'What about building 7'?

[jaydeehess]

Pristine building theory.

So before the EMP collapse, nothing was wrong with the building in your opinion? The lean and bulge that developed over time is part of the series of failures that occurred over time during that afternoon. The results of those smaller failures led up to the point that the building globally collapsed.

The entire collapse sequence of WTC7 took 16-20 seconds. That is the grand total, MM refuses to acknowledge.

In addition , there was the impact damage followed by 8 hours of fire progression

Yep, building collapsed in a flash of time, geologically speaking.

 

[NoahFence]

Over time.

There-in lies the rub.

After years of video analysis the NIST determined that the visible 18 storey portion of global collapse for WTC7 revealed 3 stages lasting a grand total of 5.4 seconds.

After approximately 1.75 seconds of initial global descent, the visible WTC7 was "dropping like a rock".

The middle, free fall stage where the steel structure was "dropping like a rock", was determined to have lasted from 1.75 to 4.0 seconds.

Danny Jowenko, a building demolition expert took one look at the video of the collapsing WTC7 and knew immediately that it was an engineered implosion.

Meanwhile you and the rest of the JREF brain trust attempt to ignore the naked emperor by petty quibbling over curve analysis and absurd speculation that office cubicle fires could instantaneously destroy the vertical support for 8 storeys of building space covering an area the size of a football field and cause WTC7 to drop like a stone for 1.75 to 4 seconds.

WTC7 did not suffer an "over time" internal breakdown that lead to its total high speed collapse.

Whatever took out its vertical support, occurred extremely rapidly.

Office cubicle fires could never have created such a rapid onset of total devastation.

The west side started dropping in agreement with the east side as revealed by the roofline and anyone who dared to look at the emperor's nakedness.

Your concept of "over time" is absolutely laughable.

Seriously now, why - in 2014 - are you still repeating these lies? Do you ENJOY lying? What benefit do YOU specifically gain from this behavior?

 

[LSSBB]

My highlighting. Those are ambiguous terms when slapped together so carelessly.

However, and more to the point, your theory doesn't accommodate the 1.75s of < g acceleration.

Or dropping like a rock, unless a rock can speed up faster than g, hit the breaks, then accelerate faster than g again, more than once. That is one magic rock.

 

[Miragememories]

"There are two ways to be fooled.

One is to believe what isn't true.

The other is to refuse to accept what is true."

-Soren Kierkegaard

 

[Jrrarglblarg]

"There are two ways to be fooled.

One is to believe what isn't true.

The other is to refuse to accept what is true."

-Soren Kierkegaard

Thanks for explaining yourself so succinctly. Very helpful.

 

[LSSBB]

"There are two ways to be fooled.

One is to believe what isn't true.

The other is to refuse to accept what is true."

-Soren Kierkegaard

That's OK, either way, now that you've come to understand that, you can move beyond, learn and grow. There are much better ways to improve the world, leave behind all the time spent trying to jam the collapse of an empty building into some grand scheme by an administration that left office over 5 years ago. Don't let the sunken cost fallacy hold you back. Just learn from the experience that you shouldn't jump to conclusions using supposed anomalies you don't have the education and experience to properly understand.

 

[NoahFence]

"There are two ways to be fooled.

One is to believe what isn't true.

The other is to refuse to accept what is true."

-Soren Kierkegaard

Why would one post quotes that they refuse to live by?

 

[tsig]

"There are two ways to be fooled.

One is to believe what isn't true.

The other is to refuse to accept what is true."

-Soren Kierkegaard

"Those who rely on others thoughts

Generally have none of their own"

Einstein.


"Many quotes are made up to prove a point"

tsig

 

[jaydeehess]

What isn't true: that free fall is indicative of demolition and only demolition.

What is true: the entire collapse sequence for WTC7 took 16 to 20 seconds, most of which was the interior progression, vertically and laterally, through the core of the structure.

 

[jaydeehess]

What is true.
Truthers contend that explosives were used to bring down WTC7 and that this is evidenced by the period of 2,25 seconds at and above FFA.
At the time of the onset of the greater structure coming down, that is to say prior to the start of the last approx five seconds of collapse, the videos show;
The infalling of the East Penthouse;
The in falling of the screen wall and most western rooftop structures;
A "kink" from rooftop to below sight line, at about 1/3 of the width of the building from its eastern extent;
The roof line tilting on both the western 2/3rds, and eastern 1/3rd expanses on either side of the "kink", with each portion tilted down at the line of that " kink".

What this indicates, well before the release of the greater structure and subsequent ramp up to, and over, free fall as measured on points of the north wall;
That core destruction began below the east penthouse and then proceeded west from there;
That, at some level below the sightline in the video, all vertical support along the line of the "kink" between perimeter and core was fully compromised;
That, at some level below the sight live of the video, the columns between "kink", and west and east perimeter, were buckling proximate to the " kink" ( they had to be in order to get the tilt of roofline seen, a type of situation one poster tends to refer to as "bleedingly obvious".

Once all of these occur the greater structure experiences a release that has it globally collapse. That is to say that what support that was unfailed up to this point, now does fail.

