Building 7

[pixelsmith]

You just don't get it do you, there are subtle changes of acceleration in the external walls all the way down the ground.
The cores are collapsing ahead of the walls, pulling them in, and as they go through floors ahead of the walls being pulled in theres a series of jolts over G all the way down as the spandrels initially tug against the resistance of the outer structure, when that resistance is overcome, there is a split second over G, the NIST did not figure that into their models, and after being told about their error, added foot-notes stating this on release, whereas they averaged the speed of collapse only from when the roof-line started to descend, and they did it in sections, their averages for one section was free-fall, whereas in reality it was an average of over G and under G accelerations far to subtle for the naked eye to see.

um... no... YOU dont get it. The WHOLE building falls down basically level and symmetrical. ALL the support columns would have to be severed at the same time (from an office fire) and because of the admitted free fall the floors BELOW would have to be completely out of the way for any free fall to occur. therefore the bottom floors would have to have collapsed and started their fall before the upper floors.

 

[manxman]

Your just repeating yourself now, i told you i am not interested in how YOU think the central columns failed.

They did and thats that.

Now do you agree or not with my refutation of your post that was in admitted error.
Are you going to stop parroting the free-fall nonsense, as from the time the roof-line moved to it being on the ground when averaged out is well over free-fall speed, just one section at the top averaged near free-fall speed.

If you are going to dispute that then do so with cited data, its your claim..

 

[pixelsmith]

Your just repeating yourself now, i told you i am not interested in how YOU think the central columns failed.

They did and thats that.

Now do you agree or not with my refutation of your post that was in admitted error.
Are you going to stop parroting the free-fall nonsense, as from the time the roof-line moved to it being on the ground when averaged out is well over free-fall speed, just one section at the top averaged near free-fall speed.

If you are going to dispute that then do so with cited data, its your claim..

manxman... i admitted i made an error. now stop parroting the error nonsense.

Originally Posted by pixelsmith
I stand corrected, i misread 8 stories for 8 seconds. I often make mistakes and I always own up to them. 4 seconds is still impossible to achieve when there are solid steel columns, steel decking and reinforced concrete floors to resist the collapse. Heck, a 1 second free fall would not be possible. Take the free fall out all together and the symmetrical collapse and total destruction of the building due to office fires is absurd at best.

hopefully you have comprehended that i did in fact make an error and you can now explain how the building can free fall AT ALL with a whole building below the top floors offering resistance. NIST basically says it is a miracle. is that your explanation too?

 

[manxman]

my last reply should have read.
Are you going to stop parroting the free-fall nonsense, as from the time the roof-line moved to it being on the ground when averaged out is well under free-fall speed, just one section at the top averaged near free-fall speed.

.......................................................................


Yes you admitted the error, i cited that here.

Now do you agree or not with my refutation of your post that was in admitted error.


.....................................................


Parroting your error, i will carry on until you restate your position, now on the freefall issue, that was only apart of your error strewn posts.
.................
quote
hopefully you have comprehended that i did in fact make an error and you can now explain how the building can free fall AT ALL with a whole building below the top floors offering resistance. NIST basically says it is a miracle. is that your explanation too?




You just keep on making up all these handwaving claims about NIST, i have already gone to good lengths to show you the general collapse mechanisms.
And how NIST did not start their timing of the collapse until it was well underway, they did not account for the pent-house sinking into the building, their timings were from when the central part of the roof parapet started moving sideways as the building twisted slightly as it collapsed internally, it was already many floors ahead internally.
NIST used the Dan Rather video, shot from virtually street level, they cannot see the penthouse disappear like you can now with other vids that have turned up.




I have already told you how the acceleration to over G happened where the building was braced to bear the weight of the penthouse.
Pixel measuring frame by frame reveals what the eye cannot see, the external walls get pulled in, the building "looks" to fall straight down, infact the walls fall down and slightly inwards, as the bolts shear on the spandrels, otherwise it may have peeled in part atleast, the internal components collapsed several seconds before the external walls.


IN WORKMANS WORDS.
That had the effect of all the internal debri piling up inside until it pushed the bottom floors walls out, causing the already leaning in external walls to fold in over each other, look at the pile for heavens sake.

I am trying in vain it seems to get you to focus on the collapse and not your conspiracy theory of what caused the collapse, you have made many claims about freefall, so please define precisely what you mean, without all the fluff, or is the handwaving fluff trying to disguise the fact you have no idea where to locate any data to back up your claims, got anything more substantive than "THE NIST SAYS".


Heres a 911 forum where you can make your claims to professionals, The 9/11 Forum View forum - WTC7

Most of the guys there have there own sites, but they review each others work there.









Heres a gift for you and plays right into your conspiracy, but then oops the explosives werent used, ofcourse you wont see it that way.

