11 facts on Building 7

aeon

Council Member
Jan 17, 2006
1,348
0
36
On 9/11 a THIRD Skyscraper Plunged to Earth:
The Sudden Implosion of WTC Building 7

By David R. Kimball
July 30, 2005


“It is natural for man to indulge in the illusions of hope. We are apt to shut our eyes against a painful truth … For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it may cost, I am willing to know the whole truth; to know the worst, and to provide for it.”
-- Patrick Henry

“The important thing is to never stop questioning.” -- Albert Einstein


Everyone remembers the Twin Towers exploding at 9:59AM and 10:28AM EDT on September 11, 2001. Comparatively few people can recall that there was a third massive skyscraper, also a part of the World Trade Center, which fell very rapidly to the ground on that day. This was World Trade Center Building 7.1
One reason that few remember WTC Building 7’s collapse is that after September 11th it has been treated, both in the media and in The 9/11 Commission Report, as if it didn’t happen.
“The total collapse of the third huge skyscraper late in the afternoon September 11th was reported as if it were an insignificant footnote... most people never saw video of Building 7’s collapse… Incredibly, it is virtually impossible to find any mention of Building 7 in newspapers, magazines, or broadcast media reports after September 11th.” 2
“The Commission avoids another embarrassing problem – explaining how WTC 7 could have collapsed, also virtually at free-fall speed – by simply not mentioning the collapse of this building.” 3
The collapse of Building 7 at 5:20PM EDT was in itself a major event; the sudden and unexplained fall to earth of a 47-story steel-framed skyscraper is certainly news. Why has there been almost no mention of this in the U.S. media, and why was there no mention of Building 7’s collapse in The 9/11 Commission Report? These are questions of great significance, and they cry out for answers. To be able to approach any kind of explanation, however, first some pertinent and verified facts of the Building 7 aspect of 9/11 need to be scrutinized.
The following eleven facts have been compiled from the research of reputable sources – those who have dared to question and have devoted innumerable hours into discovering what really happened on 9/11.


FACT 1: WTC Building 7 was one of the largest buildings in downtown Manhattan. It was 47 stories tall, about half the height of the Towers, and took up an entire city block. It was 300 feet from the closest Twin Tower (the North Tower, WTC 1), and was a steel-framed, concrete structure.4


FACT 2: WTC Building 7 – on its 23rd floor – housed an Emergency Command Center for the City of New York that Mayor Rudolph Giuliani had built in the mid-1990’s. On the morning of September 11th, Mayor Giuliani did not go “to his Command Center – with its clear view of the Twin Towers – but to a makeshift, street-level headquarters at 75 Barkley Street.” WTC 7 also held the offices of numerous government agencies, including the Department of Defense, the CIA, the Secret Service, the IRS, and the Security and Exchange Commission.5 Late 2001 was the time of “the height of the investigation into Enron, so the majority of Enron’s SEC filings were likely destroyed when World Trade Center 7 came down.”6


FACT 3: WTC Building 7 was not hit by airplane or significant debris on September 11th. It had been evacuated after the planes hit the towers. By the afternoon of September 11th, there were a few small fires of unknown origin evident in the building, and these small fires could be seen in only a few of the hundreds and hundreds of windows in the building.7


FACT 4: On September 11, 2001, at 5:20PM, EDT, World Trade Center Building 7 suddenly and rapidly collapsed. Beginning with the penthouse, all 47 stories of it imploded into its own footprint in less than seven seconds. Three different videos of Building 7’s vertical collapse – two from CBS video broadcasts, and one from an NBC news camera – can be seen online at http://wtc7.net/videos.html.


