Trying to resolve 9/11

a reply to: Hulseyreport

Let’s put it this way. Did Hulsey’s model remove any of the facade columns? So the facade could fall at free fall speed in his modeling? Or does Hulsey’s model prove in the AE universe that buckled columns can offer negligible resistance that allows part of a structure to achieve free fall speed, and making your argument a moot point?

a reply to: Hulseyreport

And I find it odd the truth movement started with WTC 1 and WTC 2? Now it ignores WTC 1 and 2. So you concede that is was fire related collapse initiations for WTC 1 and WTC 2. Since there is no credible explanation from the truth movement.

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: Hulseyreport

I am not sure if NIST “Denied” free fall?

11. In a video, it appears that WTC 7 is descending in free fall, something that would not occur in the structural collapse that you describe. How can NIST ignore basic laws of physics?
In the draft WTC 7 report (released Aug. 21, 2008; available at www.nist.gov...), NIST stated that the north face of the building descended 18 stories (the portion of the collapse visible in the video) in 5.4 seconds, based on video analysis of the building collapse. This time period is 40 percent longer than the 3.9 seconds this process would have taken if the north face of the building had descended solely under free fall conditions. During the public comment period on the draft report, NIST was asked to confirm this time difference and define the reasons for it in greater detail.
To further clarify the descent of the north face, NIST recorded the downward displacement of a point near the center of the roofline from first movement until the north face was no longer visible in the video. Numerical analyses were conducted to calculate the velocity and acceleration of the roofline point from the time-dependent displacement data. The instant at which vertical motion of the roofline first occurred was determined by tracking the numerical value of the brightness of a pixel (a single element in the video image) at the roofline. This pixel became brighter as the roofline began to descend because the color of the pixel started to change from that of the building façade to the lighter color of the sky.
The approach taken by NIST is summarized in NIST NCSTAR Report 1A, Section 3.6, and detailed in NIST NCSTAR Report 1-9, Section 12.5.3.
The analyses of the video (both the estimation of the instant the roofline began to descend and the calculated velocity and acceleration of a point on the roofline) revealed three distinct stages characterizing the 5.4 seconds of collapse:
Stage 1 (0 to 1.75 seconds): acceleration less than that of gravity (i.e., slower than free fall).
Stage 2 (1.75 to 4.0 seconds): gravitational acceleration (free fall)
Stage 3 (4.0 to 5.4 seconds): decreased acceleration, again less than that of gravity
This analysis showed that the 40 percent longer descent time—compared to the 3.9 second free fall time—was due primarily to Stage 1, which corresponded to the buckling of the exterior columns in the lower stories of the north face. During Stage 2, the north face descended essentially in free fall, indicating negligible support from the structure below. This is consistent with the structural analysis model, which showed the exterior columns buckling and losing their capacity to support the loads from the structure above. In Stage 3, the acceleration decreased as the upper portion of the north face encountered increased resistance from the collapsed structure and the debris pile below.

Do you agree with the

“ revealed three distinct stages characterizing the 5.4 seconds of collapse:
Stage 1 (0 to 1.75 seconds): acceleration less than that of gravity (i.e., slower than free fall).
Stage 2 (1.75 to 4.0 seconds): gravitational acceleration (free fall)
Stage 3 (4.0 to 5.4 seconds): decreased acceleration, again less than that of gravity
This analysis showed that the 40 percent longer descent time
“

Remember. The 5.4 Sec is only for the facade. The penthouse had already completely fell below WTC 7’s roofline before the facade started to move downward. Is that false.

And I think different parts of the Façade started to move at different times.

And you do understand when something buckles, its not offering resistance to load. Hence buckling and why the load drops.

So. In the second stage of the facade, the structure is offering negligible resistance as the load is dropping because the buckled structure is not resisting load.

Now. What is interesting. You claim the resistance of the facade was instantaneously removed like Hulsey making the columns disappear by magic? If that is the case, why didn’t the onset of the collapse of the facade move at free fall acceleration? You claimed all the resistance was instantaneous removed? Yet. For 1.75 seconds the structure you claim had to have all resistance removed like Hulsey making columns disappear fell slower than free fall? The structure was offering resistance when you claim all the resistance had to be removed to start the collapse?

