Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Creative Speculation
In reply to the discussion: Solving the Mystery of Building 7 [View all]Ace Acme
(1,464 posts)48. Dr. Griffin has pointed out that the FDNY accounts are mutually exclusive and all over the map.
One problem with the accounts of the structural damage is that they vary greatly. According to Fellinis testimony, there was a four-floor hole between the third and sixth floors. In the telling of Captain Chris Boyle, however, the hole was 20 stories tall (2002). It would appear that Shyam Sunder, the lead investigator for NIST, settled on somewhat of a compromise between these two views, telling Popular Mechanics that, On about a third of the face to the center and to the bottom--approximately 10 stories--about 25 percent of the depth of the building was scooped out (Popular Mechanics, March 2005).
The different accounts of the problem on the buildings south side are not, moreover, limited to the issue of the size of the hole. According to Deputy Chief Peter Hayden, the problem was not a hole at all but a bulge, and it was between floors 10 and 13" (Hayden, 2002).
The second problem with these accounts of the damage is if there was a hole that was 10 or 20 floors high, or even a hole (or a budge) that was 4 floors high, why was this fact not captured on film by any of the photographers or videographers in the area that day?
With regard to the claims about the fire, the accounts again vary greatly. Chief Daniel Nigro spoke of very heavy fire on many floors (NYT, Nigro, p. 10). According to Harry Meyers, an assistant chief, "When the building came down it was completely involved in fire, all forty-seven stories" (quoted in Smith, 2002, p. 160). That obvious exaggeration was also stated by a firefighter who said: [Building 7] was fully engulfed. . . . [Y]ou could see the flames going straight through from one side of the building to the other (NYT, Cassidy, p. 22).
http://911review.com/articles/griffin/nyc1.html
Massive damage does not fit NIST's explanation. NIST says that structural damage from debris impact played no part in collapse initiation.
They can't have massive damage on the south side. If they did, the building would lean to the south at the beginning of its collapse. It only leaned to south toward the end of the collapse.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
52 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
The shear studs were designed to take the lateral loads, so the girder seat didn't need to be.
Ace Acme
Dec 2013
#37
Yes, Chandler is a major source of "freefall = controlled demolition" idiocy
William Seger
Dec 2011
#29
Nobody says the perps blew out 8 floors while the building was already falling.
Ace Acme
Dec 2013
#35
Anyone who LISTENS to the videos and concludes that it's a controlled demolition
William Seger
Dec 2011
#10
I accept the eyewitness accounts of massive structural damage and multiple large fires
hack89
Dec 2011
#31
Dr. Griffin has pointed out that the FDNY accounts are mutually exclusive and all over the map.
Ace Acme
Dec 2013
#48
Dr. Griffin's alleged lunacy can not make contradictory statements consistent.
Ace Acme
Dec 2013
#50
I am going to believe my informed eyes, and understand that what looks like smoke
Ace Acme
Dec 2013
#43
I watched the video years ago, and I watched it now, and everything I said was correct.
Ace Acme
Dec 2013
#52