FACT 5: On September 16th, NASA flew an airplane over the World Trade Center site, recorded infrared radiation coming from the ground, and created a thermal map. The U.S. Geological Survey analyzed this data, and determined the actual temperature of the rubble. This map shows that five days after the collapse of Building 7, the surface temperature of a section of its rubble was 1,341º F.8 This high a temperature is indicative of the use of explosives.
“WTC 7’s rubble pile continued to smolder for months.”9


FACT 6: Fire Engineering magazine is the 125-year-old paper-of-record of the fire engineering community. Bill Manning, editor-in-chief, wrote an Editor’s Opinion in the January, 2002 edition. His editorial, $elling Out the Investigation, pointed out that destruction of evidence – the hurried removal of rubble which should be examined by investigators – is illegal. He also issued a “call to action”. To quote excerpts:
“For more than three months, structural steel from the World Trade Center has been and continues to be cut up and sold for scrap. Crucial evidence that could answer many questions … is on the slow boat to China …”
“I have combed through our national standard for fire investigation, NFPA 921, but nowhere in it does one find an exemption allowing the destruction of evidence for buildings over 10 stories tall.”
“Fire Engineering has good reason to believe that the ‘official investigation’ blessed by FEMA [Federal Emergency Management Agency] and run by the American Society of Civil Engineers is a half baked farce [emphasis mine] that may have already been commandeered by political forces whose primary interests, to put it mildly, lie far afield of full disclosure. Except for the marginal benefit obtained from a three-day, visual walk-through of evidence sites conducted by ASCE investigation committee members – described by one close source as a ‘tourist trip’ – no one’s checking evidence for anything.”
“The destruction and removal of evidence must stop immediately.”
“Firefighters, this is your call to action. …contact your representatives in Congress and officials in Washington and help us correct this problem immediately.” 10 11


FACT 7: In May of 2002, FEMA published their report #403 titled World Trade Center Building Performance Study. This report claims that the fires caused the building to collapse, but that the specifics of how this is supposed to have occurred “…remain unknown at this time.”12


FACT 8: The collapse of WTC Building 7 shows five characteristics of a controlled demolition:
It “dropped directly into its own footprint in a smooth, vertical motion”;
It “collapsed completely in less than seven seconds”;
“Dust streamed out of the upper floors of Building 7 early in its collapse”;
“WTC 7’s roof inverted toward its middle as the collapse progressed”; and
“WTC 7’s rubble was mostly confined to the block on which the building stood.”13


FACT 9: “Larry Silverstein is a rather large player within the realms of 21st Century real estate, finance, and politics.”14 He “…had taken out a long lease on the World Trade Center only six weeks before 9/11. In a PBS documentary entitled ‘America Rebuilds’, originally aired in September of 2002, Silverstein made the following statement about Building 7:
‘I remember getting a call from the, er, fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, “We’ve had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it.” And they made that decision to pull, and we watched the building collapse.’” 15 16


FACT 10: “It is inconceivable that anyone could be running around placing explosives in exactly the right places all within seven hours. In fact, implosions take a minimum of two weeks and up to two months to plan and place the charges. The fire department of New York does not even train their personnel to do controlled demolition. They are done by highly skilled experienced specialists who plan and test far ahead.”17


FACT 11: “… [George W.] Bush’s brother, Marvin Bush, and his cousin, Wirt Walker III, were principles in the company [Stratesec, formerly named Securacom] that was in charge of security for the World Trade Center, with Walker being the CEO from 1999 until January 2002.”18

In summation: A major aspect of 9/11 has been excluded from the entire U.S. media after September 11th, and was also omitted from The 9/11 Commission Report. This was the sudden fall to earth, on September 11th, 2001, of World Trade Center Building 7. Not hit by airplane or significant debris, 300 feet from the closest Twin Tower, and with just a few small fires burning within it, at 5:20PM EDT this massive concrete and steel-framed 47-story skyscraper imploded into its own footprint in less than seven seconds. Its rapid implosion had all of the characteristics of a controlled demolition, and the World Trade Center leaseholder, Larry Silverstein, stated in so many words that the building had been collapsed by demolition. It takes weeks, if not months, to prepare the demolition of a building as large as WTC 7; this implosion could not have been engineered and implemented in seven chaotic hours on September 11th. Therefore, a question emerges:

Who had the means and expertise to engineer such a demolition and acquire needed materiel, and who had access to WTC Building 7 PRIOR TO September 11, 2001 in order to place the explosives?

An inquiry into the answer to this question might be a good place to begin a search for the real perpetrators of 9/11. Do we, the citizens of the United States, have the courage and honesty necessary to initiate an actual investigation, or will we continue living a Lie – and reap the consequences?



http://wtc7.net/articles/kimball/thirdskyscraper.html
 

I think not

Hall of Fame Member
Apr 12, 2005
10,506
33
48
The Evil Empire
aeon said:
FACT 1: WTC Building 7 was one of the largest buildings in downtown Manhattan. It was 47 stories tall, about half the height of the Towers, and took up an entire city block. It was 300 feet from the closest Twin Tower (the North Tower, WTC 1), and was a steel-framed, concrete structure.4

Agreed.

aeon said:
FACT 2: WTC Building 7 – on its 23rd floor – housed an Emergency Command Center for the City of New York that Mayor Rudolph Giuliani had built in the mid-1990’s. On the morning of September 11th, Mayor Giuliani did not go “to his Command Center – with its clear view of the Twin Towers – but to a makeshift, street-level headquarters at 75 Barkley Street.” WTC 7 also held the offices of numerous government agencies, including the Department of Defense, the CIA, the Secret Service, the IRS, and the Security and Exchange Commission.5 Late 2001 was the time of “the height of the investigation into Enron, so the majority of Enron’s SEC filings were likely destroyed when World Trade Center 7 came down.”6

And?

aeon said:
FACT 3: WTC Building 7 was not hit by airplane or significant debris on September 11th. It had been evacuated after the planes hit the towers. By the afternoon of September 11th, there were a few small fires of unknown origin evident in the building, and these small fires could be seen in only a few of the hundreds and hundreds of windows in the building.7

One million tons of debris says this is all bullshit. The building at 30 West Broadway (CUNY Fiterman Hall) was partially destroyed when the North Tower collapsed, and that is further away than Tower 7.

aeon said:
FACT 4: On September 11, 2001, at 5:20PM, EDT, World Trade Center Building 7 suddenly and rapidly collapsed. Beginning with the penthouse, all 47 stories of it imploded into its own footprint in less than seven seconds. Three different videos of Building 7’s vertical collapse – two from CBS video broadcasts, and one from an NBC news camera – can be seen online at http://wtc7.net/videos.html.

Agreed.

aeon said:
FACT 5: On September 16th, NASA flew an airplane over the World Trade Center site, recorded infrared radiation coming from the ground, and created a thermal map. The U.S. Geological Survey analyzed this data, and determined the actual temperature of the rubble. This map shows that five days after the collapse of Building 7, the surface temperature of a section of its rubble was 1,341º F.8 This high a temperature is indicative of the use of explosives.
“WTC 7’s rubble pile continued to smolder for months.”9

It's indicative of explosives? Five days later? Is there an explosion that lasts 5 days? Idiotic "fact", save it for the meek.

aeon said:
FACT 6: Fire Engineering magazine is the 125-year-old paper-of-record of the fire engineering community. Bill Manning, editor-in-chief, wrote an Editor’s Opinion in the January, 2002 edition. His editorial, $elling Out the Investigation, pointed out that destruction of evidence – the hurried removal of rubble which should be examined by investigators – is illegal. He also issued a “call to action”. To quote excerpts:
“For more than three months, structural steel from the World Trade Center has been and continues to be cut up and sold for scrap. Crucial evidence that could answer many questions … is on the slow boat to China …”
“I have combed through our national standard for fire investigation, NFPA 921, but nowhere in it does one find an exemption allowing the destruction of evidence for buildings over 10 stories tall.”
“Fire Engineering has good reason to believe that the ‘official investigation’ blessed by FEMA [Federal Emergency Management Agency] and run by the American Society of Civil Engineers is a half baked farce [emphasis mine] that may have already been commandeered by political forces whose primary interests, to put it mildly, lie far afield of full disclosure. Except for the marginal benefit obtained from a three-day, visual walk-through of evidence sites conducted by ASCE investigation committee members – described by one close source as a ‘tourist trip’ – no one’s checking evidence for anything.”
“The destruction and removal of evidence must stop immediately.”
“Firefighters, this is your call to action. …contact your representatives in Congress and officials in Washington and help us correct this problem immediately.” 10 11

And of course he is entitled to his opinion, everybody is.


aeon said:
FACT 7: In May of 2002, FEMA published their report #403 titled World Trade Center Building Performance Study. This report claims that the fires caused the building to collapse, but that the specifics of how this is supposed to have occurred “…remain unknown at this time.”12

