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

[thecritta]

I find this article very interesting indeed

http://tyrannyalert.com/wtc7solution.htm

What i would like to know is did "NIST" take into
consideration the work that had been undertaken
by the Salomon brothers to reinforce the building?

Did they take the work that had been done to reinforce
floors into consideration when they did there final investigation?

Did they factor into their collapse models the reinforcement work
that had been done to support the floors?

And it says in the article "Salomon signed a 20-year lease for 22 floors - each spanning nearly an acre"

And it also says "MORE than 375 tons of steel - requiring 12 miles of welding - will be installed to reinforce floors for Salomon's extra equipment. Sections of the existing stone facade and steel bracing will be temporarily removed so that workers using a roof crane can hoist nine diesel generators onto the tower's fifth floor, where they will become the core of a back-up power station.

So does that mean that the Salomon brothers reinforced
22 floors using 375 tons of structural steel? Because i don't think
it would require 375 tons of structural grade steel just to reinforce
just a couple of measly floors.

And it makes it even harder to believe that the building came down
due to fire after reading the article and reading lines like this as
Silverstein even said himself.

"We built in enough redundancy to allow entire portions of floors to be removed without effecting the building's structural integrity, on the assumption that someone might need double-height floors,'' said Larry Silverstein, president of the company. ''Sure enough, Salomon had that need."

Plus the rest

After i reading this article it makes very hard to believe
that wtc building seven collapses alone due to fire "oh yeah
right come on tell me it did and i will think your a nut"

 

[A W Smith]

I find this article very interesting indeed

http://tyrannyalert.com/wtc7solution.htm

What i would like to know is did "NIST" take into
consideration the work that had been undertaken
by the Salomon brothers to reinforce the building?

Did they take the work that had been done to reinforce
floors into consideration when they did there final investigation?

Did they factor into their collapse models the reinforcement work
that had been done to support the floors?

And it says in the article "Salomon signed a 20-year lease for 22 floors - each spanning nearly an acre"

And it also says "MORE than 375 tons of steel - requiring 12 miles of welding - will be installed to reinforce floors for Salomon's extra equipment. Sections of the existing stone facade and steel bracing will be temporarily removed so that workers using a roof crane can hoist nine diesel generators onto the tower's fifth floor, where they will become the core of a back-up power station.

So does that mean that the Salomon brothers reinforced
22 floors using 375 tons of structural steel? Because i don't think
it would require 375 tons of structural grade steel just to reinforce
just a couple of measly floors.

And it makes it even harder to believe that the building came down
due to fire after reading the article and reading lines like this as
Silverstein even said himself.

"We built in enough redundancy to allow entire portions of floors to be removed without effecting the building's structural integrity, on the assumption that someone might need double-height floors,'' said Larry Silverstein, president of the company. ''Sure enough, Salomon had that need."

Plus the rest

After i reading this article it makes very hard to believe
that wtc building seven collapses alone due to fire "oh yeah
right come on tell me it did and i will think your a nut"

What don't you get? The floors were reinforced in anticipation of floor removal, for two story clear height, floors which they did in fact remove. The floors were reinforced for an additional load, Which were the generators.

So tell us critta, how does removing floors and adding tons of generators help building 7 resist collapse due to fire? Do you bother to read your own quotes? Or is English not your first language?

 

[Dave Rogers]

After i reading this article it makes very hard to believe
that wtc building seven collapses alone due to fire "oh yeah
right come on tell me it did and i will think your a nut"

The additional material was used to reinforce the floors, not the columns. So all this article tells you is that the columns were taking rather more than the original design load. That would reduce the margin of safety, not increase it.

And your final sentence rather suggests that you're not interested in rational debate; it doesn't exactly add weight to your non-argument.

Dave

 

[alienentity]

I find this article very interesting indeed


What i would like to know is did "NIST" take into
consideration the work that had been undertaken
by the Salomon brothers to reinforce the building?

yes, the engineering model was as accurate as possible

Did they take the work that had been done to reinforce
floors into consideration when they did there final investigation?

Of course. In great detail

Did they factor into their collapse models the reinforcement work
that had been done to support the floors?

Yes, already answered above.

So does that mean that the Salomon brothers reinforced
22 floors using 375 tons of structural steel?

No.

After i reading this article it makes very hard to believe
that wtc building seven collapses alone due to fire "oh yeah
right come on tell me it did and i will think your a nut"

The engineering model demonstrated precisely how that could happen. In a nutshell, the building was 47 stories high; groups of 3 internal structural columns provided the main support. Massive internal floor failures on the East side removed critical lateral support for one column, which failed, causing a cascade of further column failures, progressing E to W.
At the point where this reached Global Collapse, the exterior columns from floors 7 - 14 failed simultaneously (well above the reinforced areas you inquired about). They were pulled inwards and downwards by the internal collapse already underway.

Much of the collapse took place internally and out of sight behind the exterior curtain wall.

Hope that helps.

 

[TurbanTore]

I recently have been discussing Chandler and NIST with a truther. The truther claims that even though NIST in their final report have agreed with Chandler that WTC 7 partially was in free fall and thereby accelerating, they still use the same models as they did when they claimed that the fall speed was constant.

If this claims are true, does the truther have a point?

 

[DGM]

I recently have been discussing Chandler and NIST with a truther. The truther claims that even though NIST in their final report have agreed with Chandler that WTC 7 partially was in free fall and thereby accelerating, they still use the same models as they did when they claimed that the fall speed was constant.

If this claims are true, does the truther have a point?

NIST never claimed the fall speed was constant. They only expanded on their explanation of the fall speeds in the final report. The "truther" claim that they made NIST admit the period of free fall is false. Nothing changed that would effect the model.


BTW Welcome.

 

[Panoply_Prefect]

To nitpick, they didn't actually change the report. The final report is as it was when it was released. They edited the draft version, a version that was released with the explicit purpose of allowing people to give feedback and comment.

 

[TurbanTore]

NIST never claimed the fall speed was constant. They only expanded on their explanation of the fall speeds in the final report. The "truther" claim that they made NIST admit the period of free fall is false. Nothing changed that would effect the model.


BTW Welcome.

Thanks! Nice little forum you have here.

I see that you write that NIST never claimed that the velocity of the fall was constant. Does this mean that NIST never claimed that the velocity of the fall was nearby constant at all, or that NIST claims that WTC 7 was accelerating for 2.25 seconds and after that period (from 3 seconds and out) the velocity was nearby constant? At least in figure 12-76 (NCSTAR 1-9 vol. 2) it seems like the speed was near constant after 3 seconds.

I only have physics from high school so I really should not discuss the engineering and physics behind the NIST report, but it would be a shame if no one "debunks" the "truther".

 

[alienentity]

Thanks! Nice little forum you have here.

I see that you write that NIST never claimed that the velocity of the fall was constant. Does this mean that NIST never claimed that the velocity of the fall was nearby constant at all, or that NIST claims that WTC 7 was accelerating for 2.25 seconds and after that period (from 3 seconds and out) the velocity was nearby constant? At least in figure 12-76 (NCSTAR 1-9 vol. 2) it seems like the speed was near constant after 3 seconds.

I only have physics from high school so I really should not discuss the engineering and physics behind the NIST report, but it would be a shame if no one "debunks" the "truther".

First, the exact speed of the global collapse wasn't the main focus of the engineering study, it was the cause of failures and the nature of the progressive to global collapse which were the most important aspects.
IIRC, they examined a video in which the global collapse can be tracked for 18 floors (until the building falls out of view) - they measured the time at 5.4 seconds.
They observed this was 40% longer than freefall would have produced (3.9 seconds)

High school teacher David Chandler challenged this idea because it doesn't measure instantaneous acceleration, only average accel. NIST broke down the 18 floor section into 3 distinct intervals, the second of which (2.25 seconds) was at freefall, and the other two slower than freefall.

I made a couple of videos on the subject if you're interested. Here's the first one.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1rhY9c_iemA

 

[jaydeehess]

From a discussion on another forum about Chandler's work.

you have no problem with Chandler, a non-engineer, using a computer analysis not designed for the precision he takes from it nor for engineering purposes.

Chandler gets 9.885 m/s^2. Really? Three significant digits to the right of the decimal? This would imply at least that precision in the measurement of distances travelled and elapsed time. The frame rate of cameras is listed as 29.97 frames per second, and he is assuming that all digits to the right of that .97 are zeros? The distances are also measured to within a millimeter?

No, at best he can claim 9.9 m/s^2 indicating a margin of error of at the very least 10% in the final result.



Even if we assert that his precision is to a thousandth of meter per second squared his result is 0.085% faster than actual free fall indicating at the aboslute best (assuming again that his measurements are all so very impossibly precise) that there is a margin of error of +/- 0.085% Given though that the precison could not be so fine his assertion that the slope is at the very least AT free fall is ridiculous.

