• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

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

In other AE911Truth news, they have changed the slide show again and now appear to have dropped a claim from the front page. The characteristic features they list on the front page got a major reworking and the claim about blast waves breaking windows seems to have fallen through the cracks. I'm going to wait to see if they restore it before actually labeling this a dropped claim, but perhaps they read the NIST Final Report and realized how nutty the idea of talking about all these broken windows was when so many surrounding windows didn't shatter.

They've also dropped a mention of Steven Jones from their list. Thermite is still in, though. I hope everything is all right between them. God forbid there be another People's Front of Judean People out there.
 
boloboffin said:
They've also dropped a mention of Steven Jones from their list. Thermite is still in, though. I hope everything is all right between them. God forbid there be another People's Front of Judean People out there.
Click to expand...

Never did understand the therm?te claim. I mean what do you expect to find chemical signatures of when an aluminum fuselage hits a building that contains tons of drywall (containing sulfur and steel columns (that contain iron) that have a 31 year accumulation of rust not to mention the paint that contains barium pigments. I don't understand why it is hard to believe there is aluminum, iron oxide, barium and sulfur.
 
The Steven Jones drop is only for the Twin Towers list. They haven't changed the 7 World Trade list yet. They also have pulled all the references to victims missing, bodies ground to dust, and that sort of thing. Maybe someone tapped them on the shoulder and mentioned it was gruesome. I'm sure it's still in the slide show though. Once everybody's friends, they can pull out the gross-out and hate on the government together.

They have also eliminated the term "squibs" from the front page. They'd already reluctantly removed it from 7's features, but now they call them "isolated explosive ejections." Sounds like a fiber problem to me.
 
Last edited:
Grizzly Bear said:
Heiwa have you considered the effects of damage to other structural members and their ability to take over the loads? Have you accounted these factors into the real design yet? As of yet you've directed myself and others to 2-dimensional representations which do not accurately represent the design. I am curious if you intend to make any corrections to that in the future
Click to expand...

If you read the complete NIST WTC7 Final report incl. Addendums (i.e. all comments made by third parties, incl. myself) you will see that in my contribution I ask for a path of failures to be included in the Final report (+ details of the software).

Path of failures is a list of failures that in the end produces 'total classic collapse' - the latter apparently 1000's of simultaneous failures + bits flying around. With the NIST magic software that should be easy, but ... no path of failures is included in the Final report. Thus the Final report is incomplete.

In the NIST draft Final report, NIST describes that they first do a part model of the structure below floor 16. This model gets damaged due to fire (no path of failures included or described) ... and then NIST copies/pastes this damaged structure (how is not described - but they must know the path of failures in the part model) into a model of the complete structure ... that collapses. Actually it would have been much better to start with a complete model of WTC7 and work with that (as I point out in my 'comments').

BTW - my model is 3-D. Allow any column to fail and the load carried by it is simply transmitted horizontally to adjacent columns. No collapse ever! Remove lower columns in one wall and that wall may drop down BUT remaining three walls and internal columns remain intact. Part of the load carried by the damaged wall is transmitted horizontally to adjacent inner columns, the remaining part of the load is on the ground. No way that a 3-D steel structure like WTC7 collapses totally (in a classic way?) due to some local failures anywhere. The classic result of local failures is that the failures are arrested after a while.
 
Heiwa said:
If you read the complete NIST WTC7 Final report incl. Addendums (i.e. all comments made by third parties, incl. myself) you will see that in my contribution I ask for a path of failures to be included in the Final report (+ details of the software).

Path of failures is a list of failures that in the end produces 'total classic collapse' - the latter apparently 1000's of simultaneous failures + bits flying around. With the NIST magic software that should be easy, but ... no path of failures is included in the Final report. Thus the Final report is incomplete.

In the NIST draft Final report, NIST describes that they first do a part model of the structure below floor 16. This model gets damaged due to fire (no path of failures included or described) ... and then NIST copies/pastes this damaged structure (how is not described - but they must know the path of failures in the part model) into a model of the complete structure ... that collapses. Actually it would have been much better to start with a complete model of WTC7 and work with that (as I point out in my 'comments').

BTW - my model is 3-D. Allow any column to fail and the load carried by it is simply transmitted horizontally to adjacent columns. No collapse ever! Remove lower columns in one wall and that wall may drop down BUT remaining three walls and internal columns remain intact. Part of the load carried by the damaged wall is transmitted horizontally to adjacent inner columns, the remaining part of the load is on the ground. No way that a 3-D steel structure like WTC7 collapses totally (in a classic way?) due to some local failures anywhere. The classic result of local failures is that the failures are arrested after a while.
Click to expand...

I thought the topic was David Chandler and what he said not what Heiwa claims about WTC 7.
 
~enigma~ said:
I thought the topic was David Chandler and what he said not what Heiwa claims about WTC 7.
Click to expand...

Yes, topic is Chandler's observation that upper, intact part of WTC7 free falls for 2.25 seconds and that NIST finally agrees with that. But in NIST:s computer simulation (done by some magic software) of the collapse and described in NIST:s Final report, there is no free fall!! There are multiple failures everywhere in the top part, loose parts are flying around, no big 23 floors intact top part free falling, etc, etc. So we are trying to find out what happened down below floor 13 that produced this visible free fall as NIST didn't do it.
 
Heiwa said:
Yes, topic is Chandler's observation that upper, intact part of WTC7 free falls for 2.25 seconds and that NIST finally agrees with that. But in NIST:s computer simulation (done by some magic software) of the collapse and described in NIST:s Final report, there is no free fall!! There are multiple failures everywhere in the top part, loose parts are flying around, no big 23 floors intact top part free falling, etc, etc. So we are trying to find out what happened down below floor 13 that produced this visible free fall as NIST didn't do it.
Click to expand...
NIST agrees yet NIST doesn't agree?! Either you suffer from a cognitive disorder of some kind, are bipolar or just dumb. Which is it?

ETA - Just asking questions you understand :)
 
~enigma~ said:
NIST agrees yet NIST doesn't agree?! Either you suffer from a cognitive disorder of some kind, are bipolar or just dumb. Which is it?

ETA - Just asking questions you understand :)
Click to expand...

??? NIST agrees with Chandler that the intact top part of WTC7 free falls as seen on videos, etc. But in NIST:s computer analysis of the collapse - rapid developments of structural failures horizontally and vertically (not really explained very well) - the top structure (floors 14-47) does not free fall! It disintegrates. And loose parts fly in all directions. Pls read the NIST report before participating in this discussion.
 
Heiwa said:
??? NIST agrees with Chandler that the intact top part of WTC7 free falls as seen on videos, etc. But in NIST:s computer analysis of the collapse - rapid developments of structural failures horizontally and vertically (not really explained very well) - the top structure (floors 14-47) does not free fall! It disintegrates. And loose parts fly in all directions. Pls read the NIST report before participating in this discussion.
Click to expand...

I have and I stand by my assessment of your "translation" of the contents of the report. See my post #198.

Stick with trying to convince children and "truthers" they're the only ones buying it.
 
stateofgrace said:
Yeah, I can see that.
Click to expand...

Yes - I sometimes describe a force in tonnes just for easy feeling and when it will not be misunderstood. Any ideas what software NIST used to simulate the collapse? Dynamic collapse analysis - pretty complex! Plenty of falling parts at various accelerations and new interfaces developing in many places. And what computer was used to handle all data?
 
Heiwa said:
Yes - I sometimes describe a force in tonnes just for easy feeling and when it will not be misunderstood. Any ideas what software NIST used to simulate the collapse? Dynamic collapse analysis - pretty complex! Plenty of falling parts at various accelerations and new interfaces developing in many places. And what computer was used to handle all data?
Click to expand...

Did you ask NIST these questions? In a quick overview of your comments to them I didn't see it. Please point it out to me if I missed it.

And yes, these problems are complex and require huge computing power. I believe that the computations took months to complete.
 
dtugg said:
Did you ask NIST these questions? In a quick overview of your comments to them I didn't see it. Please point it out to me if I missed it.

And yes, these problems are complex and require huge computing power. I believe that the computations took months to complete.
Click to expand...

Good that you have read my Comments to NIST. I wonder if NIST did? No clarifications in the Final report, though. Some of the questions are in my Comments. Inspiration for the others is JREF Forum.

I can assure you dynamic collapse analysis is complex and require huge computing power. I doubt NIST had time to re-run whatever they did to produce the draft final report to achieve the final final report. Any ideas what software was used and who produced it ... and if it had been tested before? Maybe it was full of bugs?
 
Heiwa said:
Good that you have read my Comments to NIST. I wonder if NIST did? No clarifications in the Final report, though. Some of the questions are in my Comments. Inspiration for the others is JREF Forum.

