Merged Freefall is not evidence for Controlled Demolition

[Andy_Ross]

I know that is the standard Truther readon, I just want to know what Criteria thinks.
He hasn't given a reason, I just wonder if he actually thought about underlying reasons or is just concerned with mechanism.
Reason for demolition would underpin it.

 

[ozeco41]

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.

Well said sir!! And a great example.

The mechanism is a sequenced cascade failure. I have explained the principle in the complex setting of Twin Towers initiation stage. I rarely contribute to WTC7 detailed debate for reasons I have published.

BUT the processes are inherently cascading sequences. Some very fast. Some start slowly but then build up. Some - multi fibre ropes or columns holding up a Twin Towers Top Block - will inevitably increase speed of sequencing failures at an exponential rate. It is "built into the process".

Thanks for the insight.

 

[Oystein]

The insight here is:

In structural systems that are designed with multiple, similar, redundant elements, things tend to go catastrophically wrong more suddenly and faster than laypeople's intuition would suggest.

I think many laypersons are "informed" by Hollywood action movies, where all too often a roof, a cliff, a bridge, an ice sheet or whatever else the hero is currently standing and fighting on, disintegrates slow enough for the protagonist to escape just in time by running, jumping, rolling or crawling. What truthers generally don't grasp is that the Hollywood set designer (or, in more modern movies, graphic designer) designs the structure such that it collapses slowly - and not to model actual structural behaviour. Especially the modern Hollywood software wizzards would quite literally suspend the actual laws of nature to allow for the structure to behave in ways that pleases the Truther's expectation.

In reality, if you notice that the roof or cliff or ice sheet you are standing on is initiating a rapid collapse, you'll rarely have time to do much more than say "holy ****...".

 

[Myriad]

The insight here is:

In structural systems that are designed with multiple, similar, redundant elements, things tend to go catastrophically wrong more suddenly and faster than laypeople's intuition would suggest.

I think many laypersons are "informed" by Hollywood action movies, where all too often a roof, a cliff, a bridge, an ice sheet or whatever else the hero is currently standing and fighting on, disintegrates slow enough for the protagonist to escape just in time by running, jumping, rolling or crawling. What truthers generally don't grasp is that the Hollywood set designer (or, in more modern movies, graphic designer) designs the structure such that it collapses slowly - and not to model actual structural behaviour. Especially the modern Hollywood software wizzards would quite literally suspend the actual laws of nature to allow for the structure to behave in ways that pleases the Truther's expectation.

In reality, if you notice that the roof or cliff or ice sheet you are standing on is initiating a rapid collapse, you'll rarely have time to do much more than say "holy ****...".

Yep. There are any number of Hollywood examples.

Slowly cracking glass: the hero is lying on a pane of glass suspended over an abyss. The glass is slowly cracking under the weight. There are close-ups of the cracks spreading across the glass, and splintery sound effects. However, the glass doesn't actually break, as if the glass, having cracked, is now stronger than it was before cracking. Seen in: Jurassic Park: The Lost World; The Day After Tomorrow.

Slowly crumbling tower: the heroes need to climb up a rickety tower and then escape from the top. The tower is damaged, breaking, and even shedding pieces, but it does not fall, again as if having shed some pieces it's now temporarily stronger than it was when it started. In the strangest cases, the crumbling tower begins swaying back and forth, helping some of the heroes to jump to safety. Seen in: National Treasure 2; Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring.

Of course these are variants of a movie trope older than talkies: the slowly breaking rope. The rope from which the hero is dangling, over a lethal drop or lava pool or whatever, breaks one strand at a time, causing a jolt to the hero (even causing him to partly lose his grip and slip a few more feet down the rope he's desperately trying to climb up before time runs out) but not breaking. When it's down to the last strand, that strand proves more durable than the entire intact rope had been. It finally breaks, but not until a moment after the hero has leapt to a different safer purchase.

 

[Crazy Chainsaw]

Yep. There are any number of Hollywood examples.

Slowly cracking glass: the hero is lying on a pane of glass suspended over an abyss. The glass is slowly cracking under the weight. There are close-ups of the cracks spreading across the glass, and splintery sound effects. However, the glass doesn't actually break, as if the glass, having cracked, is now stronger than it was before cracking. Seen in: Jurassic Park: The Lost World; The Day After Tomorrow.