 

[dafydd]

I find this article very interesting indeed

http://tyrannyalert.com/wtc7solution.htm

What i would like to know is did "NIST" take into
consideration the work that had been undertaken
by the Salomon brothers to reinforce the building?

Did they take the work that had been done to reinforce
floors into consideration when they did there final investigation?

Did they factor into their collapse models the reinforcement work
that had been done to support the floors?

And it says in the article "Salomon signed a 20-year lease for 22 floors - each spanning nearly an acre"

And it also says "MORE than 375 tons of steel - requiring 12 miles of welding - will be installed to reinforce floors for Salomon's extra equipment. Sections of the existing stone facade and steel bracing will be temporarily removed so that workers using a roof crane can hoist nine diesel generators onto the tower's fifth floor, where they will become the core of a back-up power station.

So does that mean that the Salomon brothers reinforced
22 floors using 375 tons of structural steel? Because i don't think
it would require 375 tons of structural grade steel just to reinforce
just a couple of measly floors.

And it makes it even harder to believe that the building came down
due to fire after reading the article and reading lines like this as
Silverstein even said himself.

"We built in enough redundancy to allow entire portions of floors to be removed without effecting the building's structural integrity, on the assumption that someone might need double-height floors,'' said Larry Silverstein, president of the company. ''Sure enough, Salomon had that need."

Plus the rest

After i reading this article it makes very hard to believe
that wtc building seven collapses alone due to fire "oh yeah
right come on tell me it did and i will think your a nut"

How can we take seriously some one who can't even punctuate? What is your level of education? Which qualifications do you have?

 

[Mr.Herbert]

I find this article very interesting indeed

http://tyrannyalert.com/wtc7solution.htm

What i would like to know .........

What I would like to know... did anyone else think this link was to "tranny alert?"

or is it just me??

What about you Richard??

 

[jaydeehess]

I find this article very interesting indeed

http://tyrannyalert.com/wtc7solution.htm

..............
Silverstein even said himself.

"We built in enough redundancy to allow entire portions of floors to be removed without effecting the building's structural integrity, on the assumption that someone might need double-height floors,'' said Larry Silverstein, president of the company. ''Sure enough, Salomon had that need."

Plus the rest

After i reading this article it makes very hard to believe
that wtc building seven collapses alone due to fire "oh yeah
right come on tell me it did and i will think your a nut"

So tell me, how did they take out the floor? Did they simply knock out the offending concrete and allow it to fall to the floor below? Did they remove anything from the floor space being removed first? , and what of that extra bracing? did it go into allowing for the removal of the floor? If so then the whole shebang is right back no stronger than before the floor was removed. That is to say that yes it was reinforced but that is because the load was higher. It says nothing towards wheter or not fire could or could not reduce the strength of components to the point where they could not support the load on them.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Gotta love the Truth Movement.

They're so wedded to their own madness that they have to gainsay even completely obvious and relevant comparisons. Something in their brains just won't allow a contrary viewpoint, no matter how logical and defensible, to go unchallenged. Make them really easy to spot.

What I think is telling here is your descending into some level of ad hominem when shown a weak spot in an argument you favor.

By the way, you never responded to the thread I posted here several months ago where I did show the factor of safety for the core columns was in the 3.00 to 1 range with the actual in-service loads, the actual column cross sections, and the design requirement to keep the unit stress the same on the core and perimeter columns on each floor to avoid differential deflection and floor warpage. You repeatedly claimed in our Hardfire debate and later that the factor of safety of the core was lower, while insisting the NIST DCR values were right, and even saying NIST doesn't make those kinds of mistakes. What you may not have realized is the NIST DCR values are for worst case design loads, even though these were significantly higher than the actual loads at the time of failure. Actual loads, and reserve strengths based on those loads at the time of failure, are what should be used in a proper failure analysis.

 

[NutCracker]

What I think is telling here is your descending into some level of ad hominem when shown a weak spot in an argument you favor.

By the way, you never responded to the thread I posted here several months ago where I did show the factor of safety for the core columns was in the 3.00 to 1 range with the actual in-service loads, the actual column cross sections, and the design requirement to keep the unit stress the same on the core and perimeter columns on each floor to avoid differential deflection and floor warpage. You repeatedly claimed in our Hardfire debate and later that the factor of safety of the core was lower, while insisting the NIST DCR values were right, and even saying NIST doesn't make those kinds of mistakes. What you may not have realized is the NIST DCR values are for worst case design loads, even though these were significantly higher than the actual loads at the time of failure. Actual loads, and reserve strengths based on those loads at the time of failure, are what should be used in a proper failure analysis.

Please Tony, you seem to not even understand what an ad hominem is.

And Tony, the Truth Movement IS insane. It's an observation.

Weak spot? Instead of looking for "anomolies" in the dreaded "official story" you may wish to apply the same techinque to your own thesis. There might be hole you could fly the entire universe through, here and there.

Look Tony, you and your fellow clowns have got NOTHING. Where is this peer reviewed paper again?

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Please Tony, you seem to not even understand what an ad hominem is.

And Tony, the Truth Movement IS insane. It's an observation.

Weak spot? Instead of looking for "anomolies" in the dreaded "official story" you may wish to apply the same techinque to your own thesis. There might be hole you could fly the entire universe through, here and there.

Look Tony, you and your fellow clowns have got NOTHING. Where is this peer reviewed paper again?

Your attempts to lump everyone who is questioning the present official explanations, for the NYC high rise collapses on Sept. 11, 2001, into the same camp and then call them insane is an adhominem itself.

Upon seeing video of the collapse of WTC 7 a rational person would have to conclude that its fall was most likely due to controlled demolition. After comparing what is seen in the video to what the NIST WTC 7 report claims, a rational person would have to reject that report, because it does not replicate the collapse. It was obviously a controlled demolition and the only logical conclusion is that the charges had to be pre-positioned, as a building of that size could not be rigged in one day, especially with fires in it.

If WTC 7 had pre-positioned charges in it, and those in official capacities responsible for explaining the collapse are not admitting to it, then the explanations for the rapid falls of the towers by those same people need to be scrutinized also.

And let us not forget that none of the steel from WTC 7 was saved for analysis and less than 0.5% from the towers, yet you want to call people insane for thinking there might be some level of impropriety there.

Rational and mature people do not want to be fed nonsense and it is ridiculous to call them insane because they don't accept it. The fact that you are doing that says more about you than it does about those rightly questioning the present explanations for these collapses.

 

[BasqueArch]

What I think is telling here is your descending into some level of ad hominem when shown a weak spot in an argument you favor.

By the way, you never responded to the thread I posted here several months ago where I did show the factor of safety for the core columns was in the 3.00 to 1 range with the actual in-service loads, the actual column cross sections, and the design requirement to keep the unit stress the same on the core and perimeter columns on each floor to avoid differential deflection and floor warpage. You repeatedly claimed in our Hardfire debate and later that the factor of safety of the core was lower, while insisting the NIST DCR values were right, and even saying NIST doesn't make those kinds of mistakes. What you may not have realized is the NIST DCR values are for worst case design loads, even though these were significantly higher than the actual loads at the time of failure. Actual loads, and reserve strengths based on those loads at the time of failure, are what should be used in a proper failure analysis.

[qimg]http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_Bf09GFiuemQ/Rnozl6GFCtI/AAAAAAAAABE/0-f4LAgtfAs/s400/little0yz.jpg[/qimg]
Aw Jeez, Not This Crap Again


“If the total (internal) energy loss during the crushing of one
story (representing the energy dissipated by the complete
crushing and compaction of one story, minus the loss of
gravity potential during the crushing of that story) exceeds
the kinetic energy impacted to that story, collapse will continue
to the next story. This is the criterion of progressive
collapse trigger [Eq.(5)]. If it is satisfied, there is no way to
deny the inevitability of progressive collapse driven by gravity
alone (regardless of by how much the combined strength
of columns of one floor may exceed the weight of the part of
the tower above that floor). What matters is energy, not the
strength, nor stiffness.” - Bazant

http://www.civil.northwestern.edu/people/bazant/PDFs/Papers/466.pdf

 

[NutCracker]

Your attempts to lump everyone who is questioning the present official explanations, for the NYC high rise collapses on Sept. 11, 2001, into the same camp and then call them insane is an adhominem itself.

Upon seeing video of the collapse of WTC 7 a rational person would have to conclude that its fall was most likely due to controlled demolition. After comparing what is seen in the video to what the NIST WTC 7 report claims, a rational person would have to reject that report, because it does not replicate the collapse. It was obviously a controlled demolition and the only logical conclusion is that the charges had to be pre-positioned, as a building of that size could not be rigged in one day, especially with fires in it.

If WTC 7 had pre-positioned charges in it, and those in official capacities responsible for explaining the collapse are not admitting to it, then the explanations for the rapid falls of the towers by those same people need to be scrutinized also.

And let us not forget that none of the steel from WTC 7 was saved for analysis and less than 0.5% from the towers, yet you want to call people insane for thinking there might be some level of impropriety there.

Rational and mature people do not want to be fed nonsense and it is ridiculous to call them insane because they don't accept it. The fact that you are doing that says more about you than it does about those rightly questioning the present explanations for these collapses.

Oh please Tony, why make it worse for yourself? Well, it seems I have to explain to you what an ad hominem is. Here we go. An ad hominem argument is an argument by which a party in debate dismisses the argument of another party in debate on the basis of a personal trait. You dismissing the arguments of JREF-ers here some time ago on the grounds that they where anonymous is a fine example.

Where have I stated that I dismiss the arguments of the TM on the basis that they are members of the TM? Nowhere. I stated that the TM is insane., and that includes you.That is an observation:

- 9 years and counting and you have got not a single piece of evidence in favour of your theories.
- 9 years and counting and not a single paper in an accepted academic peer reviewed journal in a relevant field. Not one.
- 9 years and all you have to offer in favour in defence of your theories is a barrage of all Logical Fallacies that Socrates forbid. Fallacies like the remainder of your post offers some nice examples. 'Any rational individual ' my rectum. It is like a cd because it superficially looks like one on cherry picked footage? Bring that to a peer reviewed journal! The reviewers will die laughing. I want you to be on a NTSB board. Picture it. Investigator T. Szamboty to the press "I believe TWA800 came down due to a bomb." Reporter "why do you think so?" "Well, the explosion looks like one that is caused by on this video I have of the crash on my laptop." Reporter: "have explosives residues been found?" "No, but any rational individual upon viewing my movie..." Only 0.5% of the steel salvaged. Is if the investigative bodies had to collect 500000 tonnes of steel and concrete and store it in a hangar. As if there wasn't a careful pre-selection process at Fresh-Kills.

Do you really want to go into paranoid rambling to argue that you are not insane?

 

[beachnut]

What I think is telling here is your descending into some level of ad hominem when shown a weak spot in an argument you favor.

By the way, you never responded to the thread I posted here several months ago where I did show the factor of safety for the core columns was in the 3.00 to 1 range with the actual in-service loads, the actual column cross sections, and the design requirement to keep the unit stress the same on the core and perimeter columns on each floor to avoid differential deflection and floor warpage. You repeatedly claimed in our Hardfire debate and later that the factor of safety of the core was lower, while insisting the NIST DCR values were right, and even saying NIST doesn't make those kinds of mistakes. What you may not have realized is the NIST DCR values are for worst case design loads, even though these were significantly higher than the actual loads at the time of failure. Actual loads, and reserve strengths based on those loads at the time of failure, are what should be used in a proper failure analysis.

Classic 911 truth cult member spewing off topic nonsensical tripe in a thread where a failed opinion will mark you a fringe conspiracy theorist like Jones and his earthquake caused by United State mentality. Is reality as hard to grasp as your 911 truth movement make it out to be?

How did jets manage to impact the WTC and the Pentagon? The FDR show for Flight 77 the terrorist pilot moved the control column and control wheel to guide Flight 77 into the Pentagon using his eyes to aim like all pilots do. The terrorists also pushed the throttles to firewall. The impacts were guided by terrorists who trained to fly and earned commercial tickets; what a waste, I put in kids who hit the WTC towers in a simulator the first time without training. The correct book answer is; terrorist pilots flew the jets into the WTC and Pentagon; in fact the FDR shows the terrorists flew 93 into the ground because they were to chicken to fight the Heroes.

What we have is standard truther lack of knowledge opinions. On 911 the weather was perfect and that aided the terrorists in hitting the targets. Even Hani who could hit a 40 foot wide runway but was not lined up properly to land was good enough to hit a 900 foot wide office building.
Looks like the terrorists could surprise everyone until evidence was gathered buy Flight 93 Heroes who stopped the terrorists; 911 truth ZEROES, Flight 93 HEROES

What are you? the real cd deal with zero evidence and failed conspiracy theories based on delusions of cd who can’t figure out how planes are flown.

 

[Newtons Bit]

Upon seeing video of the collapse of WTC 7 a rational person would have to conclude that its fall was most likely due to controlled demolition.

That's complete bull. If it were true, the Truth movement would have grown exponentially. Just viewing the collapse would have creating new converts. But instead, nothing happens. Leading us to why the truth movement is, metaphorically, dead.