Merged New video! Architects and Engineers - Solving the Mystery of Building 7

[Clayton Moore]

Because if a nefarious entity did conduct a controlled demolition making it obviously like the average controlled demolition would be ridiculously obvious.

Exactly.

 

[NoahFence]

I would agree. By viewing the video the building collapse does look just like a demolition. Maybe not a controlled demolition, but more a demolition. Or a cascading failure. One of the two.

It looks like a demolition in that it was standing, then it wasn't. That's it.

 

[Zeuzzz]

It looks like a demolition in that it was standing, then it wasn't. That's it.

Yes, that's it, exactly.

Can you name a single skyscraper in history that "was standing, then it wasn't".

It looks like a CD because of the speed and symmetry of the collapse. Nothing more, nothing less.

Looks can be deceiving however.

*continues lurking*

 

[carlitos]

Yes, that's it, exactly.

Can you name a single skyscraper in history that "was standing, then it wasn't".

I can name three.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

That's more semantics of the definition of a word than the actual situation in hand, don't you think?

Not so much. The movement makes very rigid comparisons to collapses engineered to the specific criteria of controlled demolitions; those that specifically engineer the collapses to take down the building cleanly and efficiently without causing incident to places adjacent to it. They've established already what criteria they "think" the collapses matched, and beyond extremely spontaneous surface similarities, they're wrong.

I would agree. By viewing the video the building collapse does look just like a demolition, however. Maybe not a controlled demolition, but more a demolition. Or a cascading failure. One of the two.

In the end, going by looks of the collapse alone is shallow because it's impossible to attribute a spontaneous relationship. When a building suffers a structural failure the way the building falls, and by how much depends on what elements fail, where they fail, and how the remainder compensates or doesn't. None of this addresses a cause.

You could say that the building was indeed "demolished" but that broadens the scope considerably and includes accidental damage leading a collapse...

 

[Oystein]

Yes, that's it, exactly.

Can you name a single skyscraper in history that "was standing, then it wasn't".

It looks like a CD because of the speed and symmetry of the collapse. Nothing more, nothing less.

Looks can be deceiving however.

*continues lurking*

What does that mean? "Symmetry" of the collapse? It looks exactly like a mathematics term - but what is the math there? Is there an objective measure to it, or is that not really uneducated technobabble for "looked pretty tidy if you ask me"?

 

[Zeuzzz]

I prefer your other avatar, Grizzly Bear.

 

[NoahFence]

Yes, that's it, exactly.

Can you name a single skyscraper in history that "was standing, then it wasn't".

Did anything else of any note happen that day? ANYTHING AT ALL that may have contributed to this "first time ever" line?

Looks can be deceiving however.

*continues lurking*

Yes they can - for instance, WTC 7 may have appeared to be a controlled demo with a cursury glance, but if a person paid attention to it for more than 5 seconds, they'd see it's clearly not the case.

Then this person, if they're honest, would go about the chore of trying to tie CD into the entire day's events. Something a truther will NEVER do. They'll hit the wall of absurdity so quick they'd get whiplash.

 

[Zeuzzz]

For christs sake i just burnt my pizza!

 

[Zeuzzz]

Did anything else of any note happen that day? ANYTHING AT ALL that may have contributed to this "first time ever" line?

Planes hitting buildings maybe?

Yes they can - for instance, WTC 7 may have appeared to be a controlled demo with a cursury glance, but if a person paid attention to it for more than 5 seconds, they'd see it's clearly not the case.

I totally fail to see how anyone could come this conclusion if they paid attention to it for "more than 5 seconds". They would need to watch far more than the video, they would have to research the structure and conditions for way more than five seconds.

 

[chrismohr]

MM -

Please provide us with an example of a controlled demolition that had no audible explosions.

Actually, verinage is a form of CD that uses no explosives. Verinage also proves that once a building starts collapsing, gravity can take care of it.

