WTC7 and the NIST free fall failure

[BasqueArch]

Originally Posted by alienentity
Certainly, the fact that several buildings were damaged by WTC 7 is strong evidence against a controlled demolition, of course.

How so? This is, of course the question I've been asking for the last two threads I've been engaged in. In what way is the collateral damage more indicative of a natural collapse?

In this way:
From truther website 911-research

“What Are Controlled Demolitions?
Controlled demolitions are demolitions of structures engineered to achieve certain objectives. Demands of safety and economy are paramount in commercial demolitions, whose objectives include:
• Avoiding damage to surrounding structures
• Minimizing production of dust and other disturbances
• Facilitating debris removal
Usually those demands are best met by bringing a building down into its own footprint. … The control in controlled demolition lies in the ability to control the pattern and timing of the destruction to make the building fall as desired. “
And:
“Controlled demolition experts boast about the technical complexity and precision required to pull off a successful implosion.
Anyone with rudimentary knowledge of blasting techniques can blow up a building. The Loizeauxs implode things down. They collapse a structure inward within its footprint or lay it down in a predetermined direction to avoid collateral damage to adjacent structures.”
http://www.wtc7.net/controlled_demolition.html

And:
“Building 7's precise fall left a tidy pile of rubble. Damage to adjacent buildings was limited, the skyscraper having miraculously avoided damaging its closest neighbors, the Verizon building and U.S. Post Office building.”

http://911research.wtc7.net/materials/wtc/b7.html

From truther infowars:
“A cursory insight into professional building demolition tells us that experts are required to spend weeks and months planning the demolition of any building, ensuring that the explosives are placed in exactly the right spots, that the collapse will not impact surrounding buildings, and that a myriad of sufficient safety procedures are followed.
To imagine that demolition experts could rig such a huge building amidst the chaos of the day, unsure of whether further attacks were coming, in a matter of hours and bring the building down neatly in its own footprint without afflicting major damage to adjacent buildings is beyond belief. “
http://www.infowars.com/articles/sept11/first_responders_heard_wtc_7_demo_countdown.htm

But from Wiki:

“When 7 World Trade Center collapsed, debris caused substantial damage and contamination to the Borough of Manhattan Community College's Fiterman Hall building, located adjacent at 30 West Broadway, to the extent that the building was not salvageable. In August 2007, Fiterman Hall was scheduled for deconstruction.[46] A revised plan called for demolition in 2009 and completion of the new Fiterman Hall in 2012, at a cost of $325 million.[47][48] The adjacent Verizon Building, an art deco building constructed in 1926, had extensive damage to its east facade from the collapse of 7 World Trade Center, though it was able to be restored at a cost of US$1.4 billion.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7_World_Trade_Center

Therefore in this way, the substantial collateral damage is indicative of a natural collapse. By the truthers' own definition, the extensive collateral damage indicates the natural collapse of WTC1,2,7.

 

[TruthersLie]

Engineering weeds out the incompetent. They end up in marketing, sales, management or academia.

Tom.

I resemble those remarks as I have done all 4 after I dropped out of engineering in my 3rd year of university.

How did you know? Do you have one of the NWO helicopters following me? Is it in some huge gubmint database?

 

[TruthersLie]

What do you think, how many tons "building" caused the 1.5 billion? Was it a sufficient part of the mass of the building? How much more vertical could a well planned and organized CD have been? How much more "in footprint" so to say? Convince me!
[qimg]http://img72.imageshack.us/img72/8379/rottop00134.png[/qimg]
[qimg]http://img638.imageshack.us/img638/9591/rottop00135.png[/qimg]

Can you point out to me where in these images you provided that the CD'd buillding managed to strike adjacent buildings across the street? I seem to have missed that part.

Please include how that Cd'd beuilding managed to strike a building across the street on the roof causing a collapse.

oh wait... it didn't. That would be because in CD you wire the buildings to bring them down in their footprint (or close enough that they don't strike adjacent buildings).

yet we have the Cd that isn't supposed to look like a CD w/out explosives and that leaves behind no det cord, no blasting caps or any other physical evidence.

absolutely amazing.


hey with that Cd you linked to did you actually LISTEN TO IT? If you did, you might just notice something that is very different from the collapse of wtc7... take a wild guess what that is.

 

[Sabretooth]

In this way:
From truther website 911-research

“What Are Controlled Demolitions?
Controlled demolitions are demolitions of structures engineered to achieve certain objectives. Demands of safety and economy are paramount in commercial demolitions, whose objectives include:
• Avoiding damage to surrounding structures
• Minimizing production of dust and other disturbances
• Facilitating debris removal
Usually those demands are best met by bringing a building down into its own footprint. … The control in controlled demolition lies in the ability to control the pattern and timing of the destruction to make the building fall as desired. “
And:
“Controlled demolition experts boast about the technical complexity and precision required to pull off a successful implosion.
Anyone with rudimentary knowledge of blasting techniques can blow up a building. The Loizeauxs implode things down. They collapse a structure inward within its footprint or lay it down in a predetermined direction to avoid collateral damage to adjacent structures.”
http://www.wtc7.net/controlled_demolition.html

And:
“Building 7's precise fall left a tidy pile of rubble. Damage to adjacent buildings was limited, the skyscraper having miraculously avoided damaging its closest neighbors, the Verizon building and U.S. Post Office building.”

http://911research.wtc7.net/materials/wtc/b7.html

From truther infowars:
“A cursory insight into professional building demolition tells us that experts are required to spend weeks and months planning the demolition of any building, ensuring that the explosives are placed in exactly the right spots, that the collapse will not impact surrounding buildings, and that a myriad of sufficient safety procedures are followed.
To imagine that demolition experts could rig such a huge building amidst the chaos of the day, unsure of whether further attacks were coming, in a matter of hours and bring the building down neatly in its own footprint without afflicting major damage to adjacent buildings is beyond belief. “
http://www.infowars.com/articles/sept11/first_responders_heard_wtc_7_demo_countdown.htm

But from Wiki:

“When 7 World Trade Center collapsed, debris caused substantial damage and contamination to the Borough of Manhattan Community College's Fiterman Hall building, located adjacent at 30 West Broadway, to the extent that the building was not salvageable. In August 2007, Fiterman Hall was scheduled for deconstruction.[46] A revised plan called for demolition in 2009 and completion of the new Fiterman Hall in 2012, at a cost of $325 million.[47][48] The adjacent Verizon Building, an art deco building constructed in 1926, had extensive damage to its east facade from the collapse of 7 World Trade Center, though it was able to be restored at a cost of US$1.4 billion.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7_World_Trade_Center

Therefore in this way, the substantial collateral damage is indicative of a natural collapse. By the truthers' own definition, the extensive collateral damage indicates the natural collapse of WTC1,2,7.

[Truther Mode]
See, all that proves is that some small explosive charges were placed in the surrounding buildings to give the illusion of a uncontrolled collapsing building! I want Richard Gage to have my baby!
[/Truther Mode]

 

[TruthersLie]

How so? This is, of course the question I've been asking for the last two threads I've been engaged in. In what way is the collateral damage more indicative of a natural collapse?

Edited by kmortis: 

Removed personal attack

if it is a natural collapse, you have EXTRA damage, MORE damage than if it is a "controlled" demoliton.

That would be because you random bits and pieces of the natural collapse going in different directions. (you know, huge pieces falling OUTSIDE the footprint of the building and striking adjacent buildings.)

Unless it is the uber rainman planned and A team built super sekret CD which just LOOKS like a natural collapse. Then they planned it that way.

 

[ergo]

because you hayseed, if it is a natural collapse, you have EXTRA damage, MORE damage than if it is a "controlled" demoliton.

That would be because you random bits and pieces of the natural collapse going in different directions. (you know, huge pieces falling OUTSIDE the footprint of the building and striking adjacent buildings.)

Why would you have this in a natural collapse as opposed to a CD? Have you seen any implosion videos where debris is flung out to the sides? Contrast that with have you seen any natural collapses where debris is flung out to the sides?

We need evidence here, not bee dunker conjecture. Thanks.

 

[tfk]

Tom.

I resemble those remarks as I have done all 4 after I dropped out of engineering in my 3rd year of university.

How did you know? Do you have one of the NWO helicopters following me? Is it in some huge gubmint database?

LoL.

No disrespect intended.

There are sharp, average & subpar people in all professions. Those fields take different skill sets. They address different classes of problems.

I, like most engineers, completely suck at sales & marketing. I come up with nothing but crappy ideas every time I (used to. no longer) make a suggestion about advertising. Or graphics. Or artwork. Now I just keep my mouth shut & let the folks who get paid to do that do their job.

Pisses me off royally, tho, when we all leave work & I notice that the sales clown that has failed to grasp a simple concept that I've explained a dozen times climbs into his new Lexus as I mount up my trusty old Isuzu Trooper.

Inclines me, for a moment, to start to re-evaluate "Hey, who's smarter here, anyway?"

But just for a moment. Then I banish the uncomfortable thought...

 

[dafydd]

Why would you have this in a natural collapse as opposed to a CD? Have you seen any implosion videos where debris is flung out to the sides? Contrast that with have you seen any natural collapses where debris is flung out to the sides?

We need evidence here, not bee dunker conjecture. Thanks.

Look up the word evidence in a dictionary,then present some instead of ill-informed speculation.

 

[Dave Rogers]

And this is how the trendline negate the difference between the motions even if the 1.75s dot is correct. The 1.5s dot is not correct but is exactly the trend for a single consistent motion.
The bitter pill is, obviously NIST knew about that problem because otherwise they would have trusted the 1.5s dot and "stage 2" would start when the trend reaches free fall (2s).

I have a sneaking suspicion that NIST have heard of a subtle and esoteric concept known as "measurement error". May I suggest that you look it up yourself, in particular inasmuch as it relates to double differentiation of data with a significant quantisation error?

Dave

 

[alienentity]

What do you think, how many tons "building" caused the 1.5 billion? Was it a sufficient part of the mass of the building? How much more vertical could a well planned and organized CD have been? How much more "in footprint" so to say? Convince me!
[qimg]http://img72.imageshack.us/img72/8379/rottop00134.png[/qimg]
[qimg]http://img638.imageshack.us/img638/9591/rottop00135.png[/qimg]

Hmm, so it's not the adjacent building damage that's critical, it's the actual mass of the section of collapsing building that matters. I see.
Interesting viewpoint.

You ask 'How much more vertical could a well planned and organized CD have been?'
There's no evidence that it was a planned demolition at all, so your question is entirely hypothetical. However, if you remain unconvinced that this wasn't a well-executed and professional CD well within the parameters of normal CD's, then perhaps you'd be quite pleased as the owner of either Fiterman Hall or the Verizon building - as you surveyed the extensive, multi-billion dollar damage to your assets. 'Gee boys, job well done! Just think, you could've caused $3billion damage; that would've been real bad..'

Honestly achimspok, the way the mind of a truther works... you guys might as well be living on a different planet. Things just don't work the way you think they do.

Hint: Any demolition company that operated the way you suggest would be out of business in short order. That's what happens in the real world.

 

[alienentity]

How much more vertical could a well planned and organized CD have been? How much more "in footprint" so to say? Convince me!

Oh yeah, see Basque's post above. Your angle of attack is nonsense.

 

[Dragon37]

How so? This is, of course the question I've been asking for the last two threads I've been engaged in. In what way is the collateral damage more indicative of a natural collapse?

Because a "natural" collapse has not been planned and thus it could potentially fall in a variety of ways. A "controlled" demolition is a designed collapse and therefore the planners know which way it is going to collapse.

I would also like to take issue with this term of "natural" collapse. Buildings are designed NOT to "naturally" fall so either collapse is a planned event or an accident. The only way a building would fall naturally would be if there was no one around to maintain it. 7 WTC was occupied and maintained so it did not fall naturally.

 

[ozeco41]

Because a "natural" collapse has not been planned and thus it could potentially fall in a variety of ways. A "controlled" demolition is a designed collapse and therefore the planners know which way it is going to collapse....

Which is true as far as it goes. However, as per the caution in my previous post, be aware of the false dichotomy that is being presented and repeated here.

