WTC-7 Mysteries FINALLY Solved.

a reply to: Korg Trinity

can't list all those that have stood up and said the OS is incorrect.. there isn't enough space here... you can however obtain a list of the professionals standing up and saying the opposite of what you pose.

1700 Architects and Engineers state 9/11 OS is BS...

Look at these high numbers that counter your low numbers.

Civil & Structural Engineers on WTC Collapse

"The aircraft moved through the building as if it were a hot and fast lava flow," Sozen says. "Consequently, much of the fireproofing insulation was ripped off the structure. Even if all of the columns and girders had survived the impact - an unlikely event - the structure would fail as the result of a buckling of the columns.

The heat from an ordinary office fire would suffice to soften and weaken the unprotected steel. Evaluation of the effects of the fire on the core column structure, with the insulation removed by the impact, showed that collapse would follow whatever the number of columns cut at the time of the impact."

There are 120,000 members of ASME(American Society of Mechanical Engineers) who do not question the NIST report. There are also 370,000 members of IEEE(Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers) who do not question the NIST report. There are also 40,000 members of AIChE(American Institute of Chemical Engineers) who do not question the NIST Report. There are also 35,000 members of AIAA (American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics) who do not question the NIST report.

In other words, your numbers do not even come close to those numbers above.

and

List of Aviation Experts

The majority of pilots do not support the Truth Movement. As a pilot myself, I caught "Pilots For 9/11 Truth" spewing disinformation, and in some cases, outright lies.

and

List of Scientist

Let's take a look here.

Architects Shy From Trutherism

Architects didn't show up for a 9/11-architecture-conspiracy documentary screening—and the AIA doesn't want its name associated with Trutherism.

www.architectmagazine.com...

And now, let's look here.

Did experts on the scene think WTC 7 was a controlled demolition?

"Several demolition teams had reached Ground Zero by 3:00 pm on 9/11, and these individuals witnessed the collapse of WTC 7 from within a few hundred feet of the event.

We have spoken with several who possess extensive experience in explosive demolition, and all reported seeing or hearing nothing to indicate an explosive detonation precipitating the collapse.

As one eyewitness told us, "We were all standing around helpless...we knew full well it was going to collapse. Everyone there knew. You gotta remember there was a lot of confusion and we didn't know if another plane was coming...but I never heard explosions like demo charges.

* Protec Documentation Services, Inc.

* Controlled Demolition Inc

* D.H. Griffin Companies

* Mazzocchi Wrecking

* Gateway Demolition

* Yannuzzi Demolition & Disposal

Originally posted by: skyeagle409
A reply to: LaBTop

skyeagle409 : I will keep it very simple. Present the 9/11 seismic data to a demolition company and see if they support demolition explosions during the collapse of WTC 1, WTC 2, and WTC 7.

No, that has no sense. I'll keep it simple too : they are not seismologists.
It's just as illogical as asking a group of seismologists to produce a positional & charge-weights flow diagram, for an industrial demolition sequence job.

Ask real seismologists like Dr Brown from Oklahoma University, he should be asked to look at the 9/11 seismic data, he registered the seismic signals of the explosive removal of the remnants of the, weeks before, blasted Murrah building in Oklahoma City in 1995.
And interpreted the seismic effects-difference between the 5 groups of explosives and the following collapsing and falling debris. The differences were HUGE.
Every explosive charge that were detonated in the five groups of explosives positioned in those remnants, resulted in much higher seismic amplitudes than those of the collapsing concrete and steel debris heaps resulting from those 5 blasts, hitting the ground.

Or ask Dr André Rousseau, a now retired life long French seismologist, HE LOOKED in 2012 at the 9/11 seismic data.
1. Dr. André Rousseau : "Were Explosives the Source of the Seismic Signals Emitted from New York on September 11, 2001? "

He then concluded that all seismic signs point to explosive origins for all WTC seismic signals, so ALSO the plane impacts, which came some 10 to 15 seconds later than the first explosive indicator seismic signals, timed by atomic clocks on the 2 impact-seismograms, when compared to the last atomic clock-timed radar signals, ending for both planes at impact.
By radar determined, last recorded distances to an object, are also very precisely calculated by its equipment, based on the return times for the radar signals.
The RADES team results (see my post here) were based on multiple radar stations their radar returns for the impacting planes, thus a precise correlation of radar data was obtained by them, to produce very reliable mean return times.
And thus the planes positions to the towers at the moment of last recorded returned radar signals are precisely known. These radar wave signals travel at the speed of light, so no error margins of any importance are involved, there are no errors in those distance and time calculations.

