FAQ   Search   Memberlist   Usergroups   Register   Profile   Log in to check your private messages   Log in 
WTC Building 7 - Overview
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    The Next Level Forum Index -> 9/11 HardCorps Specifics Investigation
  ::  Previous topic :: Next topic  
Author Message
stallion4



Joined: 26 May 2006
Posts: 692

PostPosted: Wed Sep 06, 2006 9:12 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Building 7 computer simulation: Build & "Collapse"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M-yuQeeYkq8

Video clip of 7WTC falling down:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qYwuFDgA0Jc&mode=related&search=

All structural members failed simultaneously -- impossible without the use of explosives -period.

Related:

Towers simulation "Collapse"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rKxoC4_T-GA

Tower Simulation Build
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=otoh2pJpgY8


From the person who created these remarkable simulations:
    Just a few comments on the models. I created them using ProE and have been working on them for about nine months now. I used a modeling program to produce the animation. They are to scale down to a mm based on drawings/literature from NIST and FEMA. There were many iterations. The original only had the upper floors. I was going to try and perform a Finite Element Analysis on fires bringing them down but found out quickly how big the model would become and that it would not demonstrate the collapse. I took the majority of my data from the NIST and FEMA reports but I also research old photographs of WTC 1, 2, and 7. NIST and FEMA were very careful to only show 2D drawings and illustrations because showing a realistic 3D model would make it even more difficult to explain fires causing the collapses (which after $20 million, is yet to be simulated). The most remarkable thing I noticed in 3D modeling is how much redundancy was put into the design of the towers (core columns, perimeter columns, and the trusses). My simulation was going to include the planes showing the damage, but it became clear that I would be using the planes as a diversion, like in the actual crash. I can show the openings were consistent with 767's though. I probably removed more of the columns from WTC #1 than I should, but the loads would have simply redistribued themselves and since the towers were built with so many factors of safety (5 is what I found in literature), I am confident office fires did not weaken the steel causing a sudden global collapse. I was also amazed on my final fly-by scene of WTC 1 (after the collapse of WTC 2) and on how little damage it appeared to sustain in the perimeter columns (the opening wasn't changed and I didn't include smoke which might have caused an optical illusion). My model only shows the effects of removing the core columns which is consistent with the videos of the collapses. If I had more time and computer power, I would like to further investigate the explosive aspects of the perimeter columns which would have been consistent with explosives in the trusses.

    I also modeled WTC7 (in a different animation) and was also amazed how easy it would have been to remove the 18 core columns (in red) which was probably the cause of the collapse. NIST would have been better off saying the firefighters had the capability to set charges in three hours (to support Silverstein's confession) rather than produce a report explaining fires taking out base girders which was the most robust part of the building. I also created scale models of the pentagon crash but the most I can prove is the downing of lightpoles is consistent with a 757 wingspan, but is also consistent with a Global Hawk wingspan.

    As for me, I have a BS and an MS in Mechanical Engineering. I have a Professional Engineer's license and have worked in construction. I created these simulations to push for a REAL independent investigation of 9-11. The next step is naturally building a scale model and either support or refute the simulation. But I don't have that type of budget.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Rumpl4skn



Joined: 11 Feb 2006
Posts: 2950
Location: 36� 3'N x 86�40'W

PostPosted: Thu Sep 07, 2006 1:00 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I still say there are photos of this building being withheld that would settle this issue one way or the other. I have seen video footage from helicopters between the collapses of the towers and building 7,where the footage is circling around, and as soon as WTC 7 is about to come into view, the footage stops, right on cue. Any chance the camera batteries ran out right then?

Not a coincidence - we're being denied access to these images, for whatever reason. Someone in "authority" has been studying them for years now, I almost guarantee it.

_________________
"No matter what happens, ever... there's ALWAYS at least one reason. And the top reason is ALWAYS money."
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address Yahoo Messenger
atm



Joined: 16 Apr 2006
Posts: 3864

PostPosted: Thu Sep 07, 2006 7:50 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

hawkwind

the parts don't match.

atm
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Rumpl4skn



Joined: 11 Feb 2006
Posts: 2950
Location: 36� 3'N x 86�40'W

PostPosted: Thu Sep 07, 2006 10:49 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

From the debunking911 page:

    A statement from Steve Spak:

    This photo was taken a couple of hours before number 7 WTC collapsed. Two water mains that supplied lower Manhattan were damaged leaving little or no water pressure in the area. Hours before the collapse of 7 WTC, Fire Chiefs at the scene advised all units to stay away from 7 WTC because of the collapse dangers. They had no water to fight the blaze and the building was damaged from the collapse of the North Tower. You can see a big hole on the lower floors in this photo. I believe that the Chiefs made the right decision in letting 7 WTC burn.
So, let me get this straight. Larry Silverstein's "pull it" comment had to do with "pulling the firemen from the building", not intentionally demolishing it. (As many, such as Popular Mechanics, now scramble to posthumously scrub the phrase "pull it" from the vocabulary of the CD industry.)

