'What about building 7'?

[jaydeehess]

Here's a quick thought experiment.
Imagine a simple post supporting a beam. Now imagine that this post also has a diagonal 45 degree brace to the beam. This diagonal support adds support. However, that diagonal brace's support absolutely relies upon the connections it has to both beam and post, it must be constrained. If you fasten it only to the post or only to the beam it offers exactly zero added support because any load it is called upon to resist will instead simply move it's unconstrained end along the other structural component.

In similar fashion a column that has tilted and has lost its constraining connection at either end, offers absolutely zero support of any load.

 

[Spanx]

Like I said;

Yep, a classic truth seeker nano-thermite blow out.

 

[Redwood]

This means, if I understand Newtons 3rd law correctly, that Building 7 was a controlled demolition.

In your opinion, was the fall of the East Penthouse part of the "controlled demolition", or did it come down from the effects of fire?

In either case, what would happen after the East Penthouse falls? Could it be that the Vast Conspiracy had pre-rigged WTC 7 with demolition charges, planning to blame its collapse on something else, but failed to take into account the possibility that WTC 7 might catch fire and collapse on its own? Truthers have had 12+ years to fit this into some conspiracy theory, but have not begun to put forward any coherent story.

 

[JSanderO]

Here's a quick thought experiment.
Imagine a simple post supporting a beam. Now imagine that this post also has a diagonal 45 degree brace to the beam. This diagonal support adds support. However, that diagonal brace's support absolutely relies upon the connections it has to both beam and post, it must be constrained. If you fasten it only to the post or only to the beam it offers exactly zero added support because any load it is called upon to resist will instead simply move it's unconstrained end along the other structural component.

In similar fashion a column that has tilted and has lost its constraining connection at either end, offers absolutely zero support of any load.

bad example... a diagonal such as you describe is more likely to make the connection rigid by making a non deformable triangle. I don't know what you mean by adding support.

This is not possible in many structures. In steel they use a very rigid connection and can make trusses without diagonals (bracing connections). The twin towers used this concept in the facade... they are called Vierendeel trusses.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vierendeel_bridge

Having said that improper connections will / can fail a structure.

 

[ozeco41]

Here's a quick thought experiment.
Imagine a simple post supporting a beam. Now imagine that this post also has a diagonal 45 degree brace to the beam. This diagonal support adds support. However, that diagonal brace's support absolutely relies upon the connections it has to both beam and post, it must be constrained. If you fasten it only to the post or only to the beam it offers exactly zero added support because any load it is called upon to resist will instead simply move it's unconstrained end along the other structural component.

In similar fashion a column that has tilted and has lost its constraining connection at either end, offers absolutely zero support of any load.

I think I see where you are heading.

Both the thought experiments are ambiguous or unclear as to what you try to describe. The two hilited bits would need better definition before I would know exactly what you are wanting to put up for "thought".

 

[WilliamSeger]

Newton, and those who understand his theory would have an extremely difficult time seeing the "serious flaws" in Realtruthseeker's reasoning.

But it isn't at all difficult to see: Even if you got past some questionable premises, the argument hits the wall with the invalid inference that jaydeehess pointed out a couple weeks ago:

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

A column that's been cut with explosive charges would provide no resistance, but neither would a column that's buckled or broken at a splice. A reasonable person might then wonder what was going on during that 1.75 seconds that the roofline fell about 7 feet at less than free-fall. (A reasonable person might then suspect that it might be related to that penthouse falling several seconds before that.)

Your preposterous hypothesis would have us believe everything supporting 8 storeys D R O P P E D and virtually no time was required for the failure of all the internal and external columns.

And your alternative to that "preposterous hypothesis" is that after the building was already falling because of some unspecified reason, the "perps" blew out columns on eight floors with magical silent explosives?

 

[GlennB]

And your alternative to that "preposterous hypothesis" is that after the building was already falling because of some unspecified reason, the "perps" blew out every single column on eight floors with magical silent explosives?

Just a quick fix to get it in line with MM's actual, oft stated, theory.

 

[Horatius]

In similar fashion a column that has tilted and has lost its constraining connection at either end, offers absolutely zero support of any load.

It might be time to bust out my old "Cartoon Physics" comic:

And in this video of the NIST simulation of the collapse, take a look at what happens at the 8-9 second mark in the lower quarter of the building:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fIAK6PAeyn8


Yep, that's an about 8-story section of columns buckling across the full width of the building, producing a largely unconstrained collapse. Exactly what the Truthers claim is impossible without explosives.

 

[Miragememories]

But it isn't at all difficult to see: Even if you got past some questionable premises, the argument hits the wall with the invalid inference that jaydeehess pointed out a couple weeks ago:

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

And you your point is?

Without attempting to prove his case as it supposedly relates to WTC7, jaydeehess can make any statement he wishes.

A column that's been cut with explosive charges would provide no resistance, but neither would a column that's buckled or broken at a splice.

A reasonable person might then wonder what was going on during that 1.75 seconds that the roofline fell about 7 feet at less than free-fall.

(A reasonable person might then suspect that it might be related to that penthouse falling several seconds before that.)

Again, what is your point?

We are not talking about a single column.

We are talking about what created a condition where ALL the supporting columns, internal and external, failed in unison and allowed WTC7 to D R O P unresisted for 100 feet.

Regardless of what happened, hours, or seconds before the 2.25 seconds of WTC7's acknowledged free-fall collapse acceleration, it is undeniable that for 8 storeys, vertical support vanished.

Your preposterous hypothesis would have us believe everything supporting 8 storeys D R O P P E D and virtually no time was required for the failure of all the internal and external columns.

And your alternative to that "preposterous hypothesis" is that after the building was already falling because of some unspecified reason, the "perps" blew out columns on eight floors with magical silent explosives?

So it boils down to your selective incredulity.

The 'what was or wasn't heard' argument.

Yet you and your supporters never comment on how silent were the events that you believed did happen.

The silent buckling failure of the mammoth column 79.
The silent collapse of the east penthouse.
The silent gutting of WTC7 in the seconds prior to its global collapse.

Clearly these events must have generated high volume sound. Microphones flooded by a streetscape cacophony of noise are easily over-modulated making it near impossible to distinguish individual sounds.

You also ignore human hearing.

Explosions were reported by a number of eyewitnesses.

Barry Jennings who was trapped inside WTC7 after an explosion blew out the stairwell he was using to evacuate, reported clearly hearing repeated internal explosions, yet they were not recorded, or noted, by outside observers.

 

[beachnut]

​

....
Explosions were reported by a number of eyewitnesses.

Barry Jennings who was trapped inside WTC7 after an explosion blew out the stairwell he was using to evacuate, reported clearly hearing repeated internal explosions, yet they were not recorded, or noted, by outside observers.

Wow, quote mining your way to nonsense. No one heard explosives.

Barry Jennings stairwell was hit by the WTC debris. If it was a explosives, Barry Jennings would be dead. Your claims are so easy to debunks it hurts to waste 80wpm speed typing on such a trivial pursuit. 13th year of woo about CD from 911 truth, and the claims are repeated, already debunked years ago, and on 911.

 

[LSSBB]

​

And you your point is?

Without attempting to prove his case as it supposedly relates to WTC7, jaydeehess can make any statement he wishes.



Again, what is your point?

We are not talking about a single column.

We are talking about what created a condition where ALL the supporting columns, internal and external, failed in unison and allowed WTC7 to D R O P unresisted for 100 feet.





So it boils down to your selective incredulity.

The 'what was or wasn't heard' argument.

Yet you and your supporters never comment on how silent were the events that you believed did happen.

The silent buckling failure of the mammoth column 79.
The silent collapse of the east penthouse.
The silent gutting of WTC7 in the seconds prior to its global collapse.

Clearly these events must have generated high volume sound. Microphones flooded by a streetscape cacophony of noise are easily over-modulated making it near impossible to distinguish individual sounds.

You also ignore human hearing.

Explosions were reported by a number of eyewitnesses.

Barry Jennings who was trapped inside WTC7 after an explosion blew out the stairwell he was using to evacuate, reported clearly hearing repeated internal explosions, yet they were not recorded, or noted, by outside observers.

What the HECK are you babbling about? You still haven't shown this supposed period of the building "Freely falling" exists. Don't go off on a decibel and timeline ignoring rant on Explosions now. Stay back on target. Your post is PURE Gish Gallop.

 

[WilliamSeger]

And you your point is?

My point is exactly what I said: The argument that free fall implies demolition is not a valid logical inference, given that the definition of "valid logical inference" is that the conclusion necessarily follows from the premises, in the sense that if the premises are true then the conclusion cannot be false. Specifically, controlled demolition is not by any means the only explanation for the columns failing. This was a response to your expressed difficulty in seeing any faults in Realtrutherseeker's argument.

Without attempting to prove his case as it supposedly relates to WTC7, jaydeehess can make any statement he wishes.

You're the one who is supposed to be proving a case for demolition, and the point is that you are attempting to do that with faulty logic.

We are talking about what created a condition where ALL the supporting columns, internal and external, failed in unison and allowed WTC7 to D R O P unresisted for 100 feet.

Which is explained by a progressive horizontal failure across eight floors, with no need for explosives. That hypothesis also explains that 1.75-second, 7-foot, less-than-free-fall, which you haven't explained and which you apparently would like to completely ignore because you can't explain it. There was no need to waste all those magical silent explosives blowing out eight floors when the building was already falling.

So it boils down to your selective incredulity.

No, it begins with expecting you to substantiate a wildly implausible claim, and that "boils down" to your apparent inability to come up with anything better than sloppy logic applied to a very small subset of the facts.

The 'what was or wasn't heard' argument.

Yet you and your supporters never comment on how silent were the events that you believed did happen.

You might think it was silent if you've only watched "truther" videos with the sound removed, but "truthers" like Gage remove the sound so that it isn't so obvious that the rumbling sound actually recorded doesn't sound anything like videos of controlled demolitions. If explosives had been used to take out that many large columns on eight floors of a building that large, the distinctive sound of explosives would be on every video of the collapse (and would have easily been heard in New Jersey), yet the only thing that's heard on any of the videos is a rumbling noise consistent with a progressive collapse.

Explosions were reported by a number of eyewitnesses.

Barry Jennings who was trapped inside WTC7 after an explosion blew out the stairwell he was using to evacuate, reported clearly hearing repeated internal explosions, yet they were not recorded, or noted, by outside observers.

You are delusional. Nobody, but nobody, reported anything remotely similar to what a controlled demolition of all the columns on eight WTC7 floors would have sounded like. Jennings heard the collapsing north tower hit WTC7, and he got out hours before WTC7 collapsed. Show me a controlled demolition where the building fell hours after the explosives went off. This is just more sloppy logic applied to a tiny subset of the facts.

 

[jaydeehess]

I think I see where you are heading.

Both the thought experiments are ambiguous or unclear as to what you try to describe. The two hilited bits would need better definition before I would know exactly what you are wanting to put up for "thought".

The diagonal brace I describe will work to keep the column perpendicular to the post, for instance.
A lateral force on the beam end will then be resisted from changing the perpendicularity of post/beam connection, by the brace. However, if the brace is not fastened to either post or beam it offers absolutely no lateral support at all.

In similar fashion a post that is not fastened to either the foundation or the beam(in this case sans diagnonal brace ) AND has gone out out perpendicular cannot offer any support after a certain devaition from perpendicular is reached.

Femr's observations , iirc, indicate some downward movement that starts slow and quickly builds just as one would expect if columns below the eight floor were being shoved out of perpendicular. Acelleration rises slowly at first then more rapidly until 'g' and slightly over 'g'. To my mind that is exactly what I expect from this mechanism. From explosives I would expect a much more sudden rise to 'g'. To my mind the over 'g' is a consequence of the internal leading motion of structural components.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

The 'what was or wasn't heard' argument.

Don't forget... also what wasn't heard, the context of witness statements, and more importantly what wasn't found, and the fact that you cannot link cause and effect, or come up with a substantial justification as to how "freefall" and hype words support your point. Your proviso doesn't stand up to scrutiny, and it never has except to ardent conspiracy supporters.

The silent buckling failure of the mammoth column 79.The silent collapse of the east penthouse.
The silent gutting of WTC7 in the seconds prior to its global collapse.

Those are your assumptions not taking into account the audio and video recording devices in use, or the transmittal of sound in a city full of buildings. I'm definitely no sound expert but it doesn't take a genius to consider that the magnitude of a sound being carried is going to dissipate depending on the surroundings and on the direction among other factors. If you cannot even fathom that these would affect your assumptions there is no discussion here as you aren't getting anywhere near justifying what you're saying.

You also ignore human hearing.

Explosions were reported by a number of eyewitnesses.

This conspiracy is 12 years old. Competent people have spent enough time reading and listening to these witness statements in proper context and have explained with a fine-toothed cone how the physical evidence doesn't corroborate the notion that these witnesses somehow support the conclusion of "CD". Most people who still believe the eye witness testimony categorically points to "CD" have made their decision to believe that no matter the facts a long time ago.

 

[Mark F]

Barry Jennings who was trapped inside WTC7 after an explosion blew out the stairwell he was using to evacuate, reported clearly hearing repeated internal explosions, yet they were not recorded, or noted, by outside observers.

And how many hours was this before 7 actually collapsed?

So these explosions could certainly not have initiated the collapse, could they?

So why do we care?

 

[ozeco41]

And how many hours was this before 7 actually collapsed?

So these explosions could certainly not have initiated the collapse, could they?

So why do we care?

Don't forget "delayed action gravity" - AFAICS first explicitly referenced by T Szamboti. It accounts for those time based anomalies - where movement starts then nothing happens for several minutes. OR "loud banging noise" followed several minutes later by collapse.

 

[Miragememories]

Again, what is your point?

We are not talking about a single column.

We are talking about what created a condition where ALL the supporting columns, internal and external, failed in unison and allowed WTC7 to D R O P unresisted for 100 feet.

Which is explained by a progressive horizontal failure across eight floors, with no need for explosives.

That hypothesis also explains that 1.75-second, 7-foot, less-than-free-fall, which you haven't explained and which you apparently would like to completely ignore because you can't explain it.

There was no need to waste all those magical silent explosives blowing out eight floors when the building was already falling.

What I am interested in is the vertical failure.

Regardless of what you imagine occurred for 1.75 seconds hidden inside of WTC7, the perimeter columns remained visibly intact.

And suddenly, not progressively, for 8 storeys, ALL of the perimeter column support vanished.

There was nothing progressive about that 2.25 second 100 foot vertical drop.

Had there been a progressive total vertical failure, the building would have tilted and fallen towards the side that initially started failing (presumably the east side).

Clearly this did not happen!

So it boils down to your selective incredulity.

The 'what was or wasn't heard' argument.

Yet you and your supporters never comment on how silent were the events that you believed did happen.

The silent buckling failure of the mammoth column 79.
The silent collapse of the east penthouse.
The silent gutting of WTC7 in the seconds prior to its global collapse.

Clearly these events must have generated high volume sound. Microphones flooded by a streetscape cacophony of noise are easily over-modulated making it near impossible to distinguish individual sounds.

You might think it was silent if you've only watched "truther" videos with the sound removed, but "truthers" like Gage remove the sound so that it isn't so obvious that the rumbling sound actually recorded doesn't sound anything like videos of controlled demolitions.

