WTC7 and the NIST free fall failure

[Dragon37]

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

The "logic" used is implicitly set up by the truthers themselves. As they move the goalposts cleaning up "logic" will be necessary. I do not have to be accommodating at all as none of the building were brought down via explosives.

If you want the "logic" behind that it is because no evidence was found or seen before, during, or after 9/11. All this other "simple" dichotomous debating is just window dressing. In fact any discussion on the collapse is really moot anyway because blathering on about that doesn't change anything about how that collapse was INITIATED. For all I care it could have fallen neatly within the property too and that wouldn't mean hut to me. It could have fallen at the speed of light for all I care. It doesn't change what INITIATED the collapse and that was most certainly NOT an explosive device ... not even a super secret explosive.

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.

Oddly he never overbids his hand as much as the deniers who have nothing but assumptions and incredulity. At least beachnut's speak is backed by the evidence.

...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.

Implosion was a word used by the OP earlier in this thread. That pretty much insinuates CD to me otherwise "natural" or "accidental" collapse would have been used. Also the deniers discussion is hardly ever technical and in those cases where it is the discussion focuses on that.

 

[Dragon37]

Actually that is not so. What it is "strong evidence against" is a controlled demolition carried out under the normal constraints applicable to commercial and professionally executed CD's. i.e. no "collateral damage".

But those constraints do not necessarily apply if there was a CD of WTC7 as part of some conspiratorial plot.

(I don't think there was any CD but let's get the logic a bit more leakproof. )

When you add the building damage in with the complete lack of explosive evidence it is strong evidence. When you consider the framing of the scenario by the deniers it is. Their "logic" is quoted at the start of this page. yes it is simple dichotomous logic, probably even false dichotomy, but until they bring in the need to expand the logic talk then our logic will expand too.

I might point out adding a third option doesn't make the argument any stronger either way. It certainly ensures that the denier circle jerk goes on because we have given them another piece to keep that circle jerk going.

 

[BasqueArch]

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.

There are four permutations , not three:

1) Controlled demolition with no collateral damage (this is what truthers claim, footprint, and has been disproved)
2) Natural collapse with no collateral damage (much damage, false)
3) Demolition with collateral damage (collateral damage but no evidence of explosives demolition , no evidence of explosively damaged structure, not integrated with the rest of the events and evidence of 9/11, unproven)
4) Natural collapse with collateral damage. (collapse and collateral damage explainable ,corroborated by natural means)

In natural science experiments can be repeated. Singular events like 9/11 cannot be replicated. You then proportion your belief to the evidence. The proportion of the evidence supports collateral damage by natural collapse.

 

[BasqueArch]

Re: Beachnut

...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.

While others wander, beachnut has his eye on the ball and is not distracted by the false. I see no reason to block beachnut's welcome distinctive rational riffs.

 

[TJM]

While others wander, beachnut has his eye on the ball and is not distracted by the false. I see no reason to block beachnut's welcome distinctive rational riffs.

beachnut is one of the reasons why I read this forum. I've said it before, but one beachnut rant usually contains more facts than the whole troof movement has been able to muster for 9 years and counting. I hope he never quits.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

A building is going to collapse in whatever way it will based on what area it starts in and the sequence of failures that follow - man-made - or not.

When truthers spew idiocy that it must have been "CD'd" purely because people reported explosions during a fire, or that in their world view it "resembled" something close to a rigged demolition without producing explicit evidence beyond vague, broad assertions I will call it stupid. "debunker arguments" may not always follow etiquette but to me that's an absolute nitpick sometimes :\

The towers for example, there is plenty of evidence that they were "demolished" because planes slammed into them initiating multistory fires. The hijackers knew what they were hitting and exactly what they wanted the outcome to be. And a third one was "demolished" because one of the other two hit it on the way down and sparked more fires that burned unfettered.

There is absolutely no evidence that explosives were used at any point by black ops to "demolish" the towers to supplement what impact and/or fire did to all three. Truthers can't even agree on whether it was professional or designed to look un professional. And unless somebody can find evidence to the contrary my position will remain as such.

 

[TruthersLie]

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.

By all means.

