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

Christopher7 said:
I have answered this several times. It does not matter that no other CD have fallen at FFA.

The point is: FFA requires that all the supporting structure on 7 to 8 floors must be removed simultaneously.
Click to expand...

SS_SC_MerryGoRoundAnim.gif
 
Christopher7 said:
I have answered this several times.
Click to expand...

No, you have responded to the question, but never answered it.

Christopher7 said:
It does not matter that no other CD have fallen at FFA.
Click to expand...

Yes, it does matter if you want to make the assertion that FFA = CD.

Christopher7 said:
The point is: FFA requires that all the supporting structure on 7 to 8 floors must be removed simultaneously.
Click to expand...

No, the point is that if no other CDs cause FFA, there's no support for the assertion that FFA = CD.

So, once again, why do no other CDs cause FFA if FFA = CD?
 
Christopher7 said:
I have answered this several times. It does not matter that no other CD have fallen at FFA.

The point is: FFA requires that all the supporting structure on 7 to 8 floors must be removed simultaneously.
Click to expand...
Since no other CD has ever had FFA as part of the collapse, no other CD has had anything removed. Therefore, WTC7 could not be a CD. Your fictitious removal of material that no eyewitness saw, recorded or implied to have seen only shows the straws that you will grasp to hold onto your fantasy. Again, if this magical removal of the supporting structure occurred, FFA would have started immediately, not one second later. WAIT I've got it. You live in Loony Tunes land where you stay suspended in air when you run off a cliff!
 
Christopher7 said:
:D The difference between FFA and near FFA is indeclinable when looking at a video of the implosion. WTC 7 looks like a CD.
Click to expand...

To the untrained and biased eye. However, as you have argued, CDs don't produce FFA, so the WTC 7 collapse in fact didn't resemble a CD.
 
C7 said:
The point is: FFA requires that all the supporting structure on 7 to 8 floors must be removed simultaneously.
Click to expand...
sheeplesnshills said:
Feel free to try to prove that.........:)
Click to expand...
I have but it just goes in one ear and out the other with no intervening obstruction.

[FONT=&quot]"a free fall time would be an object that has no structural components below it"


[/FONT]
 
Christopher7 said:
sheeplesnshills said:
:D The difference between FFA and near FFA is indeclinable when looking at a video of the implosion. WTC 7 looks like a CD.
Click to expand...

Great! Lets do another comparison shall we?

Go here, and view any of the videos linked in this article. http://www.floridatoday.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=20108210320
This is a known demolition (not far from my house) done by none other than CDI.

Now, lets look at a simmilar collapse shall we?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aTQWNCeCBvQ&feature=search

Watch the chimney.

Falls much like the smokestacks did. Both started out rather slowly, then built up much more speed. Both fell to one side.

Which one was the controlled demolition?


ETA: Alienentity, or one of you sciency guys with all your fancy electronis and programs, would you be so kind as to track the collapse of the smokestack? I don't know if it is doable or not, but would one of you be willing to do it? I want to see if the smokestack falls in freefall. I mean, since we know there are no supports underneath the stack as it falls. I just wanna see something.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
triforcharity said:
Great! Lets do another comparison shall we?
Click to expand...
Sure man. :cool:

Go here, and view any of the videos linked in this article.
http://www.floridatoday.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=20108210320
This is a known demolition (not far from my house) done by none other than CDI.

Now, lets look at a simmilar collapse shall we?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aTQWNCeCBvQ&feature=search

Watch the chimney.
Click to expand...
It's true, it's true. :D A 47 story skyscraper does not look like a chimney or a two story house.

Lets do another comparison shall we?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6_czyNCNhDI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hm1u6qZyQ4w
 
C7 if you don't mind me asking since you are continually citing this:

I have but it just goes in one ear and out the other with no intervening obstruction.

"a free fall time would be an object that has no structural components below it"
Click to expand...

How does this prove explosives exactly? One of of the issues about buckling is that it's a failure caused by instability, rather than one of strength. Once the column begins to bend it acts like lever and this increased bending causes the failure to progress faster and faster as more torque is applied to the columns' center of gravity. This why when a column fails in this manner it's almost always sudden in nature. I'd like you to explain how you've have omitted this from your reasoning. I'm also curious if you've ever read any books related to elementary engineering outside of any reports directly related to NIST, as it seems you sorely lack the study to be speaking on these things. If you have any doubts concerning different column failure mechanisms, I'm more than ready to provide you with a direct citation.
 
Last edited:
Grizzly Bear said:
C7 if you don't mind me asking since you are continually citing this:
Click to expand...
C7 said:
"a free fall time would be an object that has no structural components below it"
Click to expand...

How does this prove explosives exactly?
Click to expand...
I thought you'd never ask, thank you. :cool:

One of of the issues about buckling is that it's a failure caused by instability, rather than one of strength. Once the column begins to bend it acts like lever and this increased bending causes the failure to progress faster and faster as more torque is applied to the columns' center of gravity. This why when a column fails in this manner it's almost always sudden in nature.
Click to expand...
Sudden is not instantaneous and we are talking about 78 columns on 7 to 8 floors.
Do you understand this:
"[FONT=&quot]there was structural resistance that was provided in this particular case. And you had a sequence of structural failures that had to take place. Everything was not instantaneous."[/FONT]
 
Christopher7 said:
Sudden is not instantaneous and we are talking about 78 columns on 7 to 8 floors.
Do you understand this:
Click to expand...

Approx 80 columns over 8 floors, with 2 pairs of cutter charges per column, plus one charge to swing the 'removed' column out of the way (to avoid resistance).

Grand total 3,200 high explosive charges, ballpark. Call it 2,400 if we want to be charitable and assume the severed columns would just fall out of the way nicely.

Great theory Chris. When you take your comedy show onto the pro circuit?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom