Can any skeptic explain this video of WTC7?

[HamdenRice]

http://www.911hoax.com/gwtc7_1.asp?strPage=wtc7_1&intPage=60&PageNum=60

I am neither a proponent of controlled demo nor a skeptic. I have gone back and forth.

But the recent post about the professor from BYU had a link to video of WTC 7 I had never seen before. That thread predictably slid into a focus on (1) the professor's credentials and (2) momentum.

But it overlooks the link in the professor's email to video of what really appear to be demolition squibs in building 7. I have been open to pursuasion that the horizontal puffs on the towers were extruded air as the upper floors pancaked; but this video is so much more convincing.

WTC7 collapsed from the lower floors, unlike the towers. Yet the puffs are at the upper floors and go off in seemingly precise timing.

Now I'm almost convinced of controlled demo in WTC7 because of this.

[pauldp]

1. The question with WTC7 is

is there ANYTHING in all the angles of video footage of the collapse that DOES NOT look like controlled demolition?

If it is not controlled demo shouldn't there be at least SOMETHING that is INCONSISTENT with controlled demo?

I'm still looking for that something.

[HamdenRice]

2. I would like a better standard than "consistent with"

I agree that the collapse of wtc7 is "consistent with" controlled demolition; but that does not prove there was a controlled demolition. The collapse of wtc1 and 2 is consistent with both the official explanation and the idea that there were pods or explosives on the planes. But that doesn't mean that either scenario is the most likely.

WTC7's collapse could be explained by controlled demolition. It could also be explained by the fact that it had a very, very unusual steel framing because the building had to be suspended over a power station, such that if the lynch pin of the span over the power substation failed, the entire building plausibly could have collapsed in on itself.

But when I saw this particular video sequence, I could not for the life of me think of anything they could be other than demolition squibs. They are much, much more convincing to me that even the evidence of squibs on wtc1 and 2.

I'm just asking others what they think of this video and whether anyone had seen it before.

[pauldp]

3. Yes I have seen the clip before.

As you know it's a zoomed in section of that commonly seen video. Again closer examination of the video looks more not less like controlled demo. If someone could get a hold of a high res full screen dub of the videos (If any media outlet would release it) I'm sure even more detail could be seen.

I agree the video does not prove it collapsed because of controlled demolition. However the fact that the video footage looks EXACTLY like a controlled demolition should have mandated an investigation into whether it WAS a controlled demolition. Instead we had complete destruction of the evidence BEFORE the collapse was understood and a failure by government agencies to even AKNOWLEDGE that the collapse looked exactly like a controlled demolition. I don't think NIST even used the words "controlled demolition" once
in describing how the collapse looked.

[Ezlivin]

4. Those aren't squibs - they are exploding trashcans

The extreme heat generated from the burning contents caused trashcans to spontaneously burst apart. Once the trashcans exploded, shards of hot metal shot outwards, severing support columns instantly.

Or didn't you read the entire NIST report?

[Name removed]

5. Deleted message

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

[vincent_vega_lives]

7. It only takes one floor (n/t)

[rman]

11. to do what? - start collapsing from the top down?

no f'in way.

[vincent_vega_lives]

14. No from the floor that fails.

You only need one floor to fail due to fire.

[rman]

16. apparently in WTC7 the top floor failed first.

in fact it looks very much like the penthouse failed first.

[vincent_vega_lives]

17. Really and how exactly would explosives have done that?

The interior core of the building had already completely collapsed by the time the penthouse collapsed. The kink/fault formed right under a significant stuctural component on the lower floors ( 5 or 7)

[rman]

18. Got any evidence that WTC7 had a "core"?

And got any evidence that this "core" had collapsed due to no more then a few localized fires in the building?

[philb]

26. WTC7 has been "rebuilt" with Christophera's concrete core

I posted the URL on Christophera's thread dealing with the core

[vincent_vega_lives]

28. Chistopera's core?

thats a good one.

[petgoat]

29. Well How do you explain that picture then?

My initial reaction to Christerphora's post was "how do you know the
picture is real?"

Aside from that, the only arguments I can bring to bear against his thesis are:

1. Where are your construction witnesses?
2. Tenants of lower floors surely included some construction-savvy
individuals who could credibly testify to the core construction from
their observations.

Maybe when they release the blueprints we can set these issues to rest.

Another open question seems to be--where are the 47 steel columns in
the upper half of WTC2 in Christophera's picture?

The answer would appear to be--they were taken apart by explosives.

Unless the photo's a fake.

[vincent_vega_lives]

38. I agree with much of what you say

1. Where are your construction witnesses?
2. Tenants of lower floors surely included some construction-savvy
individuals who could credibly testify to the core construction from
their observations.

Maybe when they release the blueprints we can set these issues to rest.

There certainly is a truth and people that know it. Despite the fact that Christo claims to be "knowing of the truth".

I would still like to see the picture in the context of before and after that particular still (as in video). I think that might clear things up a little. A single photo without context can be deciving. Like this one:



It would appear in the picture that debris is being ejected violently upward. When you watch the video however, it is clear that it is not. The debris is flowing downward, following the collapse, not up and out.

[spooked911]

21. Explsoves would give the result exactly as seen in the video

No fire-induced failure of two interior columns is ever going to give the rapid smooth and near free-fall collapse seen in the video.

Period.

Stop wasting our time.

If you really want to convince us, and not waste our time, build a model that collapses just like WTC7 when two interior columns are weakened.

[vincent_vega_lives]

27. Never ever

"exactly"

You are a demolition fundimentialist. I have serious problems with extremeists. I have seen nothing in your posts to convince me you know jack-s.

[spooked911]

31. Dude. Are you saying that explosives could NOT produce the almost

perfect collapse of WTC7?

If so, get off the dope, man.

[vincent_vega_lives]

32. Nope

That would be silly. You can use explosives to create almost any effect you want.

It's you that are claiming that only explosives could cause the building to collapse as it did.

[spooked911]

34. So, I take it you are NOT an extremist, then? Does that mean your mind is

open about demolition of the WTC buildings?

[vincent_vega_lives]

37. Yes, my mind is open

and I don't speak in absolutes about things I am not absolutely certain about.

[vincent_vega_lives]

6. Question

If those were squibs, exactly what purpose were they serving? Apparently little as none of the floors were effected by their "detonation". The building collaped at the base. Not at the floors the alledged "squibs" were going on.

If those were explosives going off on mulitple floors you would see an accordian effect...you don't...the building stays intact all the way down.

After a relook, it is pretty clear that the "squibs" occur after the building begins to move.

[HamdenRice]

8. when you look at controlled demo video...

you usually see squibs all the way up the sides of buildings. This is to make sure the building collapses into a pile. Otherwise, if you just have charges at the base, the building might collapse by only one or two floors, or worse, tip over.

That's my understanding, but I'm not an expert.

On edit: it's to prevent this:




and this: notice the ground floor of the building on the right has collapsed but the building is in tact -- just one floor shorter!

[vincent_vega_lives]

9. Apples and oranges

The more massive the structure the less relative strength. Those structures are between 4 and 8 stories. VASTLY different than a 47 story steel girder and truss structure built over a power plant with thousands of gallons of diesel stored throughout.

NO way such a massive structre could collapse one floor. Besides, before the building collapsed a kink formed at roof and the mechanical penthouse dissapered into the core before any "squibs" appeared.

The collapse of WTC7 appears to have been initated on the east side of the building. This was followed by the disappearance of the west penthouse, and the development of a fault or "kink" on the east half of WTC7. The collapse then began at lower floor levels, and the building completely collapsed to the ground. From this sequence, it appears that the collapse initiated at the lower levels on the inside and progressed up, as seen by the exention of the fault from the lower levels to the top.

During the course of the day, fires may have exposed various structural elements to high temperatures for a sufficient period of time to reduce their strength to the point of causing collapse. The structural elements most likley to have initiated the observed collapse are the transfer trusses between floors 5 to 7, located on the lower floors under the east mechanical penthouse close to the fault/kink location.

If the collapse initiated at these transfer trusses, this would explain why the building imploded, producing a limited debris field as the exterior walls were pulled downward. The collapse may have then spread to the west. The building at this point may have had extensive interior structural failures that then led to the collapse of the overall building. The cantilever transfer girders along the north elevation, the strong diaphragms at the 5th and 7th floors, and the seat conections between the beams and columns at the building perimeter may have become overloaded after the collapse of the transfer trusses and caused the interior collapse to propagate to the whole floor and to the exterior frame. The structural system between floors 5 and 7 appears to be critical to the structural performance of the entire building.

http://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_ch5.pdf

Fire is a major threat to a steel girder-truss building. Hence the fireproofing and sprinkler system meant to retard any fire to allow firefighters time to fight it.

[HamdenRice]

10. See, this is how threads are hijacked by disinfo and misdirection...

I did not say that wtc7 could collapse like the second building pictured. You asked why demolitions charges were used in upper floors.

I answered that in general, demolition charges are used in upper floors in controled demo to ensure that the entire building collapses in its footprint, unlike the two buildings pictured. I never said that wtc7 otherwise would look like either of those buildings.

The point of starting this thread was to ask whether anyone could explain the video that seems to me to be the clearest video of demolition squibs that was shot on 9/11.

Absolutely not taking your bait to hijack this thread, and get into a discussion of the explanation you give about fire and trusses, which as I said in an earlier post is consistent with what happened, but isn't necessarily what happened.

If you have anything to say about the video, I'm all ears.

[vincent_vega_lives]

13. Good argument!

:eyes:

disinfo my ass. If you cared to peruse my post you would see ample explanation for the "squibs".

[LARED]

12. Some info

The inside of WTC7 was collapsing for 8.2 second before global collapse initiated. So, the inside was collapsing before the exterior came down. According to the report columns failed in the lower floors pulling the interior down. This is why the "squibs" (known as venting in the normal world) go from the bottom up, because the internal collapse was going from the bottom up.

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/WTC%20Part%20IIC%20-%20WTC%207%20Collapse%20Final.pdf

[HamdenRice]

19. Here's the problem with this explanation ...

As you mention, the inside trusses that spanned the power substation were in the lower floors. Because air is very compressable, the air pressure should have been greater closer to the collapse and pancaking of floors. Venting at the lower floors should have prevented the buildup of pressure at the top floors.

Also, where ever air pressure was the same, vents should be seen at the weakest points, not in an orderly progression.

Venting should have been at the lower floors, not an orderly sequence near the top floors seen in the video.

It just doesn't make sense.

[LARED]

20. I think you misunderstand how venting works

WTC 7 (as all office buildings) have discrete floors. Floors are compartmentalized for fire protection amoung other issues.

Air in the building does not move freely from floor to floor. So the venting at the lower floors (if it existed) would have negligible influence on venting at the upper floors.

[HamdenRice]

22. then there should have been no venting in the video...

because the venting is coming from floors that are not collapsing. Ditto for venting in the towers, because the venting/squib on any particular floor preceeds the collapse of that floor.

As even your fellow skeptic, Vincent, wrote, in this thread notes that the squibs/vents occur in floors that have not yet pancaked.

quote:

If those were squibs, exactly what purpose were they serving? Apparently little as none of the floors were effected by their "detonation". The building collaped at the base. Not at the floors the alledged "squibs" were going on.

endquote

If you believe that what you see is venting, then you must accept that the air pressure was transmitted from the collapse of the trusses over the power station, through central stairways, elevator shafts, etc., to the upper floors. Otherwise there should be no venting on the floors where we see it, at all.

If you don't accept that, detonation squibs seems an increasingly plausible explanation.

[LARED]

23. I don't understand your point

The building is interconnected. Columns and beams intermixed to form multiple box shapes. If the theory that a few column failed on floor five to seven under the penthouse is correct, then the entire structure above these are pulled down floor by floor. According to the NIST this process took 8.2 seconds. That does not mean that everything was uniform in the internal collapse, only that whatever process did occur, took 8.2 seconds.

[HamdenRice]

24. Merely this ... if you look at the video

you see puffs of air/squibs coming out of the upper floors before those floors collapse and pancake. So if they are venting, what air pressure are they venting? You yourself said they cannot be venting from other floors because the floors air space is not interconnected.

[LARED]

25. I don't see it the same way

You state

puffs of air/squibs coming out of the upper floors before those floors collapse and pancake.

is not possible in my mind. The inside collapsing is a precurser to global collapse. The floors did not pancake but were pulled down because some columns failed in the lower levels. As this happened the floors fell from bottom to top inside. Once the top was reached the building has lost all redundancy and strength and global collapse ensued.

The venting you see is the air being expelled as the floors give way; just prior to global collapse.

[HamdenRice]

30. But these floors are not collapsing yet

You can see it plainly on the video. The orthodox explanation is that the lower floors collapsed first. All the videos show that the building fails from the bottom up. When I say pancake, I mean the bottom floors. But the top floors remain more or less the same distance from each other until they reach the ground.

So what is expelling air at this point in time at the very top floors? If you say it is "not possible in my mind" then you are saying your mind is not open to the visual evidence, and you are not being empirical.

The only non-demolition explanation I can come up with is that the air pressure was generated as the penthouse fell first through the upper floors into the lower floors, before the rest of the upper floors collapsed. But if that's the case why would there be venting only in those very localized spots in such an orderly fashion?