I can assure you dynamic collapse analysis is complex and require huge computing power. I doubt NIST had time to re-run whatever they did to produce the draft final report to achieve the final final report. Any ideas what software was used and who produced it ... and if it had been tested before? Maybe it was full of bugs?
Click to expand...

Please point to me what page in your comments your questions about the software and computer power are asked. I don't think you asked them, but it is possible that I missed it since I am drunk and just kind of skimmed over and I will gladly retract if you prove me wrong.

And yes the computing power required was quite large...that's why it took them months to run the simulations. Do you think they should have run them again to placate people like you who think WTC7 was destroyed using a vacuum?
 
dtugg said:
Please point to me what page in your comments your questions about the software and computer power are asked. I don't think you asked them, but it is possible that I missed it since I am drunk and just kind of skimmed over and I will gladly retract if you prove me wrong.

And yes the computing power required was quite large...that's why it took them months to run the simulations. Do you think they should have run them again to placate people like you who think WTC7 was destroyed using a vacuum?
Click to expand...

You will find it when you sober up! Drinking problem?

An interesting animation of all structural parts in WTC7 is found at http://911blogger.com/node/18888 (in the comments). Imagine that by only removing one piece of column 79 between floors 11/13 ... the whole structure collapses ... at free fall.
 
A retraction: AE911Truth has not changed their slide show since August. Evidently I was in the wrong folder on my hard drive when I was checking the show before. The front page list has changed, though.
 
Heiwa said:
Imagine that by only removing one piece of column 79 between floors 11/13 ... the whole structure collapses ... at free fall.
Click to expand...

Please provide a quote from NIST that the structure falls at free fall when the two-column section of 79 is removed from 11/13. I just read through the detailed accounting of this experiment and saw no indication of free fall acceleration attainment whatsoever.

The experiment is described in NCSTAR 1-9 Vol. 2, pp. 594-598 (pdf 256-260). The final paragraph is quoted:

This analysis showed that WTC 7 was prone to classic progressive collapse upon the failure of Column 79. WTC 7 was not evaluated for progressive collapse, as it was not (and still is not) standard practice to evaluate commercial office buildings for such an event. Unless a potential hazard is known, a typica progressive collapse analysis includes a critical failure location and identifies areas where the structural design could be strengthened or made more redundant to mitigate against a global or disproportionately large collapse.
Click to expand...

I look at the work they did reconstructing the actual WTC 7 structure and then contrast it to your straw man of a model. Quite obviously you are not discussing reality.
 
boloboffin said:
Please provide a quote from NIST that the structure falls at free fall when the two-column section of 79 is removed from 11/13. I just read through the detailed accounting of this experiment and saw no indication of free fall acceleration attainment whatsoever.

The experiment is described in NCSTAR 1-9 Vol. 2, pp. 594-598 (pdf 256-260). The final paragraph is quoted:



I look at the work they did reconstructing the actual WTC 7 structure and then contrast it to your straw man of a model. Quite obviously you are not discussing reality.
Click to expand...

According NIST WTC7 Final Report (20 November 2008) page 90:

"WTC7 was prone to classic progressive collapse in the absence of debris impact and fire-induced damage when a section of Column 79 between Floors 11 and 13 was removed. The collapse sequence demonstrated a vertical and horizontal progression of failure upon removal of the Column 79 section, followed by buckling of exterior columns, which led to the collapse of the entire building."

Of course there is no real definition of 'classic progressive collapse' except when a house of cards collapses, structure of which is not really comparable to WTC7.

Any ideas what software NIST used to demonstrate vertical and horizontal progression of failures?
 
Heiwa said:
According NIST WTC7 Final Report (20 November 2008) page 90:

"WTC7 was prone to classic progressive collapse in the absence of debris impact and fire-induced damage when a section of Column 79 between Floors 11 and 13 was removed. The collapse sequence demonstrated a vertical and horizontal progression of failure upon removal of the Column 79 section, followed by buckling of exterior columns, which led to the collapse of the entire building."

Of course there is no real definition of 'classic progressive collapse' except when a house of cards collapses, structure of which is not really comparable to WTC7.

Any ideas what software NIST used to demonstrate vertical and horizontal progression of failures?
Click to expand...

Heiwa, this is your second chance. Provide the quote from the NIST report that I asked you to provide. You've already demonstrated that you're a liar in this thread. If you continue to evade your responsibility to back up your claim or at least forswear the false claim you made, we'll know that you're a coward as well.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom