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

Christopher7 said:
That is utter nonsense.
"a free fall time would be an object that has no structural components below it"
What part of no don't you understand? :rolleyes:
Click to expand...


What part of the fact that these columns that are bent and buckled at a 30+ degree angle would not be supplying any measurable amount of resistance do YOU not understand? :rolleyes:

If you think about having the entire upper mass contacting an unconnected and stationary horizontal beam of equivalent mass of the column section in an inelastic collision, The upper mass would transfer some of its momentum to this other mass thus acellerating the smaller mass and decellerating the upper mass so that the total momentum of the system remains the same. The change in velocity of the much greater mass would be determined by the ratio of its mass to that of the lower mass.

EVEN IF the entire lower section were completely intact, and we all know it was not and that much of it had failed and collapsed in the previous 15 seconds of the collapse, the ratio is that of at the very least 4:1.

However we already know that there had been a massive amount of floor cave ins in the previous 15 seconds and that it had initiated at a lower floor. Although the rooftop structures had not ALL begun to sink all this does is infer that the lower floors failed first and that at the time of the final phase those lower floors had already collapsed MEANING that the mass ratio was even greater.

Furthermore the lower mass is already moving when the upper mass contacts it meaning a lesser amount of momentum transfer as well.

The greater amount of mass in the lower section of the building is in the floors. If this mass had been reduced by the previous 15 sec of collapse then , as above, it increases the mass ratio between upper and lower sections. Floors that are intact are being caught by the upper mass one at a time AND a significant amount of any intact flooring is now to the north of the original facade of WTC 7. They will be spun at best rather than acellerated straight downward again reducing the amount of momentum transfer.


BUT C7, if you wish to look at this in simplistic terms and come to simplistic conclusions, well its a free country on both sides of the 49th.
 
Last edited:
jaydeehess said:
BUT C7, if you wish to look at this in simplistic terms and come to simplistic conclusions, well its a free country on both sides of the 49th.
Click to expand...
It would be nice if he did look at it in simplistic terms. However, his conclusions are based on the extremely complex method of making all the columns completely disappear, therefore removed. Simplistic would be that the columns failed.
 
Christopher7 said:
That is utter nonsense.
[FONT=&quot]"a free fall time would be an object that has no structural components below it"[/FONT]
What part of no don't you understand? :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Now apply that thinking to the other 14+ seconds of the collapse. The 87% of it that you don't want to discuss.
 
Last edited:
Gamolon said:
Ok, I watched Chandler's video. The gentleman who gives the explanation as to where they got the 5.4 second measurement says they got it from when the top of the parapet disappeared BETWEEN THE TWO BUILDINGS. Answer me this Christopher7. Here is clip from the video that shows the start of the roof line collpase. Notice the video time is :14.
[qimg]http://i238.photobucket.com/albums/ff290/gamolon/WTC7clip1.jpg[/qimg]

Here is where the roof line disappears. Notice the video time is now at :19. 5 seconds. The red arrow points to the point where it disappears from view BETWEEN THE TWO BUILDINGS.
[qimg]http://i238.photobucket.com/albums/ff290/gamolon/WTC7clip2.jpg[/qimg]

Here is Chandler's video. Why does he pick the point he did with the yellow arrow as the point the roof line disappeared instead of where it ACTUALLY disappeared from view BETWEEN THE TWO BUILDINGS in the second screenshot above?
[qimg]http://i238.photobucket.com/albums/ff290/gamolon/WTC7clip3.jpg[/qimg]
Click to expand...



Been there done that. You are correct, sir.

ETA it's really about the arbitrary start time and also the final floors visible, as you've noticed. Chandler used a different video from the one NIST did, and started measuring from a different point. Then he got a different result - go figure:cool:
 
Last edited:
jaydeehess said:
What part of the fact that these columns that are bent and buckled at a 30+ degree angle would not be supplying any measurable amount of resistance do YOU not understand?
Click to expand...
The part where they did not all do this at the same time over 8 floors as can be seen in the 16 second frame. The folding up [but not breaking apart] of the lower floors is not symmetrical nor could it be. In the 16 second frame, the exterior walls are providing resistance.

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

This is axiomatic. A 12 year old can understand it. He did not say buckling structure, he said no structural components.

nistwtc7modelvideo14s16.jpg


vidgifcompars.jpg
 
Christopher7 said:
Once again,
[FONT=&quot]a free fall time would be blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah...[/FONT]"
Click to expand...

Hey Christopher, can you see my post now?

I'm asking you about the other 14 seconds, the 87% of the collapse you don't want to talk about. How do you explain the building coming down at 250+% of free fall?
 
Last edited:
alienentity said:


Been there done that. You are correct, sir.

ETA it's really about the arbitrary start time and also the final floors visible, as you've noticed. Chandler used a different video from the one NIST did, and started measuring from a different point. Then he got a different result - go figure:cool:
Click to expand...
Really? Please demonstrate.

What video did NIST use? [give URL]

What is their reference point for the beginning of the collapse?

What is their reference point for the end of 5.4 seconds?

Please show where there is a difference.
 
Last edited:
Sword_Of_Truth said:
Hey Christopher, can you see my post now?

I'm asking you about the other 14 seconds, the 87% of the collapse you don't want to talk about. How do you explain the building coming down at 250+% of free fall?
Click to expand...

What?

ETA: 250+% of FFA?

If that's what you have determined then I cannot help you. I really don't think anyone can.
 
Last edited:
c7 said:
Wrong. Dr. Sunder is talking about the global collapse.
Click to expand...
Precisely after several seconds of internal collapse had already taken place.

Now Chris I asked you already... please don't make this any more difficult than you already have. How does your quote from him prove the cause of the collapse? Why do you require explosives when you've yet to eliminate the loss of structural integrity caused by eccentric loading as a cause? I am asking you to link cause with effect. Please... I'm asking you nicely... to explain further. You either have this explanation or you don't. If you don't have any means to elaborate I suggest you promptly drop the subject due to a lack of qualifications or study.
 
Last edited:
Grizzly Bear said:
Precisely after several seconds of internal collapse had already taken place.

Now Chris I asked you already... please don't make this any more difficult than you already have. How does your quote from him prove the cause of the collapse? Why do you require explosives when you've yet to eliminate the loss of structural integrity caused by eccentric loading as a cause? I am asking you to link cause with effect. Please... I'm asking you nicely... to explain further. You either have this explanation or you don't. If you don't have any means to elaborate I suggest you promptly drop the subject due to a lack of qualifications or study.
Click to expand...
I have explained it clearly. You are willfully blind to the fact that FFA means "an object with no supporting structure below" and the fact that the computer model always provides resistance as Dr. Sunder said.
 
c7 said:
I have explained it clearly. You are willfully blind to the fact that FFA means "an object with no supporting structure below" and the fact that the computer model always provides resistance as Dr. Sunder said.
Click to expand...

I am well aware FFA means that there is no viable support for what's above. The question that you appear to be wholly oblivious to is what causes this loss of support to take place. Let me spell it out:

You have cause

and then you have effect

You have given me the effect. But nothing of a cause, nor proof thereof. You seem to support explosives, so I'd like to know; what if anything you have to defend that claim other than it "looked like" or "it fell at FFA."

You have gracefully acknowledged my question, perhaps you can delight me a bit more by addressing the actual point rather than repeating a claim straight up that I asked hours ago for you to offer more substance on. What I'm attempting to get you to do is move beyond bare assertion.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom