Seymour Butz
Muse
- Joined
- Jun 20, 2008
- Messages
- 884
Merged Freefall is not evidence for Controlled Demolition
- Thread starter LSSBB
- Start date
Crazy Chainsaw
Philosopher
- Joined
- Aug 12, 2006
- Messages
- 8,339
The building was hulled out from induced leverage, do to progressive build up of mass pulling the building to the side on a hinge that unlike the towers could support the weight, it can be seen in the video where the curtain wall stands for a moment and dust can clearly be seen though the windows.
Then when the falling ends of the columns kick into the base of the self supporting curtain wall, it falls down at free fall as all stone walls do.
It is rather insignificant in the scope of things, if you look at the top of the building you can see why and how it will fail in that manor given the only possible way it can fall do to the cantilevered design.
Stiffeners can not prevent walk off of a heated beam, because heat itself can compromise stiffeners.
The cantilevered design and the construction dynamics of the curtain wall as well as the elevator damage, all played a role in the collapses.
Crazy Chainsaw
Philosopher
- Joined
- Aug 12, 2006
- Messages
- 8,339
It already went bye bye.
9/11: WTC 7 east penthouse collapse (partial vide…: http://youtu.be/OUkvnfV606w
9/11 truth never show that video.
Last edited:
Your wishes are on topic but not my opinion regarding those wishes?
No reasons, for opinions such as:
Well, no. Even if plausible engineering explanations were not already known, a completely implausible explanation supported by no evidence and contradicted by multiple lines of inquiry would never be considered a most likely cause.
They have reason to care about reality, not about absurd counterfactual notions supported by no evidence.
Yes, just like my smug lack of apparent (or actual) concern about alien moon bases, disaster warnings provided by the prophecies of Nostradamus, or the goings-on at Hogwarts. Fiction is for entertainment, not concern.
Gee, the interior of WTC 7 was collapsing before the exterior, why there is no structure stopping the facade from falling. Did you know you have the tracking for a single point of WTC 7. You failed to read NIST, thus you can't figure out why the interior was falling apart 10 to 12 seconds before the roof-line fell.
It is your complete lack of knowledge, zero research which is speaks for itself, as you try to spread lies about 911, and fail.
This is about 911, not after 911; take the political claptrap to the politics forum.
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through
Particularly considering the quality of those opinions.
Well, no, it doesn't, because the absence of features invariably present in controlled demolitions also needs to be explained. But the eight storey near-freefall collapse is easily explained by the initial failure being an eight-storey buckle, which is expected from loss of lateral support to columns and furthermore makes no sense in the context of a controlled demolition; the "visible synch" of the three corners is a purely subjective assessment that it commonly used to try to obscure the much clearer observation that the initial column failures were sequential rather than simultaneous, as seen from the kink in the façade and the rotation during collapse; and one would expect them to fall roughly in synch because the initial column failure propagated rapidly around the building, at the speed of sound in steel as a good approximation, so all started to fall at about the same time and experienced the same force of gravity and roughly the same structural resistance.
And in a classic example of shifting the burden of proof, I haven't seen anyone try to explain why the corners would be expected to behave radically differently to one another in a fire-induced collapse. At least, not on the "it looks like that to me" level that seems to be the gold standard of truther analysis.
I confidently expect a reply along the lines of "It should be obvious and if it's not you're either an idiot or a shill," and a continued lack of actual explanation.
Dave
WilliamSeger
Philosopher
- Joined
- Nov 28, 2006
- Messages
- 5,092
The three-dimensional context is that, in the NIST model, between the time the east penthouse fell and the time the shell began to fall, the internal structure on about eight floors, 8 to 15, suffered a horizontal progressive collapse. That would leave the exterior shell columns unrestrained laterally or even pulled inward by the falling interior, and thus free to do something like my diagram before the free-fall phase began. But my diagram is simply to show, in scale, how much column bowing is possible over eight floors with a 7-foot fall of the top. The columns were two-story sections welded together, and those weld joints would likely fracture with that much bending. A broken column offers zero resistance, whether it was broken by buckling or by a cutter charge, which is why free-fall does not imply CD.
And to put the point in context, this less-than-free-fall phase is indirect evidence of the buckling that you said should be expected for a gravity-driven collapse.
On the other hand, if the collapse was a CD, free fall should have happened immediately when the columns were taken out. Thus, the 7-foot fall immediately before the free-fall phase is evidence which is not explained by the CD hypothesis without concocting a "just so" story of special pleading.
Seymour Butz
Muse
- Joined
- Jun 20, 2008
- Messages
- 884
Is this the JFK doofus that was a moderator over at the Loose Change Forum?
No wonder he/she is so sensitive...
Criteria
Critical Thinker
- Joined
- Sep 16, 2015
- Messages
- 470
You are dodging the issue. No natural failure mechanism, outside of an induced implosion, could by amazing coincidence trigger eight stories of complete failure at those points at the very same moment. Even minor delays would have been quite observable in the dropping roofline.

DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
So you believe the charges were in the core and it took 10 seconds to effect the perimeter?
Why do you start your graphic so late in the collapse?
Seymour Butz
Muse
- Joined
- Jun 20, 2008
- Messages
- 884
Nope.
You are quite obviously dodging.
At the very least, several of the interior columns have already buckled and collapsed.
The 3 corners do not represent what is happening in the entire building.
Oh yeah?
Prove it
At least you have the support of a fringe few nuts, and less than 0.1 percent of all engineers, makes this a BS opinion. You made it up, or plagiarized this lie from 911 truth.
Where is the math? You failed to read NIST, and can't debunk NIST, so you make up BS like this post; pure BS based on your opinion.
You have an opinion, the real world has engineering, physics, and math. You will not be presenting math, physics, and engineering. Opinions from 911 truth, 14 years of failed lies. Showing a facade collapse, after the interior was failing for 10 to 12 more seconds before the roof-line fell. Do you ignore the interior failing; why can't you model the interior collapsing, gone before the facade falls. No math?
Did your fantasy use silent explosives, or product free thermite. You failed to read NIST.
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through
Yeah, just what I expected. Lateral progressive failure propagates at the speed of sound in steel, to a good approximation; lateral propagation from the centre of the outer wall will reach the corners at approximately the same time, most probably too close in time for the casual observer to see any difference, and this is fully consistent with the kink seen in the north face. Asked and answered.
Dave
what about the rotation? This was a 4D event...the cartoon is a plan view of the motion / distortion of the building's moment frame.
Last edited:
If it were a steel cable made of a thousand strands that snapped under high tension after some fraction of the strands were damaged and others were heated, no one would claim, "OMG it's impossible for all thousand strands to break at the same time, there must have been an invisible cable cutter!"
In fact, anyone can take a piece of string made of maybe fifty parallel fibers, and pull on it until it breaks, without thinking it incredibly unlikely that all fifty fibers break in the same place at the same time. Most people don't think about the progressive nature of such a failure; it's just common knowledge that a string or a rope can break in that way.
That same intuition fails when it's several dozen support columns failing progressively in compression instead. It shouldn't be any surprise at all, but few people are trained to think about it clearly.
Criteria
Critical Thinker
- Joined
- Sep 16, 2015
- Messages
- 470
You do provide a great illustration of how to not think clearly.
Using your example, the roof should have remained suspended in the air.
It was easier than destroying a bunch of documentation, we're told. Or the 'shock and awe' of the Tower collapses weren't quite spectacular enough, maybe.