'What about building 7'?

[tsig]

Leftovers from a failed CD would have been a real problem to coverup.

Destroying the eye-ballable evidence made it easier to control the level of investigation.

Imagine a failed CD where half of WTC7 is left standing showing exposed columns rigged for rapid removal.

Imagine a CD where half of the thermite failed to react and was floating around in the rubble.

 

[tsig]

Dear Mr JayUtah, thank you for your replies. I cannot see a clear answer or repost to my simple, physics based statement that; “Buildings cannot fall in or near free-fall acceleration except by controlled demolition”. The colorful graph with lots of varied information does not show how, on this planet, (where g = 9.81 m/s/s), a building can suddenly go into absolute freefall like WTC 7 did, as admitted by NIST. As you are an intelligent man with more than a passing interest in physics, I am sure that if you were able to see the 3 towers falling as they did, both at and close to freefall, and were not simultaneously fed with "official" information, such as "19 arabs armed with box cutters, destroyed 3 towers with 2 aircraft, because they didn't like our freedom", you would have, on your own, personally worked out that they were each destroyed by pre-planted explosives or cutter charges. You would have analyzed that, to fall that fast, would require the removal of all the supporting structure, instantly or in a tightly timed sequence and that only well positioned and perfectly timed cutter charges could achieve this. This would have been your cool, clear headed, personal analysis, based on what you already knew and what you observed. The fact that now you are supporting a story which you absorbed at a moment when we were all vulnerable because deeply confused and anguished, perhaps in panic, and are now using your own knowledge to embellish it, shows me that you are needing to protect a belief which presently suits your world view. Namely that government is benevolent and the media is free and independent to say what they want on any subject. Your brain is functioning normally in protecting a belief that it considers essential to your survival. Did you notice how they all said the same thing even though there was no proof of anything to start with? How can it have been a surprise attack when the government and media immediately knew all about it the moment the 2nd plane hit? "It's Osama Bin Laden" they said! If they knew who did it before doing any research or uncovering any evidence they must have known, or decided it, before.
Some, meaning those of us who are able to access our upper brain functions even concerning such a traumatic event, despite the fact that it goes against what we previously believed our survival depended on, are able to process the information in a different way. In short, we are able to see through the lies, understanding the reason for the lies, seeing the pattern through history of these lies, and are able to see a different version of the truth. A less comfortable but more coherent understanding which encompasses the Media Industrial Complex, the Military Industrial Complex, the New World Order, the Patriot Act, the CIA psy-ops operations, why we are deliberately and permanently at war etc. You may understand a lot just by reading the PNAC's defining document:" Rebuilding Americas Defenses", written a year before 9/11. You may likewise be deeply enlightened by reading the CIA declassified papers on "Operation Northwoods". You may be able to change your views on what US government is about.
Thank you Sir.
To Beachnut, my new stopwatch tells me 7 seconds for WTC 7.
To Seymour Butz, sorry Sir, my mistake, "Brainwashed Morons" was JayUtahs expression, not yours. Not a lie but my mistake.
To tsig, a question of false logic; Saying that WTC 7 was CD because it was free-fall is not the same as saying all CD's are free-fall. Most CD's are not free-fall because they don't need to be. It's more costly to do a perfect CD than an adequate one so they mostly go for adequate. WTC 7 was a perfect CD because you, as did every other taxpaying american paid for it. I'm suspecting the 2.3 trillion that Rumsfeld announced the day before went missing from the Pentagon budget, may have had something to do with it. And yes, I do believe my milk bottle fell at free-fall when pushed off my high chair, but only when it didn't hit anything on the way down. When it did hit something like my lap or the legs of the chair on the way down, it definitely went slower. These were my first innocent observations before I could put words to it. Important to me I think because we should never lose the ability to innocently look at something and understand it, before our mind is polluted and controlled by the press.

So it looked like a CD because of the free fall even though we do not see free fall in a CD.

What caused the rapid failure of the columns? Buckling.

 

[tsig]

And this one, by your logic, didn't need to be either. But 'they' spent extra money to create a CD that just screamed CD? Perhaps 'they' are less bright than you think

p.s. learn to use paragraphs. It will make your drivel less hard to read.

First they say it must be a CD because it looks like one then when challenged to show a free fall CD they say that it doesn't look like a CD.

 

[GlennB]

Leftovers from a failed CD would have been a real problem to coverup.

Destroying the eye-ballable evidence made it easier to control the level of investigation.

This is ironic on a number of levels.

Commercial CDs rarely fail, and 8 entire storeys ripped out simultaneously in such a building is certainly massive over-kill by commercial standards. Therefore, the outcome actually points to over-kill CD (by your logic). The perps did a bad job by drawing attention to themselves. Didn't they see that coming?

If it had collapsed at < g throughout? You'd be claiming they did a grand job in hiding the CD by not overdoing it. Your position is untouchable. Damned if it did, damned if it didn't.

Last time we discussed the planning and timing of this supposed CD you expressed the belief that WTC7 was 'intended' to fall at about the time of WTC1's collapse and that the actual collapse was an emergency backup procedure when Plan A went wrong. When pressed to describe how 'the perps' might explain such a mysterious early collapse the best you could do was post a photo of a dust cloud rolling by WTC7. Thus, by your standards, *no damn reason whatsoever* was the best they had up their sleeves to explain its planned demolition. Today, though, you're claiming it had to be so thorough that no possible evidence might remain, even though that very thoroughness is a clue in itself.

See the contradiction in your beliefs here? My advice to you - stop inventing bollocks to get you through today's discussion, because your previous differently-bollocksed arguments are here in b+w to be quoted right back at you.

 

[jaydeehess]

It wasn't part of the "main collapse". Gage actually told me this in person.

I guess that Gage feels he can decide what the "main Collapse" entails and what that even means.

According to MM, part of the not-so-main collapse, is an explosive that went off when J&H were in WTC 7, which, according to MM, went off well before either WTC 1 or 2 came down. If MM's timeline is to be believed then the original plan either included WTC 7 coming down before the other two towers, OR it included setting of an explosive a long time before the tower's collapsed.
Either way, as I said above, its a dang crazy notion.

 

[beachnut]

... To Beachnut, my new stopwatch tells me 7 seconds for WTC 7. ...

What about the rest of the building, you can't see the whole building, how much time do you add for the rest? Why do you repeat lies from 911 truth? Why do you have no practical experience with physics?

Wow, you left out the penthouse falling inside the building for 6 to 8 seconds, which means the interior was failing many seconds before the facade fell. Oops, you lie about 911 with a fantasy of CD.

Is your silly 13 years late fantasy, thermite with no product, or silent no blast effects high explosives? How did the NWO get thermite which leaves no products, and super silent explosives which leave no blast effects?

What will you do with your failed fantasy? Go to Disneyland, or Disney World? Toss up? Punt? Let me answer that question, Realtruthseeker, who spreads lies about 911 (irony built into a name, reminds me of realcddeal, or Balsamo's delusional 11g made funnyfysics...) will do ... Nothing.

It is best, for the 911 truth delusional fantasy you believe on faith, you ignore the penthouse falling into the interior of WTC 7; that will ruin 911 truth's idiotic CD claim.

 

[DGM]

I guess that Gage feels he can decide what the "main Collapse" entails and what that even means.

According to MM, part of the not-so-main collapse, is an explosive that went off when J&H were in WTC 7, which, according to MM, went off well before either WTC 1 or 2 came down. If MM's timeline is to be believed then the original plan either included WTC 7 coming down before the other two towers, OR it included setting of an explosive a long time before the tower's collapsed.
Either way, as I said above, its a dang crazy notion.

Jennings and Hess are a wild goose chase that "truthers" hope you follow. It leads to no-where and they hope you never stop following. Their time line is wrong, there's no two ways about it.

This is earth, you can't violate the laws of physics. NIST never claimed anything that could.

A good analogy for a "truther" arguing the laws of physics.

A "truther" is driving down the road at 90 mph in a 30 mph zone. A cop stops him and the "truther" claims the cop is wrong because he knows a sign that says 30 mph really means 90 mph. The cop writes the ticket and the "truther" claims he violated his rights. Yeah, they're that stupid.

 

[Porkpie Hat]

“Buildings cannot fall in or near free-fall acceleration except by controlled demolition”.

This is an unsupported and unsupportable assertion with no merit.

That assertion epitomizes why 9/11 "truth" fails in every way, shape and form to have any real world impact aside from entertainment.

 

[WilliamSeger]

I cannot see a clear answer or repost to my simple, physics based statement that; “Buildings cannot fall in or near free-fall acceleration except by controlled demolition”.

The clear answer you've been given and ignored is that a broken column will not provide any resistance to the fall, regardless of what caused it to break. Obviously, you don't understand how that could happen except by controlled demolition, but so what? Why are we supposed to be persuaded by your lack of understanding? You never will understand it as long you insist on ignoring what happened before the free-fall and insist on ignoring the explanation given by people who do understand it. If you want to prove them wrong, personal incredulity ain't gonna cut it. To paraphrase Danial Patrick Moynihan, you're entitled to your own opinions, but you're not entitled to your own physics.

 

[jaydeehess]

The clear answer you've been given and ignored is that a broken column will not provide any resistance to the fall, regardless of what caused it to break. Obviously, you don't understand how that could happen except by controlled demolition, but so what?

A broken (ie. snapped) column, or a tilted unconstrained column, or a buckled column, none of these will offer any load carrying capability.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

Leftovers from a failed CD would have been a real problem to coverup.

Destroying the eye-ballable evidence made it easier to control the level of investigation.

Imagine a failed CD where half of WTC7 is left standing showing exposed columns rigged for rapid removal.

Dont worry, this man understands and believes:

http://youtu.be/w-0TEJMJOhk

 

[000063]

Leftovers from a failed CD would have been a real problem to coverup.

Destroying the eye-ballable evidence made it easier to control the level of investigation.

Imagine a failed CD where half of WTC7 is left standing showing exposed columns rigged for rapid removal.

So you think they made the already complicated CD more complicated, and thus more likely to fail in implementation let alone execution, in order to make it easier to cover up.

 

[Realtruthseeker]

Facing reality.

A broken (ie. snapped) column, or a tilted unconstrained column, or a buckled column, none of these will offer any load carrying capability.

One column broken? Fine, but even then, it would have to be broken in at least 2 places to get out of the way and provide zero resistance. Then it would have to happen simultaneously to the other 80 columns. There were 24 core columns and 57 peripheral columns making 81 in total.
Then it would also have to happen on all 47 floors virtually simultaneously or in rapid, precisely timed succession so the whole building could go down at virtually free-fall and in perfect symmetry as it did. That's 47x2X81=7614 breakages that need to happen all at once. Unlikely wouldn't you say?
Do you really expect me to accept it fell because of a single broken column, or beam that slipped off it's support? A child who makes Lego buildings or Meccano structures can tell you it's impossible for the whole structure to fail at once to provide zero resistance. Maybe it's time to wake up guys and face reality.

 

[pgimeno]

Re: Facing reality.

Then it would also have to happen on all 47 floors virtually simultaneously or in rapid, precisely timed succession so the whole building could go down at virtually free-fall and in perfect symmetry as it did. That's 47x2X81=7614 breakages that need to happen all at once. Unlikely wouldn't you say?

No.

Collapses are often sudden. When one column fails, the weight is redistributed among the remaining columns. That process is very quick, in the tenths or hundredths of second. When the remaining columns are not enough to hold the building, they fail in rapid sequence as the load redistributes and columns get overloaded in turn, so everything fails at virtually the same time.

Example:

Do you really expect me to accept it fell because of a single broken column, or beam that slipped off it's support? A child who makes Lego buildings or Meccano structures can tell you it's impossible for the whole structure to fail at once to provide zero resistance. Maybe it's time to wake up guys and face reality.

That didn't happen. You've been explained and you keep ignoring the explanations. The fact that the building exceeded g and did not have a constant acceleration proves unequivocally that it was not a free unimpeded fall with zero resistance, but rather that there were more forces into play, with the force pushing down exceeding the resistance force.

You have so far offered no explanation for the building exceeding g and you keep dismissing the explanations that you are given. Ignoring facts so blatantly is diametrically contrary to what you are advocating, the "wake up to facts" and "facing reality" and all that.

 

[LSSBB]

One column broken? Fine, but even then, it would have to be broken in at least 2 places to get out of the way and provide zero resistance. Then it would have to happen simultaneously to the other 80 columns. There were 24 core columns and 57 peripheral columns making 81 in total.
Then it would also have to happen on all 47 floors virtually simultaneously or in rapid, precisely timed succession so the whole building could go down at virtually free-fall and in perfect symmetry as it did. That's 47x2X81=7614 breakages that need to happen all at once. Unlikely wouldn't you say?
Do you really expect me to accept it fell because of a single broken column, or beam that slipped off it's support? A child who makes Lego buildings or Meccano structures can tell you it's impossible for the whole structure to fail at once to provide zero resistance. Maybe it's time to wake up guys and face reality.

It didn't fall in perfect symmetry.

Separate question for you: How fast does a moment-framed building redistribute extreme compressive loads to the point of column fracture, less than say 1.5 seconds? Please show your FEA work in answering. I know you can't do an accurate calculation in your head.

 

[Miragememories]

One column broken? Fine, but even then, it would have to be broken in at least 2 places to get out of the way and provide zero resistance.

Then it would have to happen simultaneously to the other 80 columns.

There were 24 core columns and 57 peripheral columns making 81 in total.

Do you really expect me to accept it fell because of a single broken column, or beam that slipped off it's support?

A child who makes Lego buildings or Meccano structures can tell you it's impossible for the whole structure to fail at once to provide zero resistance.

Maybe it's time to wake up guys and face reality.

No.

Collapses are often sudden.

When one column fails, the weight is redistributed among the remaining columns.

That process is very quick, in the tenths or hundredths of second.

When the remaining columns are not enough to hold the building, they fail in rapid sequence as the load redistributes and columns get overloaded in turn, so everything fails at virtually the same time.

Balsa Wood Example:



That didn't happen.

You've been explained and you keep ignoring the explanations.

The fact that the building exceeded g and did not have a constant acceleration proves unequivocally that it was not a free unimpeded fall with zero resistance, but rather that there were more forces into play, with the force pushing down exceeding the resistance force.

You have so far offered no explanation for the building exceeding g and you keep dismissing the explanations that you are given. Ignoring facts so blatantly is diametrically contrary to what you are advocating, the "wake up to facts" and "facing reality" and all that.

Well, you've shown that if the WTC7 had been constructed of balsa wood, it could not only have rapidly burned to the ground, it could have been crushable.

Your example is that of a structure initially supporting its own weight as load.

Like any building, if you somehow stack an ever increasing balanced load on the roof, sooner or later the crushing gravitational force created will overwhelm the building's engineered vertical support.

But this is not what WTC7 experienced, making your pathetic example absolutely worthless as comparison.

Meanwhile in the real world of concrete and structural steel, buildings behave as expected.

I welcome you to provide real world examples of "often" sudden building collapses that were not CDs.

It didn't fall in perfect symmetry.

Do you have any idea what would qualify as a symmetrical collapse in engineering terms or are you hung up on "perfect"?

