• SUPPORT THE SHOW AND ENJOY A PREMIUM PARACAST EXPERIENCE! Welcome to The Paracast+, five years young! For a low subscription fee, you will be able to download the ad-free version of The Paracast and the exclusive After The Paracast podcast, featuring color commentary, exclusive interviews, the continuation of interviews that began on the main episode of The Paracast. We also offer lifetime memberships! FLASH! For a limited time, you can save up to 40% on your subscription. You can sign up right here!

    Subscribe to The Paracast Newsletter!

Building 7

Ron Collins

Curiously Confused
This topic is NOT about the CIA involvement in Building 7. It is about just Building 7, not any other building. This can be confusing since a Mod merged another thread into this one for some reason.

Angelo is not a good moderator. He now has that "holier than thou" attitude that some Mods develop after awhile. He should step down asap. I think he is an EXCELLENT forum member tho.
Pixel, its not confusing at all and has nothing to do with Angelo. I started it, albeit unintentionally, by asking why a "Free Fall" implicated the CIA in a plot to murder 3000 Us citizens and specifically what part of its history indicated that it was SOP for them. As soon as Drew responded I immediately realized my stupidity and suggested that Drew repost this CIA stuff in a different Thread. Which I will be happy to open myself and move this stuff to. Drew probably misunderstood my intent and thought I was tryong to "sensor" his data. Which I am most certainly not doing.

By the way, what do you think of my earlier post? I am anxious to hear your take.
 
P

pixelsmith

Guest
Pixel, its not confusing at all and has nothing to do with Angelo. I started it, albeit unintentionally, by asking why a "Free Fall" implicated the CIA in a plot to murder 3000 Us citizens and specifically what part of its history indicated that it was SOP for them. As soon as Drew responded I immediately realized my stupidity and suggested that Drew repost this CIA stuff in a different Thread. Which I will be happy to open myself and move this stuff to. Drew probably misunderstood my intent and thought I was tryong to "sensor" his data. Which I am most certainly not doing.

By the way, what do you think of my earlier post? I am anxious to hear your take.
Fair enough, I still think Angelo is a poor moderator and should step down.

I have a lifelong friend that is an architect. We spoke on the phone about this for about 45 minutes. (yes I realize that is not long) but he made some interesting points. He says that he would consider at least 4 factors.

1) Seismic impact from two 110 story buildings collapsing within 600 feet of it. He says that there is a difference in designing a building to withstand seismic tremors located miles underground and one happening at your doorstep. The distribution of such a force is different.

2) Debris. His estimates were 20-25% depth to 60% of the facing facade was ripped out. He says it is impossible to calculate what kind of damage that can have on a structure. But added that it wasn't good and that the remaining structural elements would have to absorb the shifting weight of the building, the impact, vibration, and structural weakening. Things like cracked concrete and beams that were pulled, bent, and ripped out of the structure. He says that calculating the impact that wrenching effect had on the remaining structural elements is nearly impossible.

3) Most buildings get their strength from the core of the building where things like the elevator shafts and stair wells are also located. The likelyhood of this core being damaged along even a 40% portion (a rough estimate given his earlier estimate of 60% of the facing facade being damaged) of the facing side is pretty high. Couple this with the fact that the main weight of the building was concentrated in 3 large trusses located in the bottom 20% of the building. Apparently, he says that there was 2 trusses running parallel to the facing facade and one running perpendicular.

4) Catastrophic failure of the truss as a cascading effect. He says it is likely that the closest portion of the perpendicular truss was weakened in the aftermath of the debris impacts, seismic force, ripping and pulling forces, vibrations, and rapid weight redistribution. When this truss failed, he says that the first thing to go would be the core portion of the building on that side. This is why you see a drop in the Penthouse first. Then the core of the building would systematically fail and redistribute weight and force to the other two trusses. He says this would most likely be a very rapid progression.

He also think that the fires were most likely inconsequential and just hindered an accurate assessment of the condition of the building more than actually contributing to its demise. However, he did say that firemen were watching the building and were commenting on how it was leaning towards the gouged section of the building.

I asked about the 8 floor free fall and he says that in reality it probably wasn't an actual free fall. More likely it was a further progression of the collapse pushing from one end of the building (where the perpendicular truss was located) to the other (where the parallel trusses were located) he says that the image might look like a free fall but in reality was a continuous wave like collapse. Combine that with the probable lateral movement (lateral to the gouged facade) and it would probably give the visual effect of a smooth free fall.

As I have already stated before any ire/insults are flung his/my way. It was about a 45 minute conversation. He looked into this several years ago with a couple other architect and engineers and this was their rough finding. Anyway, I thought that it might be pertinent to the conversation so after some deliberation here it is.
1- do tremors pulverize concrete and create molten iron?
2- did the minimal damage from towers 1 and 2 pulverize concrete and create molten iron?
3 and 4- how do core columns collapse within themselves? cascading effects would have a stack of concrete and steel floors to remove and would offer resistance to the floors above thus negating any free fall.
(5) the free fall was admitted by NIST in their final statement. your friends findings are severely lacking in current knowledge but I commend him for checking into it.
 

Angel of Ioren

Friendly Skeptic
Drew, you mentioned that David Icke was someone you look up to and that he was associated with your masters degree. Is that incorrect? You mentioned in one of your previous threads.
Pixel, stop being a big baby.
 

Angel of Ioren

Friendly Skeptic
Thank you for making my point.
No problem, I aim to please. You see Pixel, this is just another one of those topics where you refuse to see anyone else's valid points, and you defer to the same rhetoric you've defaulted to in the past, even when people have proven you wrong, as seen above.
When all else fails, call me a bad moderator. You must have been so happy when I "resigned" and then your hopes were dashed when I decided to stay on.

Oh and Drew, your the reason I mention Icke is because of your post in this thread (Micah Hanks, DMT and spirits - Page 6) where you say:

Well kipspritely obviously a masters degree doesn't go to far these days but my degree was self-designed and was first published on David Icke's website. So, it's true, I'm definitely a renegade but having Icke as my main internet introduction, puts me solidly into the trickster realm of analysis.
So, you've associated with Icke and he things that reptiles rule the world.
 

drew hempel

Skilled Investigator
No problem, I aim to please. You see Pixel, this is just another one of those topics where you refuse to see anyone else's valid points, and you defer to the same rhetoric you've defaulted to in the past, even when people have proven you wrong, as seen above.
When all else fails, call me a bad moderator. You must have been so happy when I "resigned" and then your hopes were dashed when I decided to stay on.

Oh and Drew, your the reason I mention Icke is because of your post in this thread (Micah Hanks, DMT and spirits - Page 6) where you say:



So, you've associated with Icke and he things that reptiles rule the world.
Angelo I'm glad you've taken an interest in my investigation of Icke -- as I stated I made a blog post to respond to your interest. Natural Resonance Revolution: Drew Hempel believes reptilians rule the world and Drew Hempel is buddies with David Icke....NOT!! Only Empty Awareness is in control.

To say I've "associated" with Icke implies I've been in the same room with him. haha. Nope. I've never communicated with him directly. I have read several of his books and I've watched a couple of his lectures online.

As I explained to Gene when he wondered why David banned me from theparacast -- I was wrong about my masters thesis being first published on David Icke's website. It was only after David freaked out so much about that claim and then banned me that I actually looked into the matter more. As I explain on my blog -- I was trying to contact David Icke to see what he thought of my masters thesis and then David Icke's webmaster published my masters thesis in the webmaster's own online magazine -- not Icke's website.

http://www.hiddenmysteries.org/themagazine/vol12/articles/epi-justice1.shtml

There it is if you want to read it.

So yeah I have critiqued David Icke's work as my blog post details and Icke's webmaster did publish my masters thesis. So there has been some indirect interaction with Icke. Did Icke read my masters thesis? Very possibly. Did Icke give the go ahead to his webmaster to publish my masters thesis on the webmaster's online magazine? I doubt it.

I hope that clarifies things for you -- as if Icke is Satan or something. haha. I've associated with him! Run!! Again my blog post gives more details -- but basically whether I agree or disagree with someone I still engage and interact with the information they provide -- if you want to call that association it seems to give it a different meaning than it implies.

But then saying Drew hempel thinks reptilians rule the world and Drew Hempel is buddies with David Icke is not quite the same as saying Drew Hempel associates with David Icke -- although all three statements by Angelo are not quite accurate, to say the least.
 

Angel of Ioren

Friendly Skeptic
Angelo I'm glad you've taken an interest in my investigation of Icke -- as I stated I made a blog post to respond to your interest. Natural Resonance Revolution: Drew Hempel believes reptilians rule the world and Drew Hempel is buddies with David Icke....NOT!! Only Empty Awareness is in control.

To say I've "associated" with Icke implies I've been in the same room with him. haha. Nope. I've never communicated with him directly. I have read several of his books and I've watched a couple of his lectures online.

As I explained to Gene when he wondered why David banned me from theparacast -- I was wrong about my masters thesis being first published on David Icke's website. It was only after David freaked out so much about that claim and then banned me that I actually looked into the matter more. As I explain on my blog -- I was trying to contact David Icke to see what he thought of my masters thesis and then David Icke's webmaster published my masters thesis in the webmaster's own online magazine -- not Icke's website.

http://www.hiddenmysteries.org/themagazine/vol12/articles/epi-justice1.shtml

There it is if you want to read it.

So yeah I have critiqued David Icke's work as my blog post details and Icke's webmaster did publish my masters thesis. So there has been some indirect interaction with Icke. Did Icke read my masters thesis? Very possibly. Did Icke give the go ahead to his webmaster to publish my masters thesis on the webmaster's online magazine? I doubt it.

I hope that clarifies things for you -- as if Icke is Satan or something. haha. I've associated with him! Run!! Again my blog post gives more details -- but basically whether I agree or disagree with someone I still engage and interact with the information they provide -- if you want to call that association it seems to give it a different meaning than it implies.

But then saying Drew hempel thinks reptilians rule the world and Drew Hempel is buddies with David Icke is not quite the same as saying Drew Hempel associates with David Icke -- although all three statements by Angelo are not quite accurate, to say the least.
Thanks. That clarifies things. As I said in my initial post that caused you to react like this, if I was wrong, I apologize, and I do.
On a side note, why do you refer to yourself in the third person? Are you like Jimmy from Seinfeld?
 

drew hempel

Skilled Investigator
Thanks. That clarifies things. As I said in my initial post that caused you to react like this, if I was wrong, I apologize, and I do.
On a side note, why do you refer to yourself in the third person? Are you like Jimmy from Seinfeld?
Drew, don't you also think that the world is run by reptiles, or is that just your buddy David Icke.
I used third person because I'm referring to what you said.

So, you've associated with Icke
The third person indicates that I didn't say those things -- but a third person did say them. Of course you wouldn't refer to yourself in the third person although you are the third person who said them. haha. So I use the second person when I discuss the issue directly with you and then the third person when I quote you for a larger group of readers.

Yep -- it's kind of tricky.
 

Angel of Ioren

Friendly Skeptic
I used third person because I'm referring to what you said.



The third person indicates that I didn't say those things -- but a third person did say them. Of course you wouldn't refer to yourself in the third person although you are the third person who said them. haha. So I use the second person when I discuss the issue directly with you and then the third person when I quote you for a larger group of readers.

Yep -- it's kind of tricky.
Okay, but I was writing to you specifically, asking you a question. Anyway, back to the topic.
 
P

pixelsmith

Guest
9/11 First Responders-- including police, fire fighters, EMTs and others-- will not be allowed at the ceremony commemorating the 10th Anniversary of the attacks that killed 3,000. Instead, warmongering politicos incuding President Obama and former President George W. Bush will grandstand at Ground Zero, trampling upon the memory of those who lost their life while stifling the living heroes who have increasingly questioned the official story, the lack of care for those who got sick and other travesties.


If this is true, it is a travesty.

---------- Post added at 11:33 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:28 PM ----------

Alex Jones is the "conspiracy nut" who tried to warn us of the 9/11 event. thing is... he was spot on.
 

manxman

Paranormal Adept
i had not heard that percentage. lets assume it was 25% or even more... the building should have fallen towards the path of least resistance and toppled over towards the damaged side... nope. it fell straight down defying a few laws of physics in the process.
What laws of physics did it coming straight down defy please.
 

manxman

Paranormal Adept
Read it a few years ago Angelo. OLD NEWS.

NIST has come out and admitted an 8 second free fall. You do not need a fancy education to know that the only way a building like that can free fall "at the speed of gravity" is to remove ALL resistance below it.


NIST did not come to the 8 seconds of free-fall{standard G} conclusion at all, that's complete and utter fantasy, i think it was 4 seconds they claim , the actual free-fall{over G} speed was only one second, NIST used the Dan Rather video to measure movement for their modeling, one of their errors was that they measured the start of collapse from a central parapet point.
Whereas collapse is clearly under-way before the first sideways movement of the roof as now evidenced by several other sources of live footage.
It was clearly under-way as other footage shows the pent-house sinking into the central core seconds before the rest of the building was pulled in over into the central core, by its pinning to the central core.
The building swayed for 6 seconds prior to the parapet started to descend, as it collapsed internally.



I am no expert in structural engineering either, but i can easily understand how the shell of 7 was all braced in to central columns, and the only second of free-fall{over G} is simple physics.

An example.

I park car at cliff edge, chain myself to the back with a 50 metre chain, [no stretching in a chain, well not under these circumstances} and then shove the car over the cliff, now for 50 metres the car travels at free-fall{standard G}, whilst i am stationary, however as soon as the car passes 50 metres of falling i take off over the edge with it, but i travel faster than free-fall {over G}in that first second or so, as i instantly accelerate from being stationary to free-fall{standard G} speed and proceed to then fall{standard G} at the same speed as the car falls.

This is what happened with 7, the centre collapsed first pulling the rest over into it.

How the centre collapsed is anybodies guess, no-one has x ray eyes, NIST could only model it, many others have also modeled the collapse, only NIST were hired by the government so THEIR guess is the standard, however they steadfastly refused to release any of the modeling data, rendering independent verification impossible.

I do not for one second believe the buildings were wired and demolished, but why structural integrity was lost i have only theory which i will not trouble you with.

And that initial over G acceleration is the only example the world of engineering has on film, no other collapse has ever been shown to reach a period of over G speed during collapse no matter how collapse was initiated.

Feel free to show an example of any demolition or other type of collapse that has.

Nist did not allow for the over-G in their modeling, so they extended the period of free-fall by averaging.
It was Greening et al that corrected them, which they partially accepted during the 3 week consultation period prior to release, and added foot-notes.

please note that "free-fall" is standard G {Gravity} i have indicated where i use "free-fall" to also mean a fall speed over G.
 
P

pixelsmith

Guest
NIST did not come to the 8 seconds of free-fall at all, thats ccomplete and utter fantasy, i think it was 4 seconds they claim , the actual free-fall speed was only one second, nist used the Dan Rather video to measure movement for their modeling, their error was that they measured the start of collapse from a central parapet point.
Whereas collapse is clearly under-way before the first sideways movement of the roof.
It was clearly under-way as other footage shows the pent-house sinking into the central core seconds before the rest of the building was pulled in over into the central core, by its pinning to the central core.



I am no expert in structural engineering either, but i can easily understand how the shell of 7 was all braced in to central columns, and the only second of free-fall is simple physics.

An example.

I park car at cliff edge, chain myself to the back with a 50 metre chain, [no stretching in a chain, well not under these circumstances} and then shove the car over the cliff, now for 50 metres the car travels at freefall, whilst i am stationary, however as soon as the car passes 50 metres of falling i take off over the edge with it, but i travel faster than freefall in that first second as i instantly accelerate from being stationary to freefall speed and proceed to then fall at the same speed as the car falls.

This is what happened with 7, the centre collapsed first pulling the rest over into it.

How the centre collapsed is anybodies guess, no-one has x ray eyes, NIST could only model it, many others have also modeled the collapse, only NIST were hired by the government so THEIR guess is the standard, however they steadfastly refused to release any of the modeling data, rendering independent verification impossible.

I do not for one second believe the buildings were wired and demolished, but why structural integrity was lost i have only theory which i will not trouble you with.
ok. so you believe simply setting a few office fires in a steel and concrete building will produce a very controlled, simultaneous column collapse resulting in the total destruction of the building and pulverization of the concrete floors in a way that is far more effective than that of a controlled demolition executed by licensed demolition professionals.... REALLY?!?

Your analogy is flawed, Imagine your car having to hit a tree growing out of the cliff every 10 feet of the way down, how can your car reach free fall speed if it has the resistance of each tree to deal with? by the end of 50 metres it would not be traveling very fast, if at all.
 

manxman

Paranormal Adept
Read it a few years ago Angelo. OLD NEWS.

NIST has come out and admitted an 8 second free fall. You do not need a fancy education to know that the only way a building like that can free fall "at the speed of gravity" is to remove ALL resistance below it.


NIST did not come to the 8 seconds of free-fall{standard G} conclusion at all, that's complete and utter fantasy, i think it was 4 seconds they claim , the actual free-fall{at over G} speed was only one second, NIST used the Dan Rather video to measure movement for their modeling, one of their errors was that they measured the start of collapse from a central parapet point.
Whereas collapse is clearly under-way before the first sideways movement of the roof as now evidenced by several other sources of live footage.
It was clearly under-way as other footage shows the pent-house sinking into the central core seconds before the rest of the building was pulled in over into the central core, by its pinning to the central core.
The building swayed for 6 seconds prior to the parapet started to descend, as it collapsed internally.



I am no expert in structural engineering either, but i can easily understand how the shell of 7 was all braced in to central columns, and the only second of free-fall{at over G} is simple physics.

An example.

I park car at cliff edge, chain myself to the back with a 50 metre chain, [no stretching in a chain, well not under these circumstances} and then shove the car over the cliff, now for 50 metres the car travels at free-fall{standard G}, whilst i am stationary, however as soon as the car passes 50 metres of falling i take off over the edge with it, but i travel faster than free-fall {over G}in that first second or so, as i instantly accelerate from being stationary to free-fall{standard G} speed and proceed to then fall{standard G} at the same speed as the car falls.

This is what happened with 7, the centre collapsed first pulling the rest over into it.

How the centre collapsed is anybodies guess, no-one has x ray eyes, NIST could only model it, many others have also modeled the collapse, only NIST were hired by the government so THEIR guess is the standard, however they steadfastly refused to release any of the modeling data, rendering independent verification impossible.

I do not for one second believe the buildings were wired and demolished, but why structural integrity was lost i have only theory which i will not trouble you with.

And that initial over G acceleration is the only example the world of engineering has on film, no other collapse has ever been shown to reach a period of over G speed during collapse no matter how collapse was initiated.

Feel free to show an example of any demolition or other type of collapse that has.

Nist did not allow for the over-G in their modeling, so they extended the period of free-fall by averaging.
It was Greening et al that corrected them, which they partially accepted during the 3 week consultation period prior to release, and added foot-notes.

please note that "free-fall" is standard G {Gravity} i have indicated where i use "free-fall" to also mean a fall speed over G.



ok. so you believe simply setting a few office fires in a steel and concrete building will produce a very controlled, simultaneous column collapse resulting in the total destruction of the building and pulverization of the concrete floors in a way that is far more effective than that of a controlled demolition executed by licensed demolition professionals.... REALLY?!?

Your analogy is flawed, Imagine your car having to hit a tree growing out of the cliff every 10 feet of the way down, how can your car reach free fall speed if it has the resistance of each tree to deal with? by the end of 50 metres it would not be traveling very fast, if at all.
pixel please before replying next time be sure to read my posts carefully.

It was YOUR claim that the building fell at FREE fall speed for 8 seconds, it did not, and quite simply you cannot show ANY documentation that would verify the claim.

I am not interested in the rest of your global view 911 conspiracy, so please answer the points i make not ones you have wished up on my behalf, only in your false assertions concerning the NIST report.

My points concern your patently false claims about the free-fall duration of building seven, nothing else just the post you made, containing nothing but a fantasy, i have re quoted it.

I am not trying to burst your bubble about 911 your free to view events anyway you want, i only want to discuss this narrow issue at this time.

So please direct yourself to my points only, the vehicle over the cliff example is indeed appropriate for the example, it shows quite clearly how an initial over G acceleration is possible, the central core had been failing for 6 seconds prior to the external walls being pulled in, and the roof parapet initially descending.

Again i reiterate i couldn't careless at this point what made the central cores collapse, my only focus is on the collapse and YOUR claims about "free-fall".

Just so as you know, i have been discussing the collapses with engineers and film experts for the last 6 months, those boys can tell you the individual spandrel number, under any window you choose, they have vastly improved the NIST conclusions, still no hidden fireworks come to light no matter how accurately they map the collapses.

The conclusion is that 7 collapse into its own footprint because of the way it was designed, and as the core sank it pulled the spandrels inward and the walls followed.

No-one can be 100% sure what caused the central cores to fail, they can only model it, hence the conspiracy business, and silly claims like you made.
 
P

pixelsmith

Guest
Again i reiterate i couldn't careless at this point what made the central cores collapse, my only focus is on the collapse and YOUR claims about "free-fall".
I stand corrected, i misread 8 stories for 8 seconds. I often make mistakes and I always own up to them. 4 seconds is still impossible to achieve when there are solid steel columns, steel decking and reinforced concrete floors to resist the collapse. Heck, a 1 second free fall would not be possible. Take the free fall out all together and the symmetrical collapse and total destruction of the building due to office fires is absurd at best.

---------- Post added at 10:20 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:02 PM ----------

pixelsmith said:
I stand corrected, i misread 8 stories for 8 seconds. I often make mistakes and I always own up to them. 4 seconds is still impossible to achieve when there are solid steel columns, steel decking and reinforced concrete floors to resist the collapse. Heck, a 1 second free fall would not be possible. Take the free fall out all together and the symmetrical collapse and total destruction of the building due to office fires is absurd at best.
This report says 2.25 seconds but I think it is an old one. It is a pretty good read (and video) and shows that NIST admits Building 7 defied the basic principal of physics. It was a true miracle, if you believe this building could defy the laws of physics then maybe you should also consider a reptilian force could be involved as well.
 

manxman

Paranormal Adept
I stand corrected, i misread 8 stories for 8 seconds. I often make mistakes and I always own up to them. 4 seconds is still impossible to achieve when there are solid steel columns, steel decking and reinforced concrete floors to resist the collapse. Heck, a 1 second free fall would not be possible. Take the free fall out all together and the symmetrical collapse and total destruction of the building due to office fires is absurd at best.



---------- Post added at 10:20 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:02 PM ----------



This report says 2.25 seconds but I think it is an old one. It is a pretty good read (and video) and shows that NIST admits Building 7 defied the basic principal of physics. It was a true miracle, if you believe this building could defy the laws of physics then maybe you should also consider a reptilian force could be involved as well.


You just don't get it do you, there are subtle changes of acceleration in the external walls all the way down the ground.
The cores are collapsing ahead of the walls, pulling them in, and as they go through floors ahead of the walls being pulled in theres a series of jolts over G all the way down as the spandrels initially tug against the resistance of the outer structure, when that resistance is overcome, there is a split second over G, the NIST did not figure that into their models, and after being told about their error, added foot-notes stating this on release, whereas they averaged the speed of collapse only from when the roof-line started to descend, and they did it in sections, their averages for one section was free-fall, through about 5 floors only near the top, which is what you would expect, as theres more structural resistance at the top with the penthouse bracing, which when it failed would fail with more initial over G acceleration.
In reality it was an average of over G and under G accelerations far to subtle for the naked eye to see as it collapse through each section.
 


Top