Solving the Mystery of Building 7

[Richard Charnin]

&feature=player_embedded

It's just 15 minutes.
Q.E.D.
FINI.

[Pachamama]

1. Thanks for posting n/t

[Old and In the Way]

2. Very powerful video.

If they lied about WT7 collapse, what else did they lie about? Thanks for posting.

[libodem]

21. exactly

[Politicalboi]

3. I hope some day soon

9/11 will get another investigation. All 3 fell without resistance but yet those who question it, are considered "The Nuts".

[Bolo Boffin]

4. Actually all 3 fell with resistance.

Only Building 7 had a short period of non-resistance, and this was explained in the NIST report.

[Richard Charnin]

5. True but...

A short period (2.4 seconds) of non-resistance (free-fall) can only happen in a controlled demolition.

NIST contradicted themselves when they said the free-fall was due to office fires. That is a physical impossibility. Office fires can't melt steel. It's a total joke.

Sir Isaac Newton is rolling over in his grave.

There is no longer any question about Building 7.
The debate is over.

[Bolo Boffin]

6. "can only happen in a controlled demolition"

Nope. WTC 7 had seven floors fail. NIST shows this in the simulation.

Office fires didn't need to melt steel to bring down WTC 7. Thermal expansion of the long beams over the east side of the building kicked off the progressive collapse.

Sir Isaac is resting comfortably.

There is no longer any question about Building 7. Condolences.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

15. The top part (penthouse?) seemed to sink first

[Bolo Boffin]

16. The collaspe was already happening inside the building.

The east penthouse falls into the building after the columns underneath it failed. They failed because of a localized collapse of some floor around them. That happened because thermal expansion of the beams underneath the floors knocked loose a crucial truss.

The fires expanded the long beams.



You can see them on the right here. The bottom of this diagram is south, the right is the east.

The building was built out over the WTC access ramp. Earlier planners didn't expect that, but the designers of WTC 7 thought they could grab that extra space and get more cash out of rental. So you get those long beams. They designed a truss system that would support the weight of the building, but there turned out to be a fatal flaw in the design. NIST found that simply removing a three-floor section of Column 79 (you can see it in the diagram) would cause a complete progressive collapse of the building.

The east beams expanded thermally and knocked loose the truss that connected 79 to the north wall. That kicked off a local collapse around column 79 of Floors 8-14. 79 then buckled, bringing down 80 and 81 with it and causing a larger collapse inside the building of the east structure. Above, the east penthouse fell into the building, starting the obvious external collapse we've grown familiar with seeing here in this group.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

18. These buildings weren't awfully well built?

Like a pack of cards?

[Bolo Boffin]

19. Well, they were for normal circumstances.

The main problem with 7 actually wasn't these structural problems. If the lower half of the building had had a sprinkler system with its own water supply, the way the upper half was, the fires would have been knocked out and the building would have been fine - damaged from the debris of WTC 1's collapse, but still standing. However, the lower floors' sprinklers systems, both primary and backup, were hooked up to the water main. That was obliterated in the collapses of the towers, and them's the breaks.

But yes, that fatal flaw in column 79 is rather horrendous in retrospect. I'm pretty sure the new WTC 7 wasn't built out over the access ramp.

[William Seger]

20. WTC7 wasn't designed to withstand thermal stress

... or to resist progressive collapse, once it started. In particular, the interior girder connections to the columns were only designed to handle the anticipated gravity loads, not lateral forces from thermal expansion or moment forces from falling girders. Doing so would have made construction much more expensive, but there wasn't (and still isn't) any code requirement to do so, so they didn't. That's one of the serious issues raised by the collapse, since it implies that a great many other steel structures would also be vulnerable in a prolonged, unfought fire. The argument that if it never happened before 9/11 then it couldn't happen on 9/11 either is as bogus as the argument that if it looked like a controlled demolition then it must have been a controlled demolition.

Richard Gage's "over 1500 architects and engineers" should know this if they actually read the NIST report and actually have even rudimentary knowledge of structural mechanics, but they don't seem to think that the construction details are of any significance. Regardless of how impressed Ed Asner is, Gage & Co. present neither a credible technical argument against the NIST theory nor a credible, substantiated alternate theory.

[Ace Acme]

37. The shear studs were designed to take the lateral loads, so the girder seat didn't need to be.

Though some of the drawings show that the welded cheek plates on column 79 do a pretty good job of boxing the girder in place--especially if it had expanded thermally.

