Merged David Chandler (ae911) sez "WTC7 was in free fall part of the time"

[beachnut]

I am surprised that Heiwa and a few other earnest scientists here put up with the ridicule and non-scientific attacks and glad handing and circle jerking. But I do enjoy their input and honest attempts at true science. Many others loiter here, reading some of the earnest attempts at truthseeking, with no interest whatsoever in putting up with the dishonest and endless contemptuous mockery.

You have not seen true science from Heiwa, Heiwa is using trurther science, like Balsamo uses truther math. It leads to failed conclusions like all of 9/11 truth.

His work can be summarized as pure claptrap. There is nothing wrong with him, it is his work on 9/11 that is stupid, he must be the greatest expert you know, but his work is junk.

Please show me what is correct in the work of this guy who has no idea how gravity works in the real world. All I see is failed ideas on 9/11. Pick some of the things he is trying to explain now. Tell us what force he is talking about that makes his fantasy come true.

Please show us what Heiwa has done correctly besides whine about NIST.

I would be happy if you showed where his true science is.

 

[boloboffin]

Well, WTC7 has 24 core columns like mine and and plenty of columns in the side - mine has only 26. To simplify. But the models are basically similar.

No, they are not. Not at all. NOT AT ALL.

And as an engineer, you should know that. Since you persist in this fraud, it stands to reason that you know how fraudulent your model is and that you are willfully perpetrating lies about this event to further your own political goals.

And I reject such behavior utterly and will politely call it what it is: Lies, deceit, and FRAUD.

So I remove one column part between floors 11/13. Nothing happens! No parts flying around!

And Dorothy had ruby slippers to whisk her back home. This is just as relevant to the structure of WTC 7 as your craptacular model.

And you know this if you're an engineer.

Something wrong with my software?

Garbage in, garbage out.

Not really - result is only that load carried by column with removed part is transferred to adjacent columns. You can do the same calculation by hand with a pen and paper. But you should be an engineer. With some basic knowledge of statics.

I don't have to be an engineer to recognize your fraud here.

And, pls, be polite. This is a friendly forum.

I am being polite. This forum allows people to use the term "lies" and "liars" when lies and liars stand exposed.

You, sir, are a liar.

 

[Disbelief]

Of course I am an engineer.

Re calculations I note that NIST does not provide any in its report. NIST refers to some magic software that does its calculations but cannot even provide the details of the software. Only printouts of parts flying around. And of course colorful pictures of various temperatures inside the structure.

Not very helpful actually.

So where do we go from here?

You need software to do potential energy calculations? Here's your quote:

In my opinion there is too little potential energy stored in the building to first produce all the structural failures at floor 12 and second to produce the sudden, vertical displacement at free fall acceleration of the structure above floor 12 as described by NIST (with unknown software).

Before you say that there was too little potential energy, should you not first determine what the potential energy actually is?

 

[Dave Rogers]

So you are right - a force of some kind must pull the structure above floor 12 down. This force must not be too strong so that acceleration is more than g or 9.82 m/s² - then it would be too obvious that something is strange - but it would have been smarter to apply a smaller force to produce smaller acceleration.

Given that some nefarious means of removing the structure at floor 12 would inevitably lead to the building collapsing, what possible motivation could there have been for applying any force at all? This is a classic conspiracist argument, in that it relies on the conspirators having been not just stupidly negligent, but actively seeking to give themselves away.

However, to pull down the intact structure above floor 12 incl. the roof, you must also remove all the obstructions below floor 12, i.e. the intact structure there! Big job! And it must be done just prior the drop of the structure above floor 12 starts.

And without making any loud noises, remember.

Easiest is to combine the two tasks, e.g. removing the structure below floor 12 fast that produces an under pressure that assists to pull down the structure above floor 12.

Just out of interest, let's see how big this underpressure could have been.

