Structural Aspects of Building 7’s Collapse: Why the NIST Report is Non-explanatory by Tony Szamboti

Submitted by Radical Pragmatist at 911blogger.com.

Related Info:

The Physics of WTC 7

World Trade Center 7: An Engineered Collapse

NIST's Admission of Freefall - Does It Matter?

The Ultimate proof NIST is lying about WTC7

Re: NIST Report on WTC7 debunked and exposed!

Scientists, Scholars, Architects & Engineers respond to NIST

The NIST WTC 7 Report: Bush Science reaches its peak

The NIST Analyses: A Close Look at WTC 7

Comments on the Draft Report NIST NCSTAR 1-9: “Structural Fire Response and Probable Collapse Sequence of World Trade Center Building 7”, issued by NIST August 21st, 2008

WTC 7: Simulation vs. Reality - One of These Things is Not Like the Other Things

Can YOU guess which thing is not like the other things?



.....

Multiple Explosions at the WTC site.

Looking through the newly released batch of videos from NIST and I found some interesting stuff in the folder "Richard Peskin." I have a edited together bits from four of the clips in that folder where you can hear what sound like explosions (after both towers have fallen), and the videographer (presumably Richard Peskin) saying that he's heard even more.


It has been speculated that the explosive demolition of WTC7 was supposed to be timed with, or shortly after, the fall of the towers. It is possible the explosions on the tape, some occurring at 11am, well after the collapses, are related to this endeavour.

Debunkers will argue that the explosive noises are only associated with the Tower collapses. This is not proven. This evidence leaves open the possibility that these noises may be coming from within building 7. Remember, Barry Jennings, a survivor who had been trapped inside WTC7 stated that there were explosions going on inside WTC7 over an extended period of time and that he was only rescued after the second tower had fallen.

These explosions refute debunker claims that there were no loud explosive-type noises that one could associate with a controlled demolition.

Related Info:

New 9/11 Footage Reveals WTC 7 Explosions

NIST Cumulus Video - Sounds (and Reports) of Explosions

Barry Jennings and Michael Hess - A detailed look

Debunking Joseph Nobles: Three Big Issues Indeed

Joseph Nobles of ae911truth.info has finally completed his critique of what he considers three of ae911truth's biggest mistakes, which he calls "The Big Three." According to him, these are three issues ae911truth claims that debunkers never address. Here are my thoughts on it.

The Big Three, Part One: Free Fall

I have already responded to this particular part of Mr. Nobles' site, so I will not repeat the arguments here.

The Big Three, Part Two: Collapse Symmetry

This sections deals with the symmetry of the buildings' collapses. Mr. Nobles makes the astounding claim that "there is no actual symmetry observable in the collapses of the three WTC buildings." As we will see, this is simply not true.

He first points out the slight lean that Building 7 exhibited in its collapse.



Although this has already been addressed, it is worth noting that slight leans often happen in controlled demolitions.



There is clearly a difference between this:



And something like this:



He claims there was no "east to west" symmetry to Building 7's collapse either, pointing out that the kink is not in the exact center of the building.



Kinks also often occur in controlled demolitions, and are not always in the center.



The key thing is that the center of Building 7 began to fall before its perimeter, which is a classic characteristic of demolitions. The issue of the east penthouse is problematic enough itself.

He next moves onto the Twin Towers. He claims that since both of the upper sections of the Towers initially tilted, their collapses were not symmetrical. This is absurd. Debunkers have often made special points about the tilts of both WTC 1 and WTC 2. While the tops did initially tilt, it is important to note what happens to the bottom sections of the buildings. As soon as the collapses begin, all four sides of the lower sections of the Towers are wiped out symmetrically in a top down fashion. The tilts therefore create a problem for the official story. The collapses started out asymmetric, but what followed was a top down symmetrical collapse of the lower structures.




It is clear that the collapses became more symmetrical as they progressed. Any natural collapse would have become less symmetric as it progressed. To claim that no symmetry was observable in the collapses of these three buildings is simply nonsensical.

The Big Three, Part Three: Total Destruction

In his third part, he claims that the destruction of the three WTC buildings was not total. He starts out by trying to say that Zdeněk Bažant's papers have not been refuted, and that Bazant himself has refuted the peer reviewed refutations of his work. Anders Björkman has in fact responded to Bažant's response.
In any case, the three points Mr. Nobles makes in regard to the destruction of the buildings are:

■Large sections of the Twin Tower’s core structures left behind after the main portion of the collapse (before they themselves collapsed)
■The sections of perimeter column still standing above the rubble for several floors
■The majority of WTC 7′s still-assembled northern facade draped over the rest of its debris pile

While parts of the cores of both Towers remained standing, this footage shows the remaining core of the South Tower included neither north nor west columns.



And the North Tower's core was almost totally destroyed before it collapsed anyway.



For some reason he feels that the small sections of the perimeter columns standing are worth using as proof the collapses were not total. Of course, these sections would have made up something like maybe 5% of each of the Towers.

The fact that part of Building 7's facade was still assembled to an extent is a small detail in light of the fact that all of the building's structural supports were totally destroyed in the collapse.

Mr. Nobles claims that the buildings "were not totally totally destroyed."
I would agree with this somewhat. The buildings and their structural supports were almost totally destroyed, which is an occurrence that rarely occurs outside of controlled demolition.

Ultimately, the points Mr. Nobles has raised do not disprove the notion that the buildings were demolished. Everything he has cited can occur in other demolitions, so it is misleading to suggest that the observed characteristics of the collapses are not consistent with demolition.

NIST's Admission of Freefall - Does It Matter?

A debunker on YouTube sent me the above graphic in a message response to my song, presumably to debunk the line "Tower 7 Falls At Freefall Speed". It shows the alleged buckling of floors 7 to 14 during the collapse. Debunkers claim it proves that eight floors of freefall is possible in this case because the buckled floors wouldn't offer any significant resistance.

The amount of hoops that debunkers and skeptics have to jump through in order to get their theories to work is ridiculous. Two sections of building can't slam into each other without there being a jolt ... but the collapse of the North Tower was a special case! Look, a slight tilt! For more than 120 years, Arctic temperatures appear to correlate perfectly with solar cycles ... but the last decade was a special case! Look, warming! Pay no attention to the lying scientists! And a building can't fall at freefall ... but WTC7 was a special case! Look, CGI buckling!

I'm not convinced that even buckled floors like that would behave as if they were turned to air, as freefall implies, but let's assume they would. Note that this is a computer model, and the thing about computers is - BS in, BS out! And since this is NIST we're talking about (or my new name for them, NIMMTCD - The Nanothermite Institute of Molten Metal and Thermal Conductivity Deniers), I don't have much confidence in this model! Since the parameters of their models have never been released to the public, despite numerous FOIA requests, there's really no way of knowing whether or not this model is realistic.

NIST clearly knew admitting freefall would be a problem. In fact, in their list of changes that accompanied their final report, they never actually mentioned their revised analysis! So it's obvious they didn't want to draw attention to it.

Is freefall important? Yes. Is it our strongest evidence WTC7 was demolished? No. Freefall tells us something strange is going on, but the proof comes from the forensics. The strongest evidence in my opinion is the extreme corrosion of the steel, documented by FEMA. Which by the way, NIMMTCD completely ignored... So maybe there should be an extra C in that acronym.