Rousseau based the radar data info on the paper written by Furlong & Ross.
There's still no peer reviewed rebuttal of Rousseau's findings. That should make you think.
If you can't oppose science, use the technique of just silencing it into oblivion.

Just as NIST did with my WTC-7 seismic thesis. The sole quantity of amplitudes already registered before any visual sign of global building collapse initiation, is sufficient evidence of human hands involvement.
You don't need an academic grade to understand that in a pure NATURALLY induced global building collapse, as proposed by NIST, one column 79 failure can't ever produce seismic signals of much higher amplitudes (stronger, higher peaks) on its seismogram, 8.5 seconds earlier than the massive sudden failure of its remaining 41 vertical columns and all their horizontal steel cross-beams and floors, shown to us in all the WTC-7 videos as an intact outer shell of the building, sinking as one entity, in their first 2.25 seconds of global collapse ALREADY reaching free fall acceleration speed, equal to the value of [G] : 9.8 m/s/s or i.o.w. m/s^2 .

skyeagle409 : Ever wondered why after 14 years, no one found any such evidence of explosives?

No, I haven't wondered at all from the first months on already. All WTC-7 debris is LONG gone, only partially examined by small (state sponsored) investigating groups of trustworthy docility to the state's real power grid. The FBI overlooked it, some ASCE academics lead some ASCE students volunteers. Then FEMA made a report about it, with one mention of a piece of supposed WTC-7 steel, that was eaten away to razor sharp thin sheets. Never heard about a follow-up report on that either.

While every conspiracy theory is fully or partially based on a healthy distrust of especially that state's real power grid. Especially its strong ages old tendency of keeping things of utter importance for their grip on power, only for themselves.

Originally posted by: skyeagle409
A reply to: Korg Trinity

So you think that it's perfectly natural for compressed air to shoot down one side of the building blowing out only the windows directly under each other in perfect symmetry all down the side of the building instantaneously at the point of collapse??

skyeagle409 : Simple scientific logic that I learned back in high school. Do you know how a syringe works? Just think of the WTC buildings as giant syringes and remember, the interior of those buildings are mostly air, so where do you think all of that air is going to go as the floors pancake down upon one another?

The fact that you can see squibs of compressed air being forced out of buildings under the Verinage demolition method, a method that does not use explosives, should have been a clue for you.

Check out these photos if you missed the Verinage demolition video.

Photo of Verinage Demolition Produced Squibs of Compressed Air 1

Photo of Verinage Demolition Produced Squibs of Compressed Air 2

Just another example of how certain people have been duping conspiracy theorist over the years into thinking the WTC squibs were the result of explosives, and doing so in the absence of any audio sounds of explosions as the WTC buildings collapsed.

LT : So, compressed air coming from the OTHER side of the building. From floors under the EAST-penthouse, failing and falling, which must in your scenario, build-up air pressure that then spits out ONLY from a straight line of windows directly under each other at the opposite WEST side? R E A L L Y ? ? ? One after the other, speedy spitting out dust jets?
No pressure loss over that huge distance? No evenly distribution and increasing pressure loss? And that mysterious everlasting pressure is still ONLY aimed at several floors on the far other side?
And solely at the same windows positions, one lined up row of windows that break over the height of several floors?
Review your demolition job videos, and recognize the same pattern. Caused by steel-cutter charges.

This remark about French Verinage "squibs" is the most illogical post I found of you.
I'm reading back now from page 30 to 17, I missed the time to read all these pages posted in staccato, since I was constructing new posts, and rebuttals of illogical, uninformed or plain wrong posts. I see the thread has piled up to 38 pages now, more stuff to read.

You once said you were a pilot and an airplane mechanic. Are you really a military pilot with decades of experience, and an airplane mechanic too?
When I see how you grossly misinterpreted engineering subjects, I then suppose you are a retired military mechanic, and was a private pilot in your free time, not a military (fighter) pilot, since those would never make this type of engineering misinterpretation mistakes. They must have a minimum education level to be allowed to fly in a minimum 20 million dollar worth fighter jet, and after graduating, they have to know beside their Aerodynamics, their Physics, Mathematics, Materials Physics and Mechanical Engineering by heart, or they will quickly die.

That is not a squib in those 2 Verinage photos, that is a full floor worth of all its vertical columns failing and then the top of that building is collapsing on its bottom and the deceleration is crushing the above floor, and the floor it collapsed on is broken by the shear weight of the falling top part, while pushing dust and debris clouds out at all 4 sides in an evenly distribution pattern, because hydraulic jacks have pushed, then broken all load bearing left-over vertical columns in that totally stripped building its center floor.
Squibs can't form in such an open to air, building....its quite silly to think it ever could.

This following animated GIF shows some real dust jets (squibs) spitting out far under the collapse front, AND the ring shaped dust and debris clouds as in the failing Verinage building forming in that collapse front.
You see THREE REAL squibs forming, dust jets as femr2 calls them, formed in a still INTACT part of a building, somewhere at one point at the periphery of its fully intact floors, and their jets of dust, steam and debris spitting out from ONE or maximal TWO first shattered hurricane resistant glass windows :
The femr2 thread about dust jet locations at The911forum.freeforums.org... (closed for new member applications) :

skyeagle409 : Simple scientific logic that I learned back in high school. Do you know how a syringe works? Just think of the WTC buildings as giant syringes and remember, the interior of those buildings are mostly air, so where do you think all of that air is going to go as the floors pancake down upon one another?

UP- and side-ways, and its debris and dust falling from the sides, downwards, as you could have seen in all 3 WTC collapses.
There was no syringe, there was no pancaking of fully intact floors that smashed on top of each other, without smashing each other to smithereens. There was a progressive uneven open floor space failure, INITIATED by the explosive cutting of strategical rows of outer CORE columns. Those floors destructed and the air that was under them was mixed with dust and debris, blown mostly upwards and sideways, because that space was fully open now. The floor destruction was unstoppable after that initiation event.

Do you realize that you don't have the experience in the field and education of a structural engineer, regarding these subjects? I's sad, that you seem to have a blind spot for engineering subjects, you showed some good manners (and links), but also a huge lack of engineering insight. I guess you're probably good with small instruments, but lack the necessary insight for huge, failing objects like sky scrapers.

You're by the way definitely the last of the pancaking Mohican's.
FEMA came up in 2002 with the pancake theory and the 9/11 Commission abandoned it already, then NIST explained why it would not work and took swiftly distance from it, and Major Tom, ozeco41, femr2, achimspok, OneWhiteEye, peterene1, xenomorph/NathanFlach and friends have a few pages on his freeforum, about how wrong the evenly pancaking theory was/is, with nice drawings and the explanatory math of their unevenly progressive collapse thesis.

I advice the serious 9/11 researchers here, to take an interest in readingthat forum's many interesting subject threads, it's also a real treasure trove of newly developed and old ideas and information, and opposing discussions about 9/11.

A fine Example of that type of discussions, on how the engineering establishment can't even get their failure theory-basics right, started Sept 23, 2014 for 2 pages long, read them both :
ASCE journals refuse to correct a fraudulent paper.

I agree with most of Tony Szamboti's explanation there, and with ozeco41 his follow-up post from Sat Oct 18, 2014, its extensive and logical (A) and (B) additions, it's too long to excerpt here, however it is necessary reading as the logical addition to Szamboti's thoughts :

Posted by T_Szamboti » Sat Oct 18, 2014
While the runaway floor theory may have merit after a significant number of stories collapsed, it does not explain the collapse prior to that point. Columns had to fail to initiate the even collapse at the 98th floor of WTC-1N and it had to happen for a significant number of stories before any runaway floor situation would cause a propagation. The ROOSD (LT : Runaway Open Office Space Destruction) concept is non-explanatory for what caused the collapse to begin and what caused it to propagate for the first several stories.

It should also be noted that the 98th floor was just above the aircraft impact damage. NIST stopped their views of impact damage at the 97th floor, because there was essentially none above it. Most of the impact damage was on the 95th and 96th floors. Now why would the collapse initiate at the undamaged 98th floor? There were fires on the 98th floor but the collapse propagated horizontally across it in less than one second. This cannot be caused by fire.

What is also interesting is that the next floors to fail after the 98th were those above it (the 99th, 100th, and possibly 101st). This has no explanation by any runaway floor model. It could only be caused by column failure/destruction.

And Beck proved later, that half of all the 287 vertical columns (PCs + CCs), which he offered to cut out from his NIST-model discussion, and to top it off, as also having half of their original yield strength left-over, were even in that ridiculously weakened case offered by him, to show the illogical basis for the NIST collapse models, still far stronger than the static load exerted on them by the weight of the top part above the failing initiation floors where the collapses started.
Which leaves us with just one cause for a runaway floor model collapse : DESTRUCTIVE DEMOLITION.

Now the post by ozeco41 from Sun Oct 19, 2014 :

ozeco41 : I'm clear enough in my own head - clear enough that I can argue "bits" which require it. But I haven't tried to write the comprehensive paper. Plus nobody good enough and interested enough to test me out - dangerous working in a vacuum - need some critical review.
(LT : Charles M. Beck did so and was good enough and interested, you both should meet.)

