I'm not a conspiracy theorist or anything.
I just wonder how WTC7 collapsed in 5 seconds despite not being hit by any aircraft.
The video just has always baffled me, and no explanation, including NIST's, has come close to passing the pub test.
I just wonder how WTC7 collapsed in 5 seconds despite not being hit by any aircraft.
The video just has always baffled me, and no explanation, including NIST's, has come close to passing the pub test.
Did you see the video of, say, the Surfside condo collapse? When a skyscraper starts to collapse--and it doesn't really matter all that much how it starts to collapse--it invariably collapses quite quickly and in much the same way.
WTC7 didn't collapse in "5 seconds". The actual observed portion of the collapse took about 9 seconds, and this is a view that only shows about the first ⅓ of the collapse. One of the things that greatly hampers analysis of the WTC7 collapse is there just aren't good views of much of WTC7, and so the full extent of the damage it received from its front-row seat of a collapsing building isn't entirely known.
- Debris from wtc1 ignites fire on at least 10 floors. Sounds believable to me.
- floor 7-13 fires got out of control, primary sprinkler system failed, the redundancy or backup system didn't not work due to damage from the tower 1 and 2, the water supply for the backup relied on the cities water system which was mia on that day. This caused the fire to spread diagonally across the building. Sounds ok to me, I don't think anyone could make this up and it would be allowed into such a report without review.
There's much more but assuming usual explosives, this has to be considered: The smallest charge capable of initiating column failure would have resulted in a sound level of 130 to 140 dB at a distance of at least half a mile. This would be quite a couple seconds or max a minute before the full collapse, but no footage had such sounds, nor did witnesses report such sounds, and any nearby seismology equipment would detect irregularities. Just for reference 130-140 decibels are much louder than I would have thought, 130 is peak stadium crowd noise, 135 is an air raid siren, 140 is a jet engine take off.
True, but it is possible to apply the same strict epistemology to the consensus narrative as well, like how is it that "many things happened" resulting in an orderly freefall that appeared magically homogeneous across the entire structure, resulting in a descent that is (afaik) largely indistinguishable from a controlled demolition.
> but no footage had such sounds, nor did witnesses report such sounds, and any nearby seismology equipment would detect irregularities
A strict epistemological examination wouldn't let such premises be deployed without scrutiny.
I mentioned in my other comment the Surfside condo collapse, and that accidentally illustrates a key point about the WTC7 collapse. In the video of the Surfside condo collapse, we get a decent view of the origin of the collapse, so we can see how the collapse progresses. But with WTC7, the video we have is of the roof of the back side (with respect to the collapse origin). So we don't have visual of the collapse progress until it reaches the fairly homogeneous progressive collapse phase.
> resulting in a descent that is (afaik) largely indistinguishable from a controlled demolition.
All progressive collapses are going to look superficially similar. The most notable facet of a controlled demolition is the sheer sound of the charges going off to initiate the collapse. I've had the pleasure of being able to view a controlled demolition live, and I can tell you that the sound is loud enough and distinctive enough that all of the rescuers working on the debris pile that was the twin towers would have been reporting the explosions.
Which in itself seems a bit odd, not unlike the lack of footage of the Pentagon (publicly released footage, at least).
> So we don't have visual of the collapse progress until it reaches the fairly homogeneous progressive collapse phase.
Suggesting there is some uncertainty involved.
> The most notable facet of a controlled demolition is the sheer sound of the charges going off to initiate the collapse.
If one uses the traditional loud approach, agreed.
> I've had the pleasure of being able to view a controlled demolition live, and I can tell you that the sound is loud enough and distinctive enough that all of the rescuers working on the debris pile that was the twin towers would have been reporting the explosions.
Certainly seems plausible.
Even if the office fires burned hot enough to compromise the columns, wouldn't they have advanced gradually over the diagonal span, trigger slow sequential collapses that might have resulted in the building listing or distorting, rather than falling flat to the ground in 5 seconds?
Would thermite be deployed explosively at 140db, or might it work over a longer period of minutes at lower volume to heat the steel columns to 700 degrees, the temperature at which it would lose structural integrity?
FYI: Shyam Sunder, the author of the article, was the lead investigator of this collapse.
>The final design for 7 World Trade Center was for a much larger building than originally planned when the substation was built.[16]:xxxviii The structural design of 7 World Trade Center therefore included a system of gravity column transfer trusses and girders, located between floors 5 and 7, to transfer loads to the smaller foundation.[0]
Despite simulating a number of hypothetical scenarios, we were unable to identify any progressive sequence of failures that could have taken place on September 11, 2001, and caused a total collapse of the building, let alone the observed straight-down collapse with approximately 2.5 seconds of free fall and minimal differential movement of the exterior.
[1] https://vault.fbi.gov/9-11-attacks-investigation-and-related...
It sounds to me like Silverstein and the NYFD were talking about pulling firefighters out of WTC7. Once the fire department realized saving the building was a lost cause, there was no reason for firefighters to remain inside and risk their lives further. I don't hear anything in the video about "pulling" the building down.
As in, they decided to pull and then the building collapsed. This means one of two things:
1) They pulled as in the context of some kind of an act of a pre determined demolition of the building
2) Something closer to what you're referring to, but with the foresight that the building WILL collapse and actually did as they have expected it to by their decision to pull the men (and women) and equipment. To which of course the first question is, why then? why at 5pm and not any of the hours before Larry made that decision. It only took about 40 or so minutes for the big buildings to fail.
Option (2) is equally problematic as option (1) in the context of 9/11. Given that the claim is that all 3 buildings (all the WTC complex really) has suffered an equal progressive fate made by 2 projectiles hitting WTC 1&2.