chartered Bank
12. Securities & Exchange Commission
11. Securities & Exchange Commission

[zappaman]

67. WTC 7 was not attacked.

was it?

[CJvR]

68. No.

It was collateral damage.

[CJvR]

69. In that case....

It was a bad symbol since it's collapse almost went unnoticed.

[mrarundale]

61. How about awareness of fake pictures, fake witnesses,

and fake footage?