WTC7: The Facts

[boloboffin]

Other south face damage pictures:

http://www.debunking911.com/WTC7.htm

It includes the two used to build a composite of the top thirty floors or so.

 

[stilicho]

I might add, Dr A, that one thing I haven't seen apart from LashL's excellent work on the "profit motive" in The Doc's paper, is actual testimony from the court cases and the presentations to the US Congress by insurers such as Jacques Dubois from Swiss Re. At the time the WTC7 debate began to grow legs (around 2003 or 2004), I had many links to insurers trade papers that I had used to explain to "pull it" proponents that nobody in the entire WTC complex insurance/reinsurance consortium had said a single thing about controlled demolition nor anything similar.

These were the people in the best position to use any evidence of controlled demolition yet they didn't say a thing about it.

Personally I don't have the time to pursue all these leads but somebody might have a good collection of links, quotations, and testimony from the insurers who lost billions in the disasters. Dubois, as a notable example, clearly revealed that he didn't like Silverstein personally during the legal battles and if anyone could gain from proving controlled demolition it would be him and the corporation he represented.

 

[Brainster]

Thanks to everyone so far.

So, a few questions remaining.

Do we know anything at all about how long WTC7 took to collapse? If not, why not, why do Truthers say we do, what is wrong with their analysis? (Well, the two or three most common Truther analyses then).

The problem here is that the underlying source is earthquake records, which do not really give the collapse times, if you think about it. An earthquake observatory is not going to record the beginning time of a collapse; rather it measures the amount of time that the ground was being pelted by debris from the structure. In the case of WTC-7 the first recorded event is clearly when the first mechanical penthouse either hit the ground or hit something that transferred the shock to the ground.

What is the story with the Barry Jennings/dead body thing?

Jennings states at one point in an interview with Dylan that he was told by a fireman not to look down, but that when you step over dead bodies, you know what you're stepping over. It's one of several puzzling statements made by Jennings. If there really were some dead bodies on the floor, wouldn't you want to look down so as to avoid actually stepping on them and possibly falling? Wouldn't the fireman leading the way take care to lead Jennings and Hess around the bodies? They were surely not so ubiquitous as to form a human carpet that could not be avoided to escape the building.

Jennings also claims that he was told by the fireman to run, but he couldn't run because his knees were shot, so the fireman tells him to crawl. Jennings' tale has probably grown a bit over the years, over beers and after dinner. It's a natural tendency for those near amazing events to embellish a bit, and I have little doubt that's what has happened here.

Is there video (I've got the audio) of the "pull building 6" segment of the PBS documentary? I (seem to) remember a Truther showing me the video, but I can't find it.

My Google Fu is stronger than yours.

BTW, I strongly recommend the BBC WTC 7 show from last month. It's definitely the latest and greatest on the subject, especially the last half hour.

 

[deep]

(7) A good photo showing that it didn't "implode symmetrically into its own footprint".

If you want to argue semantics, that's fine, but you can't hide the visual evidence:

• No part of the building collapsed faster than another part - it fell pretty evenly.
• The debris field left after the collapse was tiny relative to the original size of the building.

In fact, it's obvious by looking the second photo posted under #7 that WTC7 did, in fact, collapse mostly into its own footprint. Remember, there was a 47 story building standing in that big empty space at one point - where did all the debris go?

 

[Tbone]

If you want to argue semantics, that's fine, but you can't hide the visual evidence:

• No part of the building collapsed faster than another part - it fell pretty evenly.
• The debris field left after the collapse was tiny relative to the original size of the building.

In fact, it's obvious by looking the second photo posted under #7 that WTC7 did, in fact, collapse mostly into its own footprint. Remember, there was a 47 story building standing in that big empty space at one point - where did all the debris go?

You claim that some of WTC7 was vapourised/evaporated during its collapse? Unless you think that somehow some of the building components vanished during the collapse, your comments about the relative size of the debris field makes little sense. The debris field was exactly the size it was supposed to be (and I use that phrase loosely).

 

[Grizzly Bear]

(5) What do we know about collapse times? Do we have seismic evidence?

This will be a cross category submission but this shows the penthouse collapse that preceded the global collapse. Perhaps this will serve some purpose for the above category:



The global collapse begins about 8 seconds AFTER the penthouse collapse for reference

 

[R.Mackey]

So, a few questions remaining.

Do we know anything at all about how long WTC7 took to collapse? If not, why not, why do Truthers say we do, what is wrong with their analysis? (Well, the two or three most common Truther analyses then).

To my knowledge, the best timeline about WTC 7's collapse is still contained in the Progress Report on WTC 7 released some years ago by NIST, on Page 26. It does not contain an estimate of the final collapse duration.

Gregory Urich postulated that the collapse time of the final stage was approximately 6.5 seconds in length. I do not know where this number comes from, presumably from the various videos of the event. I think it's pretty close but no better than +/- 1 second in accuracy. See also the discussion in this thread.

Why we don't have a better estimate is that it really isn't important. The whole meme about collapse time proving or disproving a particular failure event is and always has been ridiculous. In order to materially speed up or slow down the collapse, damage done by nefarious means (explosives, beam weapons, thermite nano-buggery, whatever) has to be comprehensive and vast -- read "impossible to conceal." Otherwise, damage done through such means falls well within the bounds of uncertainty regarding structural condition.

NIST may release a more precise estimate of the final collapse time in its upcoming report. Or it may not. There are many things I'm waiting for in the report, but this is not one of them. It's a dead issue. I should note, however, that Dr. Bazant and Dr. Greening are two who disagree and think this issue is important, but theirs is a minority opinion; I invite you to follow up with them to get a feel for the potential significance.

How do we know what caused the structural damage to WTC7?

What is the story with the Barry Jennings/dead body thing?

One imagines that, had there been a different source of structural damage, it would have showed up on video... There's little question that the collapse of WTC 1 in particular caused extensive damage. Note, however, that in my opinion WTC 7's collapse was ultimately due to fire rather than structural damage, with the damage merely serving to accelerate and spread the fires. NIST may prove me wrong, of course, this is just my considered opinion.

As far as Barry Jennings goes, he clarified himself to the BBC in their recent examination of WTC 7. Some in the Truth Movement reject his comments therein for their own reasons, none of which I find compelling. You be the judge.

Hope that helps a little bit more than just telling you to wait for NIST to finish, anyway.

 

[Dr Adequate]

If you want to argue semantics, that's fine, but you can't hide the visual evidence:

• No part of the building collapsed faster than another part - it fell pretty evenly.
• The debris field left after the collapse was tiny relative to the original size of the building.

In fact, it's obvious by looking the second photo posted under #7 that WTC7 did, in fact, collapse mostly into its own footprint. Remember, there was a 47 story building standing in that big empty space at one point - where did all the debris go?

The purpose of this thread involved asking questions or posting answers about WTC7.

Your post meets these criteria at the point where you ask: "where did all the debris go?" That was a question.

Answer: it formed part of the huge pile of debris.

 

[Dr Adequate]

Why we don't have a better estimate is that it really isn't important. The whole meme about collapse time proving or disproving a particular failure event is and always has been ridiculous.

In order to materially speed up or slow down the collapse, damage done by nefarious means (explosives, beam weapons, thermite nano-buggery, whatever)

But that doesn't stop it from being a part of Truther arguments, does it?

Yes, I know that in order for WTC7 to fall "faster than the speed of freefall", the New World Order would have to strap rockets to it pointing down.

Nonetheless, there is the Truth Movement, so we should either say that the calculation has been done, and here it is; or we should explain why the data doesn't allow us to calculate the collapse time. Just saying "it is and always has been ridiculous" doesn't work when I'm trying to collate expert opinions and primary sources.

As far as Barry Jennings goes, he clarified himself to the BBC in their recent examination of WTC 7.

So what did Jennings say to the BBC?

I really didn't follow the Jennings saga in the same way that I followed the Silverstein "pull" business. By a bit of googling around I found that Jennings thought some truthers had misquoted him, and that he was miffed, but I missed what he actually said, what the Truthers said he meant (well, apart from the dead bodies bit) and Jennings' clarification on the BBC. Please, somebody who followed this, give me a synopsis and links.

 

[Dr Adequate]

My Google Fu is stronger than yours.

You win this round ...

 

[R.Mackey]

But that doesn't stop it from being a part of Truther arguments, does it?

Yes, I know that in order for WTC7 to fall "faster than the speed of freefall", the New World Order would have to strap rockets to it pointing down.

Nonetheless, there is the Truth Movement, so we should either say that the calculation has been done, and here it is; or we should explain why the data doesn't allow us to calculate the collapse times. Just saying "it is and always has been ridiculous" doesn't work when I'm trying to collate expert opinions and primary sources.

I figured as much, which is why I linked you to the discussion I had with Gregory. As far as I know that encapsulates the state-of-art in calculation regarding WTC 7. There have been quite a few more detailed analyses of WTC 1 in particular, but not WTC 7. Gregory had prepared a paper for the Journal of 9/11 Studies with the revised version of that calculation as its centerpiece, but he was rebuffed. I haven't heard if he's made any additional progress.

For the exact timing of collapse, you will be limited to video analysis. No video I've seen provides a very accurate assessment, given the dust, obscurement of the base, and the simple fact that videotaping a collapsing building is a hazardous enterprise. I expect NIST will have the best and most comprehensive set of videos. But until then, accurately defining the collapse time will be original research. I can't just point you to it.

So what did Jennings say to the BBC?

Jennings basically said that he never saw bodies, and he was taken out of context. I don't have a transcript of the BBC show, nor do I know exactly when it will re-air, but it is worth an hour of your time if you can find it.

 

[Dr Adequate]

Jennings basically said that he never saw bodies, and he was taken out of context. I don't have a transcript of the BBC show, nor do I know exactly when it will re-air, but it is worth an hour of your time if you can find it.

* bangs head against desk *

What did he say? What did the Truthers say he said?

I could write a synopsis myself, it would read: "Truthers suck".

 

[Hokulele]

* bangs head against desk *

What did he say? What did the Truthers say he said?

I could write a synopsis myself, it would read: "Truthers suck".

The two main points were he experienced an explosion while coming down the stairwell (of course, assumed to be explosives), and he stepped over bodies in the lobby.

The direct quote mine from the interview is as follows:

"We subsequently went to the stairwell and were going down the stairs, when we reached the sixth floor, the landing that we were standing on gave way, there was an explosion and the landing gave way. I was left there hanging, I had to climb back up and now had to walk back up to the eighth floor. After getting to the eighth floor everything was dark."

The individual in a second clip detailed hearing further explosions and then described what he saw when he got down to the lobby:

"It was totally destroyed, it looked like King Kong had been through it and stepped on it and it was so destroyed i didn't know where I was. It was so destroyed that had to take me out through a hole in the wall, a makeshift hole I believe the fire department made to get me out."

Avery and Burmas, who played the two short clips of the interview prior to further analysis and more clips to be played on their own GCN radio show later tonight at 7pm CST, further described how the individual had witnessed dead bodies in the lobby of 7 and was told by the police not to look at them.

The "explosion" was debris from WTC 1 hitting WTC7, and the bodies were the result of a triage center set up in the lobbies

Linky.

 

[Dr Adequate]

The two main points were he experienced an explosion while coming down the stairwell (of course, assumed to be explosives), and he stepped over bodies in the lobby.

Am I to take it that the first quote is from Jennings?

Bu that has nothing to do with Twoofism.

Did LC:FC just leap straight from what Jennings actually said to "witnessed dead bodies in the lobby of 7 and was told by the police not to look at them"?

What exactly happened? What did Jennings say, what did the Truthers say he said? Can we quote him saying that they suck?

Hence my love of primary sources. It doesn't matter a damn what I say about what you say about what some website says that Jennings says about what Loose Change says about Jennings.

What does it boil down to? Jennings said something, the Truthers said something, he said something on the BBC. What actually happened?

 

[Dr Adequate]

The two main points were he experienced an explosion while coming down the stairwell (of course, assumed to be explosives), and he stepped over bodies in the lobby ... The "explosion" was debris from WTC 1 hitting WTC7, and the bodies were the result of a triage center set up in the lobbies.

Look, my first and over-riding question about this issue is whether Jennings actually talked about bodies. This is not in the Jennings quote that you gave me, it's just part of the LC woo.

Before we rush into claiming that Jennings must have seen the triage center when he reported "stepping over bodies", there is a prior question: did he report stepping over bodies?

 

[Hokulele]

Am I to take it that the first quote is from Jennings?

Bu that has nothing to do with Twoofism.

The bits in quote marks are direct quotes from the Jennings interview. They are twoofy in that the word "explosion" is used, which, in the world of twooferdom, means that bombs, nukes, space beams, or <insert exotic weapon of choice> were present. No further doubts at all.

To most normal people, it has nothing to do with twoofism in that most normal people know that not all explosions are due to bombs, nukes, etc. Normal people also know the meaning of the word simile.

Did LC:FC just leap straight from what Jennings actually said to "witnessed dead bodies in the lobby of 7 and was told by the police not to look at them"?

The relevant quote is "For me to see what I saw was unbelievable. And the firefighter that took us down kept saying, 'Do not look down.' And I kept saying, 'Why?' 'Do not look down.' And we were stepping over people."

The twoofers took this to mean he saw bodies, i.e. dead people.

What exactly happened? What did Jennings say, what did the Truthers say he said? Can we quote him saying that they suck?

Hence my love of primary sources. It doesn't matter a damn what I say about what you say about what some website says that Jennings says about what Loose Change says about Jennings.

What does it boil down to? Jennings said something, the Truthers said something, he said something on the BBC. What actually happened?

The original interview with Barry Jennings is here, with Barry Jennings speaking starting around 3:00, the "stepping over people" bit at around 5:45.

Barry's response on the BBC program.

He is too honorable to say Twoofers suck, but the closest is the bit at the very end, "That's the way they portrayed me and I didn't appreciate it, so I told them to pull my interview. Do I think that our government would do something like that to its people? No. I honestly don't believe it."

 

[Hokulele]

Look, my first and over-riding question about this issue is whether Jennings actually talked about bodies. This is not in the Jennings quote that you gave me, it's just part of the LC woo.

Before we rush into claiming that Jennings must have seen the triage center when he reported "stepping over bodies", there is a prior question: did he report stepping over bodies?

Whoops, you wrote this while I was transcribing. Links and my transcription can be found in the above.

 

[deep]

The purpose of this thread involved asking questions or posting answers about WTC7.

The title of the thread is WTC7: The Facts, and the first sentence is, "Please help to assemble the factiest facts, from the primest of primary sources. Then I will put it together, format it nicely, and put it on the SkepticWiki".

Nowhere in the first post do I see anything about a question and answer format. You might want to edit it and add that in to avoid any future confusion.

 

[deep]

You claim that some of WTC7 was vapourised/evaporated during its collapse? Unless you think that somehow some of the building components vanished during the collapse, your comments about the relative size of the debris field makes little sense. The debris field was exactly the size it was supposed to be (and I use that phrase loosely).

Umm, no? Do you understand what it means for a building to "collapse into its own footprint"? A large portion of the debris fell down into the five-or-so basement/sub-basement levels.

 

[WildCat]

Umm, no? Do you understand what it means for a building to "collapse into its own footprint"? A large portion of the debris fell down into the five-or-so basement/sub-basement levels.

Basements?