|
Post by turbonium on Oct 22, 2005 6:42:17 GMT -4
This is for issues about WTC 7 only, specifically - what caused it's collapse. Jay 's quotes are in bold... Why do the conspiracists' ignore the 30 seconds of collapse evidence prior to the start of their video clips? If the collapse actually occurred in stages taking over half a minute, then it is not representative of controlled demolition.Are you citing the FEMA report? What is the "30 seconds of collapse evidence prior" to the start of some video clips? Is there a link to a video with footage of this first 30 seconds? Why are random "squib firings" on the upper floors relevant to a controlled demolition that would clearly have been undertaken on the lower floors?Is this in reference to a specific video clip of the collapse? I think I know the one you are referring to - from the Naudet brothers documentary. The clip from that video shows the collapse of WTC 7 with squib charges firing from lower to higher in sequence, not at all "random". I linked it below.. www.pixparty.com/turbonium/index.asp?ptype=v&videoid=9618How and when were the alleged explosives placed?Unknown, without a new independent investigation, or until some other source, such as witnesses, or physical evidence is presented.
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Oct 24, 2005 10:45:46 GMT -4
Are you citing the FEMA report? What is the "30 seconds of collapse evidence prior" to the start of some video clips?
It's in the report you say you read.
Is there a link to a video with footage of this first 30 seconds?
There is video. I haven't seen it online.
Is this [squib footage] in reference to a specific video clip of the collapse?
Yes. The physics professor from BYU referred you to it.
The clip from that video shows the collapse of WTC 7 with squib charges firing from lower to higher in sequence, not at all "random". I linked it below..
That is the clip. By "random" I don't mean in random order. Please comment on the random placement of the explosives with respect to the WTC structure. Why set off explosives vertically along one edge of a structure?
As to the order, suppose I were to remove the bottom column from a tiered steel structure. In what order will the joints fail progressively in the vertical direction?
As to the nature of the phenomenon, why do squibs shoot directionally and these puffs simply appear? And are you aware that you get a cloud of such material when steel fractures?
Unknown, without a new independent investigation, or until some other source, such as witnesses, or physical evidence is presented.
No, how do you allege the explosives were placed in a working building? There won't be an investigation until there is a plausible hypothesis to investigate.
|
|
|
Post by nomuse on Oct 24, 2005 14:37:56 GMT -4
Let me salute the removal of WTC7 discussion to a seperate thread. I have hopes we might now refrain from bringing this extraneous material into every discussion of WTC1 and 2.
|
|
|
Post by turbonium on Nov 11, 2005 4:02:39 GMT -4
By "random" I don't mean in random order. Please comment on the random placement of the explosives with respect to the WTC structure. Why set off explosives vertically along one edge of a structure?Controlled demolition photos of other buildings such as below also show squibs along one edge of the structure...... WTC 7 below.... Two important points.. 1. This building has yet to collapse. 2. The squibs are seen in the video going sequentially from lower to upper floors. No compression or "piston" effect is in play here.
|
|
|
Post by nomuse on Nov 11, 2005 4:13:56 GMT -4
What is "Squib?" I was under the impression these were small charges used entirely in special-effects work.
|
|
|
Post by turbonium on Nov 11, 2005 4:42:02 GMT -4
What is "Squib?" I was under the impression these were small charges used entirely in special-effects work.www.eaglepicher.com/NR/rdonlyres/C1F64B4F-0457-497D-B4F6-DBC8CF6A9BED/0/appendix.pdfThis link describes "squibs" as "explosive devices that produce flame, heat, and some gases. They are usually used to ignite combustible materials such as ignition charges or loose propellants" (page 15 of pdf file). The below link has this definition... www.usfireworks.biz/glossary.htmSquib - A type of fireworks slang for an electric match (see definition of electric match above). True squibs are actually blasting caps (initiators) used in the explosive industry to set off high explosives. This term crept into fireworks jargon by individuals that did not understand the differences between an electric match and a blasting cap. True squibs are not used for fireworks.We have been using the term "squibs" in this discussion to loosely describe the puffs coming out from buildings just prior to their demolition by explosives. Technically incorrect, I suppose, but as long as we know what we mean when we use the term, it shouldn't hinder or confuse the discussion. Or we can just call them "demolition puffs" or something....
|
|
|
Post by turbonium on Nov 11, 2005 5:27:18 GMT -4
The NIST team has yet to publish its final report on WTC 7. It's interesting to note some of the early statements from NIST about WTC 7. First - no steel. That's right, they have no steel from WTC 7 to examine for the report. Below is a link where it says on page 9 of the pdf file.... "No steel was recovered from WTC 7."wtc.nist.gov/pubs/NCSTAR1-3ExecutiveSummary.pdfFrom the next link, a preliminary report from NIST says on page 7 of the pdf file the header... "Working Collapse Hypothesis for WTC 7"It describes the event as initiating from fire / damage to complete collapse. But just in case you wondered if they were considering all possibilities, at the bottom of the page they cleared up that notion. In extra-large red font they state "NIST has seen no evidence that the collapse of WTC 7 was caused by bombs, missiles, or controlled demolition" [/color][/size] The report makes no mention of the "puffs" just prior to collapse - I guess if they don't mention it, they can always say they have seen no evidence of a controlled demolition[/size][/i] OK, OK - geez, I get the hint! You guys have no steel to analyze, haven't noticed the puffs, and have yet to finish your investigation, but it was caused by fire and maybe damage. No way was it from a controlled demolition![/size][/i] wtc.nist.gov/pubs/WTC%20Part%20IIC%20-%20WTC%207%20Collapse%20Final.pdf
|
|
|
Post by nomuse on Nov 11, 2005 15:41:30 GMT -4
There is another definition you may not be aware of. "Squib" used to be more popular as a description of an explosive that has a dissapointing result; Oppenheimer used it, for instance, to describe what he feared the Trinity "Gadget" would do (in the context of that test, "squib" was a yeild of less than a hundred tons of conventional explosive.) This usage has mostly passed from pyrotechnics and associated fields.
However, this is a fine description of the smoke puffs in your photograph. Look at the energetic gouts in your demolitions photographs. Now look at the wee puffs in your WTC7 photo. I think I'd call those squibs (were they meant to be structure-shattering explosive charges).
|
|
|
Post by turbonium on Nov 12, 2005 22:35:48 GMT -4
There are controlled demolitions that also show smaller 'squibs' prior to collapse, such as below. Others don't even show any squibs before collapse. The important point is that there is no valid reason for the WTC 7 squibs just prior to collapse except for evidence of controlled demolition. The squibs go off in sequence from lower to higher floors just prior to the complete collapse of the building. What other explanation can reasonably be offered for this?
|
|
|
Post by foxx on Nov 12, 2005 23:19:50 GMT -4
Some believe that NIST is a respected objective investigative entity. I have no doubt myself that the majority of compartmentalized engineers from many disciplines who have contributed to the NIST reports are talented, competent, and honest people. Unfortunately, those who have ultimate charge over such powerful agencies, are not always so honest. Here is direct evidence of NIST lies. NIST Caught Trying to Bury EvidenceNIST claims in it's NISTNCSTAR 1-3 report ( page xliv ) oceanmirage.homestead.com/NIST_1_3_008.htmlthat... E.6 Structural Steel in WTC...Folks, we KNOW that this is a bold-faced LIE. They are exposed in this 'cover-up' by other federal documents which flatly state that WTC 7 steel was in fact collected... Page D1 - FEMA www.house.gov/science/hot/wtc/wtc-report/WTC_apndxD.pdfFEMA Metallurgical Report www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_apc.pdf The following article appears in the journal JOM, 53 (12) (2001), pp. 18......An Initial Microstructural Analysis of A36 Steel from WTC Building 7J.R. Barnett, R.R. Biederman, and R.D. Sisson, Jr. www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/0112/Biederman/Biederman-0112.htmlThe FEMA report calls for further metallurgic investigations, and Barnett, Biederman and Sisson hope that WPI will obtain NIST funding and access to more samples... www.wpi.edu/News/Transformations/2002Spring/steel.htmlDid Barnett and Biederman receive this further funding and additional samples? NO! NIST denied their application. Now, it has become abundantly clear that they are trying to 'bury this evidence' from WTC 7. First, in denying further study... and secondly, by attempting to rewrite history, by claiming now that 'no steel was recovered from WTC 7'.
|
|
|
Post by foxx on Nov 18, 2005 16:25:36 GMT -4
Above is a picture from the NIST draft WTC 7 report. wtc.nist.gov/pubs/WTC%20Part%20IIC%20-%20WTC%207%20Collapse%20Final.pdf(from pg 17) Below is a schematic of how NIST portrays the damage to the south face of WTC 7. Note the extent of damage to the southwest corner in the diagram. (pg 20 of the above report) Now note the alleged large gaping hole in the center of the south face, (which NIST tells us was done by falling debris from WTC 1). NIST tells us that there was a... "large debris hole near center around 14th floor". Looking at the photo above we can see the southwest corner damage. We know that; that damage extended to the 18th floor. (page 15 of the above report) The NIST-alleged massive center damage should clearly be visible in the above photo (allegedly being only 4 floors below the height of the southwest corner damage). Can you find the alleged damage which NIST indicates is in the center of the south face? FEMA told us ... "The degree of impact damage to the south facade could not be documented. However damage was evident from review of photographs and video records" www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_ch5.pdfOn Aug 21 2002 Sunder (of NIST) put out a special call for... "...photograhic and video images that could help us better document the initial damage and subsequent fire growth and spread in the WTC towers and WTC 7. We are especially interested in WTC 7 and views of the South and West faces of the towers. Those who are aware of or who are in possession of such materials are encouraged to contact us." wtc.nist.gov/media/sunderremarks.htm It seems no one has come forward with since 2002 with any better photographs of the South face of WTC 7 than the one above which shows only southwest corner damage and no center damage as indicated by the NIST schematic in their 2005 document . Where does NIST get the idea that there was massive damage to the center of the south face of WTC 7 ? Apparently NIST claims one source is the testimonial evidence provided by firefighters on the scene. According to 'Firehouse.com', (a relatively new fire-related magazine)... Captain Chris Boyle was there, and relates his story in an interview format... " We were told to go to Greenwich and Vesey and see what's going on. So we go there and on the north and east side of 7 it didn't look like there was any damage at all, but then you looked on the south side of 7 and there had to be a hole 20 stories tall in the building, with fires on several floors." www.firehouse.com/terrorist/911/magazine/gz/boyle.html It seems obvious that Captain Boyle was referring to the southwest corner damage, because that is the only damage apparent in the NIST photo which extends to a height of 18 - 20 stories. I have not been able to find any photos or videos of the south face of WTC 7, nor any firefighter testimony which supports the idea of massive damage to the center of the south face as purported in the NIST schematic of alleged impact damage. Apart from NIST providing factual evidence to support their story that there was massive damage to the center of the south face of WTC 7, I would have to conclude that their report is in error. Is NIST claiming that; it is this 'alleged' (apparently non-existent) damage which was contributory to the collapse of WTC 7 ?
|
|
|
Post by redd on Dec 13, 2005 5:27:29 GMT -4
Well not exactly here is a picture before the collapse notice the "black boxes" on top? those are the penthouses
|
|
|
Post by redd on Dec 13, 2005 5:28:42 GMT -4
ok next picture the penthouses are starting to collapse....no squibs yet
|
|
|
Post by redd on Dec 13, 2005 5:30:22 GMT -4
next the "squibs" are starting to appear but the building has also started to collapse....the penthouses are virtually gone
|
|
|
Post by redd on Dec 13, 2005 5:33:24 GMT -4
finally the "squibs" are there but the building is also collapsing now... the cropped photo showing the squibs is a bit decieving because it doesn't show the fact the roof was starting to collapse..also that has been enhanced....its best to stick to the original.
|
|