For example - I've posted many times over the last 2 or 3 years that all the discussion about tilt versus axial contact of falling column ends is a waste of time.
If tilt has occurred then the column ends have already missed.
I've described that as "bleedingly obvious" and been ignored by 98% of members from both sides of the great divide. Femr2 asked me on this forum if I was sure. I said yes.

Now believe it or not, that claim is also the clue to the principle error under Missing Jolt. And it will be no surprise that such is one area where Tony and I do not agree. So be it.

The error derives from trying to apply the Bazant & Le model assumptions to the real event. They don't fit. That should be a theme where you and I agree.
And nobody seems to ask "how does the collapse of one column fit into downwards movement of the Top Bit of tower?"
It has moved downwards, for gawd's sake. How could it "drop from above" to make axial contact?

Which leads to a related "bleedingly obvious" fact which 98% miss.
Note "miss" - ignore, don't comment, don't deny...say nothing.
It is this:
At the point where the Top Bl...

ops: er Top Bit of tower is moving downwards:
A) All columns have failed; AND
B) Are already ends misaligned and bypassing
C) (Minor disclaimer) or soon will be and it is inevitable.

So should be no surprises in that lot either. :wink:

-- snip--

Major_Tom post :
On the issue of the WTC1 initiation sequence. Features of the initial failure sequence can be understood as a rapid succession of 9 identifiable events occurring in the following order:

1) Deformations: Inward bowing of the south face
2) Earliest detectable creep movement of the antenna and northwest corner
3) Appearance of ~87th floor South face ejections
4) Appearance of 95th floor West face ejection
5) Visible downward movement begins: Columns fail over tilt of less than
1 degree, appearance of 98th floor ejections and 105th floor ejections
6) Appearance of 77th floor West face ejections
7) Splitting of all perimeter walls: All visible upper parts fall out and over lower parts
8 ) Southward sliding of upper portion
9 ) Dis-integration of upper portion

Ozeco, you value the work of Femr2. Tony, you recognize the appreciate the work of Achimspok. This sequence of events is the result of their work.
Note that what people consider to be the beginning of visible downward motion is marked in blue.
Note that each of the ejections marked in red happen before visible downward movement.

According to this sequence of events, the NIST claim, that initiation began on the 98th floor, cannot be true.

Note :
-------- WTC-1N plane-impacted floors : 94th up to 98th floors, 5 floors high.
-------- WTC-2S plane-impacted floors : 77th up to 85th floors, 9 floors high.


Both men and I came, so to see, to a lot of comparable insights regarding the initiation phase, independently from each other, by just studying the videos and photos of the collapses. I had not read their words up till now, not before my own conclusions had completed and were expressed long ago, and others who haven't either, ended up with the same conclusions.

Thus the readers should (re)read the three Charles M. Beck papers again, now they know why core column failure could ONLY have been caused by precise destruction, by means of well placed explosives. He was the first one to mathematically prove that all three collapses could NOT have been NATURALLY induced collapses, induced ONLY by planes plus fires.

See my posted References 3, 4 and 5 in my next second post, for the full Beck papers.

And the discussion regarding these Beck papers, slowly ending at page 24, here at my other ATS thread, which discussions lead to nothing new, since no one here seems to be able to refute or understand his calculations and engineering basics, based on building data copied from the NIST preliminary and final reports.
So read page 22 up to page 24, the whole Beck discussion, when slowly the usual laments began. But no meat on the matter. At all. More alike misleading and distortion of the matter, sufficiently countered by me in these few posts on the bottom of page 22, it begins with this simple post :
www.abovetopsecret.com... and then proceeds to the meat of the matter :
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com... long math post
www.abovetopsecret.com... long math post
www.abovetopsecret.com... long math post
www.abovetopsecret.com... long math post at the bottom of page 22. Then followed on page 23 by these posts :
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com... The Le&Bazant versus Szamboti&Jones discussion explained by me. The follow-up post :
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com... Explaining Inward Bowing via Core Failure.
www.abovetopsecret.com... My Beck papers explanation for readers that missed Physics teaching. Plus the squibs (dust/debris jets). And a Little Physics lesson regarding the WTC collapses.
If you want, read the rest of page 23.

This is a post on page 25 where I also mentioned the work from Charles M. Beck.
This is another one. And another one. Read up the rest of the thread's pages, up to page 33.
You find this one too on page 30.
This is an important one too, with one of my WTC-7 diagrams :



The core failed first. And pulled a row of facade panels slowly inwards over the holding strength of the floor trusses' seats on both sides, there where those floor-trusses were positioned perpendicular to the facade. Read the follow-up post too. This is another follow-up post on that subject.
While you're at it, read in this post my "Blue Note" also, where I proposed the solution for the easy cutting by the planes through the dense perimeter steel, for both planes. Of course the high airspeed combined with the mass of the plane plays a major role, but perhaps the planners took no risks, and added a lot of depleted uranium, to enhance the plane its mass by about a factor 8. Making cutting facade steel a to be expected, reliable outcome.

Now all this above is the meat of the matter, stop this ridiculous page-long "catching each others flies" behavior in this important thread, and start concentrating on the "MEAT"...!

Readers, go and educate yourselves by reading all of Major_Tom's honest research pages, they are listed as a long row of blue links on the left side of all his on-line exceptional BOOK pages :
www.sharpprintinginc.com...
Then you can use that knowledge to discuss the meat of the matter in this thread, and don't start endless new offspring threads about it, that's juvenile behavior, you don't need stars, you want respect, and that's what you get when your arguments are solid and understandable.

Especially read his page about his progressive floor collapse model (1).

Major_Tom : These descriptive and mathematical approaches to explain the collapse progression for WTC1 cannot account for the temporary survival of the entire northern portion of the core. The general description of WTC1 collapse propagation offered by Dr Bazant in Bazant and Verdure(2007), Bazant and Le(2008) and Bazant, Le, Greening, Benson(2008) cannot account for many of the physical observations presented in this study. Within the body of literature offered by Dr Bazant on the subject of WTC1 collapse progression there is no hint that Dr Bazant is even aware of the absence of column buckling, the temporarily survival of the whole northern core or the outward motion of the perimeter.
--snip--
Direct measurements of a collapse front propagation rate.
As shown in the 3rd physical observation, a collapse front moving down the WTC1 west face was measured as a steady ~8 floors per second.

This publication (2) by Vlassis et al, from the Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Imperial College London, describes the possible mechanisms AFTER an INITIATION failure event, for their proposed progressive floors collapses.
They say the failure of a floor "beam" is that initiation, falling in a triangular motion on the next floor.
That is of course not what happened at the WTC. There we have double trusses under a huge composite floor. Trusses which did not fail, unlike NIST tried to introduce, based on a faulty assumption, which I proved to them, was wrong. Floor trusses under that center facade portion ran perpendicular to the facade, so could not form a sagging bow. What they showed could thus only have been sagging aluminum ceiling rims.
Much more probable is a (human induced) failure of the outer CORE columns row, still firmly attached to the composite floor parts, which columns row sunk slowly 2 meters, then halted, and slowly bended the perimeter column row inwards, that row also still firmly attached to those floor parts, and then all other core columns were diagonally severed and slipped as one entity downwards, pulling all floor parts with them and only then, by their shear weight loads, were instantly severing all welded and bolted connections:
The collapse initiation event, which can only be one of two possibilities :

A Natural initiation failure.
An Unnatural initiation failure.

Charles M. Beck (3, 4, 5) has explained why, for all 3 WTC collapses on 9/11/2001, the laws of Physical Mechanics and Mathematics demand for an Unnatural initiation failure.

Let me emphasize on the many uncertainties expressed by all authors in their publications.
The raw framework has been set up, it's only a case of further fine tuning of their proposals, which will involve heavy usage of main frame super-computers, to ever be capable of precisely describing the mechanisms inside a building its progressive floor collapse.
Based on the final blueprints of the first failed floor in a collapsed building, for the initiation event, and the full set of final blueprints for all floors, for its following collapse propagation..

I guess it will take another 10 years of ideas exchange and cooperation of the involved disciplines with the most important players, the financiers. Who have especially this subject not really high on their agendas. They don't want bad press for their existing portfolio of high risers. They know that most firms will abandon their renting contracts when they find out that their (head) offices are located in dangerous places...

REFERENCES

1. Major_Tom : WORLD TRADE CENTER TWIN TOWER PROGRESSIVE FLOOR COLLAPSE MODEL.

The author does not claim to provide answers to what initiated the fall of WTC1. Collapse initiation is a highly complex subject involving early structural deformity and a very rapid lateral failure propagation of core and perimeter columns.

Major_Tom does however offer a lot of solid food for new daring thoughts on the WTC collapses subject. And the next authors (2 to 5) do hint to these initiation answers, especially Charles M. Beck does indeed offer one.

