29 Structural & Civil Engineers Cite Evidence for Controlled Explosive Demolition

[FineWine]

The experts at NIST say it was at free fall acceleration for 2.25s. Are you saying NIST is wrong?

You want to move on without acknowledging free fall acceleration because you cannot admit that that's what happened.

No one is "acknowledging" that your uninformed delusion has any merit. I have reposted tfk's explanation, the one you keep ignoring. Stop babbling about your inability to understand it and make an honest effort for once.

 

[Christopher7]

No one is "acknowledging" that your uninformed delusion has any merit.

So you think NIST and Newton are delusional.

What you lack in honesty you more than make up for in chutzpah.

 

[Cl1mh4224rd]

Free fall acceleration can only occur in air! capish?

Was that sarcasm? If not, I've got a little video for you...



ETA: I have to assume it was not sarcasm, and was actual, mind-blowing ignorance, since he said the same thing once before and once after the post I quoted. Ouch.

Free fall acceleration can only happen in air, there can be no resistence.

All your calculations cannot erase the fact that free fall can only happen in air. Do you understand that simple fact?

And that first quote makes absolutely no sense at all. Someone hasn't heard of a little thing call aiiir resistaaance.

 

[jhunter1163]

Was that sarcasm? If not, I've got a little video for you...

I was wondering when someone was going to post that.

 

[TokenMac]

The experts at NIST say it was at free fall acceleration for 2.25s. Are you saying NIST is wrong?

May be I can make it clear for you, he is saying NIST isn't saying what you think it is saying. You keep asking everyone the same question as if they have excepted you claims, which you know they haven't.

It is really stating to read like a comedy bit.

C7: NIST is saying this
Debunker: NIST is not saying that
C7: Are you calling NIST a liar?
Debunker: No you are the liar
C7: If I'm a liar than NIST are liars too...
*later that day*
Debunker: Who is on first base?
C7: No Who is on second, What is on first?
Debunker: How would I know I'm asking you.

 

[Christopher7]

The intellectual cowardice of the faithful here is apparent to all reading this thread, except for the faithful here.

NIST has confirmed Free fall and you all know that cannot happen in a progressive collapse so you are going thru contortions to deny it, dispute it, avoid it etc.

You can tap dance all you want but you cannot stop these facts from becoming known to all.

Have a nice day.

 

[Newtons Bit]

Free fall acceleration was verified by NIST. All your calculations cannot erase the fact that free fall can only happen in air. Do you understand that simple fact?

So we all know you can't read very well, but this is just silly. Now you just proved that you couldn't understand my very simple post on factors of safety or the very simple comment asking about factors of safety I was replying to. Neither of which had nothing to do with freefall, or even WTC7. Let me say that again, factors of safety aren't the same as acceleration due to gravity. It's due very different subjects.

Let me say that again, you probably didn't read the first paragraph. I was commenting on factors of safety in a general way.

Do you need me to repeat it again?

Furthermore, I already showed why a very near free-fall acceleration of WTC7 is both accepted, and well reasoned from the NIST report. Did you miss that?

Let me post it again for you. Please read it this time.

It makes perfect sense. Read the damn report.

From Fig 3-15



Stage 1 is 8 STORIES of columns buckling and losing all of their strength. Stage 2 is the rest of the building falling those 8 floors. There's nothing left to support the upper portions of the building in those 8 stories so what happens? The whole building falls 8 stories at roughly g. Why is this a big question?

Hell, it's all explained in the report on NCSTAR1A pg. 45. READ IT.

Do you want me to post it again? You seem to not notice things.

 

[Cl1mh4224rd]

You can tap dance all you want but you cannot stop these facts from becoming known to all.

You've made an absolutely bizarre and mind-bogglingly ignorant claim regarding under what condition "free fall acceleration" occurs. I hope this isn't one of those "facts" you're so confident will be revealed to the masses... you know... *checks his calendar*... whenever...

 

[The Platypus]

The intellectual cowardice of the faithful here is apparent to all reading this thread, except for the faithful here.

NIST has confirmed Free fall and you all know that cannot happen in a progressive collapse so you are going thru contortions to deny it, dispute it, avoid it etc.

You can tap dance all you want but you cannot stop these facts from becoming known to all.

Have a nice day.

Should have added a "MUAHAHAHAHAHA!" for extra effect.

Dude, you minions have been at this almost 8 years now. It is known too all, has been for a long time. Everyone knows your just a little cult that is paranoid and delusional...

 

[stateofgrace]

So in summary a single statement is cherry picked from a report by an individual, the same individual has not read or understood the rest of the report. The meaning behind this statement is explained over and over again but ignored. The single statement is repeated over and over again all the time ignoring any rational explanation and /or the rest of the report and finally victory is declared.

