Coast to Coast AM Debate, August 21 2010

[Christopher7]

I already explained how a simultaneous failure can happen due to load redistribution.

You have not. Your speculation and double talk is contrary to what we see in the video simulation and the fact that the moment frames held the exterior walls together and they were buckling asymmetrically.

It's the expected result of the transition between "barely bearing the weight of the building" to "no longer able to bear the weight of the building".

Wrong. When the core columns failed they pulled the exterior walls down with them but the exterior walls provided resistance, preventing FFA.

 

[Reactor drone]

Wrong. When the core columns failed they pulled the exterior walls down with them but the exterior walls provided resistance, preventing FFA.

Then, once the columns had buckled sufficiently they provided negligible resistance, allowing FFA, before finally meeting resistance again and reducing acceleration.

 

[BigAl]

Originally Posted by Chorduroy
Sorry, I must have missed it, but where EXACTLY does the RJ Lee report indicate that thermite in any form was found?

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6266413&postcount=330

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6269088&postcount=368

I just read the RJ Lee report yesterday and thermite isn't mentioned in it.

 

[Christopher7]

58 steel columns did not fail simultaneously.

Bardamu,
Pardon me for jumping in here but triforcharity is talking thru his hat.

In order for the entire upper portion to fall at FFA as a single unit, all 58 exterior columns had to fail simultaneously. If they had not failed simultaneously, the top part would have fallen to one side.

NIST says:
"Exterior column buckling spread from column to column, as loads were redistributed, until all the exterior columns had buckled between floors 7 and 14 within approximately 2s. [1-9 Vol.2 pg 588] This is consistent with Stage 1. [1A pg 45]

Then "The entire building above the buckled-column region then moved downward in a single unit, as observed" [1A pg 55 ] At FFA - Stage 2

 

[Christopher7]

Then, once the columns had buckled sufficiently they provided negligible resistance, allowing FFA, before finally meeting resistance again and reducing acceleration.

The problem is, the exterior walls were folding up asymmetrically. The moment frames held the exterior wall together, preventing them from breaking apart as can be seen in the video simulation. The buckling exterior walls were always providing some resistance. The word negligible is misleading. It means: to small to be considered. In this case - zero.

It is axiomatic, and Dr. Sunder acknowledged:
"a free fall time would be an object that has no structural components below it"

 

[pgimeno]

You have not. Your speculation and double talk is contrary to what we see in the video simulation and the fact that the moment frames held the exterior walls together and they were buckling asymmetrically.

My speculation is based on what the NIST reports say. Your speculation is based on your own flawed engineering concepts. Would you explain why do you use the term "double talk"?

In order for the entire upper portion to fall at FFA as a single unit, all 58 exterior columns had to fail simultaneously. If they had not failed simultaneously, the top part would have fallen to one side.

NIST says:
"Exterior column buckling spread from column to column, as loads were redistributed, until all the exterior columns had buckled between floors 7 and 14 within approximately 2s. [1-9 Vol.2 pg 588] This is consistent with Stage 1. [1A pg 45]

Then "The entire building above the buckled-column region then moved downward in a single unit, as observed" [1A pg 55 ] At FFA - Stage 2

That's consistent with my explanation: load redistribution is a very quick process and it culminated with all columns failing at virtually the same time. You, on the other hand, have not provided any explanation for such a simultaneous failure, having recognized instead that you don't have a clue. So what do we have here?

- A mechanism by which simultaneous failure can be triggered by a natural collapse.
- No mechanism by which simultaneous failure can be triggered by a demolition.

So much for your baseless claims that "thermite is the only explanation" when you don't actually have an explanation.

And for some reason, you skipped the following paragraph, which is an important point (I've made a correction):

Care to explain how is it possible that no trace of any incendiary material was found in any of the columns structural elements of WTC7/WTC1/WTC2, and that no explosions were heard during either collapse?

There's no case for demolition without an indication that there was a demolition. How can it be that the dust showed traces of thermite but no structural element did? Maybe the reason is that what was found in the dust was not thermite actually.

The buckling exterior walls were always providing some resistance.

You have failed to provide any proof of that assertion every time I have asked. Don't worry, I'll ask again: what's your proof?

Remember, the graphs by NIST and Chandler don't show the necessary accuracy for your claimed 0.1% of g, so these graphs are not a proof.

 

[Christopher7]

In order for the entire upper portion to fall at FFA as a single unit, all 58 exterior columns had to fail simultaneously. If they had not failed simultaneously, the top part would have fallen to one side.

NIST says:
"Exterior column buckling spread from column to column, as loads were redistributed, until all the exterior columns had buckled between floors 7 and 14 within approximately 2s. [1-9 Vol.2 pg 588] This is consistent with Stage 1. [1A pg 45]

Then "The entire building above the buckled-column region then moved downward in a single unit, as observed" [1A pg 55 ] At FFA - Stage 2

That's consistent with my explanation: load redistribution is a very quick process and it culminated with all columns failing at virtually the same time.

"at virtually the same time" is not possible with the asymmetric buckling.

You, on the other hand, have not provided any explanation for such a simultaneous failure,

Yes I have - CD.

So what do we have here?
- A mechanism by which simultaneous failure can be triggered by a natural collapse.
- No mechanism by which simultaneous failure can be triggered by a demolition.

This is double talk. You have it backwards.

And for some reason, you skipped the following paragraph, which is an important point (I've made a correction):

Care to explain how is it possible that no trace of any incendiary material was found in any of the columns structural elements of WTC7/WTC1/WTC2, and that no explosions were heard during either collapse?

There's no case for demolition without an indication that there was a demolition. How can it be that the dust showed traces of thermite but no structural element did? Maybe the reason is that what was found in the dust was not thermite actually.

This is a subject shift.

The buckling exterior walls were always providing some resistance.

You have failed to provide any proof of that assertion every time I have asked. Don't worry, I'll ask again: what's your proof?

The proof is in the video simulation as I have pointed out many times. The exterior frame is not breaking up. It is folding asymmetrically, and therefore providing resistance, well into the FFA part of the collapse.

Remember, the graphs by NIST and Chandler don't show the necessary accuracy for your claimed 0.1% of g, so these graphs are not a proof.

This also qualifies as double talk. You know that the 0.1% is in the text, not the graphs.

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%]

But don't take my word for it, do the math yourself.

The acceleration of gravity for New York City is 9.802 m/s²

 

[ozeco41]

...Wrong. When the core columns failed they pulled the exterior walls down with them but the exterior walls provided resistance, preventing FFA.

So what? Your obsession with FFA is pointless. You need to distinguish between demolition and no demolition. FFA is of no help despite the truther obsession and false claims that FFA == demolition.

 

[uke2se]

Chris, if FFA = CD, why do no other CDs cause FFA? Could you answer this question finally?

No, you haven't answered it before. You have just provided a quote from Sunder which doesn't answer the question.

Chris?

 

[Christopher7]

Chris?

I have answered this many times.

There are no other CDs that fall at FFA to my knowledge, but every CD is unique and apparently they needed to achieve FFA for ~100 feet to get the job done.

Your assertion that FFA means it was not a CD, is wrong.

FFA for ~100 feet means all the supporting structure has been removed on 7 to 8 floors.

 

[pgimeno]

"at virtually the same time" is not possible with the asymmetric buckling.

Wrong. The asymmetry of the buckling is compensated by the speed of the load redistribution, resulting in the failures occurring virtually at the same time. No time to lean.

You, on the other hand, have not provided any explanation for such a simultaneous failure,

Yes I have - CD.

No, that's not an explanation, that's just an alleged reason. You have not provided any explanation. Instead, you have stated that you don't have one:

You are ignoring thermite. That is a possibility. I don't have to prove how it was used so don't ask.

We don't know how nano-thermite could have been used because it's top secret military stuff.

So what do we have here?
- A mechanism by which simultaneous failure can be triggered by a natural collapse.
- No mechanism by which simultaneous failure can be triggered by a demolition.

This is double talk. You have it backwards.

No, you have admitted that you don't have a mechanism to explain the simultaneous failure in case of demolition. I have provided a mechanism for virtually simultaneous failure in case of natural collapse.

Care to explain how is it possible that no trace of any incendiary material was found in any of the columns structural elements of WTC7/WTC1/WTC2, and that no explosions were heard during either collapse?

This is a subject shift.

No, it is not. You say that CD the only possibility, but that rules it out as a possibility, thus proving you wrong. A natural collapse is the only valid explanation so far.

The proof is in the video simulation as I have pointed out many times.

As I have pointed out many times, the video simulation is not a proof in itself, as it doesn't reflect the collapse to enough accuracy as to show fine details like that. No matter how many times you try to use the video simulation, it won't become suddenly valid. So that's not a proof.

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%]

I don't see any error analysis, why do you add "[within 0.1%]"? Making things up again?

 

[Christopher7]

Wrong. The asymmetry of the buckling is compensated by the speed of the load redistribution, resulting in the failures occurring virtually at the same time. No time to lean.

Assumption.

No, that's not an explanation, that's just an alleged reason. You have not provided any explanation. Instead, you have stated that you don't have one:

CD is an explanation for the 100 feet of FFA. Buckling columns is not.

No, you have admitted that you don't have a mechanism to explain the simultaneous failure in case of demolition.

That's what happens in a building implosion.

I have provided a mechanism for virtually simultaneous failure in case of natural collapse.

No, you have assumed that is possible.

No, it is not. You say that CD the only possibility, but that rules it out as a possibility, thus proving you wrong. A natural collapse is the only valid explanation so far.

That is first rate double talk.
Well done.

As I have pointed out many times, the video simulation is not a proof in itself, as it doesn't reflect the collapse to enough accuracy as to show fine details like that.

Fine details?
It does not look like the videos of the actual collapse and it does not match the text. Note that there has been NO horizontal collapse.
http://a.imageshack.us/img826/7267/nistwtc7modelvideo14s16.jpg

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%]

I don't see any error analysis

What analysis?

why do you add "[within 0.1%]"? Making things up again?

No, I did the math.

 

[uke2se]

I have answered this many times.

Not since I started asking it.

There are no other CDs that fall at FFA to my knowledge,

So why would you describe FFA as a characteristic of a CD?

but every CD is unique and apparently they needed to achieve FFA for ~100 feet to get the job done.

This contradicts the first part of the sentence. If there are no other CDs that fall at FFA, it stands to reason that a CD doesn't need to achieve FFA, for 100 feet or any other distance.

Your assertion that FFA means it was not a CD, is wrong.

That's not my assertion. I'm just asking you to back up your assertion that FFA means it was a CD. As we've found out, you can't.

FFA for ~100 feet means all the supporting structure has been removed on 7 to 8 floors.

Yes, but if no other CDs cause FFA, that means FFA isn't a characteristic of a CD.

 

[Christopher7]

[FONT=&quot]NCSTAR 1A pg 55 [pdf pg 97][/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]The initial westward progression and the overall speed of the collapse was not sensitive to the extent of the estimated structural damage to WTC 7 due to the debris from the collapse of WTC 1. When the global collapse was nearly complete, there was some small sensitivity to the extent of the initial damage in the southwest portion of the building.

Here's what the computer model looked like with a horizontal collapse:

[/FONT]

 

[Christopher7]

So why would you describe FFA as a characteristic of a CD?

Clever double talk. It is not a characteristic of CD but FFA is only possible by removing all the supporting structure on 7 to 8 floors. The NIST model does not fall at FFA because there is always resistance.

If there are no other CDs that fall at FFA, it stands to reason that a CD doesn't need to achieve FFA, for 100 feet or any other distance.

This one did as is evidenced by the result.

 

[uke2se]

Clever double talk. It is not a characteristic of CD but FFA is only possible by removing all the supporting structure on 7 to 8 floors. The NIST model does not fall at FFA because there is always resistance.

This one did as is evidenced by the result.

So, FFA isn't proof of a CD. Just happy that you've finally admitted it, Chris. It took some coercion, but we've finally made some progress.

 

[BadBoy]

Bardamu,
Pardon me for jumping in here but triforcharity is talking thru his hat.

In order for the entire upper portion to fall at FFA as a single unit, all 58 exterior columns had to fail simultaneously. If they had not failed simultaneously, the top part would have fallen to one side.

NIST says:
"Exterior column buckling spread from column to column, as loads were redistributed, until all the exterior columns had buckled between floors 7 and 14 within approximately 2s. [1-9 Vol.2 pg 588] This is consistent with Stage 1. [1A pg 45]

Then "The entire building above the buckled-column region then moved downward in a single unit, as observed" [1A pg 55 ] At FFA - Stage 2

No evidence found for CD
No evidence found for thermite
No loud bangs
No sensible motive
No way to prep building for CD
No scientific basis for CD
No evidence of anyone being in on a conspiracy (except the hijackers)

Evidence large planes hit both buildings causing huge damage to structure
Evidence of large uncontrolled fires.
Scientific basis for collapse initiation without explosives thermite.
Evidence of Hijackers and links to terrorist organizations

Game over. Go and get a life.

 

[bill smith]

No evidence found for CD
No evidence found for thermite
No loud bangs
No sensible motive
No way to prep building for CD
No scientific basis for CD

Evidence large planes hit both buildings causing huge damage to structure
Evidence of large uncontrolled fires.
Scientific basis for collapse initiation without explosives thermite.

Game over. Go and get a life.

It might be over for you but it's definitely not over for us and millions of others.

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

It might be over for you but it's definitely not over for us and millions dozens of others.

Corrected free of charge.

 

[jhunter1163]

The initial westward progression and the overall speed of the collapse was not sensitive to the extent of the estimated structural damage to WTC 7 due to the debris from the collapse of WTC 1.

Wait just a minute here. If all of the support was removed simultaneously, as Chris asserts, it all should have started falling at the same time, right? There shouldn't have been any "initial westward progression."

ETA: @ SoT: Zing!