That's correct, specifics are due out this summer, but it's not going to matter anyway, right?

aeon said:
FACT 8: The collapse of WTC Building 7 shows five characteristics of a controlled demolition:
It “dropped directly into its own footprint in a smooth, vertical motion”;
It “collapsed completely in less than seven seconds”;
“Dust streamed out of the upper floors of Building 7 early in its collapse”;
“WTC 7’s roof inverted toward its middle as the collapse progressed”; and
“WTC 7’s rubble was mostly confined to the block on which the building stood.”13

Circumstantial evidence, it does not prove anything.

aeon said:
FACT 9: “Larry Silverstein is a rather large player within the realms of 21st Century real estate, finance, and politics.”14 He “…had taken out a long lease on the World Trade Center only six weeks before 9/11. In a PBS documentary entitled ‘America Rebuilds’, originally aired in September of 2002, Silverstein made the following statement about Building 7:
‘I remember getting a call from the, er, fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, “We’ve had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it.” And they made that decision to pull, and we watched the building collapse.’” 15 16

And if anyone believes he will divulge incriminating evidence on national television I suggest they run to the supermarket and pickup some aluminum foil.

aeon said:
FACT 10: “It is inconceivable that anyone could be running around placing explosives in exactly the right places all within seven hours. In fact, implosions take a minimum of two weeks and up to two months to plan and place the charges. The fire department of New York does not even train their personnel to do controlled demolition. They are done by highly skilled experienced specialists who plan and test far ahead.”17

Yes, and?

aeon said:
FACT 11: “… [George W.] Bush’s brother, Marvin Bush, and his cousin, Wirt Walker III, were principles in the company [Stratesec, formerly named Securacom] that was in charge of security for the World Trade Center, with Walker being the CEO from 1999 until January 2002.”18

And?

aeon said:
In summation: A major aspect of 9/11 has been excluded from the entire U.S. media after September 11th, and was also omitted from The 9/11 Commission Report. This was the sudden fall to earth, on September 11th, 2001, of World Trade Center Building 7. Not hit by airplane or significant debris, 300 feet from the closest Twin Tower, and with just a few small fires burning within it, at 5:20PM EDT this massive concrete and steel-framed 47-story skyscraper imploded into its own footprint in less than seven seconds. Its rapid implosion had all of the characteristics of a controlled demolition, and the World Trade Center leaseholder, Larry Silverstein, stated in so many words that the building had been collapsed by demolition. It takes weeks, if not months, to prepare the demolition of a building as large as WTC 7; this implosion could not have been engineered and implemented in seven chaotic hours on September 11th. Therefore, a question emerges:

Who had the means and expertise to engineer such a demolition and acquire needed materiel, and who had access to WTC Building 7 PRIOR TO September 11, 2001 in order to place the explosives?

An inquiry into the answer to this question might be a good place to begin a search for the real perpetrators of 9/11. Do we, the citizens of the United States, have the courage and honesty necessary to initiate an actual investigation, or will we continue living a Lie – and reap the consequences?

http://wtc7.net/articles/kimball/thirdskyscraper.html

Everything is circumstantial, this proves nothing.
 

gopher

Hall of Fame Member
Jun 26, 2005
21,513
65
48
Minnesota: Gopher State
I worked at the WTC complex for many years and there were other buildings that were closer to Towers 1, 2 than was # 7. Somehow, those buildings did not collapse even though they suffered more collateral damage. Obviously it came down as a result of a controlled implosion.
 

mabudon

Metal King
Mar 15, 2006
1,339
30
48
Golden Horseshoe, Ontario
RE: 11 facts on Building

just to point out something for ITN, too-

The residual heat five days later- it does NOT mean that there was a continuing explosion, in your rush to dismiss anything that does not fit with your view of events you kinda made yourself look REAL silly with that statement (and since you obviously missed the point I will elaborate for you)

What that fact means, is that if it were a fire (especially of the small-ish sorts described) that 5 days later the shape and intensity of the heat pockest would have been much different than what was actually observed...

Explosions (especially ones caused by high-explosives)usually produce fantastic amounts of heat, whereas fires (especially smallish ones with limited resources) thend to be a lot less intense and take a LOT more time (and ideally more resources but no-one is gonna throw more fuel on a burning building I wuold hope) to reach (and especially to maintain) the intense heat levels observed 5 days after the event

Hope this helps


As for the rest of the article, http://www.pornstarbook.com/osted a link ot the complete version a few weeks ago and was told it was conspiracy BS, so I am glad this discussion actually came back in a more realistic format...

I have a very good friend who's an engineer(and a dual citizenship type, he was born in the US but lived in Canada most of his life and lives here now)... and one of his colleagues just happened to actually be withing viewing distance of the events of 9-11.... both of these folks are POSITIVE that the official explanation is absolutely impossible- the most important point (which is an undisputed FACT and is also laid out in the linked piece above) is that as the building fell, not a SINGLE piece of ANYTHING even slowed the top down as it fell (speed of gravity) in the real physical world thsi is not necessarily impossible, but with the way structures are designed (especially the high ones) this is so extremely unlikely as to be pretty much dismissable- buildings are designed to NOT do exactly what building 7 did, and if it indeed DID happen unassisted, there should have ben a rather detailed investigation so as the flawd design could be re-worked or scrapped, and any other buildings which may have been constructed with the same flaw could be condemned or fixed or whatever...

As it stands no such investigation was performed, which IS odd considering the phenomenal nature of the event (and I'm trying to focus on building 7, the "non-tragic" one)

I had something else to add to the discussion but I can't recall it now dammit, but anyways interesting thread, I am curious to see what other opinions of the data presented might arise
 

jimmoyer

jimmoyer
Apr 3, 2005
5,101
22
38
68
Winchester Virginia
www.contactcorp.net
...but with the way structures are designed (especially the high ones) this is so extremely unlikely as to be pretty much dismissable- buildings are designed to NOT do exactly what building 7 did, ...

-------------------------mabudon--------------------------

Why would you expect a tall building not to fall on
its own footprint ??

Why would you assume that ?

Would it not be within reason to expect architects
to design a building whose tendency would be
to fall on its own footprint ??

Would not these people have thought to design
against any tendency to a domino effect ?

Or have we thought of things totally missed
by the original designers of 40 years ago ??
 

mabudon

Metal King
Mar 15, 2006
1,339
30
48
Golden Horseshoe, Ontario
RE: 11 facts on Building

Basically, jimmoyer, it comes down to this- you can only design a structure to fail so far.. I mean, if the whole purpose of the design of a structure were focussed on how the thing would fall down, then how it's going to stand up would have to be compromised and that's the problem...
One could only build so many "safe collapse" features into a structure before it bacame an exercise in making a collapsing structure and not an actual premanent structure

A building coming down into it's own footprint with NO large bits of debris to slow the fall is somewhat suspect from the get-go... and if buildings are designed to utterly disintegrate and not do any damage to other buildings, why would it be that setting up a controlled detonation would take SO much planning??

That is why the "speed of gravity" thing is so weird, unless the thing were made specifically to fall apart in that manner, then it actually doing so is unlikely at best, and I don't know if too many folks are TOO concerned at how well the building would disintegrate.. I'm not trying to come off as a smartass either, please don't take my post that way as this discussion could be actually fun and there is no real reason for discussing partisan issues as we're only dealing with facts and physics (and the lack of some very important facts, as well enters in to it)

And as a final little explanation, I am not accusing you of anything, either- things just tend to get out of control real easy on this board and I would like to have at least one thread that continues and keeps my interest without degrading to a useless name-caling fest, and am trying to be as civil as possible
 

darkbeaver

the universe is electric
Jan 26, 2006
41,035
201
63
RR1 Distopia 666 Discordia
RE: 11 facts on Building

The physics involved beg answers that cannot be satisfied by the official story.We are asked to suspend our belief in the laws of physics and accept on faith what cannot have happened. The very science that permitted the construction of the buildings in the first place cannot all of a sudden be invalid and allow for disintegration of this sort for only these buildings.What is the limit of the cost of acquisition of an entire planet? There is none.
 