Here larry silverstien exposed, those vids of him declaring he told the fire chief to "pull it" , and then when confronted with the words again he said all he meant was for the fire chief to pull his men out, NOT DEMOLISH IT, he lied he meant pull it.

.............................................

This is a reporters story recalling the day as he savages jesse ventura, obviously missed how he was only fueling the silverstien fires.

Shortly before the building collapsed, several NYPD officers and Con-Edison workers told me that Larry Silverstein, the property developer of One World Financial Center was on the phone with his insurance carrier to see if they would authorize the controlled demolition of the building – since its foundation was already unstable and expected to fall.

A controlled demolition would have minimized the damage caused by the building’s imminent collapse and potentially save lives. Many law enforcement personnel, firefighters and other journalists were aware of this possible option. There was no secret. There was no conspiracy.
While I was talking with a fellow reporter and several NYPD officers, Building 7 suddenly collapsed, and before it hit the ground, not a single sound emanated from the tower area. There were no explosives; I would have heard them. In fact, I remember that in those few seconds, as the building sank to the ground that I was stunned by how quiet it was.

Read more: Shame On Jesse Ventura! | FoxNews.com

 

[mike]

Just for the fun of it

 

[manxman]

Mike is he being deliberately evasive, or have i failed in what i thought was a reasonable working mans, quite lengthy interpretation, trying to get over a basic point that the NIST based their global collapse timings on a building that was already partially collapsed, but internally out of sight, so videos only show mainly the time it took a partially unsupported shell to fall down and in on itself, he cannot seem to focus his attention on anything but his view of collapse initiation, and then tries to evidence those views on collapse initiation by handwaving about freefall rubbish, which is patently clear he cannot substantiate.

 

[Angel of Ioren]

Welcome to the wonderful world of Pixelsmith's conspiracy theories. Everything you say will be wrong, all your sources will be bought by the NWO, and Alex Jones knows the truth.

---------- Post added at 09:50 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:50 PM ----------

Mike, that was AWESOME.
Thank you for that.

 

[mike]

I'm just having some fun manxman, i saw this pic at another site, and it reminded me of this thread.
Its not a commentary either way, just a light hearted pic i thought chuckle worthy

 

[Xylo]

Mike is he being deliberately evasive, or have i failed in what i thought was a reasonable working mans, quite lengthy interpretation, trying to get over a basic point that the NIST based their global collapse timings on a building that was already partially collapsed, but internally out of sight, so videos only show mainly the time it took a partially unsupported shell to fall down and in on itself, he cannot seem to focus his attention on anything but his view of collapse initiation, and then tries to evidence those views on collapse initiation by handwaving about freefall rubbish, which is patently clear he cannot substantiate.

Having had this same type of argument with pixelsmith regarding WTC1 & 2, I can tell you that he will continue to misdirect and evade. Whilst I appreciate Pixel's enthusiasm in his views, I decided a long time ago that argument and debate with him is fruitless and frustrating. I do commend you for your efforts and further for your presentation.

Pixel I still love ya man, but you need a new style of argument.

 

[manxman]

Thank you xylo.

The likes of Larry Silverstien saying that he ordered the fire chief to pull the building whilst being interviewed on camera was dumb, it was true, as per the link, that reporter was fiercely patriotic, and in my opinion was telling the truth, about the fire chief and policemen telling him that they mr silverstein had been on the phone all morning with the insurers, and they were going to demo it for safety reasons.

That statement pull it, was fuel then to the CS brigade, and Silverstein promptly tried to palm the statement off as if he was talking about the fire-fighters efforts to save the building, he wasnt that was a lie.



It is the principle players getting caught out in their lies and whitewashes, that fueled all this Cd nonsense.

here is where his lie is exposed.

Although I arrived at Ground Zero shortly after the Twin Towers fell, I was in the danger zone created by Building 7 from the moment it collapsed in the afternoon, an event that is one of the key cornerstones of the 9/11 conspiracy theory.

Governor Ventura and many 9/11 “Truthers” allege that government explosives caused the afternoon collapse of Building 7. This is false. I know this because I remember watching all 47 stories of Building 7 suddenly and silently crumble before my eyes.

Shortly before the building collapsed, several NYPD officers and Con-Edison workers told me that Larry Silverstein, the property developer of One World Financial Center was on the phone with his insurance carrier to see if they would authorize the controlled demolition of the building – since its foundation was already unstable and expected to fall.

A controlled demolition would have minimized the damage caused by the building’s imminent collapse and potentially save lives. Many law enforcement personnel, firefighters and other journalists were aware of this possible option. There was no secret. There was no conspiracy.
While I was talking with a fellow reporter and several NYPD officers, Building 7 suddenly collapsed

Read more: Shame On Jesse Ventura! | FoxNews.com

Jeffrey Scott Shapiro is a former Washington, D.C. prosecutor and investigative reporter who covered the Sept. 11 attacks on location.

 

[trainedobserver]

Just for the fun of it

LOL! Well done!

 

[pixelsmith]

Mike is he being deliberately evasive, or have i failed in what i thought was a reasonable working mans, quite lengthy interpretation, trying to get over a basic point that the NIST based their global collapse timings on a building that was already partially collapsed, but internally out of sight, so videos only show mainly the time it took a partially unsupported shell to fall down and in on itself, he cannot seem to focus his attention on anything but his view of collapse initiation, and then tries to evidence those views on collapse initiation by handwaving about freefall rubbish, which is patently clear he cannot substantiate.

partially collapsed? hardly. please support this statement.

partially unsupported SHELL?! hardly. this was a steel and concrete building that was reenforced for the mayors terror attack command center.

i do not have to substantiate the free fall, NIST did that already.

it is painfully obvious you know squat about building construction or demolition.

 

[trainedobserver]

Here is a pretty recent video someone did on building 7. The weakened steel causing a massive structural failure argument has gained a great deal more credence in my mind over the past few weeks. Viewing videos showing the "top down" demolition methods have had something do with that. I still have a lot of questions in my mind but it isn't as improbable as I had once thought.

 

[pixelsmith]

Here is a pretty recent video someone did on building 7. The weakened steel causing a massive structural failure argument has gained a great deal more credence in my mind over the past few weeks. Viewing videos showing the "top down" demolition methods have had something do with that. I still have a lot of questions in my mind but it isn't as improbable as I had once thought.

many years working with blacksmithing, forge welding, tempering/hardening steel along with experience in construction and demolition will change your views back. office fires weakening a column causing total symmetrical collapse is about as likely as a wedding cake saucer piloted by greer landing on the white house lawn.

 

[Bob Watson]

I watched the services yesterday and today... and came away with one conclusion...George W Bush had nothing to do with ordering 9/11...there is no way a man who stood there and I could see at time weeping could be as heartless to order the deaths of his own ppl...A man clearly haunted by what happened that day a man chased for the rest of his days by the ghost of the victims of spt 11th...pls watch his speech see what pain he is in see the dark clouds of grief..

I hold no great love for him... but it is painfully clear George W Bush never ordered or santioned the events of setp 11th... case closed...

 

[pixelsmith]

I watched the services yesterday and today... and came away with one conclusion...George W Bush had nothing to do with ordering 9/11...there is no way a man who stood there and I could see at time weeping could be as heartless to order the deaths of his own ppl...A man clearly haunted by what happened that day a man chased for the rest of his days by the ghost of the victims of spt 11th...pls watch his speech see what pain he is in see the dark clouds of grief..

I hold no great love for him... but it is painfully clear George W Bush never ordered or sanctioned the events of setp 11th... case closed...

I call BULLSHIT.

 

[Bob Watson]

maybe I saw something you did not...its just I saw and felt that this was a man who could NOT have ordered the attacks...and as I said this is also a man who took what was given to him and ran with it and our nation is the worse for it..."when you secrifice liberty to gain security you lose bolth."

 

[sorryidonthaveacoolname]

Looks more like guilt than sadness

 

[Angel of Ioren]

Nothing you can do or say will convince a 9/11 conspiracy theorist that h or she may be wrong about what they think. The only thing the Bush administration is responsible for is using 9/11 as a way to go to war with Iraq.

 

[manxman]

Nothing you can do or say will convince a 9/11 conspiracy theorist that h or she may be wrong about what they think. The only thing the Bush administration is responsible for is using 9/11 as a way to go to war with Iraq.

No no angelo you dont get to make sweeping comments like that unchallenged, sure all the conspiracy loony tunes stuff i agree wholeheartedly, but you just cannot hand wave away the bush saudi connection that easy.

This is thread is about tower seven,ad so off topic however i will be glad to take your hand and start you on guided tour if you want, i would like a balanced view, and i have a feeling you may like this rabbit hole.

Some very very credible people have made some pretty damning statements, one senator wrote a Pulitzer prizewinning publication, which i read that then led to reading maybe 2000 pages of government documentation in the last 4 years, like i said ts an eye opener.


And again i did it only for my own satisfaction, i wanted to know what the cover up was all about, and now i know, see if you agree, i can save you the time on the extensive research by directing you to the relative footnotes etc etc.

I mean the commissions report is 700 pages, no need for you to read all that when i can tell you where to look, and it is something we are in no rush with.

It is no coincidence that 15 f the 19 terrorists were saudi.

I will wet your whistle by showing you FBI documentation about price bandars funding of 2 of the terrorist, if you fancy a look, then if that tickle you nosey bone, we will go through the whole time line.

Prince Bandar is known in Washington by the nickname Bandar Bush[ google it ], nuff said,