Any delay in one side failing before the other, and that building will start tilting. There is no significant tilt until late in the collapse.

 

[DGM]

Any delay in one side failing before the other, and that building will start tilting. There is no significant tilt until late in the collapse.

And this means what exactly? How does this invalidate the commonly held description of how this building failed.

Come on MM, be the first to actually show how your "dots" connect.

 

[JayUtah]

One column broken? Fine, but even then, it would have to be broken in at least 2 places to get out of the way and provide zero resistance.

No. Structural mechanics does not work that way.

Then it would have to happen simultaneously to the other 80 columns.

No, it wouldn't. You're trying to explain a "symmetrical" collapse, but the data show it was not symmetrical at all.

Then it would also have to happen on all 47 floors virtually simultaneously or in rapid, precisely timed succession...

Loads transfer from failed members to surviving members instantly, whereupon they fail in quick succession. Not instantly, but rapidly.

Do you really expect me to accept it fell because of a single broken column...

I expect you to accept the reality of structural engineering. It doesn't work like you and other laymen think it does, which is why it's a licensed profession.

A child who makes Lego buildings or Meccano structures can tell you...

I'm not interested in the opinions of children, and Legos are not a suitable analog to real world structures. I am interested in the well-reasoned conclusions of properly educated structural engineers who are familiar with the materials, techniques, and applicable sciences. They are in near unanimous agreement for what happened.

Maybe it's time to wake up guys and face reality.

Maybe it's time to get an engineering degree, pass the licensing exam, and stop letting Lego-wielding children (or their adult equivalents) lead you around by the nose.

 

[JayUtah]

Do you have any idea what would qualify as a symmetrical collapse in engineering terms or are you hung up on "perfect"?

And for the umpteenth time you imply knowledge you do not have. You have said your field of expertise is video production, audio recording, etc. I have asked you multiple times what your qualifications are in structural engineering or forensic engineering, such that you could offer the sorts of opinions you're presenting here as the expectations of the industry. You have failed many times to answer and have rather conspicuously stopped talking to many of the people asking the same questions. From that I conclude you have something to hide along those lines, namely that you have no pertinent expertise and that your opinions and expectations here are not probative in any way.

What is your experience in forensic and/or structural engineering? I remind you that the near unanimous voice of qualified experts strongly disputes your beliefs.

 

[jaydeehess]

One column broken? Fine, but even then, it would have to be broken in at least 2 places to get out of the way and provide zero resistance.

No, it wouldn't

Then it would have to happen simultaneously to the other 80 columns. There were 24 core columns and 57 peripheral columns making 81 in total

That's where that pesky 10 seconds before truthers even bother looking at the collapse come in. At that time the core was failing. That causes the entire cantilever truss assembly to lose its major southern end support. That causes all those trusses to tilt, snap their connection to the columns supporting them and move north. You see this in the NIST FEA animation. THEN there is no support possible from those columns. OMG that's 7-8 floors in height!

Then it would also have to happen on all 47 floors virtually simultaneously or in rapid, precisely timed succession so the whole building could go down at virtually free-fall and in perfect symmetry as it did.

Uh, no, why would all the columns on every floor have to fail in order for the top 40 or so to fall? Why also do you say it feel in perfect symmetry when in fact all of those upper floors had tilted in towards the "kink" along the line of where column 79 is? Why would you say that when the remains of the struccture show that the western 2/3rds of the building fell to the south while the eastern 1/3rd fell to the NW?

Do you really expect me to accept it fell because of a single broken column, or beam that slipped off it's support? .

Yeah failure of a measely one component of a system never results in total failure of the whole system. Wait,,,, if your kindeys, or your liver, or your heart, or your brain fail,,,,,,,,, a single tile on a space shuttle, or a single O-ring,,,,,,, then there is that single flooded compartment in a ship known as the Titanic,,,,, the coffee machine that caught fire in a Delft University building,,,,,,,,,,,,,,(others feel free to add to the list)