WTC 7: "Classic Progressive Collapse"

[Bolo Boffin]

From the NIST June Interim Report:

The working hypothesis, for the collapse of the 47-story WTC 7, if it holds up upon further analysis, would suggest that it was a classic progressive collapse that included:

• An initial local failure due to fire and/or debris induced structural damage of a critical column, which supported a large span floor area of about 2,000 ft 2, at the lower floors (below Floor 14) of the building,

• Vertical progression of the initial local failure up to the east penthouse bringing down the interior structure under the east penthouse, and

• Horizontal progression of the failure across the lower floors (in the region of Floors 5 and 7 that were much thicker and more heavily reinforced than the rest of the floors), triggered by damage due to the vertical failure, resulting in disproportionate collapse of the entire structure.

Hmmm, no word about "pulling" the building. No controlled demolition charges. Just a damaged building with an unfightable fire that finally fell down. The details are here:

http://wtc.nist.gov/progress_report_june04/appendixl.pdf

It's 5 MG for that download, but it's got some great pictures of WTC 7 that you've never seen before.

[demodewd]

1. In otherwords..

In otherwords it was the first steel structure building in the history of the world to collapse strictly by the cause of fire.

[benburch]

2. Ummm.... No.

"Debris induced structural failure" is the key phrase.

[demodewd]

3. re:debris

Debris from what?

[benburch]

4. Debris from aircraft hitting towers 1 & 2, for example...

The main shaft of a turbojet is amazingly heavy and indestructible.

[demodewd]

5. minor

It is my understanding that WTC 7 sustained relatively minor damage from the TOWERS1&2 hits. If you look at the pictures of the buildings in front of and in back of #7 they appear basically unscathed.

[benburch]

7. What is minor?

A spinning turboshaft would make a 2' hole... But could punch through several structural columns before spending it's kinetic energy.

Really, you have no structural assessment of that building to go by. You see pictures of the facade and that looks OK, so you are assuming that it means the building was fine.

As an engineer, I believe that significant damage could have been done to this building in just the manner I described. Fire would only make it worse. The two factors together (and there was a LOT of fuel in a tank near the top of that building) could easily have caused what we saw.

[demodewd]

10. it's just a presupposition

Well I can only accept that what you say as having validity but you are presuming the part of the turbo jet..it would make this or it would make that...but did it make anything? The study only presupposes...it has no proof...right?

[Bolo Boffin]

12. I assure you that 7 sustained major structural damage.

I underline that there are pictures you've never seen before in that pdf file.

Go and see them. Read the interim report. Look at the detailed analysis of the final collapse of the building, pictures and all.

[BassettWilliams]

27. Agreed

I am an eyewitnesses and I saw the damages that the tower collapse did to #7. It was heavily damaged and uncontrolled fires spread rapidly. The photos that have been posted in these threads to show 'slight' or 'miminal' damages were taken early in the morning and do not show the extent of the damage or the amount of fire(s). Those photos were, IMHO of course, carefully selected just to 'prove' the 'lack of damage' and 'small fires' to advance CT.

[Abe Linkman]

15. "magic bullet (debris) theory". Did Arlen S. write any of the report?

That silly old Larry Silverstein. How the hoodow would HE know anything about Building 7? How would he know to call for the demolition to begin? Insurance policy?

And, you know what, I'll bet that "missing" B757 engine at the Pentagon,
is what caused the collapse there, too. Ever try to pick one up? Those puppies are HEAVY, HEAVY.

So, sure, I'll bet one of Osama's boys had the plane rigged so he could bomb building 7 with a jet engine, and cause that sucker to fall down right into its own footprint.

Now, why did it take you this long to figure out your own "magic debris
theory"? (btw- are you on Arlen Spector's staff? just curious.)

[Bolo Boffin]

17. ?????

Are you contributing something of substance here, Abe?

Try reading the report. You might learn something.

[Warpy]

6. Not just fire

But pieces of the other WTC weighing several tons and dropping from a great height. The combination is what did it, apparently, although I'd also suspect the foundation was weakened below ground level when two 100 story towers were compressed into a pile of rubble five stories tall.

[demodewd]

8. Howq come..

How come the two buildings in back and front of it are still standing? Did you see the aerial shot? I mean...these two buildings did not sustain heavy damage at all.

[benburch]

9. The random nature of such things.

I once saw an industrial accident kill a man. Took his head clean off. Two guys standing two feet away were fine. Shaken, bloody, but OK.

[demodewd]

11. how do we know?

But debris is just that... a general description that might be legitimate or it might be pure bs. We have no way of knowing.

[Bolo Boffin]

13. Look at the aerial shot on page 6 of the pdf.

The pdf is of Appendix L, and the page number in the paper is L-2, but the pdf page number is 6.

The two buildings you're talking about aren't even close in height to 7. The debris falling from the collapse of the North Tower would and did strike 7, causing a lot of structural damage. From the report (page L-18, pdf 22):

After WTC 1 collapsed:

• Heavy debris (exterior panels from WTC 1) was seen on Vesey Street and the WTC 7 promenade structure at the third floor level

• Southwest corner damage extended over Floors 8 to 18

• Damage was observed on the south face that starts at the roof level and severed the spandrels between exterior columns near the southwest corner for at least 5 to 10 floors. However, the extent and details of this damage have not yet been discerned, as smoke is present.

• Damage to the south face was described by a number of individuals. While the accounts are mostly consistent, there are some conflicting descriptions:

? middle one-fourth to one-third width of the south face was gouged out from Floor 10 to the ground
? large debris hole near center of the south face around Floor 14
? debris damage across one-fourth width of the south face, starting several floors above the atrium (extended from the ground to 5th floor), noted that the atrium glass was still intact
? from inside the building at the 8th or 9th Floor elevator lobby, where two elevator cars were ejected from their shafts and landed in the hallway north of the elevator shaft, the visible portion of the south wall was gone with more light visible from the west side possibly indicating damage extending to the west

As you can see, when the North Tower collapsed, Building 7 suffered a lot of damage. This contributed to the eventual collapse.

[HarryLime]

14. As I can see

"As you can see, when the North Tower collapsed, Building 7 suffered a lot of damage. This contributed to the eventual collapse."

Actually, every photo or video I've seen of WTC 7 on 9/11/01 shows only small office fires burning from some mystery fuel all day long. No damage from debris is seen from the documentation. In addition, for it to collapse perfectly within its footprint is all I need to know it was a controlled demolition, one of several that day.

[Bolo Boffin]

16. Read the report, Harry

This willful ignorance of actual evidence on your part is very enlightening.

Deal with the evidence.

[BassettWilliams]

28. Wrong again

demodewd - no damage? Buildings up on Reade Street sustained damage. Those old buildings - like the telephone company - were of a different and less vulnerable construction than #7 and WTC towers.

[Abe Linkman]

18. Very expensive way to give PR people a few talking points

I could think of a lot better ways to spend all that money than on some
ginned-up, biased piece of PR. This is nothing more than propaganda for
those working on behalf of the Gov't to be able to use as "evidence" to support the Official Version Conspiracy Theory. The gall of spending all that money just so a bunch of PR flacks can try to fool the public.

[Bolo Boffin]

19. Very shortsighted way to ignore evidence in this matter, Abe.

Try reading the appendix. Try actually dealing with the evidence instead of doing your tired little flip attitude thing.

[Abe Linkman]

20. That's not evidence, bolo

That's paid-for disinformation. Who do you think you're foolin'?

[Bolo Boffin]

21. Have you read the appendix, Abe?

Have you actually downloaded it and looked at it?

Could you pass a simple test designed to show that you had even read the thing? Not that you agree with it - no. Just a "what's on page 5" and "what points are made on page 56" type of test?

Because I don't think you have read it. Disinfo or not, you should see what NIST actually has to say. That's the only way to know whether there's actually evidence there or not...

...and I assure you that you're missing out on this issue. There's new photographic evidence that you've never seen before. There's careful rational thinking involved, which even the most hardcore nuke-in-the-basement darkweaver could recognize.

What's the matter, Abe? Afraid to look at the real evidence and realize how wrong you've been all along?

[dinyc]

22. Thanks for posting

this Bolo. Will read it tonight.

Harry---

from some mystery fuel all day long

Have you done any research on 9-11 that doesn't involve looking at pictures?
There were generators and fuel tanks in the building. The only way they were legal is because the PA did not have to abide strictly to city codes. Where is the mystery? Plus if burning debris torched part of the building and FDNY made a decision not to fight the fire, it's going to continue to...........burn.
:think:

[Bolo Boffin]

23. You're welcome, dinyc

The appendix has detailed drawings of WTC 7's structural columns. Lots of good pictures and detailed analysis.

[Abe Linkman]

24. Have you done any research that involved LOOKING at the fire?

Advancing theoretical arguments but ignoring reality, isn't a good way to draw a conclusion.

By my count, you are the 4th person who supports the "magic fire/falling debris bullet" theory. Congratulations.

[Bolo Boffin]

25. Looking at the fire

If Abe will not go to the report, I will bring the report to Abe.

From Appendix L-22-26, pdf page 26 - 30:

Photographs and videos were used to determine fire locations and movement within WTC 7. Most of the available information is for the north and east faces of WTC 7. Information about fires in other areas of the building was obtained from interviews, and is summarized as follows:

From 11:30 a.m. to 2:30 p.m.:

• No diesel smells reported from the exterior, stairwells, or lobby areas
• No signs of fire or smoke were reported below the 6th Floor from the exterior, stairwells or lobby areas
• In the east stairwell, smoke was observed around Floors 19 or 20, and a signs of a fully involved fire on the south side of Floor 23 were heard/seen/smelled from Floor 22.
• Interviews place a fire on Floor 7 at the west wall, toward the south side, at approximately 12:15 p.m.
• From West and Vesey Streets near the Verizon Building, fires were observed in floors estimated to be numbered in the 20s and 30s.