Dexter Sinister

Unspecified Specialist
Oct 1, 2004
10,168
536
113
Regina, SK
Interesting how the report goes from this sentence in Fact 8: "shows five characteristics of a controlled demolition," to this in the summation: "had all of the characteristics of a controlled demolition." Fudging the facts like that is typical of conspiracy theorists. Moreover, just because it showed some of the characteristics of a controlled demolition doesn't mean it was a controlled demolition. So the building collapsed vertically; what else would you expect it to do? Vertical is the direction of the gravity vector, so that's the direction things fall. How many collapsing buildings that weren't professionally blown up has anyone seen to make comparisons with?

There were diesel generators all over that building, fed by high pressure fuel lines from large tanks on the lower levels. Perhaps there were fires and explosions from that? The building collapsed only a few hours after the main towers came down, all was chaos, nobody knows the extent of the structural damage inside it, there wasn't time to inspect it. FEMA was just speculating when it said structural damage alone couldn't have caused the collapse. Nobody could possibly know that.
 

MMMike

Council Member
Mar 21, 2005
1,410
1
38
Toronto
I assure you, buildings are not designed to fall at all - within their own footprint or otherwise. But the nature of their construction lends itself to vertical collapse as opposed to 'tipping over'. The only cases of buildings tipping over that I'm aware of are mostly liquifaction of soils in e/q conditions. With respect to the speed of collapse, it would start slow, but then accelerate as it picks up momentum and mass from the pancaking floor slabs. Nothing unusual in the collapse mechanism of the Towers from a structural engineer's perspective. Unless they're all 'in on it'! :wink:
 

Dexter Sinister

Unspecified Specialist
Oct 1, 2004
10,168
536
113
Regina, SK
Re: RE: 11 facts on Building

darkbeaver said:
The physics involved beg answers that cannot be satisfied by the official story.
A physicist, are you? The official story's not complete yet, this is all just paranoid speculation in the absence of facts.
 

MMMike

Council Member
Mar 21, 2005
1,410
1
38
Toronto
Re: RE: 11 facts on Building

darkbeaver said:
The physics involved beg answers that cannot be satisfied by the official story.We are asked to suspend our belief in the laws of physics and accept on faith what cannot have happened. The very science that permitted the construction of the buildings in the first place cannot all of a sudden be invalid and allow for disintegration of this sort for only these buildings.What is the limit of the cost of acquisition of an entire planet? There is none.

:roll: Are you a physicist, DB? Are you a structural engineer? Apart from information that you find on conspiracy theory websites, where do you get you insights?
 

MMMike

Council Member
Mar 21, 2005
1,410
1
38
Toronto
Re: RE: 11 facts on Building

darkbeaver said:
It's called observation, we see symetrical collapse from asymetrical damage. Or are our eyes mistaken?

Your eyes are not mistaken, your conclusions are. Localized damage will shift additional load onto the adjacent members, causing them to fail as well. This works laterally as well as vertically. Not to mention the effect of the building core providing lateral stability. The core is designed to take the massive wind & e/q loading... it could certainly take care of any eccentricity cause by 'asymetric' damage.
 

aeon

Council Member
Jan 17, 2006
1,348
0
36
Re: RE: 11 facts on Building 7

gopher said:
I worked at the WTC complex for many years and there were other buildings that were closer to Towers 1, 2 than was # 7. Somehow, those buildings did not collapse even though they suffered more collateral damage. Obviously it came down as a result of a controlled implosion.


Exactly to the point, those building that didnt collapse that were just besides wtc 1 and 2 , but what was their difference with building 7??


The owner of those building that didnt collapse was somebody else than Larry sylverstein.
 

Johnny Utah

Council Member
Mar 11, 2006
1,434
1
38
Here are some interesting basic physics presented into why WTC 7 could have collapsed:
1. There was massive damage to 7 WTC from flying perimeter columns. This was considerably in excess of the damage done to Banker's trust, and apparently penetrated to the second row of interior load-bearing columns from the South face, compromising at least four columns in the first row and at least two in the second. This conclusion is based on multiple pieces of testimentary evidence, some of which I have provided links to here. There is, unfortunately, no accompanying photographic evidence, partly because the entire South face was covered with smoke from the time it was damaged (the fall of 1 WTC) to the time that the building collapsed, and partly because the only realistic vantage point would have been right in the middle of the pile of 1 WTC rubble.
NOT PROVED (SPECULATION)