Yup is see why the truthers are going far.

 

[TokenMac]

So in summary a single statement is cherry picked from a report by an individual, the same individual has not read or understood the rest of the report. The meaning behind this statement is explained over and over again but ignored. The single statement is repeated over and over again all the time ignoring any rational explanation and /or the rest of the report and finally victory is declared.

Yup is see why the truthers are going far.

No you got it all wrong.

He picked 3 statements from all over the report, filled in the gaps with his "logic",drop the words he didn't like until it said what he wanted, then turned it all in to a single statement.

"the north face descended at gravitational acceleration"
"This free fall drop continued for 105 ft"
"the entire building above the buckled-column region moved downward as a single unit,

Anyone with a reasonable amount of intelligence could see that putting the three statements together nets:

The entire building above the collapse zone fell at free fall [gravitational] acceleration for 105 feet.

 

[stateofgrace]

No you got it all wrong.

He picked 3 statements from all over the report, filled in the gaps with his "logic",drop the words he didn't like until it said what he wanted, then turned it all in to a single statement.

I stand corrected, now it all makes perfect sense.

 

[FineWine]

So you think NIST and Newton are delusional.

What you lack in honesty you more than make up for in chutzpah.

No, unlike you, NIST and Newton are not delusional. Newton's been dead a long time, but you can't understand him, so it doesn't really matter.

You keep ignoring tfk and Newton's Bit. Despite your clumsy efforts to send up a smokescreen, they have exposed your errors. When do you intend something other than hand-waving as a response?

 

[beachnut]

At the low speed of a free fall building collapse, air resistance is negligible and you know that.

Do you agree that WTC 7 fell at free fall acceleration?

Or do you think NIST is lying?

Do you possess the intellectual integrity to answer directly?

Probably not.

Please show me with some calculations. Explain why you don't get free fall in a vacuum, but only in air. Did you mean to preclude a vacuum? So objects on the Moon can't free fall because they are not in air? What are you talking about?

The WTC 7 took over 15 plus seconds to fall. The internal structure fell away which increases the total collapse time.

You cherry-picked NIST, and failed to make the moronic CD delusion come true.

I posses the knowledge to answer you don't. You have a delusions of CD; you have no evidence to support your failed idea so you repeat free fall cherry-picked from NIST and add a delusional twist to it.

You missed that too. You missed 19 terrorists did 911 due to what reason? Knowledge? Judgment? Logic? What is your barrier for understanding what Passengers on Flight 93 figured out in minutes; 911. You have failed to make progress in 7 years, 9 months. Zero evidence, no clues on how it happened and your are standing by your ignorance on WTC7 collapse using NIST and your free fall crap.

The red line is velocity at g. OOPS WTC7 did not accelerate at g (look at the total time to fall and then try to figure out why you failed). Darn your delusion of free fall failed to make it past several floors in the middle of facade falling after 8 seconds of the penthouse falling through the building. 15 seconds make your free fall issue a failed idea made up by idiots and I have no idea why you repeat other peoples failed ideas.

So your work, show the collapse time line, the complete collapse of all matter that was part of the WTC7.

What does your moronic CD story need? Silent explosives? Horizontal cutting thermite that evaporates so it is never found in the ruble pile? You have a loony tunes conclusion based on lies, hearsay, cherry-picked dribble, failed logic, no evidence, and fantasy to blame others for the act of 19 terrorists.

But you never were able to present evidence your 29 failed engineers are able to better than say the WTC towers should act like trees. What a dirt dumb statement. You can't even tell me how many of your OP experts you defend said fall like a tree. You never studied the 29 frauds or are you able to defend any of them. From trees to pizza boxes you picked a failed idea supported by people who make up moronic statements out of complete ignorance on large structures and physics.

[FONT=&quot]The entire building* fell at free fall [gravitational] acceleration for 105 feet. [/FONT]

Not really; only part of the building, some of the building had fallen many seconds earlier. Do you use big letters when you make up false junk?

741 feet, the height of WTC7; what happen to the other 636 feet? What acceleration did they experience? What force caused the WTC7 to fall to the ground? I was going to give you a hint but you should ask a physics teacher who is not part of the 911TruthLies movement who make up lies about moronic CD evidence they never had.

Did you tell Dan Rather you have the "loaded gun" of super-nano-thermite? Your CD delusion would be Pulitzer Prize material if it was real.

 

[Christopher7]

I already showed why a very near free-fall acceleration of WTC7 is both accepted, and well reasoned from the NIST report.

Accepted by who?

Stage 1 is 8 STORIES of [exterior] columns buckling and losing all of their strength.
Stage 2 is the rest of the building falling those 8 floors. There's nothing left to support the upper portions of the building in those 8 stories so what happens? The whole building falls 8 stories at roughly g. Why is this a big question?

How can the upper portion hang there while 8 floors of columns buckle? The upper part would descend as the columns buckled, not after. Stage 1 and 2 as you describe them had to be simultaneous. That does not result in free fall acceleration. The columns were held together laterally with moment frames on every other floor. They would twist and bend. This would be fairly fast but not instantaneous.

The north west corner and west wall went from no movement to free fall acceleration instantly.

 

[H'ethetheth]

Indistinguishable from free fall is a base, not a ballpark.

No, you see, that's where you're wrong. That depends on the person doing the distinguishing, and the ball park.

You're coming at this from the angle of the police chief who says 'enhance!' to the guy showing him 17 pixels, only to reveal the serial number on the bad guy's gun a few seconds later.
Reality does not work that way. Every measurement has a certain accuracy. If this measurement does not show a difference from freefall acceleration there are two possibilities:

1. There is no difference.
2. The difference is smaller than the errors inherent to the measurement.

Option 1 is only possible in a vacuum so we're left with option 2.

Unfortunately, the NIST researchers did not have much of a choice in what to work with. They just had the footage that happened to be there. Now how accurate is that? I haven't found that in the report, but it's not important to the conclusions anyway. But with a little thinking and calculating it is clear that the margin of error in the measurement very probably allows colums to buckle with no measurable resistance. How probable? Well, more probable than the huge conspiracy required to make an already collapsing building collapse just that little bit faster using silent explosives.

And to approach it from another angle: Would we measure a difference if we inserted a stack of soda cans under a falling building?
Would we measure it if we added three stacks?
Would we measure the effect of one intact column? 2?
The point is, there is a point where you stop being able to measure. You assume it's not at the point where NIST measured, but what do you base that on? Personal incredulity.
What should you base it on? Calculations, like NIST did, and found that their model also fell at freefall acceleration. And the model did not include explosives, I think.

 

[Christopher7]

H'ethetheth

That's a lot of conjecture, not science. David Chandler established free fall acceleration accurately. NIST repeated the analysis using a different point and came up with free fall acceleration. The slight variation in the length of free fall is to be expected given two locations. This is scientific verification, a peer review. When an experiment can be repeated with the same result, it is considered science fact.

At this point you must accept this scientific fact unless you can prove by experiment, not theory, that it is not true.

Refusing to accept a scientifically verified fact is denial of science.

 

[H'ethetheth]

H'ethetheth

That's a lot of conjecture, not science. David Chandler established free fall acceleration accurately.

How accurately? I'm telling you, in my experience +/- 1 or 2 % would be considered accurate for this kind of analysis, and that's enough uncertainty to not be suspicious about this.

NIST repeated the analysis using a different point and came up with free fall acceleration. The slight variation in the length of free fall is to be expected given two locations. This is scientific verification, a peer review. When an experiment can be repeated with the same result, it is considered science fact.

At this point you must accept this scientific fact unless you can prove by experiment, not theory, that it is not true.

I accept the fact that the building fell at gravitational acceleration to within the measurement accuracy. I don't accept your personal feeling that this is impossible without explosives, seeing how it is consistent with the most complex collapse simulation in history.

Refusing to accept a scientifically verified fact is denial of science.

Yes, but you don't seem to understand how scientific facts are arrived at, nor what accuracy entails.



ETA: What I omitted is that you can harp on about scientific fact, but if you're going to be honest, you'll have to concede that this whole report effectively proves (scientifically) that buildings can collapse at about g, and that nobody needs to be surprised or alarmed by this.

 

[Christopher7]

How accurately? I'm telling you, in my experience +/- 1 or 2 % would be considered accurate for this kind of analysis, and that's enough uncertainty to not be suspicious about this.

NIST and Chandler are certain about it. They both came up with the same thing. A 1 or 2% difference is not significant.

I accept the fact that the building fell at gravitational acceleration to within the measurement accuracy. I don't accept your personal feeling that this is impossible without explosives, seeing how it is consistent with the most complex collapse simulation in history.

Beg to differ. NIST admits that the further into the simulation the less accurate the model gets.

 

[Seymour Butz]

Let me post it again for you. Please read it this time.

Do you want me to post it again? You seem to not notice things.

So to a layman like me, what this all means is that:

a- 7-8 stories were unbraced
b- the longer the unbraced length is, when it "goes", it gives less and less resistance the longer that length is, as shown by another poster ( I forget who) to be about 1% in this case.
c- 1% is not discernable on a youtube.
d- the 105 ft is about what the 7-8 stories is.
e- as the graph shows, once the 105 ft fall was finished, the shorter braced lengths gave more resistance to the falling structure
f- so the long unbraced length accounts for the "near freefall" phase
g- this is not unexpected.


About right?