That is why I keep asking you for a citation for ANY technical journal which states that a "footprint" includes damaging buildings that are adjacent. Do you have one yet?

Can you point me to ANY cd done in which the building collapses into its footprint but manages to inflict massive damage to the buildings next to them? If so provide it and we can COMPARE THEM.

You know.. things that you find in a CD, like massive explosions. Still waiting.

So run along...

A simple citation which fits your "definition." I'm still waiting.

p.s. have you figured out the caracas tower fire yet? (I do love how you bring that up and then run away from it)
p.p.s. have you figured out the "loose particles" yet?
p.p.p.s. have you looked at your own citaiton for what it says

 

[TruthersLie]

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...

No disrespect taken... Just pointing out how accurate it was.

Of course i"m reminded of Robert Heinleins assertion that "anyone who can't do math" (up through calculus) isn't human. A type of sub human who can be trained to tie their shoes and not make messes in the house. That seems like most engineers assessment of non engineers.

 

[beachnut]

...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.

No big deal. There is no demolition option on 911. If you include a demolition option, a 911 truth lie/delusion/fraud, then you may as well throw in the rest of the lies for what 911 truth claims happened on 911. Santa's sled did it? What does demolition have to do with attacking NIST and free-fall nonsense?

Fire destroyed WTC7, CD remains a delusions, and the OP attack on NIST failed. Fire did destroy WTC7 except in the paranoid minds of 911 truth, this is a fact, and I win the hand. CD is a delusion, another fact, again my hand wins. The OP is over the top nonsense based on logic which leads the author to believe in a subset of nonsense 911 truth pushes. 911 truth has no hand to play, when you call them, they fold. Let the discussion continue, like Bigfoot, 911 truth is not going to join reality, except when the cult members wake up to reality and leave; thus being smarter than I since they have traveled much further than I.


There is no stated goal, only a request to agree NIST is wrong. Not much of a technical discussion is possible when the thread's only purpose is to attack NIST and the attacker can't comprehend models. There is no technical stuff presented. The author's delusions on 911, to include CD are driving the BS attack on NIST. If they were not he would deny it.

After spewing unsupported nonsense, the OP ends with more nonsense.

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 screenwall or if NIST just tries to hide the facts. The measurement itself is unambiguous.

Is your conclusion fire did not destroy WTC7? Please help me understand why I need to go technical on nonsense. Do we need to get technical on Bigfoot too? achimspok will call me closed-minded, part of the official CT, and he believes in his delusions as if they were reality. He makes up nonsense, makes up CT out of nothing. This thread is typical of the failure to understand 911.

If fire did not destroy WTC7, what does achimspok claim caused WTC7 to collapse? Simple reality based question; avoided like the plague. achimspok believes WTC7 was destroyed by explosives or thermite, the CD delusion, that is the only reason there is an attack on NIST.

The NIST predecisional WTC7 Report, this is achimspok, attacking NIST so he can back in CD. I have asked a few times, was it thermite, or RDX?

 

[ozeco41]

There are four permutations , not three:

1) Controlled demolition with no collateral damage (...)
2) Natural collapse with no collateral damage (...)
3) Demolition with collateral damage (...)
4) Natural collapse with collateral damage. (...)

Sure. I was only pointing to the one that was missing, likely in the hypothetical scenario, and relevant to the logic of what was put to ergo.

...In natural science experiments can be repeated. Singular events like 9/11 cannot be replicated.....

Yes. Which I why I have often cautioned about misapplication of the 'scientific method' to WTC 9/11 collapse. It is a one off exercise in engineering forensics, not construction of hypotheses leading towards replicable theories. Some aspects of scientific method don't fit.

...You then proportion your belief to the evidence....

With a view to the cost benefit aspects of getting your answers near enough to serve as lessons for future applications. So the investigation only needs to go as far as it needs (pardon the circularity ) - perfection is not the goal.

...The proportion of the evidence supports collateral damage by natural collapse.

Which is not in any serious doubt.

 

[ozeco41]

No big deal. There is no demolition option on 911. If you include a demolition option, a 911 truth lie/delusion/fraud, then you may as well throw in the rest of the lies for what 911 truth claims happened on 911. Santa's sled did it? What does demolition have to do with attacking NIST and free-fall nonsense?