Slowly crumbling tower: the heroes need to climb up a rickety tower and then escape from the top. The tower is damaged, breaking, and even shedding pieces, but it does not fall, again as if having shed some pieces it's now temporarily stronger than it was when it started. In the strangest cases, the crumbling tower begins swaying back and forth, helping some of the heroes to jump to safety. Seen in: National Treasure 2; Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring.

Of course these are variants of a movie trope older than talkies: the slowly breaking rope. The rope from which the hero is dangling, over a lethal drop or lava pool or whatever, breaks one strand at a time, causing a jolt to the hero (even causing him to partly lose his grip and slip a few more feet down the rope he's desperately trying to climb up before time runs out) but not breaking. When it's down to the last strand, that strand proves more durable than the entire intact rope had been. It finally breaks, but not until a moment after the hero has leapt to a different safer purchase.

It's not only man made structures don't forget about impact damage to the human body as well, structures you can literally break your back in a car, or truck hitting a large hole at speed, or racing moto cross or 4 wheeling.

Most of those dramatic effects were pioneered in old silent films, want to guess, how many times stunts went wrong in those old films and people went to the hospital?

A lot of people get caught up in the moment, and forget that films are fiction, and that real life means real death and real pain, and the hero doesn't always walk away with the heroin.

Some people actually believe make believe physics is real.

 

[JSanderO]

Runaway progressive failures in (complex) systems show a extremely rapid increase in node failure once the process starts. In most cases it's so fast that the failure progress can hardly even be seen.

 

[ProBonoShill]

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.

Yes, weren't those evil gub'mint murderers so smart. They waited for 7 hours to blow up the building after everyone was evacuated and many of witnesses were present including law enforcement and firefighters.

Brilliant I say!

 

[ozeco41]

...

Of course these are variants of a movie trope older than talkies: the slowly breaking rope. The rope from which the hero is dangling, over a lethal drop or lava pool or whatever, breaks one strand at a time, causing a jolt to the hero (even causing him to partly lose his grip and slip a few more feet down the rope he's desperately trying to climb up before time runs out) but not breaking. When it's down to the last strand, that strand proves more durable than the entire intact rope had been. It finally breaks, but not until a moment after the hero has leapt to a different safer purchase.

When in reality each^# "jolt" would cause instant failure due to the superimposed impact load from arresting the drop causing the "jolt".

However we probably need a different word than "jolt" because of a long history of somewhat complex misunderstandings of "jolts". Especially jolts which were not simply missing BUT never could have been.





# Yeah - I know - couldn't be "each" - only the first one.

 

[Dave Rogers]

Using your example, the roof should have remained suspended in the air.

Why are we even talking to someone who can say something this idiotic?

Dave

 

[Dave Rogers]

However we probably need a different word than "jolt" because of a long history of somewhat complex misunderstandings of "jolts".

Like hell we do. We're trying to prevent truthers hi-jacking history here; let's not let them hi-jack the English language either.

Dave

 

[jaydeehess]

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.


[qimg]http://i64.tinypic.com/2iky0k.jpg[/qimg]

Well, the first part of the structure to begin dropping is the along the line of the "kink". The entire roofline tips from each side down to that point before any corner drops. Interior floor girders would be pulling on the columns, including the corners. With the interior having already suffered a lot of damage its hardly surprising that the corners failed at the same time.
BTW, this video
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OUkvnfV606w&feature=youtu.be
Seems to show that the eastern corner began moving slightly before the more westerly corners.

 

[Dave Rogers]

Well, the first part of the structure to begin dropping is the along the line of the "kink".

Which, in itself, is a "minor delay" that actually was "quite observable in the drooping roofline". It's another variant on the standard truther demand for evidence that they know doesn't exist: the demand for evidence that's totally bloody obvious, yet they insist on pretending doesn't exist though it's right in front of their faces.

Dave

 

[Grizzly Bear]

You do provide a great illustration of how to not think clearly.

Using your example, the roof should have remained suspended in the air.

[qimg]http://i67.tinypic.com/10hktjk.jpg[/qimg]

And the above quoted represents a clear example of someone taking the analogy at it's most literal interpretation possible and completely failing to process the point. It's no wonder that to make issue of the global collapse onset, you must ignore the precursors to that global failure and insist that only one culprit is ever possible per the most vague of conditions.

 

[jaydeehess]

And the above quoted represents a clear example of someone taking the analogy at it's most literal interpretation possible and completely failing to process the point. It's no wonder that to make issue of the global collapse onset, you must ignore the precursors to that global failure and insist that only one culprit is ever possible per the most vague of conditions.

Its quite telling that truthers often take an analogy designed to make a specific point, and extrapolate it to the point where the analogy, as ALL analogies do, breaks down.

On the flip side they will put forth analogy or physical models that illustrate a point , usually completely divorced from the actual mechanisms of collapse. Case in point is the "upper section WTC tower crush/buckle all columns", meme, when in fact the collapse progressed mostly via failing the connections between horizontal and vertical components of the towers.

 

[tfk]

The examples that you are giving are of the "failure condition is static, and the gradually degrading building condition approaches & then reaches it." This is, I believe, exactly correct for the towers, and also for the progressive failure of WTC7, up to the start of global collapse.

But I don't believe it is quite correct for the start of WTC7's global collapse. I believe that it was more like the classic regenerative buckling seen when one put 40 pounds of pressure on an empty Coke can with ones heel & then reaches down & taps the side, getting the side walls to bow inwards slightly & the can to crush ... at near free fall acceleration.

The can wall is stable until the taps to the side. It wasn't gradually approaching collapse.

In the case of WTC7, the inside of the building had collapsed from floors 5 to 15 across the width of the building, the stronger, highly redundant outer walls were still standing, producing a shelled out "building on 10 story stilts".

The "tap" on the side walls was outward, not inward, and was provided by the internal falling debris which built up in the lower floors and (what a shock, I tell you!) did not want to stack itself neatly at the end of its fall. The debris pile put a sudden outward load on the lower, outer walls.

This is corroborated by an eyewitness who said that he saw the lower portion of WTC7 bow outward. One can also see this 8-10 story, 3 point buckle in NIST's simulation.

The progressive failure (prior to global collapse) was as you described, but I believe that the event that initiated the global collapse was a distinct, discontinuous event, like the tap on a coke can, got the global collapse started.

A small detail. Irrelevant in the big picture.

But thermite nor bombs produce multi-story buckling.

BTW, the east wall of the building was so sturdy that the lower 10 stories or so remained standing across the entire east side's width.

 

[Criteria]

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.



Well, the first part of the structure to begin dropping is the along the line of the "kink".

Which is a classic indicator of a highrise lower core implosion.

Following a core implosion, the first downward sign of global failure was the roofline sinking in the middle followed by the three corners dropping in sync. At that point, for a few seconds, WTC 7 dropped at an unimpeded descent speed comparable to that of a falling safe.

The entire roofline tips from each side down to that point before any corner drops. Interior floor girders would be pulling on the columns, including the corners.

The corner dropping is a good point to observe the initiation of global collapse.

Controlled demolition, as everyone knows, best explains WTC 7’s balanced core failure. The ‘induced’ implosion of WTC 7’s lower core, was so balanced, it kept the falling building at a level posture just as it went into 8 stories of free fall. The distribution and timing of the core’s collapse needed to be very well balanced. The alternative, an unbalanced failure, without the benefit of ‘designed’ implosion equalization, would result in an off balance failure, hence a topple kind of collapse.

With the interior having already suffered a lot of damage its hardly surprising that the corners failed at the same time.
BTW, this video
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OUkvnfV606w&feature=youtu.be
Seems to show that the eastern corner began moving slightly before the more westerly corners.

So this means you are a supporter of the NIST’s hypothesis, but you’re not interested in explaining how roaming fire activity forced WTC 7 to suddenly drop. And so gracefully?

 

[heymatto70]

Gracefully? Fitterman Hall would disagree

 

[Dave Rogers]

Which is a classic indicator of a highrise lower core implosion.

Bare assertion by someone unqualified to make this judgement.

Following a core implosion, the first downward sign of global failure was the roofline sinking in the middle followed by the three corners dropping in sync.

Initially assumes a conclusion, followed by weasel words ("in sync").

At that point, for a few seconds, WTC 7 dropped at an unimpeded descent speed comparable to that of a falling safe.

Indicates incompetence in basic physics; an unimpeded body falls at constant acceleration, not at a specific speed.

The corner dropping is a good point to observe the initiation of global collapse.

Essentially meaningless. If an attempt to define a starting point for global collapse, then factually incorrect.

Controlled demolition, as everyone knows, best explains WTC 7’s balanced core failure.

Deliberate lie. This is neither true nor known by "everyone". Weasel words, "balanced"; if intended to mean that the core collapse was symmetric, then contradicts the evidence.

The ‘induced’ implosion of WTC 7’s lower core, was so balanced, it kept the falling building at a level posture just as it went into 8 stories of free fall.

Assumes a conclusion. Weasel words, "level posture", which disagree with the evidence.

The distribution and timing of the core’s collapse needed to be very well balanced.

Assumes a conclusion, and appeals to non-existent design.

The alternative, an unbalanced failure, without the benefit of ‘designed’ implosion equalization, would result in an off balance failure, hence a topple kind of collapse.

Bare assertion by someone not qualified to make this judgement. And a rather unusual one: suggests a counterfactual that is, in fact, in agreement with the evidence.

So this means you are a supporter of the NIST’s hypothesis, but you’re not interested in explaining how roaming fire activity forced WTC 7 to suddenly drop. And so gracefully?

Argumentum ad hominem, weasel words ("roaming", "suddenly", "gracefully").

An impressive post; every sentence contains at least one major fallacy.

Dave

 

[JSanderO]

The examples that you are giving are of the "failure condition is static, and the gradually degrading building condition approaches & then reaches it." This is, I believe, exactly correct for the towers, and also for the progressive failure of WTC7, up to the start of global collapse.

But I don't believe it is quite correct for the start of WTC7's global collapse. I believe that it was more like the classic regenerative buckling seen when one put 40 pounds of pressure on an empty Coke can with ones heel & then reaches down & taps the side, getting the side walls to bow inwards slightly & the can to crush ... at near free fall acceleration.

The can wall is stable until the taps to the side. It wasn't gradually approaching collapse.

In the case of WTC7, the inside of the building had collapsed from floors 5 to 15 across the width of the building, the stronger, highly redundant outer walls were still standing, producing a shelled out "building on 10 story stilts".

The "tap" on the side walls was outward, not inward, and was provided by the internal falling debris which built up in the lower floors and (what a shock, I tell you!) did not want to stack itself neatly at the end of its fall. The debris pile put a sudden outward load on the lower, outer walls.

This is corroborated by an eyewitness who said that he saw the lower portion of WTC7 bow outward. One can also see this 8-10 story, 3 point buckle in NIST's simulation.

The progressive failure (prior to global collapse) was as you described, but I believe that the event that initiated the global collapse was a distinct, discontinuous event, like the tap on a coke can, got the global collapse started.

A small detail. Irrelevant in the big picture.

But thermite nor bombs produce multi-story buckling.

BTW, the east wall of the building was so sturdy that the lower 10 stories or so remained standing across the entire east side's width.

I understand the alum can analogy. I question of there was enough debris pushing at the columns of the lower section.... and where would be be pushing?

I think a possibility was that the interior collapse caused the structures in the core when they dropped to pull the lower portions of the moment frame via the beams and girders spanning between the core and the perimeter.

I think this explains the tall vertical kink which appears to be where the girder 44-79 was located.

So I am suggesting it was an INWARD pull by the beams and girders and attached slabs rather than the accumulation of debris pushing outward.

 

[JSanderO]

Which is a classic indicator of a highrise lower core implosion.

Following a core implosion, the first downward sign of global failure was the roofline sinking in the middle followed by the three corners dropping in sync. At that point, for a few seconds, WTC 7 dropped at an unimpeded descent speed comparable to that of a falling safe.



The corner dropping is a good point to observe the initiation of global collapse.

Controlled demolition, as everyone knows, best explains WTC 7’s balanced core failure. The ‘induced’ implosion of WTC 7’s lower core, was so balanced, it kept the falling building at a level posture just as it went into 8 stories of free fall. The distribution and timing of the core’s collapse needed to be very well balanced. The alternative, an unbalanced failure, without the benefit of ‘designed’ implosion equalization, would result in an off balance failure, hence a topple kind of collapse.



So this means you are a supporter of the NIST’s hypothesis, but you’re not interested in explaining how roaming fire activity forced WTC 7 to suddenly drop. And so gracefully?

By the time you see the moment frame collapsing... there is nothing left inside the building... It was like a hollow 4 sided trapezoid which had the bottom pulled out from under it at about floor 8.