There are not two alternates of:

1. A natural collapse which can cause collateral damage; AND
2. A controlled demolition which by design avoids collateral damage.

The alternate which is relevant here and not included in the two is a demolition as part of a conspiracy to cause collapse of the WTC building.

Anyone performing such a demolition would not necessarily be constrained to avoid collateral damage.

So three options not two. And therefore the explanations presented for ergo which are built on that false dichotomy are not correct.

 

[Dragon37]

Which is true as far as it goes. However, as per the caution in my previous post, be aware of the false dichotomy that is being presented and repeated here.

There are not two alternates of:

1. A natural collapse which can cause collateral damage; AND
2. A controlled demolition which by design avoids collateral damage.

The alternate which is relevant here and not included in the two is a demolition as part of a conspiracy to cause collapse of the WTC building.

Anyone performing such a demolition would not necessarily be constrained to avoid collateral damage.

So three options not two. And therefore the explanations presented for ergo which are built on that false dichotomy are not correct.

Noted, but the two and three options are even hard give as options considering there is no evidence for them.

 

[ergo]

Thank you, ozeco.

 

[beachnut]

...
So three options not two. And therefore the explanations presented for ergo which are built on that false dichotomy are not correct.

Three options in the fantasy world of 911 truth? Say it ain't so. If you add beam weapons, nukes, thermite, RDX, Bush's brother, holograms, and other 911 truth delusions, you really have many options.

I leave it up to you to decide if either NIST did several "beginners mistakes" in a row while being very aware of the higher screen wall or if NIST just tries to hide the facts. The measurement itself is unambiguous.

Fire destroyed WTC7, CD remains a delusions, and the OP attack on NIST failed. The failed observations of 911 CD believers keep coming back with posts they think look scientific, but are a mess of anti-intellectual claptrap; the lack of math and physics are a clue to the woo.

Science is not attacking the work of NIST, this thread is nonsense made up out of ignorance to support some delusion of CD.

 

[ozeco41]

Noted, but the two and three options are even hard give as options considering there is no evidence for them.

Sure. I am in no doubt as to "no demolition". But there was a ruddy great hole in the logic.

I recall in my youth - 1940's/1950's - the Western Movies reflected the WW2 propaganda of two distinct sides:

• The "goodies" who always played fair and by the rules; AND
• ..the "baddies" who could cheat and usually did.

So I must be old fashioned enough to want those arguing my side - no demolition - the "goodies" - to get the logic correct and not cheat. Whether deliberately or accidentally.

 

[ozeco41]

Three options in the fantasy world of 911 truth? Say it ain't so. If you add beam weapons, nukes, thermite, RDX, Bush's brother, holograms, and other 911 truth delusions, you really have many options....

...sure. But you diverge from the point which was about ensuring that the logic accommodated the possible options for demolition v natural.

...Fire destroyed WTC7, CD remains a delusions, and the OP attack on NIST failed. The failed observations of 911 CD believers keep coming back with posts they think look scientific, but are a mess of anti-intellectual claptrap; the lack of math and physics are a clue to the woo...

You do have a habit of overbidding your hand. None of these claims are true in the exclusive or global form you present them. There may be some elements of each claim that are true but 'going over the top' does nothing to advance your cause.

...Science is not attacking the work of NIST, this thread is nonsense made up out of ignorance to support some delusion of CD.

...any delusion of CD has not emerged at this stage. Deal with it if it emerges. I see no reason to block technical discussion as a pre-emptive strike against something that may emerge.

 

[tsig]

You have the CD delusion. Was it thermite or RDX? Are you too truthy to explain?

He's absolutely, passionately and intensely promoting something.?

If you agree first that he's right then he might tell you what he's right about.

 

[tsig]

...sure. But you diverge from the point which was about ensuring that the logic accommodated the possible options for demolition v natural.

You do have a habit of overbidding your hand. None of these claims are true in the exclusive or global form you present them. There may be some elements of each claim that are true but 'going over the top' does nothing to advance your cause.
...any delusion of CD has not emerged at this stage. Deal with it if it emerges. I see no reason to block technical discussion as a pre-emptive strike against something that may emerge.

There are no options for demolition.