Looking from the southwest corner at the south face:

• Fire was seen in the southwest corner near Floor 10 or 11
• Fire was seen on Floors 6, 7, 8, 21, and 30
• Heavy black smoke came out of a large, multi-story gash in the south face

Looking from the southeast corner of the south face:

• Fire seen on Floor 14 (reported floor number) on south face; the face above the fire was covered with smoke
• Fire on Floor 14 moved towards the east face

Looking at the east face:

• Fire on Floor 14 (reported floor) moved along east face toward the north side

Photographs and videos were used with these interview accounts to document fire progression in the building. The fires seen in photographs and videos are summarized:

Before 2:00 p.m.

• Figures L–22a shows fires that had burned out by early afternoon on Floors 19, 21, 22, 29, and 30 along the west face near the southwest corner.

2:00 to 2:30 p.m.

• Figure L–24a shows fires on east face Floors 11 and 12 at the southeast corner. Several photos during this time show fires progressing north.

3:00 to 5:00 p.m.

• Around 3 p.m., fires were observed on Floors 7 and 12 along the north face. The fire on Floor 12 appeared to bypass the northeast corner and was first observed at a point approximately one third of the width from the northeast corner, and then spread both east and west across the north face.
• Some time later, fires were observed on Floors 8 and 13, with the fire on Floor 8 moving from west to east and the fire on Floor 13 moving from east to west. Figure L–24b shows fires on Floors 7 and 12.
• At this time, the fire on Floor 7 appeared to have stopped progressing near the middle of the north face.
• The fire on Floor 8 continued to move east on the north face, eventually reaching the northeast corner and moving to the east face.
• Around 4:45 p.m., a photograph showed fires Floors 7, 8, 9, and 11 near the middle of the north face; Floor 12 was burned out by this time.

Wow. I guess that's the last we're going to hear about "a couple of minor office fires in Building 7." Lots of pretty pictures, too. You should check them out, Abe.

[seatnineb]

29. And the Lord said ......let there be fire!

Fantastic pics Bolo......

The one of the burning offices of the Securities and Exchange commission would probably have brought a smile to all those Enron accountants...

And I am sure the C.I.A was equally relieved as those fires consumed
all the evidence in their offices that traced the bombings of U.S Embassy in Nairobi and the U.S.S Cole back to the "real" perpetrators.......

[MercutioATC]

30. WTF does that have to do with what Bolo posted???

This is a thread on whether WTC 7 "died of natural causes". Bolo posts an analysis of the event and the best you can do is:

"And I am sure the C.I.A was equally relieved as those fires consumed all the evidence in their offices that traced the bombings of U.S Embassy in Nairobi and the U.S.S Cole back to the "real" perpetrators......."

That doesn't even make sense in the context of the discussion...

[Abe Linkman]

31. He made some very good points about those convenient fires, didn't he?

Haven't you always thought it was just a little bit TOO convenient to have office fires take care of some potentially pesky information that certain elements would just as soon not ever see the light of outside day?

[MercutioATC]

32. Jesus, a building that burned down FELL on it...

That'd cause a few fires, I'll bet.

Regardless of whether it housed records you claim are "pesky" or it was a kitty litter factory, a BIG BURNING building fell on it.

If the government was that afraid of what those records contained, why didn't they just shred them?

[LARED]

33. why didn't they just shred them?

Well it's just much easier to plan 9/11, "demolish" both towers, fly a stealth F-16 into the Pentagon, kill 3000 Americans than it is too covertly shred some pesky files that may or may not exist.

Come'on man get with the program.

[MercutioATC]

34. I'm sorry...I forget myself sometimes...

...by the way, you forgot the decoy planes and the spraying of jet fuel to make the explosion more "Hollywoodish"....

:silly:

[Abe Linkman]

37. Was that some of the foreknowledge you say they had?

Those raging office fires were so fierce that poor old Larry Silverstein had to TELL the NYFD to demolish the building. You know that just had to break his heart...and that of the people whose secrets were in those documents that got destroyed.

That 9-11 action was somethin', a what? So scary that some people have had to make up things to try and cover for the plain and simple fact that it wasn't enough to make OBL a patsy.

[MercutioATC]

38. But, Abe....wouldn't shredding have been a whole lot less messy?

If they DID have secrets that they desperately wanted destroyed at WTC 7, wouldn't it have been much more of a sure thing to just dispose of them without counting on a fire somewhere in the building to do the job?

Why trust in an event (a fire) when you could make sure of the fact with minimal effort?

[Abe Linkman]

39. but, Mercutio ... they have to at least pretend to be innocent

That's the whole reason for 9-11, silly! By your reckoning, it would have been a whole lot easier and a whole lot less messy (No MUSH), to just invade Afghanistan, get out the Nazi "Patriot" Manual, invade Iraq, preprare to invade Iran, Syria, and Saudi Arabia, transfer taxpayer funds to Halliburton/Carlyle Group/and all the rest, set up Conentration Camps...and get on with it. Why attack your own country via cavepeople Patsies, when you could just tell the public that all of the above was necessary to protect them? Why take the risks of being discovered? Why
put yourself in the position of having to hire Disinformation Agents to
distract the public, plant Red Herring theories, and risk looking foolish...like what happened when they used PR people the last time (making up stories about Iraqi soldiers throwing babies out of incubators)? Why take the risk of demonizing Saddam and Osama --- knowing how easy it is to show that the bush family and the bin Laden families have business ties going back more than 25 years, and that Saddam's hold on power was cemented under the "bush The Elder"?