The cross-sectional area of WTC7, which was 330x140 feet, was about 41,000 square feet. Let's assume the evil conspirators managed to produce a perfect vacuum below floor 12, so the pressure difference between top and bottom was 15psi; it's physically impossible for it to be greater than this without an overpressure at roof level. That gives us a total downward force on the building of a little over 600,000lbs, or about 280 tons. I don't know the mass of WTC7 exactly; one 9/11 truth site gives it as 250,000 tons, but that sounds high given that the Twin Towers only massed about 280,000. Let's guess it at half that, which increases the possible acceleration, and assume that 35/47 of that mass is acted on by the force. That gives us a possible acceleration of 0.003g due to the suction. This is clearly a completely insignificant contribution to the motion.

Is this the force, in your fantasy explanation, that compensates for the structural resistance?

Dave

 

[Heiwa]

Before you say that there was too little potential energy, should you not first determine what the potential energy actually is?

The potential energy (J) of the structure (relative ground) is simply the weight of each part in the structure and the extra load on e.g. floors times the height times g. The weights and the loads do only stress the structure <30% yield and deformations are elastic and hardly noticable. Removing column 79 at floors 11/13 does not release much potential energy at all. Removing four columns around column 79 at floors 11/13 still does not release much potential energy. The unsupported floors are just sagging.

Removing all wall columns in the short side of the structure may release potential energy = the wall drops straight down and all the floor connections above are ripped apart at the (missing) wall. The total structure will not completely collapse due to that. The potential energy is used to produce the floor failures and the wall rubble on the ground.

To produce free fall due gravity of the complete WTC structure above floors 11/13 you must remove completely all structure below floor 11/13. Big job!

 

[beachnut]

Fire destroys the strength of steel.

If firefighters do not fight fires, building can collapse. This fire was fought and the fire systems worked. By ignoring the damage from fire, Heiwa makes excuses for the terrorists who are responsible for 9/11. Thanks for ignoring facts and making up your own ideas on 9/11 Heiwa, your kids and grandkids will easily see how you made excuses for terrorists and they can be so proud of the topics you are ignorant on. The will so proud of the fantasy conspiracy theories you make up so you can apologize for terrorist due to ignorance of the physical world. At least your ignorance on certain subjects can be your excuse.

I guess Heiwa can ignore physics and gravity he can ignore this:

Fire and steel.

WTC7, ZERO firefighting, ZERO fire systems working, and Heiwa ignores these facts so he can make up lies and apologize for terrorists for his children.

If Heiwa would gain knowledge on a few issues he would not be one of the chief terrorist apologist. He is apologizing for the terrorist who murdered thousands and he says he is doing it for his kids. Hope his grandkids see these posts of his apologizing for terrorist because he is deficient in knowledge on fire, and steel structures. His lack of knowledge and bias against the United States has formed his block to learn and understand the events of 9/11.

The terrorists are responsible for 9/11 events. By ignoring the facts surrounding WTC7, Heiwa is apologizing for murderers; and he is doing it for his kids due to his ignorance on 9/11 events, his ignorance on fire fighting systems, and his ignorance on steel buildings.

Good job ignoring fire, gravity, and steel structures. Excellent fantasy work!

You can’t express your fantasy force of destruction, you play at this as you apologize badly for the work of terrorists.

 

[boloboffin]

The weights and the loads do only stress the structure <30% yield and deformations are elastic and hardly noticable. Removing column 79 at floors 11/13 does not release much potential energy at all. Removing four columns around column 79 at floors 11/13 still does not release much potential energy. The unsupported floors are just sagging.

Removing all wall columns in the short side of the structure may release potential energy = the wall drops straight down and all the floor connections above are ripped apart at the (missing) wall. The total structure will not completely collapse due to that. The potential energy is used to produce the floor failures and the wall rubble on the ground.

To produce free fall due gravity of the complete WTC structure above floors 11/13 you must remove completely all structure below floor 11/13. Big job!

Since you make these statements as if you had considered the actual WTC structure, you continue to lie in making them.

 

[Disbelief]

The potential energy (J) of the structure (relative ground) is simply the weight of each part in the structure and the extra load on e.g. floors times the height times g. The weights and the loads do only stress the structure <30% yield and deformations are elastic and hardly noticable. Removing column 79 at floors 11/13 does not release much potential energy at all. Removing four columns around column 79 at floors 11/13 still does not release much potential energy. The unsupported floors are just sagging.

Removing all wall columns in the short side of the structure may release potential energy = the wall drops straight down and all the floor connections above are ripped apart at the (missing) wall. The total structure will not completely collapse due to that. The potential energy is used to produce the floor failures and the wall rubble on the ground.

To produce free fall due gravity of the complete WTC structure above floors 11/13 you must remove completely all structure below floor 11/13. Big job!

A lot of rambling to not even answer the question. What was the potential energy in WTC 7? You kind of give the equation though it would be the mass of the building, not the weight, times gravity times height, though you do provide an answer. You can not possibly be an engineer.

 

[Heiwa]

Just out of interest, let's see how big this underpressure could have been.

The cross-sectional area of WTC7, which was 330x140 feet, was about 41,000 square feet. Let's assume the evil conspirators managed to produce a perfect vacuum below floor 12, so the pressure difference between top and bottom was 15psi; it's physically impossible for it to be greater than this without an overpressure at roof level. That gives us a total downward force on the building of a little over 600,000lbs, or about 280 tons. I don't know the mass of WTC7 exactly; one 9/11 truth site gives it as 250,000 tons, but that sounds high given that the Twin Towers only massed about 280,000. Let's guess it at half that, which increases the possible acceleration, and assume that 35/47 of that mass is acted on by the force. That gives us a possible acceleration of 0.003g due to the suction. This is clearly a completely insignificant contribution to the motion.

Is this the force, in your fantasy explanation, that compensates for the structural resistance?

Dave

Yes, let's do that!

Otto von Gericke and Evangelista Torricelli would not be proud of you. I agree - under pressure due vacuum (absence of air) cannot be more than about 1 000 hPa and to maintain it for 2.25 seconds is a big job. But say we can apply 1 000 hPa on a structure!

Say my structure is 100 meters long and 50 meters wide = 5000 m² and I manage to apply 1000 hPa pressure on a floor. (Under or over pressure does not matter - right?) What is the force F in Newton applied to the floor? Right it is 5 000 (m²) * 100 000 (Pa) = 500 000 000 N!

Quite a big force - say 50 000 tons in more understandable units - but let's keep it in N(ewton).

And this force F is now pushing/sucking down the structure. Say the structure mass m is 100 000 tons or 100 000 000 kgs. What is the acceleration a produced by 500 000 000 N acting on 100 000 000 kgs? Right - it is 5 m/s² or 0.5 g.

You thought it was 0.003 g, so we differ only 166.7 times. Nice try, liar!

Actually, vacuum is pretty strong. I have had the misfortune to see tank structures that had collapsed due to vacuum! The poor operators pumped the tanks empty and forgot to allow air into it and BLOUFF - they collapsed.
Next question - how to create vacuum at bottom of WTC7? You have removed all personnel and NYFD (not witnesses) evidently. What do you do next? Right - your remove the air! And BLOUFF - the WTC7 is pulled!

Quite basic, really.

 

[Heiwa]

A lot of rambling to not even answer the question. What was the potential energy in WTC 7? You kind of give the equation though it would be the mass of the building, not the weight, times gravity times height, though you do provide an answer. You can not possibly be an engineer.

Weight (kg) or load (kg) = mass (kg). Yes, I am an engineer. What are you?

 

[stateofgrace]

Weight (kg) or load (kg) = mass (kg). Yes, I am an engineer. What are you?

Actually, mass is how heavy something is without gravity.Mass is how much matter an object as.

Weight is how heavy something is with gravity acting on.

Weight = Mass x Gravity. ( W = mg ) and is measured in newtons ( N ).

Linky

Weight

The first thing to realize about weight is that weight is [SIZE=+1]not[/SIZE] the same as mass, even though the terms are used synonymously in everyday life. Mass measures inertia - it is a property of an object. Weight is a force - something that happens to an object

linky

Are you sure you are an engineer?

 

[beachnut]

A vacuum did it. No. But I know where there is almost a pure vacuum, which until a recent post has been undiscovered.

Something new, and stupid.

 

[boloboffin]

Yes, let's do that!

Otto von Gericke and Evangelista Torricelli would not be proud of you. I agree - under pressure due vacuum (absence of air) cannot be more than about 1 000 hPa and to maintain it for 2.25 seconds is a big job. But say we can apply 1 000 hPa on a structure!

Say my structure is 100 meters long and 50 meters wide = 5000 m² and I manage to apply 1000 hPa pressure on a floor. (Under or over pressure does not matter - right?) What is the force F in Newton applied to the floor? Right it is 5 000 (m²) * 100 000 (Pa) = 500 000 000 N!

Quite a big force - say 50 000 tons in more understandable units - but let's keep it in N(ewton).

And this force F is now pushing/sucking down the structure. Say the structure mass m is 100 000 tons or 100 000 000 kgs. What is the acceleration a produced by 500 000 000 N acting on 100 000 000 kgs? Right - it is 5 m/s² or 0.5 g.

You thought it was 0.003 g, so we differ only 166.7 times. Nice try, liar!

Actually, vacuum is pretty strong. I have had the misfortune to see tank structures that had collapsed due to vacuum! The poor operators pumped the tanks empty and forgot to allow air into it and BLOUFF - they collapsed.
Next question - how to create vacuum at bottom of WTC7? You have removed all personnel and NYFD (not witnesses) evidently. What do you do next? Right - your remove the air! And BLOUFF - the WTC7 is pulled!

Quite basic, really.

Holy .

There is no gravity. WTC 7 sucks.

That's your theory for what happened? Seriously? A vacuum sucked WTC 7 down, and that's what Silverstein meant when he said "pull it"?

Oh, please, while you're pulling this out of your nether regions, why don't you explain to us all how this vacuum was created? Where is my popcorn smiley?

 

[Bell]

Holy .

There is no gravity. WTC 7 sucks.

That's your theory for what happened? Seriously? A vacuum sucked WTC 7 down, and that's what Silverstein meant when he said "pull it"?

Oh, please, while you're pulling this out of your nether regions, why don't you explain to us all how this vacuum was created? Where is my popcorn smiley?

http://www.acme-vacuum.com/

"Meep, meep!"

 

[stateofgrace]

I am surprised that Heiwa and a few other earnest scientists here put up with the ridicule and non-scientific attacks and glad handing and circle jerking. But I do enjoy their input and honest attempts at true science.

I am also surprised that your “earnest scientist” doesn't know the difference between mass and weight.

Care to input? Care to defend your “earnest scientist” further?

Or is it ok for everybody to carry on the with the ridicule ?

I look forward to your input and defence of an “earnest scientist” that does not understand basic physics.

Doesn't "honest attempts" at "true science" come from an understanding of science now?

 

[R.Mackey]

The cross-sectional area of WTC7, which was 330x140 feet, was about 41,000 square feet. Let's assume the evil conspirators managed to produce a perfect vacuum below floor 12, so the pressure difference between top and bottom was 15psi; it's physically impossible for it to be greater than this without an overpressure at roof level. That gives us a total downward force on the building of a little over 600,000lbs, or about 280 tons.

It is with great regret that I must point out a problem with this BOE calculation -- the pressure force you hypothesize is 15 pounds per square inch, or 2160 pounds per square foot. The actual result is 144 times what you calculated. That's what you get for using rubbish units, I'm afraid.

Anyway, I therefore must congratulate Heiwa at finally getting something right. It took long enough. Of course, he appears to be actually advocating this absurd vacuum theory, while failing to consider important points like, "why didn't the same force crush in the sides of the structure?" or "how could the roof, let alone the windows, survive this overpressure while the main support structure failed?" but, regardless, he did get the math right. In related news, the mayor of Hell reported a surprise hard frost, the first in recorded history.

Of course, a mere ten minutes later, he distinguishes himself with the following, which is about the most fundamental mistake one can make:

Weight (kg) or load (kg) = mass (kg). Yes, I am an engineer. What are you?

I have him on Ignore, and I heartily advise every single one of you to do the same. Heiwa included.

 

[Heiwa]

Vacuum is powerful

I am also surprised that your “earnest scientist” doesn't know the difference between mass and weight.

Care to input? Care to defend your “earnest scientist” further?

Or is it ok for everybody to carry on the with the ridicule ?

I look forward to your input and defence of an “earnest scientist” that does not understand basic physics.

Doesn't "honest attempts" at "true science" come from an understanding of science now?

No problem - mass (kg) or weight (N) - as long as you get the units right. Many alleged engineers don't. You didn't jump on my force of 50 000 tons (sic!) (that people understand) when it is (as I point out) abt. 500 000 000 N (which is not so easy to visualize).

Anyway - vacuum is quite powerful (when you get the units right) and the only explanation to the observations of Chandler (free fall acceleration) is that vacuum (or some sort of under pressure) must have assisted the pull of WTC7. Or actually suck.

The whole thing sucks!

 

[Hokulele]

It's obvious! There was a hurricane on floor 7.


What? That is no more absurd than "pyroclastic clouds".

 

[Dave Rogers]

It is with great regret that I must point out a problem with this BOE calculation -- the pressure force you hypothesize is 15 pounds per square inch, or 2160 pounds per square foot. The actual result is 144 times what you calculated. That's what you get for using rubbish units, I'm afraid.

Oh well, that's what you get for doing a calculation in a hurry. Heiwa, I admit I made a stupid error, and you're right about the possible acceleration due to applying a perfect vacuum below one floor of WTC7. If anyone wants to nominate me for a Stundie, there are good grounds.

Now, assuming that the acceleration was increased by applying a vacuum, how could this have been done? If, for example, it was done with explosives, they would have exerted a much greater overpressure before creating a partial vacuum. What effect would this overpressure have had on the structure, and would the shockwave have been detectable by other means? Sound, for example? And if it wasn't done with explosives, how was it done?

Dave

 

[Heiwa]

Oh well, that's what you get for doing a calculation in a hurry. Heiwa, I admit I made a stupid error, and you're right about the possible acceleration due to applying a perfect vacuum below one floor of WTC7. If anyone wants to nominate me for a Stundie, there are good grounds.

Now, assuming that the acceleration was increased by applying a vacuum, how could this have been done? If, for example, it was done with explosives, they would have exerted a much greater overpressure before creating a partial vacuum. What effect would this overpressure have had on the structure, and would the shockwave have been detectable by other means? Sound, for example? And if it wasn't done with explosives, how was it done?

Dave

Good, simple question. Remember the (children's) experiment with a lit candle inside an upside down glass jar with its opening below water? The candle burns for a while and then the flame dies. And water rises into the jar. You know what happened! The oxygen in the air reacted with the carbon of the candle and became carbon(di)oxide that has less volume than air (which is 21% or so oxygene, the rest is mostly nitrogen). The volume of air was reduced and produced an under pressure inside the jar - water was sucked in.
Could something similar have happened at the bottom of WTC7? Transform quickly also the nitrogen in the air into some less voluminous gas and you can create a local bubble of underpressure. Of course air will be sucked in from the sides to eliminate this bubble - the underpressure will hardly be applied to the building above - but you never know what clever engineers are up to these days and evil persons misuse.
I still wonder how these strange pieces of junk came about seen in the WTC7rubble. Not by released potential energy for sure.
And what kind of structural damage software is NIST using to describe the collapse?
It is questions like those that should be answered first to sort out this mystery (conspiracy).