Yes, this is about the 5th source I've read where it's reported that "there was no water" to fight this fire, supposedly from damage done nearby when towers 1 & 2 collapsed. Yet... from early that morning until "a few hours before" building 7 collapsed, there were firemen in the building that were of concern to Mr. Silverstein, fighting what are being portrayed as raging fires, with no water.

Methinks perhaps someone attempteth to have their cake whilst eating the bugger. 4sooth.

_________________
"No matter what happens, ever... there's ALWAYS at least one reason. And the top reason is ALWAYS money."
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address Yahoo Messenger
Rumpl4skn



Joined: 11 Feb 2006
Posts: 2950
Location: 36� 3'N x 86�40'W

PostPosted: Thu Sep 07, 2006 12:30 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Source: http://www.wtc7.net/background.html
(with some edits)

What Was In Building 7?
Building 7 was one of New York City's larger buildings. A sleek bronze-colored skyscraper with a trapezoidal footprint, it occupied an entire city block and rose over 600 feet above street level.

Built in 1985, it was formerly the headquarters of the junk-bond firm Drexel Burnham Lambert, which contributed to the Savings and Loans collapse, prompting the $500-billion taxpayer-underwritten bailout of the latter 1980s. At the time of its destruction, it exclusively housed government agencies and financial institutions. It contained offices of the IRS, Secret Service, and SEC.



(This list is based on a table published by FEMA.) The original list, from CNN.com, did not include CIA, whose tenancy was disclosed after the attack in the New York Times article.

One of the most interesting tenants was then-Mayor Giuliani's Office of Emergency Management, and its emergency command center on the 23rd floor. This floor received 15 million dollars worth of renovations, including independent and secure air and water supplies, and bullet and bomb resistant windows designed to withstand 200 MPH winds. The 1993 bombing must have been part of the rationale for the command center, which overlooked the Twin Towers, a prime terrorist target.

How curious that on the day of the attack, Guiliani and his Entourage set up shop in a different headquarters, abandoning the special bunker designed precisely for such an event.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
References

1. List of World Trade Center tenants, CNN.com,
2. Terrorism and Anti-Terrorism, Gotham Gazette, 9/12/01
3. Giuliani Improvises After Command Center Gets Hit, Washington Technology, 10/08/01 [cached]

_________________
"No matter what happens, ever... there's ALWAYS at least one reason. And the top reason is ALWAYS money."
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address Yahoo Messenger
Jerry Fletcher



Joined: 21 Jan 2006
Posts: 837
Location: Studio BS

PostPosted: Thu Sep 07, 2006 1:10 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Rump wrote:
So, let me get this straight. Larry Silverstein's "pull it" comment had to do with "pulling the firemen from the building", not intentionally demolishing it. (As many, such as Popular Mechanics, now scramble to posthumously scrub the phrase "pull it" from the vocabulary of the CD industry.)


Obviously, WTC 7 had some 'help' in conveniently collapsing into it's own footprint.

The 'pull it' comment, however, I think was 'left' in the PBS documentary on purpose.

I think it's either a red herring, a honey pot, or a hot creamed doughnut. Wink

Anyway, as I do constantly, I'm going to yet again quote Dave McGowan's analysis of the 'pull it' comment:

Quote:


As with other aspects of the September 11 story, there is, unfortunately, a considerable amount of disinformation mixed in with the '9-11 skeptics' literature concerning the collapse of the towers. One widely disseminated bit of said disinformation concerns a statement by building leaseholder Larry Silverstein, who was interviewed for a PBS documentary entitled "America Rebuilds." During that interview, Silverstein recalled "getting a call from the, uh, fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, 'You know, we've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is, is pull it.' And they made that decision to pull and then we watched the building collapse."

Many researchers have suggested that Silverstein admitted on public television that he and the FDNY made a joint decision to bring WTC7 down in a controlled demolition. This is a particularly nasty line of disinformation because it casts the FDNY, universally viewed (and rightfully so) as the heroes of 9-11, as co-conspirators in bringing the buildings down.

It is perfectly clear from the context of Silverstein's statement that he was not suggesting that the building be brought down, but rather that fire fighting operations be suspended. The "terrible loss of life" he referred to was obviously the loss of scores of firefighters in the twin tower collapses, and his point was that it wasn't worth putting any more firefighters at risk, particularly in a building that had long since been evacuated.


In what parallel universe would a building owner casually suggest to the fire department that his building be brought down in a controlled demolition, as if such a thing can be engineered on the spot? And how exactly would collapsing an intact building save lives? At least one researcher claims that proof that the phrase "pull it" refers to demolishing the building can be found in the same PBS documentary in the statement of a rescue worker who recalled "getting ready to pull building six."

Apparently, triggering the controlled demolition of highrise buildings is a fairly common tactic during rescue operations. Everybody seems to be familiar with it and everyone speaks rather openly about it. Who knew?

There is one little problem with the 'proof,' unfortunately: WTC6 wasn't actually brought down in a controlled demolition. Like WTC7, it was completely evacuated. It was also damaged beyond repair by debris from the north tower. But it did remain standing. It is quite clear then that "pull," in this context, refers to pulling firefighters out of the building, since there was no reason for anyone to further risk their life in a building that couldn't be saved.

Far from candidly admitting that he had ordered the demolition of WTC7, what Silverstein was actually doing was lying to explain why no effort was made to control the easily controllable fires that purportedly brought the building crashing down.

From: nwsltr69B
http://www.davesweb.cnchost.com/nwsltr69b.html
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Rumpl4skn



Joined: 11 Feb 2006
Posts: 2950
Location: 36� 3'N x 86�40'W

PostPosted: Thu Sep 07, 2006 1:29 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Far from candidly admitting that he had ordered the demolition of WTC7, what Silverstein was actually doing was lying to explain why no effort was made to control the easily controllable fires that purportedly brought the building crashing down.

I still stand by my question - were they standing around outside with no water to fight the fires, or were they inside the building for no reason for 5 hours, awaiting Larry and the NYFD to decide to "pull" them?

And if it was all to cover Silverstein's ass about not fighting the fires, why not go right to the "no water" scenario? If anyone knew that immediately, it would have been the firefighters at the building. This wasn't a recent discovery. A recent fabrication, perhaps, but not a recent discovery.

So, we conclude that everybody's lying, and the apologists use that as their proof that we're paranoid and delusional. Firemen don't lie. Basket and the foul.

_________________
"No matter what happens, ever... there's ALWAYS at least one reason. And the top reason is ALWAYS money."
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address Yahoo Messenger
Rumpl4skn



Joined: 11 Feb 2006
Posts: 2950
Location: 36� 3'N x 86�40'W

PostPosted: Thu Sep 07, 2006 6:17 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Okay, this is a crude representation. But I wanted to give us the overall 'look' of what that "scoop out" of materials might look like on the South face of WTC7, and how much building would have remained. Went as high as the 82th floor, and I used the FEMO floot diagram for the amount of damage, then just tapered it up towards the 18th floor.



Granted, this is an estimation, based on FEMA's information. But does this look like it would cause a global collapse across the entire diameter of the structure, resulting in a straight-down collapse?

_________________
"No matter what happens, ever... there's ALWAYS at least one reason. And the top reason is ALWAYS money."
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address Yahoo Messenger
stallion4



Joined: 26 May 2006
Posts: 692

PostPosted: Fri Dec 29, 2006 3:01 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Rumpl4skn wrote:
Granted, this is an estimation, based on FEMA's information. But does this look like it would cause a global collapse across the entire diameter of the structure, resulting in a straight-down collapse?

After studying the reported damage to WTC-7's South face, controlled demolition expert Danny Jowenko clearly stated, "On this, the building will stand. Guaranteed. Guaranteed."

Excerpt is @ 5:30 into part 3 of this interview:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=boNzLZInbjU&eurl=

Entire interview is in three parts:

PART 1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k3DRhwRN06I&eurl=
PART 2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sep-HDZoEBM&eurl=
PART 3
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=boNzLZInbjU&eurl=

More about Danny Jowenko here:
http://911blogger.com/node/2807


And here's what former NYPD officer & 9/11 first responder Craig Bartmer witnessed while standing next to WTC-7:

"I was real close to Building 7 when it fell down... That didn't sound like just a building falling down to me while I was running away from it. There's a lot of eyewitness testimony down there of hearing explosions. I didn't see any reason for that building to fall down the way it did -- and a lot of guys should be saying the same thing. I don't know what the fear is coming out and talking about it? I don't know -- but it's the truth."

[...]

"I walked around it (Building 7). I saw a hole. I didn't see a hole bad enough to knock a building down, though. Yeah there was definitely fire in the building, but I didn't hear any... I didn't hear any creaking, or... I didn't hear any indication that it was going to come down. And all of a sudden the radios exploded and everyone started screaming 'get away, get away, get away from it!'... It was at that moment... I looked up, and it was nothing I would ever imagine seeing in my life. The thing started pealing in on itself... Somebody grabbed my shoulder and I started running, and the shit's hitting the ground behind me, and the whole time you're hearing "boom, boom, boom, boom, boom." I think I know an explosion when I hear it... Yeah it had some damage to it, but nothing like what they're saying... Nothing to account for what we saw... I am shocked at the story we've heard about it to be quite honest."

Speaking out: An interview with Craig Bartmer:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VajJXBabC2k

Related:

Structural Experts Say...
"WTC-7 was with the greatest probability brought down by controlled demolition done by experts."
Link: http://911blogger.com/node/2925

_________________
"Someday a real rain will come and wash all this scum off the streets." ~Travis Bickle
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Nat



Joined: 15 Sep 2006
Posts: 840
Location: minime-rica

PostPosted: Tue Feb 20, 2007 9:03 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

from J7
Koheleth wrote:
Controlled Demolition Expert Danny Jowenko was on a dutch programme as an establishment voice to say that the WTC1 and 2 colpases didn't resemble controlled demolitons etc etc. At the end they tricked him and showed him WTC7 and asked to explain the differences, he was utterly adamant it was a controlled demolition and pointed out all the traits described the process that would have been used. The presenter showed him a diagram of the building structure and said "is it possible a fire and damage to these areas could have..." and he couldn't even finish his sentance before Jowenko was saying no, no this can only be done through controlled demolition, you take out the central collumns and then the rest of them at the same time a second or two later etc.
Even after when he realised he had been tricked and it was supposed to have been natural he stuck to his guns when asked and as far as I know is still completley adamant that there is no chance in hell that a building can fall that neatly without a carefully planned controlled demolition.

It's as simple as that.

And incidentally- the sulfidated, oxidated steel with heavy intergranual melting EXISTS:



You may not have heard of it but it is no conspiracy theory and it is impossible for this to happen to steel by gravity or by an office fire, or by a kerosene fire. It's solid physical evidence, just like Jowenkos view is a GENUINE expert view- not David Coburn on the BBC who doesn't even have a degree.

The Antagonist wrote:
Danny Jowenko in action, his reaction is priceless and his credentials impeccable.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
PerpetualYnquisitive



Joined: 11 Mar 2007
Posts: 57
Location: Hamilton, Ontario, Canada

PostPosted: Tue Feb 26, 2008 1:28 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Rumpl4skn wrote:
Okay, this is a crude representation. But I wanted to give us the overall 'look' of what that "scoop out" of materials might look like on the South face of WTC7, and how much building would have remained. Went as high as the 82th floor, and I used the FEMO floot diagram for the amount of damage, then just tapered it up towards the 18th floor.



Granted, this is an estimation, based on FEMA's information. But does this look like it would cause a global collapse across the entire diameter of the structure, resulting in a straight-down collapse?


The South face of WTC 7 did have more structural damage than your picture shows and can be seen in the picture and video available here (scroll down to "And recently a thread at the Democratic Underground message board...):
http://911myths.com/html/wtc7_damage.html

http://img197.imageshack.us/img197/7109/wtcmajordamagetax0fv.jpg

_________________
Question everyone, Twice! Especially yourself.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Grumpy



Joined: 05 Sep 2007
Posts: 876
Location: NC USA

PostPosted: Tue Feb 26, 2008 5:21 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Rumpl4skn

Quote:
So, we conclude that everybody's lying, and the apologists use that as their proof that we're paranoid and delusional. Firemen don't lie. Basket and the foul.


You are paranoid and delusional. Firemen HAD NO REASON to lie. Pull it did mean pulling the men back FROM RESCUE OPERATIONS IN THE ZONE UNDER 7. There was no water available. And the damage to 7 was MUCH worse than your pathetic attempt to minimize it.

Sorry you had to go all the way to Scandinavia to find an engineer stupid enough to support your stories, but he was not there, he just saw a few selected videos and now is stuck with his story.

Truly pathetic.

Grumpy Cool

_________________
Wheel yourself out in the streets and demand the truth from these dumbshits.
O dear, taken to drinking and swallowing the pain tablets together eh Grumpy? aAzzAa
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    The Next Level Forum Index -> 9/11 HardCorps Specifics Investigation All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
Page 2 of 3

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group

Theme xand created by spleen.