THEY have to pretend, mercutio. But YOU and I don't.

[MercutioATC]

43. That has nothing to do with documents that may have been in WTC 7.

If you want to believe that they "pulled " WTC 7, fine. The contention that it was done to destroy documents, though, makes absolutely no sense.

[Abe Linkman]

44. That was only ONE of the reasons.

And, it really doesn't matter whether you (or anyone else) is able to make sense of it. It made sense to the perps.

[MercutioATC]

47. It still makes no sense...it certainly wouldn't to any "perps".

...but I've explained why (the lack of guaranteed destruction) in another post.

[Name removed]

51. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[MercutioATC]

55. If "thick" means using logic, I guess most of us are...

Explain how my statement defies logic or exhibits a lack of understanding.

[NecessaryOnslaught]

75. You are right

a collapse wouldn't guarantee destruction, which is why you light a match.

Table 5.1 WTC 7 Tenants

46-47 Mechanical Floors
28-45 Salomon Smith Barney (SSB)
26-27 Standard Chartered Bank
26 Internal Revenue Service (IRS)
Department of Defense (DoD)
Central Intelligence Agency (CIA)
24 Internal Revenue Service (IRS)
23 Office of Emergency Management (OEM)
22 Federal Home Loan Bank of New York
21 First State Management Group
19-21 First State Management Group
19-21 ITT Hartford Insurance Group
19 National Association of Insurance Commissioners (NAIC)
Securities Vacation Office
18 Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC)
14-17 Vacant
13 Provident Financial Management
11-13 Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC)
9-10 US Secret Service
7-8 American Express Bank International
7 part OEM generators and day tank
6 Switchgear, storage
5 Switchgear, generators, transformers
4 Upper level of 3rd floor lobby, switchgear
3 Lobby, SSB Conference Center, rentable space, management offices
2 Open to 1st floor lobby, transformer vault upper level, upper level switchgear
1 Lobby, loading docks, existing Con Ed transformer vaults, fuel storage, lower level switchgear



"Maybe no financial institution lost more critical documents than the Securities and Exchange Commission, which had its New York regional office at 7 World Trade Center. While the regulatory agency was fortunate in that it lost no employees in the terror attacks, it suffered setbacks in a number of long-running securities investigations."

"Regardless of what the regulators say, they lost a ton of files," says Bill Singer, a New York securities lawyer, who says one case he had pending before the SEC quickly settled because so many of the original documents were destroyed. "In my opinion it was a wholesale loss of documents."

http://www.thestreet.com/markets/matthewgoldstein/10041194.html

[MercutioATC]

84. Which STILL begs the question:

If you want documents destroyed why not just shred them? Why trust a building collapse and a fire (which might not have spread to the right areas to destroy the files)?

If the people running the SEC are this stupid, we have much bigger problems than losing some documents.

[Abe Linkman]

85. Who told you the demolition was done solely to destroy documents?

What YOU are saying doesn't make a bit of sense. Don't you know that it's a crime to intentionally destroy evidence? Didn't one of your alleged fellow employees almost get in trouble for destroying evidence?
They had to cook up an excuse to save his/her neck from the law. Was it YOUR idea to claim they didn't have the right to make those incriminating tapes in the first place?

Honest to goodness, some of you apologists for the regime in Washington are just too much, sometimes. Okay, most of the time.

[MercutioATC]

86. I believe it was YOU that posted the following, Abe:

" He made some very good points about those convenient fires, didn't he?


Haven't you always thought it was just a little bit TOO convenient to have office fires take care of some potentially pesky information that certain elements would just as soon not ever see the light of outside day?"

No, you didn't say "solely". Neither did I. I did state that destroying documents shouldn't be considered even a partial reason for "pulling" WTC 7 because only a complete moron would attempt to destroy evidence that would be much more surely destroyed by something simple....like shredding.

As far as it being a crime to destroy evidence...I really don't know what you're getting at. Are you suggesting that the documents couldn't have been shredded because it was against the law???

[Abe Linkman]

87. What I'm saying is that NOTHING will convince a partisan.

I don't mean to be unkind, but there's nothing to be gained by parsing words with an apologist for the "Cavepeople" Conspiracy Theory.

There's nothing (important to learning the truth about 9-11) to be gained by going back and forth with someone who isn't open to questioning the O.Story. < yes, for the 1000th time, I know you say that you "don't NECESSARILY believe every single thing the Gov't says about 9-11" >

Have another day. Back to the CRT.

[MercutioATC]

89. ...and nothing will convince a hardcore conspiracy theorist...

No undkindness intended here either but, unfortunately, we seem to be stuck with each other.

I agree that we'll probably never see eye to eye. In the spirit of happy endings, I'll even ignore the "Back to the CRT" parting shot.

I have no doubt that we'll correspond again, but for tonight, take care...

[Abe Linkman]

91. Were you trying to make a point, or just trying to be cute?

"nothing will convince a hardcore conspiracy theorist"

Based on the above, and the rest of your message, it sounds like an admission that the reason you are here as an apologist for Official Conspiracy Story, is not to learn anymore than you already know, but
rather to try & undermine the efforts of those of us who don't believe the BS you and your fellow travelers are trying so hard to sell.

Back to your CRT. And, you can stay there, as far as I'm concerned. It would be a thoughtful gesture, and go a long way towards settling the concerns of those here who would like to point out some things, but under DU rules, are forbidden to - unless they're willing to risk a crybaby running to mommy and getting them banned. I wonder if right-wing forums use similar rules. Do they?

[MercutioATC]

93. Are you denying that your belief in the "wacky caveman" theory

is pretty much unshakable?

If you must know, the reasons I post here are:

1) To get new information, and

2) To correct some of the misconceptions (about ATC) that people base some of the wilder theories on.

I'm not here to "convince" anybody, especially those who are so married to their own pet theories. I'm here so new people coming to the boards have an alternate position to look at.

As far as going "back to my CRT", rest assured that I will...today at 2:00, in fact. However, I'll keep posting here, if it's all the same to you.

...by the way, I've not alerted on any of your posts, even the ones that were personal attacks. I think it's a shame that we can't keep the level of discussion on a higher ground, but I can deal with it. If you have concerns about getting banned, I'd suggest you limit your criticisms to the message and keep your feelings about the messenger to yourself.

[NecessaryOnslaught]

88. I'm not claiming

that the building was demolished solely for the purpose of destroying documentation, just another ancillary benefit. Like Larry paying for the construction of the new Trade Center 7 with the insurance money from the demolition of the first.

http://www.emporis.com/en/wm/bu/?id=170407

Larry likey shiny new building.

[MercutioATC]

90. I realize that. Some people were making it seem like an INTENDED benefit,

though.

Hey, funny unintended things can happen. I don't think there's any way that somebody would trust a building collapse (especially one you KNOW will be investigated) over shredding, though.

...just a little too :tinfoilhat: for me...

[Abe Linkman]

92. Yes, one you KNOW will be investigated by friendly investigators!

You're a hoot, and an ATC, to boot!

[Abe Linkman]

41. Remember: They thought they needed "Shock & Awe"

To scare and panic the public into going along with illegal wars, shredding of your Constitutional rights, and all the rest.

Besides, they DIDN'T "trust in an event (a fire)" to destroy that incriminating material. That's why Larry had the building brought down in a controlled demolition ("pull it").

[MercutioATC]

42. They got "shock and Awe" with the WTC crashes.

They didn't get any MORE of it with WTC 7. It just makes no sense to "pull" a building (possibly leaving incriminating documents intact) when you could just shred them and be certain.

[Abe Linkman]

45. Maybe it'll make sense to you at some point.

Right now, you aren't the only person for whom it "doesn't make sense".

You can't "just shred them and be certain" if you're talking about intentionally destroying evidence (THINK, Mercutio...that would be a little too obvious, EVEN for right-wingers).

THINK. It might be a new experience.

[MercutioATC]

46. Of COURSE you can "just shred them"...

So what if it's intentionally destroyed? Who'd know?

Are you telling me that if you had some incriminating papers, you'd trust their destruction to a building collapse rather than just shredding them?

[Abe Linkman]

52. You're really out there, boy. Funny, too.

Are you a civilian ATC or a military ATC?

[MercutioATC]

56. Cleveland Center is a civilian facility. I'm a civilian controller.

What's "funny" about having the ability to shred documents? You deny that shredding wouyld be a more certain way of destroying evidence (if there WAS anything incriminating there in the first place)?

[gbwarming]

48. Shredding wasn't too obvious for Ollie and Fawn nt

[dinyc]

49. Abe that is silly

That's why Larry had the building brought down in a controlled demolition ("pull it").

Do you really think it is up to Larry if a building is demolished or not?

You don't think FDNY, who were on the scene, would have a problem with that?

Considering some of the tenants in that building do you think Larry can just make that kind of decision on his own?

Do you think that he as a landlord, was being kept up to speed about all of the incriminating evidence that was stored in his building?

Do you imagine that after he ordered the destruction of his building, he'd go on a documentary and say he demolished his own building, while he is simultaneously in a court battle to win damages from his insurers?

While I'm sure he isn't the great benefactor he imagines himself to be, you don't think he got to where he is by being f*cking stupid do you?

He has some powerful friends. Don't you think that maybe they would have a problem with his loose lips?

When does the owner of any building anywhere have any say on what the emergency service people will do or not do?

This is what I think happened.
FDNY called him and said "Larry, buddy, we've already lost alot of guys, including a few of our commanding officers. We're tired, pissed off and trying to figure out who is still alive. Water pressure down here sucks. Visibility currently sucks. A bunch of our equipment is buried under several hundred tons of rubble. We objected to the fuel tanks in Building 7 when they were being installed, now there are fires in there and a whole lotta diesel that could go at anytime. We're pulling out. You're on your own with this one."

[Bolo Boffin]

50. And "pull it", we've said time and again...

...is fire department slang for abandoning a building to the fire that is consuming it. Before radio headsets, firemen inside the building were alerted to this abandonment by those on the outside pulling on the hose. The term is still very much in use.

Come down off the mountain, Abe.

[Abe Linkman]

54. You say what you're supposed to say. "Pull it" means: "bring it down".

"The term is still very much in use." And, today, it means exactly what Larry Silverstein meant, and is exactly what happened. He said "pull it"...and the very next sentence out of his mouth was that they watched it collapse.

Come down off the (can't say it here & you know why), bolo.

[Abe Linkman]

53. To some people, the truth often is "silly".

You can speak for yourself, and the record can, too.
Enjoy your silly beliefs. Fortunately, you have three others here who share your sense of humor.

[dinyc]

40. Actually...

I'm a little disappointed in this report. In some cases I don't think it goes into the details that the FEMA report of 2002 does, at least as far as the ignition and spread of the fires. When comparing the two, there seem to be discrepancies that are gonna give people even more cause for questions. And I was never one of those who doubted there was in fact large fires in all 3 buildings.

[dinyc]

26. re; Have you done any research that involved LOOKING at the fire?

What does this mean actually?
You pull it up on your monitor and then what?

And btw Harry/Abe (can you post while he's driving around in his car?) only about hundreds of people saw burning debris falling immediately after the first plane impact. Pieces (and people) continued to fall until the buildings came down. Can you really put that in the same league as the Magic Bullet?

There are photos of other buildings, after-the-fact, that while they are still standing, were obviously impacted by falling debris? Have you missed them?

http://www.parrhesia.com/wtc100301/small/

[OudeVanDagen]

35. not bad for an

interim report, huh?

But you know what? It sure all sounds familar .... seems like I heard it all before. Who was it that said all this months and months ago?

Oh yeah .... I remember ... it was me.

Told ya'll, didn't I?

[LARED]

36. Yes, very familiar

Nice job and much appreciated.

[NecessaryOnslaught]

57. Let me be the first to say...

What a piece of shit.

Are we to believe that fires and/or damage somehow caused core columns 76-81 to fail simultaneously and vertically from the ground floor to the roof (allowing the neat collapse of the east penthouse)? Are we then to believe that this smaller eastern portion of the building, devoid of columns 76-81, seven seconds later somehow pulled the larger, western portion of the building (supported by intact core columns 58-75) to the east, causing the simultaneous failure of core columns 58-75 and the vertical collapse of the building?? All at freefall speed-amazing! :crazy:

Nice to know that the NIST has the raw Naudet footage of the WTC 7 collapse. I'd like to see it, wouldn't you? Seems there is about 10 seconds missing from the CBS documentary.

[roper]

58. "Are we to believe..." Sure!

Those foolish people who still support wild fantasies and conspiracy theories regarding 9/11 should finally believe the only true and official version!

boloboffin really tries hard to sell his message, so believe him! He only wants to educate you!

[Bolo Boffin]

60. Sell my message?

You have me confused with someone else. Everything I do, I do for free. I have no book to sell you, I have no website that you must pay to access, I have no videotape.

I'm not selling anything. Plenty of people are willing to write and say anything about the 9/11 attacks as long as suckers are willing to pay for it. That's their gig.

I'm only interested in the truth.

[roper]

61. No, I did not confuse you with someone else

Perhaps "sell" is not the right word.

But I looked through some 9/11 threads here and it seems to me that you quite vigorously support (perhaps with minor modifications) the explanation of 9/11 that the media presents to me. That is legitimate.

Only, I have difficulties to understand why you bother with people whom you perhaps think of as "conspiracy idiots" and who represent only a minority. What's the point of supporting with much time and effort the story the media tells us anyway?

Perhaps it's fun to you, perhaps you want to save lost souls...

[Name removed]

62. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[roper]

64. Certainly I remember the story...

Interestingly, Hill & Knowlton, who did the trick, was the PR firm for BCCI as well.

[Abe Linkman]

66. apparently, you aren't the only who remembers!

Another firm you might know of is called the Rendon Group. They perform similar "important" functions ... at OUR expense! Getting my drift?

[roper]

67. I think so...

It's always important to educate the fatuous ;)

[Bolo Boffin]

63. Several reasons why I'm here

I like it, I do. I like finding answers to interesting problems.

Also, I read Lawrence David Kusche's book on the Bermuda Triangle and it was a life-changing experience. I see answering the conspiracy theorists as giving back as good as I got that day.

Plus, I agree with the aim of this message board - getting Bush out and getting a Democrat in. I view the extreme conspiracy theories (Flight 77 denial, controlled demolitions, etc.) as detrimental to that objective, so I take the time and make the effort to rebut them.

Any souls saved is a bonus.

[OudeVanDagen]

65. well said, bolo

and I might add that the report you've offered ... and which has been discussed in this thread .... will always be subject to scrutiny and ridicule ... all reports are; BUT it is very important to remember that the 911 collapse at WTC drew scores of engineers from every quarter of the globe. The event was a magnet for expert and novice and student and teacher. The report you have offered us bears the mark, signature, and letterhead of the best and brightest who left no stones unturned ... and who also willingly and quite boldly admit there is still investigation and discussion by honestly stating; "... requires further analysis and investigation ..." It is from the best and brightest who understand collapse and who have impeccable reputations with nothing to gain but everything to loose. It is not smoke and mirrors ... these are experts ... this is the real deal.

[roper]

68. The best and the brightest...

have something to lose.

Assume, only hypothetically, that you, as a renowned engineer, have a gut feeling that a bomb might have been used to crash the WTC. If you have the choice to support publicly the bomb hypothesis or to find another plausible explanation, what would you do? There was, since the first days after 9/11, a strong sentiment against "conspiracy theories". If you endorsed such a theory, you could assume that it could harm your career and your academic reputation.

And, at first glance, the bomb idea is so very far fetched that most Americans would reject it outrightly and never use it as a working hypothesis (because the political implications were unthinkable).

[Bolo Boffin]

69. Not only is the bomb idea far fetched...

...but the scientists investigating the collapse of the towers have not found a single bit of evidence that leads them to consider the bomb idea at all.

Read the report.

[Abe Linkman]

70. Far fetched? Right. It negates the "Wacky Cavepeople Did It" fairy tale

Not one single person from H&K "found" any evidence that a lie was being perpetrated to sell an invasion, either.

Get off the spinning wheel.

[roper]

71. I downloaded it and will read it. But:

I thought I made it clear that most scientists would never publicly consider the bomb idea and never search for evidence of bombs -- completely independent of the real probability of such a bomb. It is simply not opportune to discuss such an idea in public.

As it was never opportune to discuss the idea the CIA might smuggle drugs.

And my first impression of the report is that it is very tentative, far from containing definite conclusions.

[Bolo Boffin]

74. Never search for evidence of bombs?

That's just not true. They are looking for the reasons that the buildings fell down so that they can build stronger buildings in the future. If there was any evidence of a bomb, then there's no reason for the study's chosen path - if the WTC buildings were brought down with controlled demolitions, then they cannot speak to existing code.

I wouldn't call the report very tentative. It is a statement of the working hypotheses, and is tentative for that reason alone. But you can and will see that they are being quite comprehensive about the hypotheses. No probable cause is being left out. They have the answer in the material they've released - they are now working to narrow the hypotheses further.

[OudeVanDagen]

81. FYI

standard collapse protocols include subversive (bomb arson etc) investigation

[roper]

72. besides: Considering US foreign policy, the impression of far-fetched...

says nothing about realities.

[Bolo Boffin]

77. Don't know what that has to do with WTC 7

You wouldn't be trying to change the subject, would you?

Let's talk about the NIST report. Foreign policy is better discussed in another forum anyway.

[roper]

82. The point is "far-fetched" here...

My point is that the impression of "far-fetched" is not very suited to judge the question if something could be real.

Past US foreign policy is an example here, not a change of topic.

[DougFir]

94. www.wtc7.net - video of wtc7 collapse is interesting

I don't want to agree with the very combative (and often wrong) "abe and dewd" team.

But the video footage of the collapse of wtc 7 is extremely interesting and compelling.

It's hard to imagine that a fire nearly five hundred feet below the roof managed to cause the penthouse to collapse a split second before the exterior walls, and then the walls all fall in a nearly perfectly symmetrical manner.

Before 9/11, no steel skyscraper ever fell down because of fire, and those that have fallen from large earthquakes fell asymmetrically. (The WTC tower collapses were about Richter 2, and didn't cause any other buildings to fall down.)

The Silverstein "pull it" quote is not very convincing, and is deliberately ambiguous. The video clips of the collapse are much more useful as evidence - see http://www.wtc7.net for copies.

The government is panicked that people have figured out about WTC 7, and is engaged in a strategy of muddying the waters with a mix of truth and nonsense. Mixing in the truth of WTC 7 along with totally bogus nonsense like the "pod plane" (which is merely a photographic illusion, it is not real). It's a military practice of smokescreens, chaff - except this example is a psychological approach.

see http://www.oilempire.us/bogus.html to see examples of this tactic

[NecessaryOnslaught]

79. Welcome aboard roper!

:hi:

[roper]

83. Thanks!

:hi:

[Bolo Boffin]

59. Straw man

fires and/or damage somehow caused core columns 76-81 to fail simultaneously and vertically

That's not what the report says.

