Thread: Architects & Engineers Discuss WTC No. 7

Out of interest... why were explosives supposedly placed in the towers anyway? Controlled demolitions are generally rather obvious and noisy things which would obviously jeopardise the entire operation. You may have missed it but a couple of Boeings smashed into the skyscrapers and this is generally enough to cause mass loss of life and huge structural damage.

Originally Posted by Xei

Out of interest... why were explosives supposedly placed in the towers anyway?

Simplest answer:
Because the Project for the New American Century didn't call for the deaths of a couple-hundred people. What it called for was:

Originally Posted by Wikipedia

"Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event––like a new Pearl Harbor" (51)

*emphasis mine*

Unfortunately, downing a couple of passenger planes wouldn't have quite filled that requirement, would it?

Does it not give you just the slightest bit of pause that the type of event that was already pegged as a necessity for the sort of transformation that we are seeing in the middle east was the exact level of event that came to pass (both with a death toll settled at around 3,000)? I mean, just a little pause?

In a court of law, this would be called 'motive.'

And so what, if people heard some banging and clunking going around in the service hallways of the building? Who in their right mind would come to the conclusion that someone was planting bombs in the building...even if they did happen to stumble upon a bunch of workers doing 'something or other'?

Originally Posted by Oneironaut Zero

Pro-Explosives Point: George Bush's brother was on the board of directors of the company in charge of security for the WTC, up until 2001. IF there were explosives planted in the buildings, security would conceivably have all access to the building, without sending up any red flags.

It's conceivable, but I'm not sure how he could do it. Claim they were doing restoration outside office hours?

Originally Posted by Oneironaut Zero

Pro-Explosives Point: You talk about how it takes weeks to set up a demolition project. You are talking about the use of industrial-grade explosives, I assume. IF these buildings were to have been taken down as a part of a military false flag operation, there are many other types of explosives that could have been used, most probably of military-grade; some of which can be sprayed on as a foam and set off by radio, eliminating the need for all of the conspicuous wiring used in traditional, industrial demolitions. I am not saying that this is what happened, but that it is plausible

It's not just the placement that takes time. It also takes time to research and calculate where to place the explosives to make the building collapse rather than fall over. Since the hypothesis is that this was a terrorist attack, I suppose it's possible they were placed ad hoc and they got lucky, but I'd say your explanation is possible rather than plausible.

Originally Posted by mcwillis

For anyone who wants to take the time to read the following scientific paper that appeared in 'The Open Chemical Physics Journal' entitled, 'Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe' you can read it at the following link:


Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe

From what I can gather (from a quick google search) The Open Chemical Physics Journal isn't very well respected. This makes me wonder why the article was published there, rather than in a more reputable journal. Surely scientific journals wouldn't shy away from controversial subjects if the science presented in an article is sound.

Also this blogpost claims to cite a debunk of the article. While the source isn't very good, it does state that one authors of the article admitted that the flakes weren't enough by themselves to cause the collapse, and were probably used as fuses for other bombs. While I haven't checked the validity of that, it's worth a read.
Screw Loose Change: A Response to Harrit, Jones, et.al. From Dr Greening

Edit:

Originally Posted by Oneironaut Zero

Simplest answer:
Because the Project for the New American Century didn't call for the deaths of a couple-hundred people. What it called for was:


*emphasis mine*

Unfortunately, downing a couple of passenger planes wouldn't have quite filled that requirement, would it?

I think you missed Xei's point. He seems to be saying something like this "There wouldn't have to be explosives to bring down the twin towers, the planes themselves were sufficient for that purpose. As this would have killed the required number of people, why would they need to place explosives in the WTC 7 building, or at all?"

Originally Posted by khh

It's not just the placement that takes time. It also takes time to research and calculate where to place the explosives to make the building collapse rather than fall over. Since the hypothesis is that this was a terrorist attack, I suppose it's possible they were placed ad hoc and they got lucky, but I'd say your explanation is possible rather than plausible.