So, since demolitions is supposedly responsible for this release, we must assume that these demolitions were effected upon the remaining structure at that moment. This is after all what the truther meme states.

One then wonders,,,,,,, if these demolitions charges on all these remaining supports had not been carried out and instead we merely had the core destruction evidenced by the destruction of the centerline rooftop structures, and complete loss of support at the line of the " kink", do truthers believe the structure would not have collapsed?

If not, then why bother with the expense and danger of discovery represented by the installation of these final stage explosives ( thermite can't be timed and act so quickly and efficiently to be used in such a manner)? At this point the building is already quite doomed. Major support supplied at the juncture of newer structure on the east, with the older, preexisting power station, was quite obviously no longer in play and much of the core support west of that plane was also no longer in play.

 

[DGM]

What isn't true: that free fall is indicative of demolition and only demolition.

What is true: the entire collapse sequence for WTC7 took 16 to 20 seconds, most of which was the interior progression, vertically and laterally, through the core of the structure.

You're doing it wrong. To properly research 9/11 you have to look at every detail in isolation. You can't get the whole picture by looking at the big picture. Context always blurs the "truth".

 

[jaydeehess]

You're doing it wrong. To properly research 9/11 you have to look at every detail in isolation. You can't get the whole picture by looking at the big picture. Context always skews the "truth" into falsehood..

FTFY

 

[DGM]

FTFY

You didn't get the use of the quotes on "truth".

 

[jaydeehess]

You didn't get the use of the quotes on "truth".

Sure I did. They work with my version just as well.

 

[ozeco41]

You're doing it wrong. To properly research 9/11 you have to look at every detail in isolation. You can't get the whole picture by looking at the big picture. Context always blurs the "truth".

..he's been posting for years - you would think he'd understand by now.


AND he left out the mandatory "reversed burden of proof"

The argument should go this way - in three stages:

1) I don't understand this single apparently anomalous factor; <<Usually true
2) THEREFORE is must mean [CD|Inside Job|whatever]; <<Note the quantum leap in logic THEN
3) YOU prove me wrong. << MUST reverse the burden

And the argument is strengthened is you add in a false generalisation or a false dichotomy:
4)"on another occasion one of thise did xxx THERFORE this one must this time have xxx" <<BOTH RBP and FD makes the argument much stronger

 

[chrismohr]

Hey Ozeco41, meeting the reverse burden of proof is my hobby! And I just did it one last time, proving that iron-rich spheres do NOT require tyhermite (see my post today on my One Miore Look at Iron-Rich Spheres thread). I even have published papers to back me up. I know, I should have quit playing this game long ago, but meeting the reverse burden of proof is fun. My plan is to summarize this in a bye-bye YouTube video and then let others decide if they want to take all this on. Time will tell if I can be believed re this intention...

 

[ozeco41]

Hey Ozeco41, meeting the reverse burden of proof is my hobby!

I'm well aware of that Chris. Just as "meta-process parody" is one aspect of my hobby.

you are in good company - remember that nearly all of this 9/11 discussion has been based on - relied on - reversed burden of proof. CT's (or truthers as we now describe them) never putting cogently argued claims - debunkers bringing to bear on the topics the necessary level of intellectual skill - reasoning skill - which is missing from the majority of truther claims. (And "majority" is a cop out for the pedants - there has never been a supported or supportable argument for any of the five main CT claims - so I could have said "all".)

And I just did it one last time, proving that iron-rich spheres do NOT require thermite (see my post today on my One Miore Look at Iron-Rich Spheres thread). I even have published papers to back me up. I know, I should have quit playing this game long ago, but meeting the reverse burden of proof is fun.

Don't tell anyone but I agree. BUT my interest is in aspects like false logic and miscommunication rather than chasing ever deeper down increasingly narrow rabbit burrows of technical research long after the relevance to 9/11 has been lost - or lost sight of if the distinction is not too subtle.

My plan is to summarize this in a bye-bye YouTube video and then let others decide if they want to take all this on. Time will tell if I can be believed re this intention...

...or if you can keep to your intended commitment.

I've just about given up on JREF - your technical threads the only discussion I respect even tho it's not my interest area.

There is a massive rewrite of history going on on one thread which I am strongly tempted to try to put back on the rails. But I would be wasting the energy.

Bottom line - there is little of interest for me on JREF and, rather than get out of forum posting I've taken the alternative of moving to other forums.

 

[Realtruthseeker]

Basic physics and building 7.

In relation to building 7, here is a simple statement based on everything I’ve learnt in the last 58 years :
Buildings cannot fall in or near free-fall acceleration except by controlled demolition. The simple explanation of this statement comes from Newtons 3rd law.
“For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction”.
When an object falls in free-fall acceleration, the only reaction is the planet being drawn towards the object with the same force as the object is being drawn towards the planet. (The object moves and the planet proportionately less due to a big difference in mass).
Because free-fall, by definition, requires zero resistance, this means there is no material getting in the way of the falling object. Nothing for it to interact with.
A building is held up by the material used to build it, so all this material has to be removed by some other force to allow free-fall. It can’t be the object falling that's clearing its own path down through the building material of the structure below it because, if it was, that would slow it down or stop it.
This means, if I understand Newtons 3rd law correctly, that Building 7 was a controlled demolition.
Simply put, the established and universally agreed 2.25 seconds of free-fall of Building 7 proves controlled demolition.
I am sorry if this statement hurts the feelings of some or contradicts the beliefs of others but that’s what this forum is for isn’t it? To have our beliefs challenged and to educate?
The fact of free-fall is confirmed by measurement which anyone can do and is admitted by NIST in their final report of November 2008; NIST NCSTAR 1A. Page 46, chapter 3, figure 3-15, “Downward velocity of north face roof-line as WTC began to collapse”.
I think we need a proper investigation into the destruction of building 7, recognizing these basic undeniable facts because we still don’t know who did it. We only know who has lied about it for 13 years and spent enormous amount of public funds on the ongoing effort to cover it up.
I wouldn’t think this will really meet the JREF definition of a CT because it’s just basic education and simple observation but I would like the seasoned critical thinkers of JREF to provide valid criticism on my understanding of Newtons 3rd law. People who can't spell truther and write twoofer or similar are beyond my comprehension. They are either more intelligent than me so I don't understand them or they are not able to confront the facts I am revealing and so they resort to name-calling to avoid intelligent debate.
Your comments and counter arguments please. Thank you.

 

[thedopefishlives]

In relation to building 7, here is a simple statement based on everything I’ve learnt in the last 58 years :
Buildings cannot fall in or near free-fall acceleration except by controlled demolition.

<snip irrelevant garbage>

Did you know that buildings that are destroyed by controlled demolition don't even fall "in or near free-fall acceleration"? Think about that for the next 58 years and see where it gets you.

 

[Sabrina]

In relation to building 7, here is a simple statement based on everything I’ve learnt in the last 58 years :
Buildings cannot fall in or near free-fall acceleration except by controlled demolition. The simple explanation of this statement comes from Newtons 3rd law.
“For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction”.
When an object falls in free-fall acceleration, the only reaction is the planet being drawn towards the object with the same force as the object is being drawn towards the planet. (The object moves and the planet proportionately less due to a big difference in mass).
Because free-fall, by definition, requires zero resistance, this means there is no material getting in the way of the falling object. Nothing for it to interact with.
A building is held up by the material used to build it, so all this material has to be removed by some other force to allow free-fall. It can’t be the object falling that's clearing its own path down through the building material of the structure below it because, if it was, that would slow it down or stop it.
This means, if I understand Newtons 3rd law correctly, that Building 7 was a controlled demolition.
Simply put, the established and universally agreed 2.25 seconds of free-fall of Building 7 proves controlled demolition.
I am sorry if this statement hurts the feelings of some or contradicts the beliefs of others but that’s what this forum is for isn’t it? To have our beliefs challenged and to educate?
The fact of free-fall is confirmed by measurement which anyone can do and is admitted by NIST in their final report of November 2008; NIST NCSTAR 1A. Page 46, chapter 3, figure 3-15, “Downward velocity of north face roof-line as WTC began to collapse”.
I think we need a proper investigation into the destruction of building 7, recognizing these basic undeniable facts because we still don’t know who did it. We only know who has lied about it for 13 years and spent enormous amount of public funds on the ongoing effort to cover it up.
I wouldn’t think this will really meet the JREF definition of a CT because it’s just basic education and simple observation but I would like the seasoned critical thinkers of JREF to provide valid criticism on my understanding of Newtons 3rd law. People who can't spell truther and write twoofer or similar are beyond my comprehension. They are either more intelligent than me so I don't understand them or they are not able to confront the facts I am revealing and so they resort to name-calling to avoid intelligent debate.
Your comments and counter arguments please. Thank you.

"You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."-Inigo Montoya (see highlighted portion)

In fact, the accepted time frame for the building collapse of WTC7 is closer to twenty seconds, which is well within the bounds of physics. There is evidence, if you watch the videos, of internal collapse prior to the exterior collapse that contributes to the total time it took for the building to completely collapse.

From Wikipedia:

At 5:20:33 pm EDT (according to FEMA), the building started to collapse, with the crumble of the east mechanical penthouse, and at 5:21:10 pm EDT, according to FEMA, and 5:20:52 pm EDT according to NIST, it collapsed completely

That's the "universally agreed" time; not 2.25 seconds, but rather anywhere between 13 to 37 seconds, depending on the source, and any time frame within that range is, to the best of my understanding of physics, perfectly logical and in line with the accepted laws of physics. There's a link there to Youtube (since most of you truthers can't seem to accept anything other than Youtube evidence) footage that shows the collapse of the east penthouse just prior to the initiation of global collapse; it's even helpfully annotated and you can see the collapse of the penthouse occurring about three to five seconds before the rest of the building goes.

Here, I'll even embed the video for you:



There was no "free-fall acceleration"; just simple structural failure leading to a complete global collapse following catastrophic damage to the interior and exterior of the building. Now can we move on, please?