'What about building 7'?

[JayUtah]

This is all an argument about expectations.

Your expectations are unscientific, unprecedented, and empirically disproven.

In a typical public controlled demolition, a recording of a huge tall building, such as the WTC7 in this video, totally collapsing at high speed, would by your expectation capture a lot of concussive sound.

No, for the reasons I've already explained to you twice.

Close your eyes and tell me how well this collapse is conveyed to you by audio alone.

Sorry, but my policy is not to investigate with my eyes closed.

 

[Miragememories]

"Obviously the entire structure failed or it would ALL have come down like humpty dumpty."

I know, but I am addressing the truther meme, column servering.

And what does it mean for the entire structure to fail?

What does it mean that WTC7 dropped at freefall acceleration for 100 feet with a kinked but relatively level roofline?

For one thing, and this is quite obvious, for the north and west faces to be dropping at that velocity, at some point below camera frame, 100 feet of perimeter columns must have been severed in unison.

 

[carlitos]

No.

 

[JayUtah]

For one thing, and this is quite obvious, for the north and west faces to be dropping at that velocity, at some point below camera frame, 100 feet of perimeter columns must have been severed in unison.

"Obvious" to your highly-trained and highly-experienced structural engineer's mind, I'm sure. Oh wait, you don't have any such training to inform your expectations, and all the people who do have that training disagree with you.

 

[LSSBB]

And what does it mean for the entire structure to fail?

What does it mean that WTC7 dropped at freefall acceleration for 100 feet with a kinked but relatively level roofline?

[qimg]http://i1265.photobucket.com/albums/jj515/Miragememories/CollapseComp-images2_zps58962550.jpg[/qimg]

For one thing, and this is quite obvious, for the north and west faces to be dropping at that velocity, at some point below camera frame, 100 feet of perimeter columns must have been severed in unison.

For the 50 bazzilionth time, you can't claim 100 feet worth of free fall. The evidence does not show the acceleration was constant.

 

[Miragememories]

My best guess is that thermite would be used to initiate a major structural failure and that once that was in play, conventional explosives would immediately take out the required perimeter and core columns.

With no audible booms and no window shattering?

No, not possible.

Your guess is wrong. Try another guess.

NEW WTC 7 Investigation Witness to Flashes and Explosions.mp4
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PiqUOebz22c

5 minutes after WTC7 collapse.

Radio Anchor: "Let's go to 1010 reporter Eileen Lapalmer (sp). Eileen?"
00:01:34 Reporter Eileen Laplamer: "Alright, Ralph I'm here on Hudson St.

As you've been hearing 7 WTC just collapsed about 5 minutes ago.....

I'm here with an emergency worker. He's a first year NYU medical student. He was down there. He was trying to help people. His name is Daryl."

Daryl: Yeah..ahh. I was just standing there.

We were watching the building actually [WTC7] because it was on fire.

The bottom floors of this building were on fire and we heard this sound. It sounded like a clap of thunder.

We turned around and we were shocked to see that the building was..it looked like there was a shockwave ripping through the building.

The windows all busted out and it was horrifying.

Then ahh..about a second later, the bottom floor caved out and the building followed after that. And uhm..we saw the building crash down all the way to the ground.

We were in shock..."

 

[NoahFence]

Too funny.

<snip> Comedy gold.

Edited by Loss Leader: 

Edited for Rule 0

 

[JayUtah]

The bottom floors of this building were on fire and we heard this sound. It sounded like a clap of thunder.

High order detonations do not sound like thunder when you are in the vicinity. Note even a little bit. They sound more like very powerful gunshots. And if you had been paying attention to my explanations of the physics of sound, you'd know what objective properties of the sound compose that difference.

We turned around and we were shocked to see that the building was..it looked like there was a shockwave ripping through the building.

If they first heard the sound and then turned around to look, what they saw cannot have been an acoustic shock wave. Those move at the speed of sound, by definition. If they're looking at the building, then they're looking at the effects of impending structural failure -- local fractures and deformations, which often tend to "ripple" as load is transferred from failed members preferentially to adjacent ones. Just because he uses the word "shock wave" doesn't mean it's the same thing we mean by that word.

The windows all busted out and it was horrifying.

But obviously not in response to a concussive detonation, because that would have occurred while their backs were turned in your interpretation. If they turn around and then see windows breaking, it's because the structure is deforming (windows don't bend very easily) preparatory to a collapse initiation event. Windows broken by a concussive detonation would have been not only in that building, but in nearby buildings.

As you are so fond of ignoring, the collapse actually took a fair amount of time -- enough time for people to hear parts of the structure collapse (which does sound like thunder) and then turn around to see the rest of the event happen.

Then ahh..about a second later, the bottom floor caved out and the building followed after that.

Imagine that! The part of the structure actively burning and becoming weaker, and bearing the most gravity load, failed first! That should turn structural engineering on its ear.

You really need to read through these accounts more carefully instead of just knee-jerkedly assuming they support your predetermined beliefs.

 

[JSanderO]

A big problem with sound and relating it to visuals is distance... We know sound travels at about 1100 ft per sec and so that's 4 blocks or so. Standing at that distance... (outside the safety zone I believe) the sound would be heard a second after what caused it is seen. If you turn to see what you heard... at that distance it took place one second previously.

If you move the witness or the camera further back... the sound and the visuals are more out of sync.

We are aware of this at the July 4th fireworks where the sound and the lights are out of sync... lights then sound. It seems odd but that's because the sound travels so much slower and our proximity is more than 1000 feet from the pyrotechnic launcher.

Clearly ear witnesses would be confused by the out of sync of visual and the audio.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

For the 50 bazzilionth time, you can't claim 100 feet worth of free fall. The evidence does not show the acceleration was constant.

MM's picking, choosing, and mining out only his selected case points. It's part way why my involvement in the thread is limited, most of the issues with the argument have been raised by members in this thread repeatedly, and have been dealt with for years. I've personally been there and done that, if he doesn't address those issues I see no need to elaborate on the material that's harmed by them. Case in point, this hyper literal interpretation without the slightest skepticism or research into the circumstances has been a sticking point for truther arguments for years. They were told 8 years or more that literal interpretation is a fallacy, and here we are in 2014, almost at the 13th anniversary of the attacks, still dealing with it with a member who chooses to continue with the hyper-literal interpretation. Furthermore the retort is that being skeptical of that interpretation means to accuse the witness of lying.

I can understand ignoring condescension regardless of the merits of his arguments, I don't blame him for that where it happens. But, there are enough members posting the issues sensibly that there's no reason not to confront them head on. MM can continue doing whatever he wants... I just choose not to care anymore, or for that matter dignify with an argument as to why he's wrong. I explained it already, did the repetition, almost never had those concerns addressed.... so I don't feel it needs repeated after being made clear for 13 years. This is why folks like Richard Gage are ridiculed and rightfully so IMHO for their arguments.

 

[jaydeehess]

And what does it mean for the entire structure to fail?

What does it mean that WTC7 dropped at freefall acceleration for 100 feet with a kinked but relatively level roofline?

[qimg]http://i1265.photobucket.com/albums/jj515/Miragememories/CollapseComp-images2_zps58962550.jpg[/qimg]

For one thing, and this is quite obvious, for the north and west faces to be dropping at that velocity, at some point below camera frame, 100 feet of perimeter columns must have been severed in unison.

Finally !

So these perimeter column explosives, unencumbered by office furnishings or sound dampening intact windows were silent. Back to hush-a-booms or the mysterious phenomena of every single audio track being somehow saturated into not detecting the blasts.

 

[jaydeehess]

NEW WTC 7 Investigation Witness to Flashes and Explosions.mp4
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PiqUOebz22c

5 minutes after WTC7 collapse.

Radio Anchor: "Let's go to 1010 reporter Eileen Lapalmer (sp). Eileen?"
00:01:34 Reporter Eileen Laplamer: "Alright, Ralph I'm here on Hudson St.

As you've been hearing 7 WTC just collapsed about 5 minutes ago.....

I'm here with an emergency worker. He's a first year NYU medical student. He was down there. He was trying to help people. His name is Daryl."

Daryl: Yeah..ahh. I was just standing there.

We were watching the building actually [WTC7] because it was on fire.

The bottom floors of this building were on fire and we heard this sound. It sounded like a clap of thunder.

We turned around and we were shocked to see that the building was..it looked like there was a shockwave ripping through the building.

The windows all busted out and it was horrifying.

Then ahh..about a second later, the bottom floor caved out and the building followed after that. And uhm..we saw the building crash down all the way to the ground.

We were in shock..."

I don't recall that the lowest ( bottom ) floors of WTC7 were ever on fire, but perhaps they were.
As JU says, a shockwave from a blast would have been over by the time this person "turned around", so would the window breakage.
JSO reminds us that the sound arrives after the sight so that would further separate a distant witness's turning at a sound and their witnessing any sight of explosion.
Interestingly this witnesses describes what the NIST fea based animation also shows, the lower eight floors of the structure bowing out to the north.

 

[jaydeehess]

BTW,MM, it wouldn't be required to demolish every column at every floor in order to effect an eight floor drop. In real demolitions there are two charges on a column, the cutting charge designed to quickly sever it , and a kicker charge to move the now separated column parts from hitting each other as the upper one comes down. The idea that every column had to be severed at every floor is ridiculous in and of itself.

 

[JayUtah]

Controlled demolition makes use of the fact that a sufficiently buckled or bent column provides no structural support or resistance. This fact is not generally acknowledged or known among non-engineers, and I believe leads to the wrong impressions of what an unplanned collapse should look like. It also undermines the misconception that all vertical structural members must be explicitly cut in order to achieve a rapid collapse. Apparently layman fancy that bent columns should still afford some structural support (at the scale of building loads) that should gradually give way and allow a slow settling of the structure to the ground.

 

[DGM]

The bottom floors of this building were on fire and we heard this sound. It sounded like a clap of thunder.

We turned around and we were shocked to see that the building was..it looked like there was a shockwave ripping through the building.

The windows all busted out and it was horrifying.

Then ahh..about a second later, the bottom floor caved out and the building followed after that. And uhm..we saw the building crash down all the way to the ground.

We were in shock..."

You just quoted proof that what caused the penthouse to disappear started low in the building. You were saying there was no effect to the lower parts of the building as the penthouses fell. This witness disagrees. This witness comfirms the "official story".

 

[Miragememories]

And what does it mean for the entire structure to fail?

What does it mean that WTC7 dropped at freefall acceleration for 100 feet with a kinked but relatively level roofline?

For one thing, and this is quite obvious, for the north and west faces to be dropping at that velocity, at some point below camera frame, 100 feet of perimeter columns must have been severed in unison.

For the 50 bazzilionth time, you can't claim 100 feet worth of free fall. The evidence does not show the acceleration was constant.

You are right. You do repeatedly harp on this point. Unfortunately, you never present a case to show your point has any meaningful value. You might as well obsess on whether the temperature outside that day was 71F and not 72F (offhand, I do not know what it was, just in case you want to go off on another nitpicking tangent).

Simply put, the established and universally agreed 2.25 seconds of free-fall of Building 7 proves controlled demolition.

This is not established and not universally agreed upon. In fact, it has no evidentiary support whatsoever.

From the NIST is summary in Section 3.6 of the final summary report, NCSTAR 1A (released Nov. 20, 2008; available at http://wtc.nist.gov/NCSTAR1/PDF/NCSTAR 1A.pdf) and detailed in Section 12.5.3 of NIST NCSTAR 1-9 (available at http://wtc.nist.gov/NCSTAR1/PDF/NCST... Vol 2.pdf).

* Stage 2 (1.75 to 4.0 seconds): gravitational acceleration (free fall)

From the Aug.26, 2008 NIST Technical Briefing;

"...a free fall time would be an object that has no...uh... structural components below it..."

Like I said;

Since you are so hung up on this point, considering high speed collapse of WTC7 was over in seconds, what possible significance could there be to a few plot points in the acceleration chart which show fractional deviations from freefall?

You keep quibbling over insignificant points and you never attempt to show why, in your mind, they are important.

You don't respond, but simply bide your time and post the same irrelevant points all over again.

e.g.

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.

 

[jaydeehess]

Controlled demolition makes use of the fact that a sufficiently buckled or bent column provides no structural support or resistance. This fact is not generally acknowledged or known among non-engineers, and I believe leads to the wrong impressions of what an unplanned collapse should look like. It also undermines the misconception that all vertical structural members must be explicitly cut in order to achieve a rapid collapse. Apparently layman fancy that bent columns should still afford some structural support (at the scale of building loads) that should gradually give way and allow a slow settling of the structure to the ground.

Not just buckled or bent, a column between foundation and the cantilever trusses is part of an elevated foundation. If the trusses lie on top of the column and are thusly affixed to foundation and truss. Cause the truss to move laterally and those connections break leaving a tilted unconstrained column..... No support possible.

 

[DGM]

You keep quibbling over insignificant points and you never attempt to show why, in your mind, they are important.
You don't respond, but simply bide your time and post the same irrelevant points all over again.

 

[JayUtah]

...most of the issues with the argument have been raised by members in this thread repeatedly, and have been dealt with for years.

Indeed. While I've been reading this thread and others in this forum for years, I've noticed just since I started actively participating in them that all the major points have gone round and round and back to home at least once.

In my opinion, recasting the inconsequential WTC 7 as the new principal character was when it jumped the shark. When you have to justify why your suspicious outcome matters, you've lost any sort of reasonable argument. Trying to solve Kennedy's murder over and over again has some appeal because you don't have to justify why Kennedy's death was significant. But the squabble over WTC 7 is like trying to promote some random murder as necessarily conspiratorial because the victim was secretly someone very important, somehow.

The answer to that is clear. If you suddenly promote some inconsequential occurrence, you can say whatever you want about it with less fear of contradiction since the event's obscurity makes it hard for both sides to research. That gives conspiracists an upper hand since their arguments are ever only based on conjecture anyway. They aren't hampered by a relative lack of pertinent fact.

I explained it already, did the repetition, almost never had those concerns addressed.... so I don't feel it needs repeated after being made clear for 13 years. This is why folks like Richard Gage are ridiculed and rightfully so IMHO for their arguments.

Indeed when the discussion becomes so tightly cyclical and unyielding Gage et. al are seen simply to vigorously defibrillate the corpse of their claims, and attribute its reflexive flopping about as signs of continued life.

 

[LSSBB]

You keep quibbling over insignificant points and you never attempt to show why, in your mind, they are important.

You keep claiming 100 feet of free fall, and can't even provide a graph that backs you up. Provide the graph, or drop the claim.

Just like you keep claiming explosives, and can't provide the signature shock wave sound. Just repeated appeals to selectively reinterpret witness statements, and simultaneously claiming it was too loud to record, or muted by furniture (including perimeter columns!).

If you don't have anything, just say so. It's not like you will lose your job over it.