WTC7-- structural and fire damage was essentially all on the south side

[spooked911]

we can agree on that, can't we?

So how was it that the building fell STRAIGHT DOWN?

If the building was weakened on the south side, shouldn't it have tipped to the south?

Even the twin towers tipped as they started to go down.

[BuyingThyme]

1. Diesel in the basement.

Works every time.

[JackRiddler]

2. Interesting question

Most controlled demolitions also show more than a bit of tipping. "In the footprint" is a very vague term, usually meaning "mostly in the footprint." I don't think you can find one more literally in the footprint than WTC 7, except maybe a stadium.

And yet all the damage (and it's substantial) is on the south side. It lost a large chunk out of the south side, middle segment, bottom 20 floors according to NIST and reports (though in pictures this is obscured by smoke, so I have yet to see one that shows this clearly). One would expect the building to buckle southwards - towards the pile, endangering the rescue efforts there.

[The Lone Groover]

3. Facade collapse should have happened...

...IF anything , because steel frame structures have a bridging effect for holes.

Global collapse is not what should have happened - it's ridiculous.

Edited: It's for its. I don't want to draw the attention of the spelling facists anymore than I have to.

[jberryhill]

5. You NAILED IT, JR!

One would expect the building to buckle southwards - towards the pile, endangering the rescue efforts there.


That's precisely right. Now read the sworn words Lieutenant Ryan, one of the guys who was involved in those rescue efforts:

http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/Ryan_William.txt

Then we found out, I guess around 3:00 o'clock, that they thought 7 was going to collapse. So, of course, we've got guys all in this pile over here and the main concern was get everybody out, and I guess it took us over an hour and a half, two hours to get everybody out of there.
<...>
I called, and I ended up calling her again at about 4:00 o'clock in the afternoon from a position over here. I went in there to take a leak and I just looked around. I guess when we fell back for 7 to collapse I called her.


You think that you could have gotten these guys to leave the pile, where they were attempting to rescue their fallen comrades, without a good reason?

What you said "one would expect" is exactly what they expected.

[JackRiddler]

6. Indeed

But then it didn't collapse the way they reasonably expected, either.

One might also expect the rescue workers fearing the possible collapse to wonder if there was a way to clear away that danger by controlling the manner ajnd timing of collapse... is there such a thing as a crack demolition team? Were there any personnel from a military ordnance unit in the vicinity, perhaps? Could they have been deployed to bring it down? Might the fire department call the building's owner in advance of such a decision?

Oh and there's no need for the screaming, I can hear you fine.

[hack89]

23. Why?

Since the building remained standing it means the stress was redistributed. That means that some other part of the building was overloaded. That is where the collapse would be initiated. And that part of the building would initially collapse straight down - what lateral force would there be to create tilting?

[jberryhill]

4. What makes you think it didn't?

I'm not aware of any videos that are taken from anything other than looking straight at the north side. From that angle, I don't know how you would tell whether or not it tipped to the south.

However, you can see the dramatic difference between the north and south sides in pictures taken after the collapse:

North side:



South side:



That looks like something that fell straight down?

[JackRiddler]

7. Yes it does.

It looks as much within the footprint (a relative term) as any demolition aftermath photo I have seen. You?

It also looks that the amount outside the footprint is similar in each direction. That would also imply straight down.

[Kingshakabobo]

20. You have seen demolition videos where the subject building .....

.....came to rest on the neighboring buildings??? Where? Demolition blooper videos?

[dailykoff]

8. I have yet to see evidence of ANY structural damage

apart from amateur-hour perjury from a few FDNY goons and that cookie-monster photoshop from the NYPD, neither of which is remotely credible.

[Bolo Boffin]

9. Is there anyone else here that agrees with this monstrous accusation against FDNY and NYPD members?

dailykoff says: I have yet to see evidence of ANY structural damage, apart from amateur-hour perjury from a few FDNY goons and that cookie-monster photoshop from the NYPD, neither of which is remotely credible.

Anyone? Anyone else think that members of the FDNY perjured themselves to cover the murder of their fellow firefighters on 9/11?

[dailykoff]

10. A better question is if there's anyone left who doesn't.

Save the drama for the next VFW parade.

[Bolo Boffin]

12. I'll tell you what: why don't you trot your bad self down to a FDNY station and repeat that bullshit

to them?

That is, if you've got the courage of your convictions. Go speak "truth to power" to them.

[hack89]

15. So we can ignore firefighter accounts of explosions too? nt

[spooked911]

13. Somehow I find your definition of "monstrous" a bit one-sided

there's lots of monstrous things about 9/11 that you seem to be happy to overlook.

[Bolo Boffin]

21. I call an accusation of covering up the deaths of your coworkers "monstrous".

So do you think the FDNY committed perjury about the events of 9/11 too?

[spooked911]

14. For the sake of argument, let's say there WAS severe damage to the south side

wouldn't that have made the thing tip to the south?

[hack89]

17. Not really ..

Since the damaged south side could no longer support the weight above it, it makes sense that some other portion of the structure had to absorb that extra stress. It would then make sense that when that overloaded support failed, that would be where the collapse would be initiated. And it would be straight down because that is the way gravity and heavy weights work.

So it depends how the building redistributed the stresses.

[spooked911]

19. Nice rationalization

too bad there's no evidence to support it

[hack89]

22. The same can be said for tilting

now couldn't it?

[rman]

11. There's clear evidence of smoke

on the south side - so much smoke that virtually no damage and fires were visible. Except on NYPD photos that are not released to the public.

But -if- there was as much damage as some claim there was, it wouldn't exactly explain the straight down collapse.

[MervinFerd]

16. -22 points. Repeated failure to read the assigned documents.

You obviously -still- have not read the NIST interim report. Or, if you did, you did not begin to comprehend it.

I have helpfully posted a thread that links to that document, a more popularly written one. You need to read both of those; it might stop you from looking like you are uninformed.

[spooked911]

18. perhaps you could summarize the argument

since you know it so well?

or at least post the link?