Do you think 3 years would be long enough? According to the PNAC (referenced above), that's how long the 'think tank' discussion on how to advance change in the Middle East went on before the attacks. It would definitely be a lot more plausible within that amount of time, than if it was just some hackneyed scheme that came up at the last minute.

Originally Posted by khh

It's conceivable, but I'm not sure how he could do it. Claim they were doing restoration outside office hours?

Not exactly sure. I know that the part of the Pentagon that was hit (after the plane did an acrobatic loop around, flying out of its way to seemingly intentionally hit that side) was being 'renovated' at the time, and had been cleared of a significant portion of the government employees that would have normally been on that side. I don't think I've heard any word on renovations to the twin towers around that time, though, but it might be worth looking into.

Originally Posted by Oneironaut Zero

called for

-_-

No O, that's your interpretation given that you already believe in a conspiracy. It isn't evidence. The document doesn't "call for it", it's widely available for goodness sakes; it's just an observation. A correct observation; the US government obviously did capitalise on the attacks in the way it suggests. And no it doesn't give me "cause to pause", that would be to suggest that A being a motive for B is evidence that A was the motive for B, which is a logical fallacy.

Unfortunately, downing a couple of passenger planes wouldn't have quite filled that requirement, would it?

-_-

Why do you keep spinning stuff like this? They weren't going to 'down them', they were going to fly them into the Twin Towers, something that would almost certainly destroy them, and in any case give rise to massive anger. Why are you acting like flying two huge passenger planes into one of America's most famous landmarks and killing thousands of people is a long way from 'filling the requirement' of gaining public support for a war??

And so what, if people heard some banging and clunking going around in the service hallways of the building? Who in their right mind would come to the conclusion that someone was planting bombs in the building...even if they did happen to stumble upon a bunch of workers doing 'something or other'?

-_-

I don't know why you think I was referring to rigging the building with explosives. That doesn't tend to be the most ostensible part of a controlled demolition. The bit where you explode several floor's worth of dynamite is. Can you provide a single example of a controlled demolition which wasn't blatantly obvious?

Originally Posted by Xei

-_-

No O, that's your interpretation given that you already believe in a conspiracy. It isn't evidence. The document doesn't "call for it", it's a widely available document for goodness sakes, it's just an observation. A correct observation; the US government obviously did capitalise on the attacks in the way it suggests. And no it doesn't give me "cause to pause", you're suggesting that A being a motive for B is evidence that A was the motive for B, which is totally illogical.

Completely my fault. I admittedly worded that badly. I'm pretty sure you could understand that in place of 'called for', I meant that they expressed that it would be a likely prerequisite for that sort of transformation to occur. I didn't quite mean the expression in the way that you apparently think I did.

With that being the case, though, what do you think of the coincidence of what was stated, and what happened?

Originally Posted by Xei

Why do you keep spinning stuff like this? They weren't going to 'down them', they were going to fly them into the Twin Towers, something that would almost certainly destroy them, and in any case give rise to massive anger. Why are you acting like flying two huge passenger planes into one of America's most famous landmarks and killing thousands of people is a long way from 'filling the requirement' of gaining public support for a war??

Oy. Ok (you seem to find the most trivial things to latch onto sometimes), I will try to be more careful with my words. The point stands, though: there was no precedent for them to believe that flying the planes into the towers would have completely collapsed the towers. So, no. They had no reason to believe that 'thousands' of people would die, even if they did smash the planes directly into the towers. There was absolutely no precedent for that sort of thing, and the point I was making still stands.

So will you please address the coincidence that I was trying to highlight (albeit without perfect wordage, I admit), and not cherry-pick which points to reply to?

Originally Posted by Xei

I don't know why you think I was referring to rigging the building with explosives. That doesn't tend to be the most ostensible part of a controlled demolition. The bit where you explode several floor's worth of dynamite is.

You mean you weren't? I honestly couldn't tell. What were you talking about?

[Edit: Oh, wait...I get it. You're talking about the actual bombs going of? THAT being the loud thing you meant? Well, there are countless eyewitnesses who have testified about multiple 'bombs' / explosions going off before the towers went down. I mean, those are all over. I will find some, if you like, but I'd be really surprised if you haven't heard those testimonies yet. ]

Originally Posted by Xei

Can you provide a single example of a controlled demolition which wasn't blatantly obvious?

I can only try. In the meantime, could you provide a single example of an uncontrolled collapse, where a single column failing caused a complete and symmetrical collapse of an entire, multi-level building (which is what is alleged to have happened to WTC7), outside of the WTC attack?

Here you go, Xei. This is a compilation, and I haven't watched the whole thing yet, but I've seen many of these vids before, so I think it will suffice.



Watching it now, too. I just wanted to go ahead and post it.

Originally Posted by Oneironaut Zero

I can only try. In the meantime, could you provide a single example of an uncontrolled collapse, where a single column failing caused a complete and symmetrical collapse of an entire, multi-level building (which is what is alleged to have happened to WTC7), outside of the WTC attack?

He probably can't, but only because there's no real precedent for that sort of thing. I mean, WTC7 burned uncontrollably for 7 hours and subsequently collapsed. When has that ever happened? The roof structures collapsed first, along the interior supports. Only when the interior was gone did the outside finally collapse. It certainly wasn't symmetrical.

Originally Posted by Oneironaut Zero

With that being the case, though, what do you think of the coincidence of what was stated, and what happened?

It's not at all a coincidence. These are apparently people who write analyses related to the military. A comment along the lines of "we're not going to go to war with them - unless they attack us, of course" is a totally, totally obvious and unsurprising thing to see.

The point stands, though: there was no precedent for them to believe that flying the planes into the towers would have completely collapsed the towers. So, no. They had no reason to believe that 'thousands' of people would die, even if they did smash the planes directly into the towers. There was absolutely no precedent for that sort of things.

It's pretty obvious that there is going to be mass death and at the very least a huge amount of structural damage. If instead of falling the towers just stood and burned, do you really think America would have ignored such a huge, foreign (apparently) attack? Let the Afgahns go about their business? Come on, it makes no difference.

So will you please address the coincidence that I was trying to highlight (albeit without perfect wordage, I admit), and not cherry-pick which points to reply to?

Addressing every point isn't cherry picking.

You mean you weren't? I honestly couldn't tell. What were you talking about?

It's right there in my post...

In the meantime, could you provide a single example of an uncontrolled collapse, where a single column failing caused a complete and symmetrical collapse of an entire, multi-level building (which is what is alleged to have happened to WTC7), outside of the WTC attack?

Er... are you serious? How many Boeings had been flown into skyscrapers before? This is not remotely logical thinking, O.

Edit: oh wait, I think you're talking about the other building. That doesn't seem to have any relevance to the question I was asking, so I'll leave it. I don't know anything about the history of bombings anyway, although it seems highly unlikely that such a situation has occurred twice anyway, so I don't see any logic to this argument. Sometimes stuff happens for the first time, otherwise stuff wouldn't happen. :/

Originally Posted by Oneironaut Zero

Oy. Ok (you seem to find the most trivial things to latch onto sometimes), I will try to be more careful with my words. The point stands, though: there was no precedent for them to believe that flying the planes into the towers would have completely collapsed the towers. So, no. They had no reason to believe that 'thousands' of people would die, even if they did smash the planes directly into the towers. There was absolutely no precedent for that sort of thing, and the point I was making still stands.

It's no great leap of faith that crashing planes into a skyscraper will kill a lot of people. Firstly it will certainly cause massive fires, which means that people on floors above the impact will have a very difficult time getting out. Jet fuel burns very hot and isn't easily quenched by water. A Boeing 767 is a massive plane, and it's pretty self evident that it will cause structural damage. This, together with the fires, makes it plausible that it could bring down a skyscraper.

edit: Also, keep in mind the plane that crashed into the pentagon, and the plane that the passengers brought down. These four high-jackings and subsequent use as weapons would constitute a large scale attack on the USA without the twin towers collapsing.

Originally Posted by BLUELINE

He probably can't, but only because there's no real precedent for that sort of thing. I mean, WTC7 burned uncontrollably for 7 hours and subsequently collapsed. When has that ever happened? The roof structures collapsed first, along the interior supports. Only when the interior was gone did the outside finally collapse. It certainly wasn't symmetrical.

When has what ever happened? A steel structure burning for multiple hours? A few.
Other Fires in Steel-Structure Buildings

Originally Posted by Xei

It's not at all a coincidence. These are apparently people who write analyses related to the military. A comment along the lines of "we're not going to go to war with them - unless they attack us, of course" is a totally, totally obvious and unsurprising thing to see.

Wow. That was soooooo not the extent of the context in which that comment was made.

Originally Posted by Xei

It's pretty obvious that there is going to be mass death and at the very least a huge amount of structural damage. If instead of falling the towers just stood and burned, do you really think America would have ignored such a huge, foreign (apparently) attack? Let the Afgahns go about their business? Come on, it makes no difference.

I honestly don’t know what would have happened, just like I don’t know what would have happened if the attack on Pearl Harbor would have led to the war it did, if not for the mind-numbing death toll that it had. It’s possible that we would have still gone to war in either case, but I’m not going to assume so.

Originally Posted by Xei

Addressing every point isn't cherry picking.

Cherry picking isn’t addressing every point. You did the same thing in our first (was it our first?) exchange in this thread, before you said that you didn’t care enough to get involved. I just didn’t mention it.

Originally Posted by Xei

It's right there in my post...

I got it and responded. Please watch and comment on the video.

Originally Posted by Xei

Er... are you serious? How many Boeings had been flown into skyscrapers before? This is not remotely logical thinking, O.

You mean like the one that flew into WTC7?

…Oh wait.

Originally Posted by khh

It's no great leap of faith that crashing planes into a skyscraper will kill a lot of people. Firstly it will certainly cause massive fires, which means that people on floors above the impact will have a very difficult time getting out. Jet fuel burns very hot and isn't easily quenched by water. A Boeing 767 is a massive plane, and it's pretty self evident that it will cause structural damage. This, together with the fires, makes it plausible that it could bring down a skyscraper.

The designers of the WTC buildings might disagree.

Originally Posted by article

Contrary to widely promoted misconceptions, the Boeing 767-200s used on 9/11/01 were only slightly larger than 707s and DC 8s, the types of jetliners whose impacts the World Trade Center's designers anticipated.

9-11 Research: Towers' Design Parameters

Originally Posted by khh

edit: Also, keep in mind that the plane that crashed into the pentagon, and the plane that the passengers brought down. These four high-jackings and subsequent use as weapons would constitute a large scale attack on the USA without the twin towers collapsing.

I agree. It would be a 'large scale attack', but whether or not you or I think it would be 'large scale enough' is kinda inconsequential, I think. Not that you don't have a point, but how significant is the point. Ya know?

Wow. That was soooooo not the extent of the context in which that comment was made.

Dude, you didn't provide any context. I can only respond to the evidence you actually give.

I honestly don’t know what would have happened, just like I don’t know what would have happened if the attack on Pearl Harbor would have led to the war it did, if not for the mind-numbing death toll that it had. It’s possible that we would have still gone to war in either case, but I’m not going to assume so.

Well, I am, because it's painfully obvious.

Cherry picking isn’t addressing every point. You did the same thing in our first (was it our first?) exchange in this thread, before you said that you didn’t care enough to get involved. I just didn’t mention it.

Except the single point you repeatedly said I ignored I didn't. It's what the 'A is a motive for B' thing was about. When you didn't understand that, I elaborated further in my next post. Please stop this meta rubbish.

I got it and responded. Please watch and comment on the video.

Okay.

You mean like the one that flew into WTC7?

…Oh wait.

Yeah, I'm still a bit puzzled why you started talking about something with no apparent relevance to my question, too.

Originally Posted by Oneironaut Zero

When has what ever happened? A steel structure burning for multiple hours? A few.
Other Fires in Steel-Structure Buildings

Note that I said "uncontrollably." I haven't checked the links in that article, but did any of those fires go uncontrolled?

Plus, did those buildings have pieces of a large building collapsing in close proximity crash into them?

Originally Posted by Oneironaut Zero

Haven't watched all of it, I just got to the point where there were multiple people relaying how they heard explosions going 'boom boom boom boom boom boom' as it fell... isn't this exactly in accordance with what engineers say, which is that there was a cascade of floors? It only seems suspicious because some of them use the word 'explosion' to describe the sound, which is of course what it sounds like.

In the same way it's not clear what the firemen are talking about. Has anybody actually interviewed them and asked what they saw, and how it was distinguished from the collapse of the floor above them?

In any case, there should be plenty of actual footage. A controlled demolition is very obvious from the outside, there is a very large explosion noise and material is expelled from the floors in question. If I see some physical evidence I'll be perfectly happy.

Originally Posted by BLUELINE976

Note that I said "uncontrollably." I haven't checked the links in that article, but did any of those fires go uncontrolled?

Plus, did those buildings have pieces of a large building collapsing in close proximity crash into them?

I only checked the first two, but those were both in buildings without working sprinklers.

Originally Posted by khh

I only checked the first two, but those were both in buildings without working sprinklers.

WTC7 didn't have working sprinklers either, iirc. But it didn't have firefighters trying to put out the fire either, iirc.

Originally Posted by Xei

Dude, you didn't provide any context. I can only respond to the evidence you actually give.

Then I completely apologize for giving you too much credit. I thought that posting a link to the full article, as well as singling out the small portion that was immediately relevant to what I was saying, might (just might) prompt you to maybe read more of the article to get a greater understanding of how the quote was being used. Sorry.

Originally Posted by Xei

Well, I am, because it's painfully obvious.

Ok. *shrug*

Originally Posted by Xei

Except the single point you repeatedly said I ignored I didn't. It's what the 'A is a motive for B' thing was about. When you didn't understand that, I elaborated further in my next post. Please stop this meta rubbish.

Um. I was talking about this:

Originally Posted by Oneironaut

That cartoon alleges that they would all have to have known the level to which the conspiracy existed, if at all.

It also alleges that all demolition experts involved in said allegation would have reservations about keeping it a secret (and must be considered alongside the fact that many heinous conspiracies - which completely undermine what you and I might consider 'common morality' - have been carried out over the centuries. How long was the Tuskegee experiment kept secret? Operation Gladio? What? We are tryin to paint the picture that multi-faceted conspiracies simply 'don't happen' in reality? Is that what you're suggesting? Oh, but wait, this was Nine Eleven! It was the most [insert desired hyperbole here] conspiracy in history and could not (ignoring lack of reference) be kept secret! Contract killers are incapable of keeping such secrets, and first responders are too sharp to be deceived by such a rouse, while in the midst of a senory-overloading situation!

Forgive me if I don't take "well, if it would have been a conspiracy, somebody would have told by now" as a foolproof debunking of the theory. *shrug*

All that being said, though, it is a cute cartoon.

Originally Posted by Xei

I'm not sure how something like Tuskegee, which was first learned about about precisely because it was exposed by a whistleblower, is supposed to counter the comic.

In which you hurdled over most of the point of my post, and focused on one thing that you tried to paint as irrelevant, which I subsequently explained as being relevant.

And this:

Originally Posted by Oneironaut

And was it any more wrong than your assertion that it is wrong? You seem to know exactly what resources and channels the T.Experiment had to go through, and exactly what channels and resources a 9/11 conspiracy would have to go through. Enough to perfectly pit them together and tell that the former would be easier to keep secret than the latter. You must have really done some extensive research on both, to make that assertion.

Which you completely ignored, before saying that you didn’t care about the topic and that you would leave the discussion (before, then, coming back later).

Oh, and this was my favorite:

Originally Posted by Xei

Yeah, I'm still a bit puzzled why you started talking about something with no apparent relevance to my question, too.

Completely dancing around the illogical post that you made beforehand.

And to respond to your front (I mean your 'confusion'), the relevance was that the likelihood of my not being able to find a situation where controlled demolition wasn’t completely obvious was no more significant than the likelihood of your not being able to find a situation where another building had collapsed due to the type of damage that WTC7 had sustained. Even when it came to light that I had misunderstood what you originally said, I did go back and post a video responding to your point (by saying that it WAS obvious, and many people DID notice the explosions). You, on the other hand, completely skated passed the lack of logic of your last post (a Boeing never crashed into WTC7, so why were you even asking about that), and have yet to comment on the video, which was a direct answer to your earlier question.

> Arguing about arguing

Clearly you didn't want to drop the meta rubbish. But I've been on ED long enough to know that it's a black hole from which nobody ever emerges. I'll just stick to the actual arguments themselves.

Originally Posted by Xei

Haven't watched all of it, I just got to the point where there were multiple people relaying how they heard explosions going 'boom boom boom boom boom boom' as it fell... isn't this exactly in accordance with what engineers say, which is that there was a cascade of floors? It only seems suspicious because some of them use the word 'explosion' to describe the sound, which is of course what it sounds like.

In the same way it's not clear what the firemen are talking about. Has anybody actually interviewed them and asked what they saw, and how it was distinguished from the collapse of the floor above them?

In any case, there should be plenty of actual footage. A controlled demolition is very obvious from the outside, there is a very large explosion noise and material is expelled from the floors in question. If I see some physical evidence I'll be perfectly happy.

Please watch the whole thing. People talk about secondary explosions far-removed from both the planes hitting and the buildings collapsing. Even the reporters are talking about the explosions, and the thoughts of the first responders that there are probably 'secondary devices.' It's really not as vague as your portraying it. I'm not saying they are right in that there were actual bombs, but their thoughts on the matter really can't be misinterpreted.

Originally Posted by BLUELINE976

WTC7 didn't have working sprinklers either, iirc. But it didn't have firefighters trying to put out the fire either, iirc.

Yeah, I'm not too sure about how effective any firefighters (if any) might have been on those infernos. It really doesn't go into much detail on which (if any) were just allowed to burn themselves out. But I will go ahead and assume that there were firefighters present in a majority of those blazes. But even that, considering the blazes shown in those pictures, I can't say would prove to be a catalyst that would cause those buildings to burn for so long and not fall, when WTC burned for such a shorter time. I also find it hard to believe that - with controlled demo taking as much planning as it usually does - a single faulty column (outer damage be damned, this is what the report says happened) caused such a uniformed, near-free-fall collapse of WTC7. Not saying it didn't happen. Not saying it couldn't happen. I'm simply skeptical.

Originally Posted by Xei

> Arguing about arguing

Clearly you didn't want to drop the meta rubbish. But I've been on ED long enough to know that it's a black hole from which nobody ever emerges. I'll just stick to the actual arguments themselves.

Lol. Wow. Ok, man.

Originally Posted by Oneironaut Zero

Yeah, I'm not too sure about how effective any firefighters (if any) might have been on those infernos. It really doesn't go into much detail on which (if any) were just allowed to burn themselves out. But I will go ahead and assume that there were firefighters present in a majority of those blazes. But even that, considering the blazes shown in those pictures, I can't say would prove to be a catalyst that would cause those buildings to burn for so long and not fall, when WTC burned for such a shorter time. I also find it hard to believe that - with controlled demo taking as much planning as it usually does - a single faulty column (outer damage be damned, this is what the report says happened) caused such a uniformed, near-free-fall collapse of WTC7. Not saying it didn't happen. Not saying it couldn't happen. I'm simply skeptical.

Well, I'll take all of that as it is, but the collapse was, again, not uniform, nor was it a free-fall.

Originally Posted by BLUELINE976

Well, I'll take all of that as it is, but the collapse was, again, not uniform, nor was it a free-fall.

I was careful enough (this time) to say 'near free-fall'.

I'm going to tread lightly, here, because you've made some really educated posts here on DV (especially when it comes to physical sciences, I believe(?) - and it's definitely not my field of expertise). I'm a 'call it as I see it' kind of guy, for the most part, but I do my best to understand certain scientific principles, when I can. So, I would like you opinion on this video:


(And though it may not be actually, technically, physically 'uniform, but damnit, it's close, isn't it?? Lol.)

But really, what would your rebuttal to this video be? Do you feel the narrator is incorrect about something? Or Steven Jones, who is asking the questions on the panel? If they are correct, is the rate of collapse here not close enough to actual free-fall (so close, in fact, that even NIST seems to have retracted their initial statement and included a significant (IMO) period of free-fall), to say that it fell 'near free-fall'?

If it is near free-fall (or, even more, if it was free-fall), would you be at all intrigued, or would it become so insignificant that you would be surprised you even doubted it to begin with?



To be honest, I like where we are in the discussion. Some might disagree, but I think I've (well, 'we've', counting OP and mcwillis. Hehe) done pretty well in offering a least a shred of gray to some of the 'official' points. There has been plenty in this thread that has come down to simply "which one of our assumptions sounds the 'best'". There is very little actual proof to many of the official claims. A lot of simply falls on 'well, that's what most likely happened.' Remember, this is all about those people who simply think an investigation should be done - not people who are just looking to shout "HEY, CONSPIRACY!" In my opinion, there are really a lot of unanswered questions, and things that someone has to really put forth faith in 'what they think would happen', in the situation.

Originally Posted by Xei

A controlled demolition is very obvious from the outside, there is a very large explosion noise and material is expelled from the floors in question. If I see some physical evidence I'll be perfectly happy.

There is plenty of video of it, and yes, it looks exactly like what you see in all controlled demolitions (the large puffs of smoke jetting out of the windows, in sequence, just before the structures come down). The thing is (again, this isn't my first rodeo): that when people see them, they immediately 'know' that they are the unseen, pancaking floors falling down upon each other, within the buildings, expelling puffs of debris out of the windows as each floor caves in (which is now the explanation that is stuck in your head, even before having seen the video). There's really no need in showing it. I know where it leads. Lol.

But really, what would your rebuttal to this video be? Do you feel the narrator is incorrect about something? Or Steven Jones, who is asking the questions on the panel? If they are correct, is the rate of collapse here not close enough to actual free-fall (so close, in fact, that even NIST seems to have retracted their initial statement and included a significant (IMO) period of free-fall), to say that it fell 'near free-fall'?

The narrator could've left out his dinky remarks, for one. Merely laying out his interpretation and leaving it at that would've sufficed. As for the rest of the video, I don't know nearly enough about that section of the report or the narrator's own calculations to comment in detail. If NIST thinks it was near free-fall after their revision (a necessary revision if they miscalculated something. That's how research works), then sure, it's near free-fall.

BUT, I can still say the collapse was not uniform given HOW it collapsed. From the (basic) knowledge I have of how demolitions go, they usually gut the building, blow all the main supports, and watch it fall. That's not how WTC7 went down (meaning, the main supports weren't all destroyed at once). This also leads me to shy away from thinking it was demolished. We can play around a bit with Occam's Razor to reach that conclusion as well.

If it is near free-fall (or, even more, if it was free-fall), would you be at all intrigued, or would it become so insignificant that you would be surprised you even doubted it to begin with?

I'll cut out the free-fall part. Evidently my interpretation of what free-fall should be is different from NIST's. No sense in mixing apple and oranges. I wouldn't necessarily be intrigued. If it fell at free-fall, then it fell at free-fall. That wouldn't necessarily lead me to think "OMG, DEMOLITION." Nor should it for anybody.

Also, you said: "(And though it may not be actually, technically, physically 'uniform, but damnit, it's close, isn't it?? Lol.)"

If it isn't physically uniform, then it isn't uniform at all, is it? When I think of a uniform collapse, I imagine a building falling all at once, each part together, inside and out. Building 7 was mostly hollow when it collapsed, so I don't really classify that as uniform.

Originally Posted by BLUELINE976

I'll cut out the free-fall part. Evidently my interpretation of what free-fall should be is different from NIST's. No sense in mixing apple and oranges.

The narrator could've left out his dinky remarks, for one. Merely laying out his interpretation and leaving it at that would've sufficed. As for the rest of the video, I don't know nearly enough about that section of the report or the narrator's own calculations to comment.

BUT, I can still say the collapse was not uniform given HOW it collapsed. From the (basic) knowledge I have of how demolitions go, they usually gut the building, blow all the main supports, and watch it fall. That's not how WTC7 went down (meaning, the main supports weren't all destroyed at once). This also leads me to shy away from thinking it was demolished. We can play around a bit with Occam's Razor to reach that conclusion as well.

Also, you said: "(And though it may not be actually, technically, physically 'uniform, but damnit, it's close, isn't it?? Lol.)"

If it isn't physically uniform, then it isn't uniform at all, is it? When I think of a uniform collapse, I imagine a building falling all at once, each part together, inside and out. Building 7 was mostly hollow when it collapsed, so I don't really classify that as uniform.

Fair enough (and I agree about the narrator's dinky remarks). And I guess I should clear up what I mean by 'uniform' ('physically' was redundant. Sorry.). I really am just talking about the flat, straight-across manor in which the building fell, even though it was really only damaged on one side. I mean, I understand that a column gave, but for the entire building to come straight down, with no visible resistance from any side? It makes me wonder why we even have demolition crews at all, if buildings are that easy to take down? Shit; plant a grenade next one critical column, and watch the whole building slip down like a silk dress! (I kid.) It's just amazing. I mean, even if that's what actually happened (the one column taking the whole building down like that), it's just fucking beyond my comprehension.

Originally Posted by Oneironaut Zero

(And though it may not be actually, technically, physically 'uniform, but damnit, it's close, isn't it?? Lol.)

That video reminds me of what oral exams taught me: It's all right to take a moment to think about the answer if you're unsure; blundering right into leaves you looking like a fool.
But I think we can all agree that one part of the building fell at near free-fall for a time.

I would have liked it if he'd super-imposed the overlay of the expected progression for free fall on other parts of the building as well, though, so we could more easily see how the different parts of the building were moving in relation to one-another.
I would also have liked to see him keep a reference line in the video when he made the measurements, to rule out the possibility of camera movement.

Originally Posted by BLUELINE976

BUT, I can still say the collapse was not uniform given HOW it collapsed. From the (basic) knowledge I have of how demolitions go, they usually gut the building, blow all the main supports, and watch it fall. That's not how WTC7 went down (meaning, the main supports weren't all destroyed at once). This also leads me to shy away from thinking it was demolished. We can play around a bit with Occam's Razor to reach that conclusion as well.

I'm curious, how do you know that all the main supports weren't destroyed at once? Do you know what findings that lead NIST to conclude that? (those are not rhetorical questions, I'm actually wondering)