...Santa's sled reminds me of one of my bits of ridicule I used some years back on the Dawkins Net. I claimed the towers were taken down by "Santa's Custard" which Rudolph tipped out of the sleigh... I have no problem with well targeted ridicule.

...Fire destroyed WTC7, CD remains a delusions, and the OP attack on NIST failed. Fire did destroy WTC7 except in the paranoid minds of 911 truth, this is a fact, and I win the hand. CD is a delusion, another fact, again my hand wins. The OP is over the top nonsense based on logic which leads the author to believe in a subset of nonsense 911 truth pushes. 911 truth has no hand to play, when you call them, they fold. Let the discussion continue, like Bigfoot, 911 truth is not going to join reality, except when the cult members wake up to reality and leave; thus being smarter than I since they have travelled much further than I....

All agreed.

...There is no stated goal, only a request to agree NIST is wrong...

I have confronted several of "them" - most pointedly femr2 - on their tactics. The false claims that there are no tactics when the tactics are implicitly clear even if not explicitly stated or admitted. The faked context of pretending that "they' cannot see where the discussion can lead to - when everyone familiar with WTC 9/11 knows that the big question which must be faced is "Demolition or not?"...

....well the "game" is obvious but I am waiting till they get out of the technical details and move on to the bigger issues if they ever do.

...If fire did not destroy WTC7, what does achimspok claim caused WTC7 to collapse? Simple reality based question; avoided like the plague. achimspok believes WTC7 was destroyed by explosives or thermite, the CD delusion, that is the only reason there is an attack on NIST....

Yes ... we can all see that but they want to play this game of "cannot see what lies ahead until we get there."

I comprehend the frustration but I can wait whilst they play it through.

The NIST predecisional WTC7 Report, this is achimspok, attacking NIST so he can back in CD. I have asked a few times, was it thermite, or RDX?

Understood fully.

 

[TruthersLie]

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.

Oh no you are correct.

I have seen CD's where debris hit other buildings. I have seen CD's that do damage to adjacent buildings. All of them, ALL OF THEM, ALL OF THEM used explosives (usually TOO MUCH, and in the wrong places).

Where is the tell tale sound of EXPLOSIVES prior to the collapse of wtc7? Oh there isn't any.

In all of the CD's where they ********** up and damaged nearby buildings, all of the nearby buildings were struck by shrapnel. You can tell by looking at the shattered windows. Feel free to show me the images of the verizion building, the post office and fiterman hall. Show me ALL Of the damaged and destroyed windows. I'd love to see them. Especially the ones which would have been struck by flying shrapnel. Oh wait.. you don't have any.

Even the pictures of the collapse of fiterman hall show the windows near the collapse zone (and in some cases BELOW) the collapse zone with uncracked windows. How the hell did that happen?

Oh wait... super duper hush a boom nanothermite which not only can cut steel beams, but will do so quietly and unnoticed. It will also clean your room, make lunch and does terrific julian fries.

I have seen several buildings collapse due to fire (some concrete and masonry) and boy oh boy do they ever collapse in weird ways... often damaging nearby buildings. And they do so SILENTLY (other than the sound of the roar of the fire and the thud of the collapse).

dur.

ETA: The fully expected "people reported explosions on 911" coming in 5.....4.....3....2.....

 

[Myriad]

Re: Beachnut

While others wander, beachnut has his eye on the ball and is not distracted by the false. I see no reason to block beachnut's welcome distinctive rational riffs.

I concur. While others of us often indulge in responses that are either overly charitable or, regrettably, overly critical, Beachnut replies as the arguments deserve, or as close to that as possible within the MA.

Let no one misconstrue playing along with blatant intellectual dishonesty, as being taken in by it. When a truther points to video footage of Building 7 collapsing hosted on their own YouTube channel, and that video is titled something like "WTC7 Demolition," how much is that truther's own insistence that "demolition is not the issue" really worth? And who has the right to insist that anyone else is required to play along with it?