3. The initiating event may have included a number of structural components, though the relative role of impact damage and fire need further investigation. Possible components that may have led to the failure of columns 79, 80, and/or 81 include interior columns 69, 72, 75, 78, and 78A, the east transfer girder (which supports column 78A and frames into transfer truss #2), and adjacent framing and floor systems.

4. A vertical collapse appears to have occurred after interior columns 79, 80, and/or 81 failed. This failure mechanism would progress vertically upward within the failed bay to the roof level, as analysis indicates that the floors would not be able to redistribute their loads.

5. The debris from a 40-story vertical collapse on the east side of the building would fall down onto the strong diaphragms at Floors 5 and 7 and possibly onto transfer trusses #1 and #2, and/or the east transfer girder. Damage and loading on these floors and transfer components would generate lateral forces which would cause the failure of the remaining core columns. The horizontal progression requires further analysis and investigation, but observations indicate that the remaining core columns appeared to fail almost simultaneously, approximately 5 seconds after the east penthouse failed.

This is an interim report, but the initial failure is located in 79, 80, and/or 81 - not simultaneously in 76-81. As number 4 says, this initial failure progresses vertically upward, and does not happen "simultaneously". 40 stories of debris from this vertical collapse then causes the horizontal failure.

somehow pulled the larger, western portion of the building (supported by intact core columns 58-75) to the east, causing the simultaneous failure of core columns 58-75 and the vertical collapse of the building?

No, the diagrams in the pdf show the core columns pushed to the west, as the debris fell into them, and that they failed almost simultaneously.

Your bias toward a controlled demolition is evident, because you're consistently misunderstanding and misstating what the report says. Deal with what the report says, not what your opinion must have the report say.

[NecessaryOnslaught]

73. Call it like i see it.

You should try it sometime bolo. You can let others tell you what you see or you can use your own eyes. Kind of like your truss failure thumping, when it was the core that failed in the towers.

It is apparent from the CBS news collapse video that the entire east penthouse collapsed in a neat fashion (kind of like a controlled demolition within a controlled demolition), complete with a kink. Since the east penthouse is supported by columns 77-81, It is my opinion that column 77-81 failure was simultaneously and complete.

From that point the report claims....

"Damage and loading on these floors and transfer components
would generate lateral forces which would cause the failure of the remaining core columns.
The horizontal progression requires further analysis and investigation, but observations
indicate that the remaining core columns appeared to fail almost simultaneously,
approximately 5 second after the east penthouse failed."

Lateral forces Bolo, look at the diagram in your beloved report, it clearly shows pulling to the east, not pushing to the west. In either case, how does this lead to a perfect vertical collapse? Sorry dude, it don't. Columns 58-76 were not pulled anywhere, simply chopped up by cutting charges from the ground up- just like columns 77-81, 7 seconds before.

[Bolo Boffin]

76. Your opinion is wrong.

The kink in the east penthouse proves it.

One column failed first (likely 79) bringing the others down with it.

If the columns had failed simultaneously, there would have been no kink. The penthouse would have sunk right down if all the columns had failed simultaneously, with no kink.

I'm looking at the diagram in the report you must find a way to discredit, NO. They clearly show the other columns being pushed away at the bottom. Lateral forces, Nec. Would you care to explain how falling debris could cause lateral forces towards the accumulating pile. Common sense tells us that the falling debris pushed the other core columns away from the pile. To the west.

Your opinion is demonstrably wrong. You continue to misstate the report so that you can "disprove" it. Straw man, Nec. Deal with what the report says and the evidence it shows, not what you must believe it to be saying.

[NecessaryOnslaught]

78. No bolo

the kink is caused because the columns which failed simultaneously are located in the center of the penthouse( with the exception of 78 and 79, which cannot be seen in these frames). Once these columns were removed, the east and west end of the penthouse follow suit and collapse toward the center where the columns once were, as there are no supporting columns on the east and west side of the east penthouse.

Why are you trying to discredit your beloved report with your opinions bolo? see Figure L–49. Horizontal progression mechanism for truss #2 failure. Clearly this is showing pulling to the east.

I love it, Horizontal failure of truss #2 leads to horizontal failure of columns 58-75, which leads to VERTICAL collapse.!! :eyes:

[Bolo Boffin]

80. Gotcha...

You're right.

I was looking at L-34, where the progression of failure is to the west. But the columns themselves are pulling to the east, as per L-49. My bad.

Still no need for cutting charges, as the report makes clear. Floor seven was heavily reinforced, and when the east side of floor seven fell, the columns to the east were subject to the released lateral force. They couldn't accomodate this new stress for longer than five seconds and collapsed almost simultaneously, bringing the rest of the building down.

Did you miss L 41-45? They remove individual columns one at a time and run the modeling program. Which column produces the image that corresponds with the video?

Column 79. The collapse of 79 alone accounts for what happened to that building. Not six columns simultaneously - one column.

[Laura_B_manslaughter]

95. "Classic progressive collapse" ?????

They make it sound like this has happened many times before while in fact WTC7 was the first time in history a steel frame bldg collapsed due to a fire.

[Bolo Boffin]

96. Fire + severe structural damage

Read the report, Laura.