Merged Freefall is not evidence for Controlled Demolition

[DGM]

Then keep them. Lets work out what, where and why of any g and over-g and see what is needed to make that happen, and work that backwards.

I'm open to whatever can be made to work.

OK.

Can you agree that the global collapse was a consequence of an initiation event that started around 10 seconds before?

Can you also accept that the collapse of the penthouse(s) and the kink in the roof-line are far more important features than the "free-fall" event?

 

[Myriad]

I have repeatedly asked for a plausible engineering hypothesis which would account for the observed period of free fall acceleration.

And does asking for things usually get results for you? If so, next time you're asking, could you also ask for world peace and practical economical fusion power, please?

 

[Mark F]

That's why I suggested reverse engineering to see if we could work back to initiation, therefore I don't think it is as invalid as you claim.

When did I ever say anything was invalid? I said this derail about a product of collapse progression is irrelevant and off-topic in a thread that concerns a specific aspect of collapse initiation.

This thread has already been pruned once of off-topic derails and this particular subject has been flogged to death elsewhere. Like here for example:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=261007

And no doubt here as well;

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=290589

But you should probably take a peek at this one first;

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=290693

 

[AClark]

OK.

Can you agree that the global collapse was a consequence of an initiation event that started around 10 seconds before?

Can you also accept that the collapse of the penthouse(s) and the kink in the roof-line are far more important features than the "free-fall" event?

I don't think that is the case, no.

Initiation happened 10 seconds before what, the free fall event? I can't determine that yet, we can use that as a reference point if you wish, and see if it meets the conditions or has to be reviewed. For all we know there could have been something half an hour before, or ten minutes before. There were a lot of loud noises, perhaps structural elements were becoming unstable before the visible exterior collapse.

There is the Jennings stairway explosion, did that remove structural components?

I wouldn't say the penthouse and kink were more or less significant, no. Can we compromise on equally significant? They are certainly valuable visible reference points.

 

[DGM]

I don't think that is the case, no.

Initiation happened 10 seconds before what, the free fall event? I can't determine that yet, we can use that as a reference point if you wish, and see if it meets the conditions or has to be reviewed. For all we know there could have been something half an hour before, or ten minutes before. There were a lot of loud noises, perhaps structural elements were becoming unstable before the visible exterior collapse.

There is the Jennings stairway explosion, did that remove structural components?

I wouldn't say the penthouse and kink were more or less significant, no. Can we compromise on equally significant? They are certainly valuable visible reference points.

Clearly you don't understand what you're looking at when you look at the collapse. Please take this to another thread as you have no concept what the OP is about.

Your post are clearly off topic.

 

[beachnut]

There is the Jennings stairway explosion, did that remove structural components? ...

The loud noise Jennings heard was stuff hitting WTC 7; if it was an explosion Jennings brain would be mush, you never experienced an explosive going off nearby... Thus no explosives... (OOPS, I thought you were trying to tie this damage to the OP... welcome again to AAH) If you are off topic, stop wasting the mods times Spreading BS into threads you don't understand.

Thus we have proof WTC 7 was damaged by debris near the stairwell where Jennings was... How do you apply failures like gouges in WTC 7 to a model... 911 truth would not accept models as anything, as they remain anti-science for 14 years.

 

[Criteria]

”I have repeatedly asked for a plausible engineering hypothesis which would account for the observed period of free fall acceleration.”

”And does asking for things usually get results for you?”

Well I am glad you asked.

In the case of WTC7, except for controlled demolition, I expected all the proffered hypotheses, or “results”, to be seriously flawed.

Once you eliminate that best hypothesis, controlled demolition, you are left with the NIST’s educated guess which had an amazingly long gestation period of 7 years. Even then the NIST needed a high school physics teacher to show them that WTC7 suffered 8 stories of free fall acceleration. The NIST never followed up with an engineering explanation that took that properly into account.

The so-called debunkers in this forum have not offered solid support for the NIST hypothesis, nor have they offered a better hypothesis.

So yes, I asked for a “thing” and I have gotten the “results” that I expected.

 

[DGM]

Well I am glad you asked.

In the case of WTC7, except for controlled demolition, I expected all the proffered hypotheses, or “results”, to be seriously flawed.

Wait, there is a coherence controlled demolition hypothesis?

Where can I see it?

 

[beachnut]

... Once you eliminate that best hypothesis, controlled demolition, ...

lol,
The hypothesis of CD is based on ignorance and zero evidence. Perfect claim for the anti-science 911 truth followers.

Has to be a parody of 911 truth. That is a post for special awards of ignorance and BS

 

[ProBonoShill]

Well I am glad you asked.

In the case of WTC7, except for controlled demolition, I expected all the proffered hypotheses, or “results”, to be seriously flawed.

Once you eliminate that best hypothesis, controlled demolition, you are left with the NIST’s educated guess which had an amazingly long gestation period of 7 years. Even then the NIST needed a high school physics teacher to show them that WTC7 suffered 8 stories of free fall acceleration. The NIST never followed up with an engineering explanation that took that properly into account.

The so-called debunkers in this forum have not offered solid support for the NIST hypothesis, nor have they offered a better hypothesis.

So yes, I asked for a “thing” and I have gotten the “results” that I expected.

Only complete morons believe in controlled demolition, you're not one of them are you?

 

[JSanderO]

I am not sure what the Jennings Hess experience was... perhaps an explosion inside the mech room... perhaps falling debris. I tend to think that if they were in the East stair it was something exploding inside the mech room. But that's a guess.

The RELEASE... ie visible movement of the moment frame was PRECEDED by the collapse of the east and west penhouses and likely everything beneath them... and those collapse probably were preceded by local collapses/deformations of the frame leading to rapidly increasing load redistribution and failures.

The exterior structures... braced frames on east and west and the cantilevers on the north where all framed into the transfer truss 1, 2 and 3 and several transfer girders including one running east west on floor 7 across the entire core and carrying the south end of the cantilever girders. When those transfers collapsed/failed the entire center of the building had nothing supporting the top 40 stories.

Study the framing and the story is there.

 

[AClark]

I am not sure what the Jennings Hess experience was... perhaps an explosion inside the mech room... perhaps falling debris. I tend to think that if they were in the East stair it was something exploding inside the mech room. But that's a guess.

Jennings described an explosion blocking/damaging the stair at a point below floor 8, which is inconsistent with falling debris from WTC 1, but could be explained by a disturbance in the 5-7 mech floor area. Having it dismissed as irrelevant or fiction is not helpful, as we know that the transfer trusses were in this area, and they were vital for the integrity of the building.

The RELEASE... ie visible movement of the moment frame was PRECEDED by the collapse of the east and west penhouses and likely everything beneath them... and those collapse probably were preceded by local collapses/deformations of the frame leading to rapidly increasing load redistribution and failures.

The exterior structures... braced frames on east and west and the cantilevers on the north where all framed into the transfer truss 1, 2 and 3 and several transfer girders including one running east west on floor 7 across the entire core and carrying the south end of the cantilever girders. When those transfers collapsed/failed the entire center of the building had nothing supporting the top 40 stories.

Study the framing and the story is there.

Yes, but the video evidence is only useful for studying the moment frame, and it is this where the free-fall collapse is evident.

If we assume that the core is simply not there, and the moment frame is still pretty much intact until the last seconds, can we determine the collapse of the moment frame that explain the g and over-g portions of the collapse?

We assume that 8 stories did not vanish. We assume that there must have been some sort of buckling or deforming, but it's not available in the video record. So we have to try and work out how to remove the unseen columns in such a fashion.

 

[DGM]

Jennings described an explosion blocking/damaging the stair at a point below floor 8, which is inconsistent with falling debris from WTC 1, but could be explained by a disturbance in the 5-7 mech floor area. Having it dismissed as irrelevant or fiction is not helpful, as we know that the transfer trusses were in this area, and they were vital for the integrity of the building.

At what time do you believe this happened? It's really easy to figure out, I'm just wondering what you think.

Yes, but the video evidence is only useful for studying the moment frame, and it is this where the free-fall collapse is evident.

If we assume that the core is simply not there, and the moment frame is still pretty much intact until the last seconds, can we determine the collapse of the moment frame that explain the g and over-g portions of the collapse?

We assume that 8 stories did not vanish. We assume that there must have been some sort of buckling or deforming, but it's not available in the video record. So we have to try and work out how to remove the unseen columns in such a fashion.

Actually it is avalible in the video record if you know what you're looking at. There is no reason to think the core was " simply not there". Where you got that is anyone's guess.

 

[AClark]

At what time do you believe this happened? It's really easy to figure out, I'm just wondering what you think.



Actually it is avalible in the video record if you know what you're looking at. There is no reason to think the core was " simply not there". Where you got that is anyone's guess.

Wrong, wrong, wrong.

If you aren't here to help, why bother?

 

[DGM]

Wrong, wrong, wrong.

If you aren't here to help, why bother?

Help who?

What part of my question didn't you understand? You mentioned Jennings, tell us what you claim to know.

ETA: you are derailing this thread again.

 

[WilliamSeger]

We assume that 8 stories did not vanish. We assume that there must have been some sort of buckling or deforming, but it's not available in the video record. So we have to try and work out how to remove the unseen columns in such a fashion.

But yes, there is evidence of the buckling phase: The 1.75 seconds and about 7 feet of descent that preceded the free fall, which is more than enough to cause the columns to break at their joints:

 

[Myriad]

Well I am glad you asked.

In the case of WTC7, except for controlled demolition, I expected all the proffered hypotheses, or “results”, to be seriously flawed.

Once you eliminate that best hypothesis, controlled demolition, you are left with the NIST’s educated guess which had an amazingly long gestation period of 7 years. Even then the NIST needed a high school physics teacher to show them that WTC7 suffered 8 stories of free fall acceleration. The NIST never followed up with an engineering explanation that took that properly into account.

The so-called debunkers in this forum have not offered solid support for the NIST hypothesis, nor have they offered a better hypothesis.

So yes, I asked for a “thing” and I have gotten the “results” that I expected.

Pity, that. It's almost as though no one cares whether or not you're satisfied with the assessments already performed and the conclusions already developed.

That couldn't really be true, of course. Your opinion is the paramount concern of every engineer, investigator, and government official in the world, is it not?

 

[pgimeno]

Would there be any possibility of reverse engineering the collapse in a collaboration?

For example, and as a suggested starting point, we can assume that 8 stories worth of exterior columns vanished, or entered free-fall as the final coffin nail of the collapse, and we can try to determine exactly which columns, and why? Can we work out which supports would have to be removed simultaneously to achieve this result, and proceed backwards?

Perhaps then we can solve the biggest mystery of 9/11 together?

That has already been done, by competent engineers. The conclusion was that the failure of column 79 caused a progressive collapse of the core that ended with the total collapse of the building.

See my sig.

 

[AClark]

But yes, there is evidence of the buckling phase: The 1.75 seconds and about 7 feet of descent that preceded the free fall, which is more than enough to cause the columns to break at their joints:

[qimg]http://opendb.com/images/wtc7drop.png[/qimg]

Good, can we place that in some sort of three dimensional context?

I would think it would have to exclude floors 1 - 7 and 22-24, because of their formidable belt trusses and other reinforcements, but I'm open to discussion on that point.

 

[Criteria]

Pity, that. It's almost as though no one cares whether or not you're satisfied with the assessments already performed and the conclusions already developed.

That couldn't really be true, of course.

Your opinion is the paramount concern of every engineer, investigator, and government official in the world, is it not?

I guess as a moderator (judge and jury), it is your privilege to stride into a thread and take it off topic.

Why would anyone, other than those who personally know me, care about my opinions?

WTC7 fell at free fall acceleration for eight stories with the NE, NW, and SW corners falling in visible sync. If no one can provide a plausible engineering explanation for such an occurrence, than controlled demolition remains as the most likely cause.

Anyone concerned about what really happened on and after 9/11 has reason to care.

Your smug lack of apparent concern speaks for itself.