Yes NIST did deny free fall. See the video to grasp the background. 
The three stages are what NIST added to their draft report in Nov 2008. After denying free fall in Aug 2008
Recognize also NIST claimed WTC7 failed because of design defects and that there were no shear studs secured to the floors. So the beams and girders are unsupported in their final paper. We likewise know they left of stiffeners and web plate which would further block the girder from thermal expanding off its seat. Their assessments were also wrong  to how far the girder could change position from the secured position.

They too claim there was a very hot fire on Floor 12 near the time of collapse- but visual evidence demonstrates the fires are out. This just another case of misrepresentation. 
Since this paper was put out in the Bush corruption period. It was a study that was politicized and they exercised pressure to arrive at this conclusion. 

We also know two mainstream engineering groups rubbished the NIST theory in court. Two private mainstream engineering groups asserted the collapse started on floors 9 and 10.  There was the argument of cooling and heat cycles and floors collapsing in court, but no one of the groups concurred with NIST.  It rarely spoke about. They stuck to the story fire caused the collapse but no one of the groups recognized each other conclusions and discoveries about the collapse.

Back to free fall. NIST explanation makes zero sense. 
They're claiming buckling columns and structural resistance still there though only negligible ( since they don't define) what they mean by negligible we left thinking.
Since the building experienced free fall all the steel links and concrete floors in the lower portion of the building already gone. It's not negligible, whatever that measures?

The biggest fault with new analysis is their own models still show structural resistance underneath the upper floors. The floors across the span of the building are not gone. It's a fault that people have not noticed. Their physic models have floors dropping on the eastside but on the other side there still there all the way to the southwest corner of building seven.
NIST is denying Newton motion law to accommodate their fire hypothesis for building seven. 

a reply to: Hulseyreport

You

Yes NIST did deny free fall. See the video to grasp the background.

Then quote where it was denied in the report.

You

They too claim there was a very hot fire on Floor 12 near the time of collapse- but visual evidence demonstrates the fires are out

Do you have proof.

You

The biggest fault with new analysis is their own models still show structural resistance underneath the upper floors.

Then quote the study where the report said that?

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: Hulseyreport

You

Yes NIST did deny free fall. See the video to grasp the background.

Then quote where it was denied in the report.

You

They too claim there was a very hot fire on Floor 12 near the time of collapse- but visual evidence demonstrates the fires are out

Do you have proof.

You

The biggest fault with new analysis is their own models still show structural resistance underneath the upper floors.

Then quote the study where the report said that?

This is the problem with debunkers
The video I posted shows NIST speaking about free fall in Aug 2008.
There no misquote here.
It visual evidence them denying it.
Watch and listen carefully to their views about the collapse.

a reply to: Hulseyreport

Now. Do you want to talk about actual WTC 7 evidence. The actual video, audio, seismic evidence?

This is the Hulsey report. Remember, his model dose not accurately represent the recorded WTC 7 collapse. And his inputs are forced. There is no calculated mode of failure that conforms to the video, audio, seismic evidence.

The hypothetical simultaneous failure of all core columns would cause the building to tip to the southwest and would not cause a straight-down collapse.
5. The simultaneous failure of all core columns over 8 stories followed 1.3 seconds later by the simultaneous failure of all exterior columns over 8 stories produces almost exactly the behavior observed in videos of the collapse. The collapse could have started at various floors starting at Floor 16 and below and produced the same behavior.
It is our conclusion that the collapse of WTC 7 was a global failure involving the near-
simultaneous failure of all columns in the building and not a progressive collapse involving the sequential failure of columns throughout the building.

ine.uaf.edu...

How can Hulsey mention global when he did no global modeling of the fires. So his model is based on a false pretense.

Failure is never defined. I assume Hulsey means Buckled?

Can you cite any evidence from the video, audio seismic evidence of any other mechanism other than buckling that would initiate a “ near-simultaneous failure of all columns in the building“

I don’t think there is any evidence from the video, audio, seismic evidence there was a “ near-simultaneous failure of all columns in the building“

But that is also moot.

The video shows via the penthouse, and the way the windows/structure behaved under the penthouse, WTC 7 was undergoing an internal progressive collapse. With no explanation why the collapse of the penthouse would stop a few floors down from Hulsey. With no credible explanation from Hulsey why the penthouse collapse even initiated.

Like it or not. The NIST model is way more comprehensive. II is a global modeling of the fires in WTC 7, where’s Hulsey’s is not.

If you want to argue the NIST study was gamed, that is up to you. Note, the NIST model was honestly presented as a best guess.

But it is quite evident that the Hulsey model is very limited in scope, and has no global modeling of the fires. There is no way a honest people would look at the limited modeling and conclude with intellectually honesty the Hulsey study shows beyond a reasonable doubt that fire/thermal stress initiated collapse was impossible.

So.. It all leads back to the video, audio, seismic evidence.

a reply to: Hulseyreport

You

This is the problem with debunkers
The video I posted shows NIST speaking about free fall in Aug 2008.
There no misquote here.
It visual evidence them denying it.
Watch and listen carefully to their views about the collapse.

No. You don’t like the NIST explanation. And you cannot cite anything from the video, audio, seismic evidence to show its wrong.

a reply to: Hulseyreport

So.

Do they “deny” free fall in the final published WTC 7 study?

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: Hulseyreport

Now. Do you want to talk about actual WTC 7 evidence. The actual video, audio, seismic evidence?

This is the Hulsey report. Remember, his model dose not accurately represent the recorded WTC 7 collapse. And his inputs are forced. There is no calculated mode of failure that conforms to the video, audio, seismic evidence.

The hypothetical simultaneous failure of all core columns would cause the building to tip to the southwest and would not cause a straight-down collapse.
5. The simultaneous failure of all core columns over 8 stories followed 1.3 seconds later by the simultaneous failure of all exterior columns over 8 stories produces almost exactly the behavior observed in videos of the collapse. The collapse could have started at various floors starting at Floor 16 and below and produced the same behavior.
It is our conclusion that the collapse of WTC 7 was a global failure involving the near-
simultaneous failure of all columns in the building and not a progressive collapse involving the sequential failure of columns throughout the building.

ine.uaf.edu...

How can Hulsey mention global when he did no global modeling of the fires. So his model is based on a false pretense.

Failure is never defined. I assume Hulsey means Buckled?

Can you cite any evidence from the video, audio seismic evidence of any other mechanism other than buckling that would initiate a “ near-simultaneous failure of all columns in the building“

I don’t think there is any evidence from the video, audio, seismic evidence there was a “ near-simultaneous failure of all columns in the building“

But that is also moot.

The video shows via the penthouse, and the way the windows/structure behaved under the penthouse, WTC 7 was undergoing an internal progressive collapse. With no explanation why the collapse of the penthouse would stop a few floors down from Hulsey. With no credible explanation from Hulsey why the penthouse collapse even initiated.

Like it or not. The NIST model is way more comprehensive. II is a global modeling of the fires in WTC 7, where’s Hulsey’s is not.

If you want to argue the NIST study was gamed, that is up to you. Note, the NIST model was honestly presented as a best guess.

But it is quite evident that the Hulsey model is very limited in scope, and has no global modeling of the fires. There is no way a honest people would look at the limited modeling and conclude with intellectually honesty the Hulsey study shows beyond a reasonable doubt that fire/thermal stress initiated collapse was impossible.

So.. It all leads back to the video, audio, seismic evidence.

I not clear what you mean by WTC7 actual evidence. 
I showing the true evidence but you don't recognize it thats the issue.
Hulsey UAF modelliing approach was to take out columns that NIST stated failed owing to fire.
It right approach to analyze a scenario, despite what you refer to on debunker sites. Understand that point please. 
Hulsey trying to replay the collapse of the actual real building on 9/11.