 

[Zeuzzz]

What does that mean? "Symmetry" of the collapse? It looks exactly like a mathematics term - but what is the math there? Is there an objective measure to it, or is that not really uneducated technobabble for "looked pretty tidy if you ask me"?

I have not seen in any video any point where each top corner of WTC7 falls below other points by more than 5 degrees to a vertical plane in the first 3.3 seconds of collapse (0.8s a=0 till a=g, and 2.5s a=g).

 

[NoahFence]

I totally fail to see how anyone could come this conclusion if they paid attention to it for "more than 5 seconds". They would need to watch far more than the video, they would have to research the structure and conditions for way more than five seconds.

No audible repeated explosions, followed immediately by dust and air being ejected out.

You can immediately see it wasn't a CD.

Looking further into the structure, how it was built, how it came down, that would only confirm what is seen in the first 5 seconds.


Sorry 'bout your pizza!

 

[NoahFence]

Actually, verinage is a form of CD that uses no explosives. Verinage also proves that once a building starts collapsing, gravity can take care of it.

grrr.....

I knew someone would pull that out.

Anyway, that's not on the plate of truther stories, so I bypassed it....

 

[Oystein]

That's more semantics of the definition of a word than the actual situation in hand, don't you think?




I would agree. By viewing the video the building collapse does look just like a demolition. Maybe not a controlled demolition, but more a demolition. Or a cascading failure. One of the two.

It looks like gravtitational collapse.

In an explosive demolition, explosives remove only some kjey supports, most of the damage is affected (i.e. force and energy available and provided) by gravity.
For example, I calculated that explosives only provided about 10% of the total energy used to demolish the Landmark Tower in Fort Worth, Texas, one of the tallest skyscrapers to be demolished to date. Gravity provided the balance, about 90%. Here's my calc (an unfinished blog post):
http://oystein-issues.blogspot.com/2011/06/controlled-demolition-using-explosives.html
Nearly all the explosive energy in real CDs is expended on collapse initiation, while gravity is nearly solely respoonsible for collapse propagation.

In a natural collapse, key supports are destroyed by other means; but the energy available for collapse progression again comes from gravitation only, which is sufficient to account for the observed speed and acceleration, as Bazant and others have long since shown by computing through sound engineering considerations.



That's why CDs and WTC collapses look almost they same: Their collapse progression is fueled by the same gravity.

 

[Oystein]

I have not seen in any video any point where each top corner of WTC7 falls below other points by more than 5 degrees to a vertical plane in the first 3.3 seconds of collapse (0.8s a=0 till a=g, and 2.5s a=g).

Uhm... Is that Symmetry?

 

[Zeuzzz]

Actually, verinage is a form of CD that uses no explosives. Verinage also proves that once a building starts collapsing, gravity can take care of it.

Could you define that term "verinage" for me?

Watching some videos, seems like Mr R.Gage is pulling CD theories straight out of Mr D.Chandlers ass.

 

[NoahFence]

Could you define that term "verinage" for me?

Watching some videos, seems like Mr R.Gage is pulling CD theories straight out of Mr D.Chandlers ass.

Verinage is a method of demo that basically uses hydraulic jacks to push columns out of the way, allowing the structure above them to collaspe down.

Basically taking all 4 legs off of a table at the same time.

 

[triforcharity]

1 buckled column resulted in the complete destruction of a 47 story building?

Nice shift of the goalposts. That wasn't your question at all. This assinine question has been addressed by others already.

Your post, which I quoted, and replied to, is what I addressed.

Here it is again.

What non explosive event could cause WTC7 to free fall for 1 or 2 seconds?
Magic carpet?

So, the answer still, is buckled column(s).

 

[Zeuzzz]

Someone should have linked to them before!

I guess that in one way it shows a) How easy a total global collapse is by just taking out one floor b) How easily damage could have caused this to happen but also c) How easy it would have been for a rogue group to take out one just one floor to lead to total global collapse.