2. The collapse of 7 WTC began inside the building. This is based on the fact that the East penthouse was the first thing to go, followed by the West penthouse and the curtain wall between them; finally, after all that, the global collapse began. But the interior of the building by that time was no longer a load-bearing structure. Finally, examining aerial views of the building after the collapse, we find perimeter sections on top of the pile of debris, indicating that all of the interior had already fallen. (TRUE*-BASED ON PHOTO/VIDEO EVIDENCE)


3. The collapse of 7 WTC started with a vertical failure on the East side of the building, most likely in column 79, next most likely in column 80. The supporting evidence for this is the breaking windows in a line running up the North face to the East penthouse, followed by the East penthouse developing a kink in its roof directly over the line of breaking windows, and not coincidentally directly over column 79 and very close to column 80. (NOT PROVED-SPECULATION)


4. This vertical failure caused the east side of the building's interior to collapse due to diaphragm failures (diaphragms are floors, which transfer some of the stress on the perimeter columns to interior columns) in the structures that were no longer supported by the column that had broken and initiated the vertical failure. This is evident from the fact that the sky is visible in the upper story windows below the East penthouse after its collapse. (NOT PROVED-SPECULATION)

5. This interior collapse caused a horizontal progressive failure across the area between floors 5 and 7, of the horizontal trusses that distributed weight from the upper building columns to the original ground-level columns that were put in with the Con Ed power station. These horizontal trusses were deformed and pulled down by the local collapse on the East side. I have no direct evidence to support this assertion, but the subsequent events almost require it; please read on.
(NOT PROVED-EXTRAPOLATION)

6. This horizontal progressive failure caused a corresponding interior progressive collapse that proceeded up the building to the roof and caused the disappearance of the West penthouse and the curtain wall. The evidence for this is the disappearance of those structures, and the subsequent view of the sky through the top windows on the West side.
(NOT PROVED-EXTRAPOLATION)

7. During this horizontal progressive failure, an enormous load was placed on the balance ends of the North side cantilevers; this load was transferred by the cantilevering beams and the weight of the North facade to the pivot beams, which were columns on the North side of the building inset about 9 feet into the building. When the full load came on these pivot beams, they failed. I also have no supporting evidence for this assertion; and again, the subsequent events almost require it.
(NOT PROVED-EXTRAPOLATION)

8. Now the North perimeter begins to fall, with a "kink" near the damage caused by the original failure on the East side near column 79. It is falling because the pivots below its cantilevered support have failed.
(NOT PROVED-EXTRAPOLATION)

It falls 5 to 7 floors. The supporting evidence is on video; the building appears to "fall into the ground," indicating that there is no interior structure any more, and that the bottom level has failed.
(TRUE*-BASED ON PHOTO/VIDEO EVIDENCE)

9. The North perimeter strikes the ground, sending a wave of systematic breakage up the facade which reaches the top slightly before it hits the ground. There is no interior of the building, because it has all already collapsed. The evidence again is on video.
(TRUE*-BASED ON PHOTO/VIDEO EVIDENCE)

10: After most of the pile was removed, experts found that there were pools of what appeared
to have been molten metal which had congealed on foundations of the buildings many
levels underground. Some steel appeared to have partially melted, other steel had
undergone alternations to its crystalline structure, and still other steel was full of holes,
like a Swiss cheese.

Two structural steel samples from the WTC site were observed to have unusual erosion patterns. One sample is believed to be from WTC 7 and the other from either WTC 1 or WTC 2
(TRUE*-BASED ON OFFICIAL LEGAL SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE)

11: At 5:20 local time on the afternoon of 9/11, there was also a 0.6 tremor from the collapse of WTC 7, also at the beginning, rather than the end, of this building’s collapse.
(TRUE*-BASED ON OFFICIAL LEGAL SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE)

http://forum.physorg.com/Basic-Physics_3108-600.html
 

aeon

Council Member
Jan 17, 2006
1,348
0
36
Johnny Utah said:
Here are some interesting basic physics presented into why WTC 7 could have collapsed:l[/b]


Firstly you took this from a forum, again, and secondly the source they use, was from the white house web site.

:roll: