Split Thread 7WTC - controlled demolition or fire and damage induced collapse?

[TSR]

No, Free fall means "falling thru air" NO RESISTANCE. The proper term is "acceleration" but free fall is free fall no matter what terminology one uses.

.
And Stage 2 means Stage 2, in this case out of three.

Why do you continue to ignore this? I mean, what do you think was happening before 1.75 s and after 4.0 s?
.

 

[AZCat]

No, Free fall means "falling thru air" NO RESISTANCE. The proper term is "acceleration" but free fall is free fall no matter what terminology one uses.

They also use the term "gravitational acceleration" - it means the same thing.

One more time for the learning impaired:
NCSTAR 1-A pg 45 [pdf pg 87]
"The slope of the velocity curve is approximately constant between about 1.75 s and 4.0 s, and a good straight line fit to the points in this range (open-circles in Figure 3-15) allowed estimation of a constant downward acceleration during this time interval. This acceleration was 32.2 ft/s²(9.81 m/s²), equivalent to the acceleration of gravity g." [within 0.1%]

Perhaps Ryan can help you out on this. Ryan?

Hmmm - it looks like you are making the same mistake again, but now you're compounding it by claiming "free fall time" (which isn't in the section you excerpted here, but is in the one you excerpted in earlier posts) is the same thing as "free fall".

These two phrases do not have the same meaning.

 

[AZCat]

You responded to a joke. Will you respond to a point about science?

Free fall acceleration, free fall time and gravitational acceleration all mean the same thing. Correct?

WTC 7 fell at free fall [whatever] for 100 feet. Correct?

Wow - you're even worse off than I thought. You seem to think "free fall acceleration" and "free fall time" mean the same thing. (emphasis mine)

 

[alienentity]

Actually we do. All the videos that don't show the windows exploding are excelent recorded proof that there were no internal demolition explosions.

Y'know, I have to agree with this statement. Normally I would ask truthers to prove, with evidence, their claims of explosives.

But I believe the lack of blown-out windows (due to the lack of supersonic explosive shocks) is actually proof that there were no high explosives of any significance.

I don't think there is any other valid interpretation of that data.

I think that demolitions engineers can easily verify this observation, and in the case of WTC7 they did, using advanced industry software. It's in the NIST report for building 7.

If truthers would like to offer an alternative analysis using physics and demolition experts, which could demonstrate how explosives might be used without breaking windows, I'd love to see it.

But until then there's nothing except the usual tired excuses from truthers. I do wish they'd get off their butts and actually do some work.

 

[TSR]

We have learned something new.

.
No, we already knew you were a liar.
.

WTC 7 fell at free fall acceleration. NIST even confirmed it in their final report on WTC 7.

.
No, WTC7 did not.

*Part* of WTC7 did, after the collapse was already initiated, and only for about 2 seconds.

Why do you continue to lie about this?
.

 

[TSR]

He keeps playing with semantics saying that *Part* of WTC7 at free fall when the videos show the entire building collapsing

.
... in three distinct stages, according to NIST.

So C7 is continuing to lie.

One can only assume zie is simply trolling at this point.
.

NIST says[FONT=&quot] "the entire building above the buckled-column region moved downward as a single unit".

.
... after 23.5 s of collapse.

So C7 is continuing to lie.

One can only assume zie is simply trolling at this point.
.

 

[Dave Rogers]

We have learned something new. WTC 7 fell at free fall acceleration. NIST even confirmed it in their final report on WTC 7.

Now this is just blatant, unashamed, self-aware and openly admitted quote mining. We know that WTC7 began to fall at significantly less than free-fall acceleration, that the rate of acceleration increased to a value very close to free-fall 1.75 seconds after initiation, and that from 4 seconds after initiation the rate of acceleration again decreased. The implication of this is clearly that a large, multi-storey section of the building collapsed at 1.75 seconds, and that the upper section fell through the height of this section for 2.25 seconds until it again encountered significant resistance from the section below. By claiming that "WTC7 fell at free fall acceleration", you are dishonestly trying to imply that the entire fall was at free-fall, when you know this not to be the case. And this lie is no less of a lie when someone other than Ryan Mackey points it out.

Dave

 

[Oystein]

Fine. Right here:

"I've yet to see proof that thermite or a derivative could not be used to create a core failure."

The proof you require would demand us proving a negative, i.e, that thermite could NOT be used. That is logically impossible....

I know a method by which we can demolish a building with thermite:
- pack a big amount of it into a large steel ball
- hang it on a steel chain
- swing it against the building many times till it's down.

 

[AZCat]

Now this is just blatant, unashamed, self-aware and openly admitted quote mining. We know that WTC7 began to fall at significantly less than free-fall acceleration, that the rate of acceleration increased to a value very close to free-fall 1.75 seconds after initiation, and that from 4 seconds after initiation the rate of acceleration again decreased. The implication of this is clearly that a large, multi-storey section of the building collapsed at 1.75 seconds, and that the upper section fell through the height of this section for 2.25 seconds until it again encountered significant resistance from the section below. By claiming that "WTC7 fell at free fall acceleration", you are dishonestly trying to imply that the entire fall was at free-fall, when you know this not to be the case. And this lie is no less of a lie when someone other than Ryan Mackey points it out.

Dave

I guess I've been relegated to B-list debunker status. How will I ever survive?

 

[Christopher7]

Now this is just blatant, unashamed, self-aware and openly admitted quote mining.

This is the meaningless catch phrase deniers use when they have no answer for a fact that disproves the OCT.

We know that WTC7 began to fall at significantly less than free-fall acceleration

Correct

that the rate of acceleration increased to a value very close to free-fall

Within one tenth of one percent. Indistinguishable from free fall acceleration.

1.75 seconds after initiationand that from 4 seconds after initiation the rate of acceleration again decreased. The implication of this is clearly that a large, multi-storey section of the building collapsed at 1.75 seconds and that the upper section fell through the height of this section for 2.25 seconds until it again encountered significant resistance from the section below.

Excellent explanation of the location in history when the free fall acceleration portion of the global collapse of World Trade Center Seven occurred.

By claiming that "WTC7 fell at free fall acceleration", you are dishonestly trying to imply that the entire fall was at free-fall when you know this not to be the case.

Ah, there's where the misunderstanding lies.
I have made it clear that WTC 7 fell at free fall acceleration for about 100 feet. You have misunderstood me. I hope this clears that up.

C7

 

[alienentity]

C7, what's more important is that it really doesn't matter that you hold absurd and childish views about the collapses. Nobody outside this forum gives a damn what you think about it. Nor should they.

You have nothing else to offer but the usual credulous piffle that we see too often - OMG!!! Freefall = CD!!! OMGOMGOMG!!

But unfortunately the towers did not experience freefall, so your pitifully inadequate proof is dead, dead ,dead. That's really extra dead, btw.

Keep filling your head with zombie, dead ideas, if you wish to waste it. I really don't care. Your ideas are worthless.

 

[Dave Rogers]

This is the meaningless catch phrase deniers use when they have no answer for a fact that disproves the OCT.

Well, you may notice that the answer was contained later in the same post, so it's a little disingenuous at best to suggest that it doesn't exist. The part of the descent that occurred at roughly freefall acceleration is attributed to a multi-storey buckle of the perimeter structure over about 7-8 storeys, and NIST's modelling of the collapse predicts such a phenomenon. There's no point, therefore, pretending that there's something unexplained about this 2.25 second part of the collapse, because it has been fully explained.

Dave

 

[TSR]

Like I just said, your ability to spin and deny is astounding. The free fall only lasted for 2.25 seconds but during that short time WTC 7 fell about 100 feet.

.
100 feet out of how tall was the building as a whole? 2.25 s out of how long a collapse as whole?
.

A moment of truth. The upper portion of WTC 7 fell as a single unit for 100 feet.

.
No, the penthouse did.
.

I'm quoting the NIST report.
.

.
No, you have been shown to be quote-mining the NIST report, leaving out significant portions of what it *actually* says.
.

 

[Christopher7]

15% of the collapse was at freefall acceleration

Correct

about midway during the collapse.

Incorrect

Please tell us, how does this in any way resemble any CD which you can refer to? Please do tell.

Most people recognize that WTC 7 looks like a CD including Dan Rather.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nvx904dAw0o
and Brian Williams
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i2RzHN2HghU

Proof of CD is not just a brief period such as that.

Incorrect. FFA for 100 feet [FONT=&quot]can only occur when all the supporting structure has been removed.

[/FONT]

 

[lapman]

Most people recognize that WTC 7 looks like a CD including Dan Rather.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nvx904dAw0o
and Brian Williams
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i2RzHN2HghU

Please post their qualifications that show they have any expertise in determining this.

Incorrect. FFA for 100 feet [FONT=&quot]can only occur when all the supporting structure has been removed.

[/FONT]

False. It can occure when the supporting structure fails. Learn the difference.

 

[Christopher7]

Please post their qualifications that show they have any expertise in determining this.

Their qualifications are - they have seen and reported on CD's many times. If you are trying to imply that they need any more qualification than that you are wrong. You don't have to be an expert to say WTC 7 looks like the other CDs we have seen.

It can occure when the supporting structure fails. Learn the difference.

The supporting structure in a progressive collapse is buckling and twisting. There is always some resistance so FFA is not possible.

 

[uke2se]

Their qualifications are - they have seen and reported on CD's many times.

Given that controlled demolitions normally aren't newsworthy, please provide evidence that either of them have actually reported on or seen CDs many times.

Also, do you believe that seeing controlled demolitions many times is enough to give an opinion on whether WTC 7 was a controlled demolition or not? In that case, I have seen many controlled demolitions. I don't think WTC 7 looks anything like a controlled demolition. For starters, a controlled demolition starts at the bottom, while the WTC 7 collapses from the top. Secondly, a controlled demolition makes a building collapse in on itself. WTC 7 doesn't do that.

If you are trying to imply that they need any more qualification than that you are wrong.
You don't have to be an expert to say WTC 7 looks like the other CDs we have seen.

Then why did you bring up their names at all? If you don't have to be an expert, you might as well have said "My mom and dad thinks WTC 7 looks like a CD". What you did was an appeal to false authority, which is yet another of a long line of logical fallacies from you.

The supporting structure in a progressive collapse is buckling and twisting. There is always some resistance so FFA is not possible.

Prove it.

 

[Christopher7]

Given that controlled demolitions normally aren't newsworthy, please provide evidence that either of them have actually reported on or seen CDs many times.

They both recognized that WTC 7 looked like a CD.

Dan Rather
@ 0:20 "For the third time today, it's reminiscent of those pictures we've all seen too much on television before, when a building was deliberately destroyed by well placed dynamite to knock it down."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nvx904dAw0o


Brian Williams
@ 5:36 "There's number 7 coming down. When you think that the part of the component of news coverage around the country every year is the excitement and the fun people get watching an old building being demolished."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i2RzHN2HghU

There is no need for "evidence" that they know what they are talking about.

 

[uke2se]

They both recognized that WTC 7 looked like a CD.

Dan Rather
@ 0:20 "For the third time today, it's reminiscent of those pictures we've all seen too much on television before, when a building was deliberately destroyed by well placed dynamite to knock it down."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nvx904dAw0o


Brian Williams
@ 5:36 "There's number 7 coming down. When you think that the part of the component of news coverage around the country every year is the excitement and the fun people get watching an old building being demolished."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i2RzHN2HghU

There is no need for "evidence" that they know what they are talking about.

Please stop arguing in circles. You said Williams and Rather had reported on and seen controlled demolitions many times, which would give them expertise in how a controlled demolition looks - expertise you then state isn't needed.

Now, what's it going to be?

1. Have Rather and Williams reported on and seen controlled demolition many times giving them expertise in what a controlled demolition looks like? Please note that WTC 7 doesn't count into this as we're attempting to establish previous experience.

2. Is such expertise needed or isn't it? If it is, you need to provide evidence that Williams and Rather have such expertise. If it isn't, you admit to committing an appeal to false authority by invoking their names.

 

[twinstead]

Jesus. Who cares WHO thinks WTC looked like a CD? I want some evidence that it WAS.