[Ace Acme]

34. How do 7 floors fail in freefall? NIST did NOT explain it.

They only obfuscated it by adding a 1.75 second pre-collapse period to the 2.25 second freefall collapse.

[William Seger]

7. Not true

Your faulty argument amounts to saying that only a controlled demolition can produce zero resistance. Broken columns also produce zero resistance. You'd think that one of Gage's "more than 1500 architects and engineers" might explain to him what was happening during the 1.75 seconds of less-than-freefall immediately before that 2.4-second freefall, and what was happening inside the building during the 6 seconds before that. Gage persists in ignoring both of those phases of the collapse, despite their obvious importance to understanding why the building shell fell the way it did, and those of us who think Gage is a fraud think he deliberately does that simply because those events don't fit his controlled demolition assertion. On the other hand, the NIST theory accounts for what we see in all phases.

> NIST contradicted themselves when they said the free-fall was due to office fires. That is a physical impossibility. Office fires can't melt steel. It's a total joke.

If you're going to attempt to critique NIST's conclusions, I suggest you need to start with a much better understanding of what they are. Perhaps actually reading the report would help.

If the debate is over, then Gage lost, badly, and it's time to move on.

[Richard Charnin]

26. Two videos by David Chandler which expose the NIST "analysis of WTC 7

http://www.youtube.com/user/DavidSChandler#p/a/C8B067EBFCD2E867/2/eDvNS9iMjzA

http://www.youtube.com/user/DavidSChandler#p/a/C8B067EBFCD2E867/1/rVCDpL4Ax7I

[William Seger]

29. Yes, Chandler is a major source of "freefall = controlled demolition" idiocy

What's your point? Can you or can you not rebut my point that broken columns, as seen in the NIST simulation, also provide zero resistance? Why should anyone care that Chandler can't figure that out? Furthermore, can you or can you not explain why the alleged perps blew out 8 floors of the building after it was already falling? Can you or can you not tell me what kind of explosives capable of ripping through steel are too quite to be heard on any of the videos and also don't produce a seismic shock wave or break windows?

[Ace Acme]

35. Nobody says the perps blew out 8 floors while the building was already falling.

Get real.

[William Seger]

8. Gage's solution to the mystery: Magical silent explosives

... or was it super termites?

[teddy51]

9. Anyone that watches this video and concludes that it is anything

other than controlled demolitions that brought the building down, must be blind.

[William Seger]

10. Anyone who LISTENS to the videos and concludes that it's a controlled demolition

... must believe in magical silent explosives.

[teddy51]

11. They weren't silent, a large number of witnesses said they heard

the explosions. And the fireman that was moving people away from the building, talked about pulling it.

[William Seger]

13. Baloney

Go LISTEN to some real controlled demolitions on YouTube, and keep in mind that blowing out 8 floors of a building the size of WTC7 would require more explosives than any of those CDs. It would certainly not have just been a matter of some "witnesses said they heard the explosions" (which I believe you're confusing with reports about WTC1 and 2, anyway). The amount of explosives required to blow out 8 floors of WTC7 would have produced a distinctive sound that would have easily been heard in New Jersey, not to mention in all those videos we have. In fact, that lack of sound is perfectly consistent with the lack of any seismic spike or any broken windows for blocks around, which we would also see if Gage's theory was correct.

You say that if we simply watch the top third of the building fall, we must be blind if we don't "conclude" that the only explanation is a controlled demolition. No, that is not the only explanation, and much worse, that explanation is not supported by the evidence.

>And the fireman that was moving people away from the building, talked about pulling it.

No, they didn't. They talked about the building being unstable. And they were right.

[zeemike]

23. That is just not true

They use shape charges to pull buldings...and each one of those charges is relitivly small....the detonation would have been spread over the entire bulding.....just go watch some controled demolions fo buildings and you will see what I mean...with shape charges it takes suprisingly little explosives to do the job....and you would not hear one big bang but a series of smaller bangs...like what the firemen discribed.

[zappaman]

24. You're making things up.

No firemen described "a series of small bangs" emanating from WTC 7.
Your "evidence" is as weak as your spelling.

[Richard Charnin]

27. Many sounds of explosions

[zappaman]

28. No firemen described "a series of small bangs" emanating from WTC 7. n/t

[William Seger]

25. Everything I said is true

... and your response seems to be that you don't know (and apparently don't want to know) what a real controlled demolition sounds like -- which of course IS what shaped charges sound like -- and that you have no explanation for why WTC7 doesn't sound anything like that, nor can you explain the absence of a seismic spike and broken windows that should have unavoidably been produced by enough explosives to blow out eight floors of a building the size of WTC7.

> They use shape charges to pull buldings.

LOL, no, they don't. They use cables to "pull" buildings, as they did with WTC6. Getting all your information from "truther" sites puts you at a considerable disadvantage.

> ... a series of smaller bangs..like what the firemen discribed.

No, I do not believe anyone described any such thing at WTC7. As I said, I believe you're confusing reports from WTC1 and 2 (which was just the firemen describing the sound of the floors collapsing sequentially, anyway). But it wouldn't matter if someone did say they heard "explosions": It's simply absurd to suggest that a controlled demolition of a building the size of WTC7 would only be heard by a few people near the building. Richard Gage is lying to you when he says WTC7 has "all the characteristics of a controlled demolition," and in the real world, that hypothesis simply doesn't stand up to scrutiny.

[canoeist52]

12. What piqued my interest was what was housed in Building 7.

Building 7 Tenants:

Salomon Smith Barney

Internal Revenue Service Regional Council

U.S. Secret Service

American Express Bank International

Standard Chartered Bank

Provident Financial Management

ITT Hartford Insurance Group

First State Management Group

Federal Home Loan Bank

NAIC Securities

Securities & Exchange Commission

Mayor Giuliani’s Office of Emergency Mgmt.

[Bolo Boffin]

14. All very good reasons NOT to blow up that building. n/t

[Nuclear Unicorn]

17. Apparently they were destroying all the evidence

They could have simply moved-out in cardboard boxes while they spent months setting thousands of pounds of explosives. Yes, the people who smuggled tons of high-tech explosives and were willing to murder thousands somehow couldn't manage to run down to Office Depot and buy a damned paper shredder.

If they were really feeling bomb-happy why not just use incendiaries? Near as I can tell straight explosives leave behind rubble to be sifted through. Now the CTers tell us all that rubble had to be surreptitously disposed of to cover the crime of the cover of the crime of the crime.

[Ace Acme]

38. Why do you need tons of explosives?

If NIST's collapse theory is correct, all you need is enough thermite to cut the girder seat at column 79.

Shredding papers was not a viable option. The office workers would have noticed that all the files were gone.

The rubble WAS disposed of. NIST claimed there were no samples of steel from WTC7.

[libodem]

22. I'd heard there was a bunch of

ENRON prosecution evidence in building 7,too.

[Remember Me]

30. and gold

Last edited Fri Dec 16, 2011, 09:12 PM - Edit history (1)

I read one eyewitness report a lot of years ago that gold bars were taken out of the underfloors of bldg. 7 and hauled away shortly after one or both the towers were hit. He specifically identified it as a theft.

And I ran across this lengthy interview yesterday, which mentions that the U.S. owed China a bunch of gold from back in the 1930s (I believe that was what the lengthy article said), and we were supposed to start shipping it back to China on September 12, 2001. They also mentioned (reminded me) that Bush's brother was in charge of security (and I also recall that there was something about the insurance that had transpired shortly before the event as well).

Anyway, this interview said that the gold was shipped to Paraguay. http://divinecosmos.com/start-here/davids-blog/995-lawsuit-end-tyranny

I'm not endorsing the article -- it comes from a source I am not thoroughly comfortable with, which doesn't in my mind prejudice absolutely everything on the site. So I simply offer this as a matter of interest, nothing else.

[gblady]

32. Last night, I listened to 2 UTube interviews....

of this person which were made this week....it was very intriguing.
He made a lot of sense out of so much of what has transpired...
plausable reasons for wars, assassinations, 911....all in one.
....pondering.....

[Ace Acme]

36. You forgot the CIA and the DoD on the 25th floor.

http://www.wtc7.net/articles/FEMA/WTC_ch5.htm

What actually piques my interest most is the tenants on floors 14--17: "vacant".

NIST claims that floor 13 fell down and took down four floors under it. But what if it was floor 17 that fell down, and took down the four floors under it? What would stop someone from planting thermite on 17 to cut the girder seat, and thermite on 16, 15, and 14 to weaken the girder seats?

[hack89]

31. I accept the eyewitness accounts of massive structural damage and multiple large fires

Deputy Chief Peter Hayden:

but also we were pretty sure that 7 World Trade Center would collapse. Early on, we saw a bulge in the southwest corner between floors 10 and 13, and we had put a transit on that and we were pretty sure she was going to collapse. You actually could see there was a visible bulge, it ran up about three floors. It came down about 5 o’clock in the afternoon, but by about 2 o’clock in the afternoon we realized this thing was going to collapse.

http://www.firehouse.com/terrorist/911/magazine/gz/hayd ...
Deputy Chief Nick Visconti:

I don’t know how long this was going on, but I remember standing there looking over at building 7 and realizing that a big chunk of the lower floors had been taken out on the Vesey Street side.

http://www.firehouse.com/terrorist/911/magazine/gz/visc ...

Battalion Chief John Norman:

From there, we looked out at 7 World Trade Center again. .... but at the edge of the south face you could see that it was very heavily damaged.
We were told to go to Greenwich and Vesey and see what’s going on. So we go there and on the north and east side of 7 it didn’t look like there was any damage at all, but then you looked on the south side of 7 there had to be a hole 20 stories tall in the building, with fire on several floors. Debris was falling down on the building and it didn’t look good.

http://www.firehouse.com/terrorist/911/magazine/gz/norm ...

Boyle: There was a huge gaping hole and it was scattered throughout there. It was a huge hole. I would say it was probably about a third of it, right in the middle of it. And so after Visconti came down and said nobody goes in 7, we said all right, we’ll head back to the command post. We lost touch with him. I never saw him again that day.

http://www.firehouse.com/terrorist/911/magazine/gz/boyl

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/NISTNCSTAR1-81.pdf
page 165

One Battalion Chief coming from the building indicated that they had searched floors 1 through 9 and found that the building was clear.390 In the process of the search, the Battalion Chief met the building’s Fire Safety Director and Deputy Fire Safety Director on the ninth floor. The Fire Safety Director reported
that the building’s floors had been cleared from the top down. By this time, the Chief Officer responsible for WTC 7 reassessed the building again and determined that fires were burning on the following floors:
6, 7, 8, 17, 21, and 30.391 No accurate time is available for these actions during the WTC 7 operations; however, the sequence of event indicates that it occurred during a time period from 12:30 p.m. to
approximately 2:00 p.m.
The Chief Officer then met with his command officer to discuss the building’s condition and FDNY’s capabilities for controlling the building fires. A Deputy Chief who had just returned from inside the
building reported that he had conducted an inspection up to the 7th or 8th floor.392 He indicated that the stairway was filling with smoke and that there was a lot of fire inside the building. The chiefs discussed the situation and the following conditions were identified:
• The building had sustained damage from debris falling into the building, and they were not sure about the structural stability of the building.
• The building had large fires burning on at least six floors. Any one of these six fires would have been considered a large incident during normal FDNY operations.
• There was no water immediately available for fighting the fires.
• They didn’t have equipment, hose, standpipe kits, tools, and enough handie talkies for conducting operations inside the building.
At approximately, 2:30 p.m., FDNY officers decided to completely abandon WTC 7, and the final order was given to evacuate the site around the building. 395, 396 The order terminated the ongoing rescue
operations at WTC 6 and on the rubble pile of WTC 1. Firefighters and other emergency responders were withdrawn from the WTC 7 area, and the building continued to burn. At approximately 5:20 p.m., some three hours after WTC 7 was abandoned the building experienced a catastrophic failure and collapsed.

[Ace Acme]

39. You are more accepting than is FEMA or NIST

Neither of them accept these stories of massive damage.

[hack89]

42. Care to substantiate that statement.

are you saying the FDNY was lying?

[Ace Acme]

44. I'm saying FEMA did not quote any of those statements, nor did NIST.

They ignored them.

[hack89]

46. But such damage fits into NIST's explanation

for how WTC 7 fell. No one has ever questioned or rebuked the FDNY accounts.

[Ace Acme]

48. Dr. Griffin has pointed out that the FDNY accounts are mutually exclusive and all over the map.

One problem with the accounts of the structural damage is that they vary greatly. According to Fellini’s testimony, there was a four-floor hole between the third and sixth floors. In the telling of Captain Chris Boyle, however, the hole was “20 stories tall” (2002). It would appear that Shyam Sunder, the lead investigator for NIST, settled on somewhat of a compromise between these two views, telling Popular Mechanics that, “On about a third of the face to the center and to the bottom--approximately 10 stories--about 25 percent of the depth of the building was scooped out” (Popular Mechanics, March 2005).

The different accounts of the problem on the building’s south side are not, moreover, limited to the issue of the size of the hole. According to Deputy Chief Peter Hayden, the problem was not a hole at all but a “bulge,” and it was “between floors 10 and 13" (Hayden, 2002).

The second problem with these accounts of the damage is if there was a hole that was 10 or 20 floors high, or even a hole (or a budge) that was 4 floors high, why was this fact not captured on film by any of the photographers or videographers in the area that day?

With regard to the claims about the fire, the accounts again vary greatly. Chief Daniel Nigro spoke of “very heavy fire on many floors” (NYT, Nigro, p. 10). According to Harry Meyers, an assistant chief, "When the building came down it was completely involved in fire, all forty-seven stories" (quoted in Smith, 2002, p. 160). That obvious exaggeration was also stated by a firefighter who said: “[Building 7] was fully engulfed. . . . [Y]ou could see the flames going straight through from one side of the building to the other” (NYT, Cassidy, p. 22).

http://911review.com/articles/griffin/nyc1.html


Massive damage does not fit NIST's explanation. NIST says that structural damage from debris impact played no part in collapse initiation.

They can't have massive damage on the south side. If they did, the building would lean to the south at the beginning of its collapse. It only leaned to south toward the end of the collapse.

[hack89]

49. Dr Griffin is a CT loon

sorry - not biting.

[Ace Acme]

50. Dr. Griffin's alleged lunacy can not make contradictory statements consistent.

Your belief that it can betrays your irrationality.

[cpwm17]

33. No, it couldn't have been the massive, uncontrolled fires that took WTC7 down

Which were started by the collapsing North Tower. It's only a coincidence that the fire department had predicted that WTC7 would collapse due to the damage from the North Tower and fires.

It had to have been taken down by those fire proof, magical, silent explosives install by the invisible demolition team.

[Ace Acme]

40. There were no massive fires.

Fires persisted on only 6 floors, says NIST. The photos show fires so wimpy that FDNY probably didn't consider them worth fighting.

What you're seeing there is smoke from WTC5 and WTC6 sucked up on the low-pressure side of WTC7 caused by a northwest wind.

Exactly the same phenomenon was exhibited by WTC1, which sucked up the dust the from WTC2 so it looks like it's belching dust from every floor. Which of course we know is not true.

You are being victimized by lying anonymous propaganda websites.

ht tp://cloudfotos.noticias24carabobo.com/11wtc6.jpg


http://drjudywood.com/articles/dirt/dirt5.html

[cpwm17]

41. Who are you going to believe?

some con men or your eyes – WTC 7 fire video:

[Ace Acme]

43. I am going to believe my informed eyes, and understand that what looks like smoke

... pouring out the south side windows of both WTC1 and WTC7 is actually smoke or dust sucked up from the south.

I am also going to believe that a report that has actually exaggerated the duration of the fires is not going to underestimate their severity when it has no reason to do so.

[cpwm17]

45. Apparently you didn't watch the video

because it would be impossible for you to believe that smoke was coming from anywhere but WTC 7 if you saw the video of the large fire in WTC 7.

You are believing the authority of some scam artists over the evidence you can easily examine yourself.

[Ace Acme]

47. I watched the video years ago.

Wimpy fires, smoke sucked up from across the street. That fire on the SW corner shows flames in exactly ONE south side window, and that one did not persist. That's it.

Why do you think the government would lie and claim that the fires were less severe than they were?

[cpwm17]

51. Obviously you didn't watch this video

because everything you wrote is not correct.

I think you are accepting the authority of some con artists so you refuse to analyze the evidence for yourself. You are denying obvious reality.

[Ace Acme]

52. I watched the video years ago, and I watched it now, and everything I said was correct.

I bet you don't know which shots show the n. side, which show the e. side and which show the s. side and the w. side.

Perhaps you should do some research before deciding what you believe.

Fires persisted on only 6 floors, says NIST. The photos show fires so wimpy that FDNY probably didn't consider them worth fighting.

What you're seeing there is smoke from WTC5 and WTC6 sucked up on the low-pressure side of WTC7 caused by a northwest wind.

Exactly the same phenomenon was exhibited by WTC1, which sucked up the dust the from WTC2 so it looks like it's belching dust from every floor. Which of course we know is not true.

You are being victimized by lying anonymous propaganda websites.

ht tp://cloudfotos.noticias24carabobo.com/11wtc6.jpg


http://drjudywood.com/articles/dirt/dirt5.html