Hulsey worked with the conditions that NIST stated happened and he allowed the girder to shift from its seat and serious of failures occurred based on NIST study. 
This is part Debunkers have not noticed yet and explained it previously. When Hulsey started the fails on eastside due to fire ( remember this the NIST version) Hulsey model started to tilt southeast. Metabunk was perplexed what Hulsey was looking at.  Hulsey sticking rigorously to the fire damage that NIST stated took place. 
NIST global model there no southeast tilt on the eastside. Hulsey model there is.
It's clearly new evidence Hulsey presenting to contradict the NIST version.

Metabunk as much as i know has not submitted any evidence this Hulsey model is false based on data weaknesses.  I have seen lot of poor evidence on there site and there no enignerrs on there to smartly point this out to them. If you believe Hulsey on wrong road you have to submit a consise debunk that building seven would not tip over southeast when you remove columns 79 to 81. 

Failure is described the steel concrete and steel columns were taken out by controlled demolition. There no ordinary way to remove 84 perimeter and core columns in one to seconds by fire. 
Incorrect Hulsey modelled the traverse of the floors better than NIST for fire.
NIST only did temps ranges around the column at 79 on eastside. You have to remember NIST claims the horizontally failures that ensued later were not caused by fire. They are failures induced by progressive collapse when everything inside the building declined and just collapsed east to west.  On Floor 13 NIST never modelled the local connections across the span of the floor from one corner to the next building Hulsey did. You thought about who modelled fires better is inaccurate.

There is an explantation because the northward- eastside section did not collapse the way NIST states previous to Penthouse collapse. You staring at the Penthouse failure from "NIST point of view. Where the upper floors to below floors are gone. NIST claims the Penthouse came through the ceiling and continued through just empty space to the bottom. Hulsey claims there  was a local failure but the Penthouse stopped on floor 41 or 40 i understand and the structural resistance still there underneath floor 40 stopped the penthouse wreckage from going any further down the building. The visual evidence does appear to show windows only broke around the 40th floor and there was no further cracking of windows below that. 

What floor should Hulsey have modelled for fire? I just asking since you believing he done nothing right?

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: Hulseyreport

So.

Do they “deny” free fall in the final published WTC 7 study?

Explain how you deny freefall after six years and then three months later claim it happened, and we knew all along? That borderline insanity.

a reply to: Hulseyreport

Because the columns were buckled and the resistance was negligible. Like the resistance of a 22 cal bullet provided by firing the bullet into an oncoming M1 tank.

Now. From the video evidence, audio evidence, seismic evidence, do you have any proof of columns being actively cut. Are there any audible detonations indicate of explosions acting on evey column? Eight floors worth? 8 floors x 84 columns equals 672 charges setting off. No. Is there any indication of 672 charges setting off causing pressure waves cutting steel columns. No. Is there evidence of shrapnel from 672 charges setting off cutting steel columns. No. Is there any indication of the burning, flashing, sparking reacting thermite that would burn too slow and inconsistently to cause the synchronized instantaneous removal of the resistance of all the columns? No. Is there any indication of 672 charges causing 2000 degree Celsius fires. No. I just quoted AE the steel was not exposed to any temps greater than 1000 c. Is that false.

With no explanation how CD systems would survive the wide spread fires of WTC 7. And the damage from WTC 1 and WTC 2 debris.


When it comes to NIST, I could care less about controlled demolitions. What do you not get there is zero evidence the collapse was initiated by any planted controlled demolition system.

a reply to: Hulseyreport

To be blunt. The video evidence of WTC 7 shows the Hulsey report is junk science.

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: Hulseyreport

Because the columns were buckled and the resistance was negligible. Like the resistance of a 22 cal bullet provided by firing the bullet into an oncoming M1 tank.

Now. From the video evidence, audio evidence, seismic evidence, do you have any proof of columns being actively cut. Are there any audible detonations indicate of explosions acting on evey column? Eight floors worth? 8 floors x 84 columns equals 672 charges setting off. No. Is there any indication of 672 charges setting off causing pressure waves cutting steel columns. No. Is there evidence of shrapnel from 672 charges setting off cutting steel columns. No. Is there any indication of the burning, flashing, sparking reacting thermite that would burn too slow and inconsistently to cause the synchronized instantaneous removal of the resistance of all the columns? No. Is there any indication of 672 charges causing 2000 degree Celsius fires. No. I just quoted AE the steel was not exposed to any temps greater than 1000 c. Is that false.

With no explanation how CD systems would survive the wide spread fires of WTC 7. And the damage from WTC 1 and WTC 2 debris.

When it comes to NIST, I could care less about controlled demolitions. What do you not get there is zero evidence the collapse was initiated by any planted controlled demolition system.

They're no such phenomenon as emptying out a building and then building remaining still while all this is transpiring.
You reside in the fantasy world if you actually take that explanation as true. Really can't comfort you don't get that.
The front would react right away if 47 stories of concrete and floors began giving away in chaotic events inside the building.
With you regarding the official story as true- with no doubts, you just you keep on reject the weaknesses of the story that told.
NIST claiming there was negligible support simply measures the building never experienced free fall.
 You alone have freefall if there zero support a  0 there is no support.  NIST adding a word in to establish their report sound better technically illustrates nothing. 
Buckling columns are not missing columns there still giving support to the structure. WTC5 you have pictures of buckling columns. 
If the columns were falling down as NIST says, the exterior- perimeter columns will start dragging in walls and contorting the full face of the building.  Guess what this never materialized on 9/11 we have video evidence. Video evidence is stronger than witness evidence. 
Everything that happened to the building points to controlled demolition.
It honestly really delusional that individuals think fire brought the building down based on all the evidence gathered so far. Wake up to fact its first time in history a steel-framed building fully collapsed to fire. Wake up to fact NIST lied throughout about the construction of the real building. Wake up to the evidence their own designs are not comparable to actual real collapse. Wake up to fact the denied free fall as even a possibility when they were wrapped up with the study- they added a change in because they missed it. There literally nothing to show a progressive collapse occurred it all NIST opinion and debunked.

That fact whoever did never faced justice is the worst crime of all. Since they killed people inside the towers who potentially could have been saved. They made the disaster worse for people's health. 

They're no free fall I see in the NIST models. The lower floors are still intact to the west.
They gutted out the eastside but forget to remove the rest of the inside building structural components.
You see all this bending and twisting at the bottom when the building fails, but that a crushing affect.
It can't fall at free-fall in this scenario. Debunkers fell for it and they should be ashamed supporting this nonsense for years.



No freefall.

a reply to: Hulseyreport

Do you have any evidence from the Video, Audio, seismic evidence of charges on evey column for eight floors detonating?

8 floors?
84 columns?
Equals 672 charges with zero evidence of detonating with zero chance a system of 672 charges would survive the interior fires and falling debris of WTC 1 and WTC 2

Can you cite evidence that 672 charges simultaneously detonated to make 588 little segments of WTC 7 columns with shrapnel to initiate the WTC 7 collapse?

There is no large BOOM and no indication of 672 pressure waves with the force to cut steel columns before WTC 7 moves downward.

WTC 7 controlled demolition is dead on arrival. It’s a fantasy no mater how much junk science you spin.

Sorry.

a reply to: Hulseyreport

You

They're no such phenomenon as emptying out a building and then building remaining still while all this is transpiring.

Who said WTC 7 was remaining still.

The biggest glaring example is the collapse of the Penthouse.

Any who. Again.

SUMMARY OF EARLY WTC7 MOVEMENT

sharpprintinginc.com...

As was shown in section 2.5, features of the initial failure sequence can be understood as a rapid succession of 7 identifiable events occurring in the following order:

1) Movement Detected from 2 Minutes before Collapse
2) Increase of rocking 6 seconds before visible collapse
3) Ejections and overpressurizations
4) Collapse of the East Penthouse
5) Collective core failure
6) Perimeter response
7) Acceleration downward

And you ignore the evidence on how far down the progressive collapse initiation was that brought the penthouse into WTC 7.

www.metabunk.org/wtc7-penthouse-falling-window-wave.t9398
www.metabunk.org...

I was just scrubbing over some WTC7 collapse video when I noticed something new to me. When the East penthouse falls though the building it creates a visible wave on the windows, presumable as they are twisted or pushed out somehow by the changes in pressure. The scale of the pressure is also visible by the smoke being sucked in at the top of the building.
This is relevant because it appears to show the East Penthouse falling rapidly though the building, which is consistent with a collapse of C79/80/81 at a low level, well before the other columns failed.

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

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

Contrast has been adjusted individually on all three videos.

www.metabunk.org...

Then you can research WTC 7 kinks also.

There is every reason to believe in the international progressive collapse before the facade begins to drop.

You

The front would react right away if 47 stories of concrete and floors began giving away in chaotic events inside the building.

You do understand the columns in WTC 7 were steel. Is that a false statement. There was no structurally loaded concrete columns. The concrete present was in the floor panels.

With you regarding the official story as true- with no doubts, you just you keep on reject the weaknesses of the story that told.

Ok. When the penthouse fell, and before the facade begin to move, WTC 7 windows were breaking, the structure was moving, and the structure developed kinking.

You

NIST claiming there was negligible support simply measures the building never experienced free fall.

Why are you hung up on the phase of free fall in the facade after the international progressive collapse was well under way. The exterior columns lost their backside lateral support during the progressive interior collapse. The facade buckled because it could not resist the loads placed on them with loss of lateral support. You can liken the whole thing to something like this. The exterior columns offered negligible resistance to the dynamic loads placed on them from the inter collapse like dropping a 20 ton weight on a 2”x4”. Would a 2”x4” offer resistance, yes. But the resistance would not be measurable in the rate which the 20 ton weight was falling.


Let’s put it this way.

For you to be right. Somebody had to plant 672 charges on 84 columns on a block of eight floors undiscovered and remain unmolested. What if there was this strange new box on a column where Nancy wanted to hang her “hang in there cat poster”. So long box with a charge. Those charges and ignitions systems had to maintain there integrity over hours of wide spread fires and damage from the collapse of WTC 1 and WTC 2. Each of those 672 charges had to create enough pressure to cut their section of column. That is the simultaneous detonations of 672 charges creating 672 pressure waves throwing shrapnel about before the building even begins to move down. And in Hulsey’s logic, if the system didn’t actuate correctly because of being damaged by Nancy hanging her car poster, fires and falling debris, WTC 7 would tip over.

For me to be right. There just had to be enough fire related failures like what was recorded in WTC 5 to cause column 79 to lose lateral support to buckle. The breaking of windows and kinking of WTC 7 during the penthouse dropping proves there was a far more serious internal collapse than what Hulsey wants to believe. And that you simple don’t understand negligible resistance.

Side note. For your narrative. When was the system rigged to blow. Something like air craft radar can induce enough current in the wire leads of a blasting cap to set it off. So in your narrative. How long was the planted control demolitions system sitting there live and hot? Waiting on an accidental detonation before 9/11 from something as simple as static electricity.

Video evidence. We can examine the building from the front and did not move. It happened to shift when the Penthouse collapsed and five to six seconds later commencement of full collapse occurred.
NIST claim is the building was emptying out from east to west and later the roofline dropped.
I have never seen a building be emptied out and not disturb the exterior facade.
Hollowing out the contents of the building what holding the building and stopping it from cracking apart unevenly?
I still not certain Hulsey correct about the Penthouse was a separate failure.
Since the Penthouse sits under support columns 79 to 81 they are last columns to be taken out to make a collapse by controlled demolition occur. 
The video you posted clearly does show Penthouse debris coming straight down from the roofline to the sum of floors below. The speed indicates the debris is traveled at free-fall speeds. So there no resistance stopping that wave on the floors I notice.!
That another issue NIST overlooks because if 47 floors on eastside failed early. Why is there no visual evidence of this?
We do hear on video an intense noise- and swiftly the Penthouse goes through the roof. For me that marks at sequences of collapses that just developed in a second that  caused the Penthouse to drop down 
Hulsey is correct about the sequences the core was taken out and then the support- perimeter columns got taken out. The kink occurred in the left side when building collapse ensued. Enough columns were withdrawn now to begin this building failure.
Progressive collapse failures are terribly slow if you watch the NIST video- in one model the building taking well over 20 seconds to empty out the west face. That far too protracted and simply did not happen that way.
I can't truly identify what devices they used- that the real issue at play here. I have my opinions.
Like I did say I have zero doubts building seven was brought down by controlled demolition. 

a reply to: Hulseyreport

You

Video evidence. We can examine the building from the front and did not move.

Are starting with a false narrative.

SUMMARY OF EARLY WTC7 MOVEMENT

sharpprintinginc.com...

As was shown in section 2.5, features of the initial failure sequence can be understood as a rapid succession of 7 identifiable events occurring in the following order:

1) Movement Detected from 2 Minutes before Collapse
2) Increase of rocking 6 seconds before visible collapse
3) Ejections and overpressurizations
4) Collapse of the East Penthouse
5) Collective core failure
6) Perimeter response
7) Acceleration downward

When the penthouse fell, windows blew out. The building is visible distress. With building moving and the visible “front” of the building kinking.

Again

Do you have any evidence from the Video, Audio, seismic evidence of charges on evey column for eight floors detonating?

8 floors?
84 columns?
Equals 672 charges with zero evidence of detonating with zero chance a system of 672 charges would survive the interior fires and falling debris of WTC 1 and WTC 2

Can you cite evidence that 672 charges simultaneously detonated to make 588 little segments of WTC 7 columns with shrapnel to initiate the WTC 7 collapse?

There is no large BOOM and no indication of 672 pressure waves with the force to cut steel columns before WTC 7 moves downward.

WTC 7 controlled demolition is dead on arrival. It’s a fantasy no mater how much junk science you spin.

Sorry.

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: Hulseyreport

You

Video evidence. We can examine the building from the front and did not move.

Are starting with a false narrative.

SUMMARY OF EARLY WTC7 MOVEMENT

sharpprintinginc.com...

As was shown in section 2.5, features of the initial failure sequence can be understood as a rapid succession of 7 identifiable events occurring in the following order:

1) Movement Detected from 2 Minutes before Collapse
2) Increase of rocking 6 seconds before visible collapse
3) Ejections and overpressurizations
4) Collapse of the East Penthouse
5) Collective core failure
6) Perimeter response
7) Acceleration downward

When the penthouse fell, windows blew out. The building is visible distress. With building moving and the visible “front” of the building kinking.

Again

Do you have any evidence from the Video, Audio, seismic evidence of charges on evey column for eight floors detonating?

8 floors?
84 columns?
Equals 672 charges with zero evidence of detonating with zero chance a system of 672 charges would survive the interior fires and falling debris of WTC 1 and WTC 2

Can you cite evidence that 672 charges simultaneously detonated to make 588 little segments of WTC 7 columns with shrapnel to initiate the WTC 7 collapse?

There is no large BOOM and no indication of 672 pressure waves with the force to cut steel columns before WTC 7 moves downward.

WTC 7 controlled demolition is dead on arrival. It’s a fantasy no mater how much junk science you spin.

Sorry.

You evidently have no inkling what NIST saying.
They believe the lower part on the eastside collapsed and columns gave way. And from there 13 up to 46-floor floors collapse..
They have the whole eastside tumbling down and well as the Penthouse failing.
Where on the original video is there can we see this destruction?
Their floors are progressively giving way and Penthouse is already coming through the roof!
The video you posted the Penthouse wreckage falling and encountering zero resistance!
NIST model does not match the wave collapse model you posted. The Penthouse is still interacting with collapsing floors on the upper floors. 
Wave video disproves NIST's claim.  Thanks for that.

Whoever made the video single-handedly disproved the NIST progressive collapse.
That wave travelled at free speed on the eastside. It met zero resistance.
NIST model the floors are still only progressively collapsing.