Respectfully,
Myriad

 

[achimspok]

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

I have a sneaking suspicion that you try to ignore the difference between two lines with an intersection and a nice smooth curve especially when those represent a 3 dimensional movement plotted into a 2 dimensional diagram. The error in the 2D plane might be in the expected range of +/- whatsoever. Nevertheless, the result of the trendline is wrong.

Just go to the limit and measure something that moves straight along your line of sight. You get a static point in your 2D diagram and your measurement error is infinite.

 

[BTMO]

On the NIST website "Questions and Answers about the NIST WTC 7 Investigation (Updated 09/17/2010)" you find the following:


http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/factsheet/wtc_qa_082108.cfm

That short free fall was/is discussed a lot.
I tried to "replicated" the NIST measurement.

HOW DID NIST MEASURE THE FREE FALL?

According to NIST_NCSTAR_1-9_vol2 12.5.3. NIST used the "camera 3".

That's the view NIST used for the measurement:
[qimg]http://img8.imageshack.us/img8/717/image00021.png[/qimg]

In the Draft Report NIST states: "The elevation of the top of the parapet wall was +925 ft. 4 in. The lowest point on the north face of WTC7 visible on the camera 3 video (section 5.7.1) prior to any downward movement was the top of windows on floor 29, which had an approximate elevation of +683 ft 6 in."
[qimg]http://img200.imageshack.us/img200/69/draftx.png[/qimg]

That information got lost in the final NCSTAR 1A Report.
[qimg]http://img812.imageshack.us/img812/2841/finaltz.png[/qimg]

However, just a small part of the "top of windows on floor 29" is visible.
To measure the fall of the building NIST had to measure a vertical path above the visible top of the windows.

Therefore we have to know how NIST defined the "parapet wall".
[qimg]http://img534.imageshack.us/img534/8154/parapet.png[/qimg]
NIST defined "parapet wall" for the same elevation they defined as "roofline" in the final report.

Hence, we have to measure that path:
[qimg]http://img69.imageshack.us/img69/3117/path.png[/qimg]

The following image shows that NIST was aware of a difficult problem to measure the fall down the described path:
[qimg]http://img696.imageshack.us/img696/1571/screenwall.png[/qimg]
The "screenwall" is visible above the roofline and had an elevation of about two additional floors and the lack of contrast allows no direct tracking of the roofline.
[qimg]http://img638.imageshack.us/img638/486/lowcontrast.png[/qimg]

So how was NIST able to measure the fall of the perimeter wall?
They answer the question in the FAQ:


In other words, NIST did not measure the parapet wall! They measured the fall of the screenwall about 2 floor heights above the parapet wall. They took the time and subsequently calculated a fall speed for the smaller fall distance.

And there is a second problem with the NIST method.
The perimeter wall didn't bow downwards as visible from a different vantage.
[qimg]http://img710.imageshack.us/img710/5552/nokink.gif[/qimg]
Instead the perimeter wall stayed vertically straight even during the fall for several floors.
The motion of the perimeter wall as visible from "camera 3" is nothing but the bowing of the perimeter towards the core.
[qimg]http://img687.imageshack.us/img687/7150/bowingnorthface2.gif[/qimg]

In other words, NIST measured the drop of the "screenwall" + the transition of the falling screenwall into the horizontal bowing of the perimeter wall + the transition into the vertical motion of the perimeter wall.

The red curve shows the motion NIST measured:
[qimg]http://img703.imageshack.us/img703/3564/nistdrop.png[/qimg]
The fat bright blue curve is a calculated free fall.
The lower curves are the trackings of several floors in the NIST measure path. The slow onset of motion of these lower curves is the result of bowing away from the camera.

Since NIST gave the real elevations along the path it is possible to calculate the velocity for the entire motion.

[qimg]http://img257.imageshack.us/img257/8122/velocitycurve.png[/qimg]

That's a pretty different result.

In the Final Report as well as in the FAQ NIST described their result this way:


The NIST "stage 1" includes about the frames 150 ... 202 of my motion tracking measurement.
That NIST "slower than free fall" stage 1 includes the following real events:
- the screenwall on top of the core started to move (frame 150...155)
- the screenwall reached about free fall (frame 156...170)
- the screenwall disappeared behind the parapet wall (frame 170)
- the perimeter wall bows towards the core (frame 170...180)
- the perimeter wall dropped above gravity (frame 180...200)

That's where stage 2 at "gravitational acceleration (free fall)" begins.
That means there is almost no vertical motion slower than freefall but for the very first 0.17 seconds AND that short amount of "slower than free fall" is probably stretched by the symmetrical averaging of the velocity over 9 frames.