[vincent_vega_lives]

33. Internal implosion

The penthouse collapsed first. Hence the expulsion of debris.

[philb]

15. There are similar videos showing squibs before towers fell

they've been posted before

firemen at WTC also described seeing and hearing the squib explosions
http://www.flcv.com/firemen.html

[thewormman]

35. Didn't Silverstein say that the building was demolished?

What about Silverstein saying he told firefighters to "pull the building"?

Listen to the PBS documentary extract here:
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/cutter.html

There were never any firemen in the building so it wasn't to get them out. What else could it mean?

Out of interest has he claimed an insurance payout for WTC7 being destroyed by terrorists as well?

[vincent_vega_lives]

40. So now the FDNY is in the demolition business?

Been discussed here many times before.

[Bouvet_Island]

36. That thread predictably slid into a focus on (1) the professor's credenti

I disagree that the professor were smeared. His letter in that thread contained some very weak logic, a good example is that controlled destruction of WTC7 proves anything about a controlled demolition of WTC1+2. It is possibly indication, but then even people that are for the idea it is proof will have to agree the motives for taking this one down is different, as well as the possible means.

In WTC7, it would quite possibly be time to arrange explosives etc, and it reportedly contained large amounts of paper from Enron and Worldcom cases. Speaking of, does anyone know the original source of this information?

Onto the images posted I think I'd be inclined to agree it is maybe a strong part of his letter.

One factor that comes to mind is hot air an smoke at the top of the building, going through ventilation, stairwells and possibly elevator shafts. absent Good enough ventilation there would be sligth/unknown overpressure and the possibility of normal fire gas explosions, sparked by friction of the collapse isn't impossible thougth to me. But still, I don't imagagine my theory to look like that, I would expect more of an eventual gas explosion in terms of pressure and color. If the glass was hot, it could be stressed from temperatur difference on the inside and outside, as well as framing not answering for the expansion., it could make the glass burst on vibration/compression and naturally the hot smoke would come out which could possibly account for what we seem to be seeing. So there is not in my opinion no possible alternative explanation.

I am actually not able to determine what I am seeing from the quality of that video. But then I believe the official story stinks, and the quote from the owner is also good so I tend to believe in a more or less controlled demolition as the explanation for this buildings collapse. I am far more skeptical of a building with an intact structure going down than 1 and 2. It is also suspicious how the fires came about in the first place, and like how they where not put out by sprinklers.

On a sidenote, I think disinfo should be fought with logic, as it is not real easy to separate a propagandist-manipulator from a real skeptic or like a good critical voice. Or an disruptive or misleading enthusiast. The risk of collateral damage is certainly present.

Not playing the blame game, in this case, I think it is a good Idea. The blame game should be played when it is sure who is the enemy, and when they are to blame like in he case of the NO response.

Mind that argument constructions that don't hold water in this pretty limited and friendly environment, likely will not stand up to the attacks you can expect when or if the truth movement gains traction, meeting resistance from both legitimate sources that can be converted and from enemy sources. Sorting out arguments here through natural selection makes sense, real opposition in the form of devils advocates or real skeptics is useful. Evolution will do better work on the 9/11 truth movements argument than sessions where everyone mutually reassures eachothers Faith.

Resolving to charactherizations, and in particular without first gutting the argument properly is a giveaway of standing in any discussion. Keeping cool and amiable is what will win both the discussion and support.

[vincent_vega_lives]

39. You seem like a pretty smart fellow

Have you read this?

http://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_ch5.pdf

[Bouvet_Island]

41. It provides

an explanation or reference to what we see? Rather cite the most relevant parts. It addresses the other points I brought up?

On a scale from 1 to ten, how would you rate the quality and/or solidity of this report? Based on what, like, former merit of the researchers, the openess of the source material and process, the way the arguments are built on independantly verifiable facts?

Basically implying the other participants in a discussion have problems with their smarts, it is a well tested technique, that though have tendency to backfire as very few people are right about everything, all the time.

[vincent_vega_lives]

43. I take it you haven't read it

It is pretty enlightening. Compared to information and expertise on this board? I give it a 10.

I imply nothing. I am simply stating that you seem like an intelligent person.

[spooked911]

42. check out this video

http://www.911research.com/wtc/evidence/videos/docs/wtc7_collapse.mpg

you can clearly see squibs shooting out the back of the building as it goes down, and it is a pattern incredibly similar to the controlled demolition picutres on this page:
http://www.terrorize.dk/misc/demolition/