ROOSD is a collapse propagation model, applicable only once certain ROOSD conditions are met. The following description of phase 1 motion is meant only as the most general description to show how such conditions may come about. The question of initial buckling is completely bypassed as we simply displace and drop an upper portion onto the lower building.

He proposes a very simplified but interesting basic model for a runaway open office space destruction, AFTER an initiation event he does not touch, since he understands the complexity of that subject. Therefore, we are left with Charles M. Beck's less simplified mathematical explanations, but still an approximation, based on the buildings their known blueprints, as taken over from the NIST reports, about the outcome from his calculations, resulting in an orders of magnitude bigger impossibility for a natural initiation event (plane, fires), starting any form of collapse propagation, against the possibility of an unnatural initiation event (plane, fires, explosives).

2. Progressive Collapse of Multi-Storey Buildings due to Failed Floor Impact.

... 2a... 6.Izzuddin, B.A., Vlassis, A.G., Elghazouli, A.Y., and Nethercot, D.A. (2007). “Progressive Collapse of Multi-Storey Buildings due to Sudden Column Loss–Part I: Simplified Assessment Framework,” Engineering Structures, 30(5), pp. 1308-1318.

... 2b... 7.Vlassis, A.G., Izzuddin, B.A., Elghazouli, A.Y., and Nethercot, D.A. (2007). “Progressive Collapse of Multi-Storey Buildings due to Sudden Column Loss–Part II: Application,” Engineering Structures, 30(5), pp. 1424-1438.

3. Charles M. Beck WTC-1+2 : Mathematical Models of Progressive Collapse and the Question of How Did the World Trade Centers Perish.
15 Pages, 7 figures; Typos and glitches fixed; submitted to ASCE J. of Engineering Mechanics.

4. Charles M. Beck WTC-1+2 : Role of Compaction Ratio in the Mathematical Model of Progressive Collapse.
6 Pages, 1 figure, submitted to ASCE J. of Engineering Mechanics.

5. Charles M. Beck WTC-7 : Descent curve and the phases of collapse of WTC-7. 24 Pages, 7 figures.

6. L.abTop's Academia pages.
... 6a. L.aBTop Page 1.
... 6b. L.aBTop Page 2.

7. Major_Tom : TOWARD AN ACCURATE TECHNICAL HISTORY OF THE WTC-7 COLLAPSE.

Find many more UNBIASED and honestly researched WTC-7 refs at the left deep bottom of his page. Since this is a thread by me about WTC-7, I'll list them here for your convenience :

----------BEFORE COLLAPSE-----------

8. Barry Jennings his Testimony of Explosions.

9. Damage to the South Side Facade, Internal and External.

10. Premature Reports of WTC-7 Collapse.

--------INITIAL FAILURE SEQUENCE---------

11. Movement Detected from 2 Minutes before Global Collapse Start.

12. Jet Flames from the Northern 13th Floor Just Before Collapse.

13. East Penthouse Free-falls Through Building, West one follows.

14. Early Movement Summary.

15. Perimeter Deforming During Early Motion.

-----COLLAPSE PROGRESSION AND COMPLETION-----

16. North-East Corner Folds In and Over Building.

17. WTC-7 Acceleration, as Compared with a Tall Building Demo.

18. Fire Was Much Less Intense Than at Other High-Rises.

a reply to: LaBTop

UP- and side-ways, and its debris and dust falling from the sides, downwards, as you could have seen in all 3 WTC collapses.

Which did not involve the used of explosives.

There was no syringe, ...

Of course there was. The inside of an building is mostly air, so where did you think all of that air went as the WTC buildings collapsed? Blow up a paper sack and slam it with your hands? What happens to the air? Here's proof that you are incorrect bcause compressed air is being forced out of the building as it collapses.

Photo of WTC Collapse

Another Photo of Compressed Air Forced out by Collapse

To sum that up, you are in error. nother case in point is this photo.

Compressed Air Forced From Collapsing Building

...
there was no pancaking of fully intact floors that smashed on top of each other,

Of course the floors pancaked.

Dominick Derubbio

t was weird how it started to come down. It looked like it was a timed explosion, but I guess it was just the floors starting to pancake one on top of the other.

So this guys is guessing that the explosions were floors pancaking.

Indications of the Imminent Collapse of the World Trade Center Buildings Disprove Explosives Theory

Exterior columns buckled because the fires weakened the floor trusses and the floors sagged. The sagging floors pulled on intact column connections so as the floors sagged down, they pulled the exterior columns inward. This inward bowing of the exterior columns was evident to observers such as the police helicopters circling the towers.

"The NYPD aviation unit reported critical information about the impending collapse of the buildings." They could see that the exterior steel beams of the buildings were bowing. You can see the inward bowing of the steel columns in pictures of both WTC 2, (the first building to collapse) and WTC 1 (the second building to collapse.)
Buckling Steel

Dr. Shyam Sunder, lead investigator for NIST's building and fire safety investigation into the WTC disaster, said, "While the buildings were able to withstand the initial impact of the aircraft, the resulting fires that spread through the towers weakened support columns and floors that had fireproofing dislodged by the impacts. This eventually led to collapse as the perimeter columns were pulled inward by the sagging floors and buckled."

"The reason the towers collapsed is because the fireproofing was dislodged," according to Sunder. If the fireproofing had remained in place, Sunder said, the fires would have burned out and moved on without weakening key elements to the point of structural collapse."

www.representativepress.org...

a reply to: LaBTop

Despite everything you've posted, you've still failed to provide evidence of explosives and thermite. What you have posted was debunked years ago. As proof, take your so-called evidence and present them to the NYPD or any news agency and see if they take you seriously. After all, I am very sure they are aware of what you have posted and it has been 14 years and yet, no one found evidence of explosive nor thermite after all of these years. However, they found proof that fire, in conjunction with impact damage, was responsible for the collapse of the WTC buildings.

Collapse Initiation

After the planes struck the buildings, but before the buildings collapsed, the cores of both towers consisted of three distinct sections. Above and below the impact floors, the cores consisted of what were essentially two rigid boxes; the steel in these sections was undamaged and had undergone no significant heating.

The section between them, however, had sustained significant damage and, though they were not hot enough to melt it, the fires were weakening the structural steel. As a result, the core columns were slowly being crushed, sustaining plastic and creep deformation from the weight of floors above. As the top section tried to move downward, however, the hat truss redistributed the load to the perimeter columns. Meanwhile, the perimeter columns and floors were also being weakened by the heat of the fires, and as the floors began to sag they pulled the exterior walls inwards.

In the case of 2 WTC, this caused the eastern face to buckle, transferring its loads back to the failing core through the hat truss and initiating the collapse. In the case of 1 WTC, the south wall later buckled in the same way, and with similar consequences

www.civil.northwestern.edu...

a reply to: LaBTop

This following animated GIF shows some real dust jets (squibs) spitting out far under the collapse front, AND the ring shaped dust and debris clouds as in the failing Verinage building forming in that collapse front.

About squibs. Squibs are the result of compressed air as a building collapses.

a reply to: skyeagle409

I do have to say, however, that I find it interesting that a squib is also the term for a small, low energy explosive charge. Such as the ones used by special effects artists to blow a hole in a shirt for a bullet impact, or blow out a blood pack.

a reply to: pfishy

I do have to say, however, that I find it interesting that a squib is also the term for a small, low energy explosive charge. Such as the ones used by special effects artists to blow a hole in a shirt for a bullet impact, or blow out a blood pack.

You might find these two videos interesting.

a reply to: skyeagle409

Appreciated, but there is no point in trying to convince me of anything, one way or the other. There is absolutely no doubt in my mind about the events of that day, and how the buildings collapsed, how the event in Shanksville occurred, or what happened at the Pentagon.
I'm also not going to elaborate on that one single bit on ATS, just to be clear. I only browse the 9/11 threads to see why various people believe what they believe, and to try and promote intellectual honesty when I see someone make a claim that directly contradicts the evidence they have based it on. Or when there is just a glaringly obviously mistake in a statement.

a reply to: skyeagle409

But the methodology in those videos does seem fairly sound, so thanks for sharing them with me.

Then I will also share something with you, pfishy.

skyeagle409 : ""You might find these two videos interesting. ""

They are only interesting from a psychological or psychopathology dysfunction angle.
When the whole world understood that NIST was plain out lying in their draft report, and Chandler was right, that there INDEED existed a 2.25 secs PERIOD of free fall acceleration in the full global collapse TOTAL PERIOD, this type of uneducated person dares to rehash the whole NIST WTC-7 report its rate of fall disaster?

That's really gross.
Just as gross as your re-posting over and over of that stupid WTC-7 collapse video where they cut off the first 10.5 seconds in which its first second you can hear that huge explosion sound, 2 seconds before the EAST penthouse starts to dent. That video starts at the last sinking of the WEST penthouse which two events lasted 8.5 seconds, thus 10.5 seconds too late to ever hear that deep sound.
And we addressed that 10.5 secs cut-out trick, and explained it ad infinitum to you, by now.

You now dare to post again 9:59 minutes of this kind of childish "debunking" rubbish, while you have been offered multiple times in this thread alone already, the reason why David Chandler is right, and why it is accepted by every scientist on the globe already for all these years since 2008, except by real nut-jobs like this guy.
And you gladly fall for him; hook, line and sinker.

We even offered you the links to the NIST retraction of their "no free fall acceleration period" statement, in their final WTC-7 report.
They "discovered" with their expensive software, also at last, teeth-grindingly, a period of 2.25 seconds, of even closer to precise free fall acceleration, than David Chandler came up with, while he had no budget at all, while NIST was paid tens of millions to come up with their huge and extensive, but on strategic points, flawed, misleading and clearly lying, WTC-7 reports.

To keep up appearances, the NIST directors tried to sell the public their old draft report's huge lies in a new dry-cleaned jacket, by now dividing the global collapse time into 3 segments, where their 2.25 secs of UNDISPUTED free fall acceleration was the middle one. They added a few first period seconds to that middle segment of 2.25 secs of Free-Fall PERIOD before the start of visible GLOBAL collapse, and thus came up again with their 5.4 secs period that they used in their first draft of rate of fall calculation.
Trying to reach out for the gullible, again.
So to see they succeeded again, they pulled the wool over your eyes, AGAIN. You and your YT-videos making friend.

Which 5.4 secs NIST had misleadingly used in their draft report as fall period, dividing their measured fall distance of 18 floors during those 5.4 secs, by those 5.4 seconds, to come up with 66 % of free fall acceleration rate of fall, over that far too long PERIOD, in which they added those extra 3.15 secs at their chosen, arbitrary start of global collapse.
While in those by NIST out of thin air created 3.15 secs we all can see no movement of that building of any importance.
And that senseless addition of extra seconds is the culprit you fell for, hook, line and sinker.

While real free fall calculations try to find periods in which the 9.8 meters PER second PER second ACCELERATION rate for G is reached, to prove if there are short or long periods of real free fall acceleration in any collapse SEQUENCE.
Which period of computed true free fall acceleration is used thereafter by all sane scientists on earth as UNDISPUTED EVIDENCE of additional explosives, with the intention to reach a state of NO RESISTANCE over a certain height in a FAILED steel and concrete building.

And that second video is not worthy of another word. What a nut-job...

Thanks to Trinity Korg we luckily have this :
Title : WTC Building 7 Collapse - 23 angles
youtu.be... 14:10 min long.



There are at least 3 video-parts in it, where you can hear the WTC-7 collapse explosions.
They seem to be all privately recorded. 08:59 is a prime example.
Can you find the other ones too?

No editing room after-edits. No annoying news feeds insets. Just privately filmed footage.
Keep in mind that sound needs time to reach the camera microphone, so don't expect the video to go in synchronization with the sounds. Sounds in these cases of filming from considerable distances, is always slower arriving at your senses than the pictures. At 333 m/s.

So if you can pinpoint the camera woman/man their position on Google Maps or Earth, we can calculate the distance, and then try to put the explosives their sounds sequence over the video pictures, and know when they started and how they proceeded. And see if those sounds coincide with the Ashley Banfield interview video's sounds of 9 explosions. As found in there, by David Chandler.

I found five WTC-7 collapse video-cuts with those peculiar sounds in it, two of which can even be heard with bad audio equipment :

7:25 I'm not sure, someone with top notch equipment, perhaps?
8:10 to 8:25 many squibs in a long vertical line-up, at the right, west side.
8:50 to 8:56 private video, with a 6 secs long cadence of explosive sounds.
10:05 The Rick Siegel part, at least 3 loud deep Boooms from the pier on the other side of the Hudson river.
11:22 to 11:30 private video, faint boom,boom,boom,boom,boom, sounds?
11:30 to 12:00 private video, no sound, in slow motion, the best and lowest going collapse video, you see that huge high row of dust ejections (squibs) spitting more and more debris/dust out, and at exactly 11:51 (pause) you clearly see that it has developed into a deep crevasse and already took a heavy bite out of the roof rim and the next two lower mechanical floors. That doesn't look natural at all.
13:17 Light top corner damage seen, from the 41st to the 46th floor corners.

I hope, once a curious audio professional with the right equipment will read this, and will analyze these video cut-outs.

a reply to: skyeagle409

With all due respect sir, you seem to IGNORE the evidence that LabB has presented. You claim there is no evidence when in fact it is abundant.

It's just that you are in denial of it.

This is also worth a read

www.isgp.nl...

a reply to: drommelsboef

Just to let you know that your reference was debunked years ago by firefighters, demolition experts, structural and civil engineers, and architects.