So how is it possible that the perimeter dropped faster than free fall?
Simply imagine some dumbbell like object that rotates vertically and fall at the same time.
[qimg]http://img189.imageshack.us/img189/448/fasterslower.png[/qimg]

Core and perimeter were still connected by the floor system. Once the core dropped at gravitytational acceleration the core-floor-perimeter acted like a spring system. Firstly, the core pulled the perimeter inwards. Secondly, the perimeter failed at a very low elevation and was shot downwards by the "floor-springs". The falling core was slowed down at the same time until the entire system fell as one unit.
Of course the center of mass of the entire system cannot exceed gravitational acceleration but the perimeter can and it tells a lot about the intact inner structure of the upper and visible building part.

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 screenwall or if NIST just tries to hide the facts. The measurement itself is unambiguous.

God I wish I had this much spare time in my life...

... I'd go fishing.

 

[achimspok]

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.

Your ideas are pretty funny. You really think - if hypothetical a criminal CD occurred - that they gave a **** on other buildings and a nice appearance instead of doing it fast while preventing possible evidence as good as possible. Just try to think that way for a moment.
A killer tries to kill and to hide the evidence. He don't try to do a deadly good looking surgery. Hence, your argument is nonsense like the entire footprint discussion.
Btw, a part of the Verizon damage was caused by the WTC1 collapse. The major damage done by the WTC7 obviously was caused (not by falling debris) but by a cross braced section of perimeter columns. Looks like floor 4-7 right above the ConEd just crossed the street in an upright manner. Interesting movement.

Do not swear in your posts or only partially mask swear words to avoid the auto-censor.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: LashL

 

[achimspok]

God I wish I had this much spare time in my life...

... I'd go fishing.

Makes sense in New Zealand. Fishing in Germany is extremely boring.

 

[BTMO]

Makes sense in New Zealand. Fishing in Germany is extremely boring.

I'd still go fishing.



Actually, I have a friend here who is originally from Germany. We fish and hunt together a fair bit. He seems happy here.

 

[Dave Rogers]

I have a sneaking suspicion that you try to ignore the difference between two lines with an intersection and a nice smooth curve especially when those represent a 3 dimensional movement plotted into a 2 dimensional diagram. The error in the 2D plane might be in the expected range of +/- whatsoever. Nevertheless, the result of the trendline is wrong.

I realise this is talking about the NIST curve fitting in some sense, so clearly it's relevant, but unfortunately I don't speak incoherent. Can somebody try to translate it into sane?

Just go to the limit and measure something that moves straight along your line of sight. You get a static point in your 2D diagram and your measurement error is infinite.

Agreed. This has no relevance whatsoever, but at least it's a reasonable statement.

It seems you're occasionally capable of both coherence and relevance. Any chance of trying to combine the two?

Dave

 

[achimspok]

I realise this is talking about the NIST curve fitting in some sense, so clearly it's relevant, but unfortunately I don't speak incoherent. Can somebody try to translate it into sane?



Agreed. This has no relevance whatsoever, but at least it's a reasonable statement.

It seems you're occasionally capable of both coherence and relevance. Any chance of trying to combine the two?

Dave

I try my best. If (and that's what I suggest) the movement of the roofline is first inwards (horizontal referred to the 3D space) and then vertical and you measure that from a vantage point where these two different movements (90°) look like something close to 180° or 0° then your conclusion to see one movement is wrong. The translation into 2D is wrong. The trendline is wrong.

In other words, the movement as shown in the NIST "stage 1" is just an apparent downwards movement (due to perspective) but actually the wall moves almost exclusively sideways. From a different perspective you would get an angle of about 90° for both movements. A trendline for both movements would bow more or less closely to the actual vectors. A trendline for the combined "apparent" velocity produces just nonsense. Even the error for both components of the apparent movement is totally different (up to infinite).