If explosives had been used to take out that many large columns on eight floors of a building that large, the distinctive sound of explosives would be on every video of the collapse (and would have easily been heard in New Jersey), yet the only thing that's heard on any of the videos is a rumbling noise consistent with a progressive collapse.

I do not rely AE911 videos for reference.

Thanks to FOIA requests, I have copies of most of the original 9/11 WTC7 recordings.

Additionally, I have over 30 years experience in the TV broadcast industry working as a sound and video editor. It is very difficult to record clear, understandable audio in a noisy environment.

You also ignore human hearing.

Explosions were reported by a number of eyewitnesses.

Barry Jennings who was trapped inside WTC7 after an explosion blew out the stairwell he was using to evacuate, reported clearly hearing repeated internal explosions, yet they were not recorded, or noted, by outside observers.

Nobody, but nobody, reported anything remotely similar to what a controlled demolition of all the columns on eight WTC7 floors would have sounded like.

Jennings heard the collapsing north tower hit WTC7, and he got out hours before WTC7 collapsed.

Show me a controlled demolition where the building fell hours after the explosives went off. This is just more sloppy logic applied to a tiny subset of the facts.

Again, I repeat, if you think the pre-implosion sounds of WTC7 should have been quite audible, WHY, do we not hear in the recordings, or from eye witnesses, the sound of the east penthouse crashing though the roof?

Why do we not hear the buckling collapse of the massive column 79 which supposedly started it all.

Why do we not hear the horrendous noise of WTC7's interior steel structure supposedly collapsing?

You readily accept that inaudibility but deny the credibility of inaudible alternative sounds of internal destruction.

Citing the 'spin' placed on what Barry Jennings said is not the same as recounting what Barry Jennings actually claimed.

Have you ever looked at where those lower stairwells were located in WTC7 and compared that to the known damage caused by WTC1 at 10:28 am.

Barry Jennings never recanted what he heard and saw.

He claimed in a documented interview that he experienced the collapses of WTC2 and WTC1 after his aborted evacuation attempt via the demolished WTC7 6th floor stairwell.

Michael Hess who was with Jennings at the time claimed in an interview that he thought the explosion had come from the basement of WTC7.

Neither of their testimonies is a fit for debris from above pummelling halfway through the 6th floor of WTC7

 

[carlitos]

Don't forget "delayed action gravity" - AFAICS first explicitly referenced by T Szamboti. It accounts for those time based anomalies - where movement starts then nothing happens for several minutes. OR "loud banging noise" followed several minutes later by collapse.

Looney Tunes physics.

 

[JayUtah]

Neither of their testimonies is a fit for debris from above pummelling halfway through the 6th floor of WTC7

Why? Because you say so?

Your post isn't a fit for any of the evidence. So there.

 

[JayUtah]

There was nothing progressive about that 2.25 second 100 foot vertical drop.

Because you artificially start your analysis well into the failure. Progressive collapse doesn't mean it progresses at a constant rate.

Had there been a progressive total vertical failure, the building would have tilted and fallen towards the side that initially started failing (presumably the east side).

Nonsense, no law of physics or principle of engineering requires the loads to transfer slowly like that.

Additionally, I have over 30 years experience in the TV broadcast industry...

Good for you. What part of that professional experience qualifies you in structural engineering?

Why do we not hear the buckling collapse of the massive column 79 which supposedly started it all.

Describe the sound of a column buckling, and how you know that's what it should sound like.

Why do we not hear the horrendous noise of WTC7's interior steel structure supposedly collapsing?

Begging the question.

You readily accept that inaudibility but deny the credibility of inaudible alternative sounds of internal destruction.

No, you construct elaborate straw men and begged questions to tap-dance your way around your claim of inaudible explosives. Steel may fail with a horrendous noise, but buckling is comparatively silent. Demolition explosives, however, are very load because by definition they must create supersonic shock waves.

You're failing to appreciate the difference between something that might be loud and something that must be loud.

Barry Jennings never recanted what he heard and saw.

That doesn't make his interpretation of his observations the correct interpretation. That's now how eyewitness testimony works.