WTC7 - The fires failed Girder 44-79

[ozeco41]

Freefall and over freefall can occur, once the interior collapse cascades out to the exterior. ...

some months back I posted a "fun" example to demonstrate the "free body' analysis of over "G". IIRC it got ignored so I must have been on the money.

Try this:
Somebody puts you in a box where you stand vertically feet on the bottom, head jammed against the top - reasons for head jamed should be obvious with what is coming. They give you a tennis ball then drop box plus you plus tennis ball off a high building.

Ignoring wind resistance (make it a streamlined box ) the lot goes to "G" or near enough.

Having nothing to do you decide to pass the time bouncing the tennis ball. So you throw it down towards the bottom of the box.

What is the acceleration of the tennis ball:
a) As your arm/hand accelerates it to release speed?
b) at the instant after it is released?
c) When it strikes the floor of the box?
d) add more to suit your own thinking.

 

[ozeco41]

11 years and counting indeed and yet I, a definite non-truther manages to toss that off on an ereader while sitting in a hospital bed....

Best wishes for getting out of that bed.

...Makes me wonder what Gage does to justify $80K / year

Yes, my above scenario would only work towards demonstrating purely technical ability to bring a WTC7 structure down in similar fashion to the observed actual WTC7but would not address your other points at all
imho the easiest of those to overcome would be the "obvious" therm?te burning, light, smoke, smell. I included protection of the charges from heat of the office fires by which I envisioned four layers of drywall plus a sheet tin outer layer and fire spray on insulation. This could be st back from the burn so that little or no light and smoke escapes this volume until global collapse begins and with huge amounts of dust now billowing forth these are further masked...

Yes.

The sticky wicket imho is how to implement all of this with absolute no one discovering your placement of these charges and their control systems, nor leaving dozens of heavy structural members with definitive evidence of having been subjected to thermitic materials since in the real WTC7 no such physical evidence exists....

Agreed.

...As to the redundancy of therm?te , this is where the TM would have to refute the possibility that fire alone could supply the required damage. In this the only one to attempt it afaik, is Chris Sarns who's methods and reasonings are simplistic to the nth degree and greatly flawed...

You have the "burden of proof" the right way round. Remember that nearly all discussion of 9/11 on this and other forums relies on debunkers accepting the burden of proof and responsibility to "prove" the truthers wrong. Arse about but without it these forums would have died years ago. So I and a few others will pontificate about it BUT we recognise that without acceptance of reversed burden there would be no forum. Understood on C Sarns - personally I admire him as the most successful troll we see. He throws in enough technical stuff to bring in the suckers who take it seriously. A clever "game player" IMO - I think I've told him so publicly too. I could be wrong and it is really just the flawed simplistic arguments that you commented on. Still most disagree with my assessment so, by my usual test criteria, I must be close to the mark.

...In addition my scenario above stands only concerning WTC7 and would require much reworking for each of the towers and take into account aircraft impacts, and would not apply at all to the Pentagon or Flight 93....

Sure. I have had experience - RichardDawkins forum and or ratskep with a couple of truthers - genuine truthers not trolls - who tried to construct a viable hypothesis for Twin Tower demolition. A good discussion over a few months with me accepting the handicap of having to prove couldn'ts - i.e. reversed burden of proof. Don't tell anyone here that I'm not always as angel pure as I pretend.

...So, in short, after eleventy years the TM has not managed to conduct any experimentation or modeling to support their premises nor managed to conviningly refute the scenarios that include only aircraft impacts, and/or office fires.

That is it and clearly their burden of proof as you state it that way round.

 

[beachnut]

Where do you get freefall from all of this?

As a system, WTC 7 did not get close to free-fall. Are you trying to back in CD because you NIST measured a single point and it got close to g acceleration? What was the rest of the building accelerating at. ? And then 911 truth makes up silly statements like...

Inside Job Evidence is in the Physics of WTC #1

Is anyone in 911 truth a rational engineer?
With over 16 seconds of collapsing internally and externally, not close to free fall time. Is 911 truth the biggest losers since Hitler, spreading the Big Lie and failing?

 

[Gamolon]

But you could do one, if you felt the NIST was wrong?

I don't feel NIST is wrong.

 

[pgimeno]

Where do you get freefall from all of this?

I don't understand the question, as I don't know what "all of this" you refer to. Not to mention it doesn't address mine. If you are asking how could freefall or over freefall be achieved with a fire induced collapse, it's plausible that the cascade collapse of the core made it fall first and pull the façade down through the girders and beams until it failed. Similar to the mechanism that caused this crane to fail that I posted in what I assume is your favorite forum: http://the911forum.freeforums.org/crane-failures-t314.html#p19804

Hope that addresses your question. Now please address mine. Would the severing of the column connections have produced a progressive collapse that ended up in the whole core failing and pulling the façade with it? As far as I know, that severing would not dislodge the column out of its place, or would it?

How many column connections do you need to severe for that? Where? How would they be spaced in time? How does that align with other observables such as EPH falling, windows breaking, WPH falling and, as was my original question, free fall of the façade?

Please elaborate on your hypothesis. As things stand, there is abundant proof that buildings can collapse completely due to fire, and even building codes to prevent that within a reasonable limit, but there are zero documented cases of buildings steel framed skyscrapers (if the truthers can do that, so can I ) demolished by thermite, zero reports of remotely controlled devices or devices made for simultaneous ignition, etc. In short, zero proof and not even a sketch of an hypothesis. No case.

I cannot put forth a scenario for WTC 7 supported by FEA at this time.

But do you have a hypothesis? See, jaydeehess has put forth a sketch of a hypothesis that at first sight, and without going into much detail, matches a fair amount of observables. Do you have one?

 

[pgimeno]

Having nothing to do you decide to pass the time bouncing the tennis ball. So you throw it down towards the bottom of the box.

You are adding energy to the system by exerting force downwards; that's cheating, as nothing pushed the building downwards in WTC7. Yes it's an isolated system, but I don't think it's a good example if something makes force down. I have a different scenario that doesn't require that, a similar one to the failed crane above (which I designed before I saw the crane) and similar too to the likely mechanism in WTC7.

You have two balls tied to each other through a barely elastic string, say 1 meter long. You hold one in each of your hands at the top of a building, with the string loose. Then you drop one. Before the string tightens, you drop the second.

Now we have the following situation. One of the balls is falling faster than the other (because it is accelerating for a longer time), therefore the distance between them increases. Therefore, at some point, the string will tighten. When that happens, the faster ball will pull the slower ball downwards (and vice versa). By observing the slower ball only, we will see a sudden jerk, a rapid increase in the magnitude of acceleration.

Now call the slower ball "façade", the faster ball "core", and the string "beams and girders".

An even better approximation would be to allow the string to be more elastic, and to let it start to tighten, as the first ball is dropped, holding the other ball without making a lot of force to hold it, until the pull of the first ball through the string is enough to take the second ball off our hand. That's basically what happened in the crane case, and the mechanism I conjecture for the WTC7 façade to reach over g.

 

[ozeco41]

You are adding energy to the system by exerting force downwards; that's cheating, as nothing pushed the building downwards in WTC7. Yes it's an isolated system, but I don't think it's a good example if something makes force down.

Remember my introduction:

I posted a "fun" example to demonstrate the "free body' analysis of over "G"

It was intended as "fun" but when I originally posted it some months back I intended it to help people who were at that time clearly having problems with applying free body physics. It wasn't intended to be an analogue of WTC7 mechanism rather a thought exercise in more basic issues of free body. The lessons could then be applied to WTC7 without the thought exercise being a direct analogy. And, yes, it also lends to a "systems thinking" explanation - I tend to use "systems thinking" modelling quite often - or similar concepts such as "sets and subsets". But "systems thinking" is more appropriate to dynamic scenarios.

So a few responses to your initial comments:

1) "You are adding energy to the system".....How? What system? (Isn't the only "added" energy that which comes from metabolising food to power the arm muscles? How does that significantly affect the pure mass/velocity/acceleration aspects which are the focus of the thought experiment? Have I missed something? If so what?)

2) "...by exerting force downwards." .....I posed the thought experiment scenario as a clear "two systems model" viz the total system of box, person, tennis ball fully containing the sub-system of arm hand tennis ball which becomes a "three systems model" as arm/hand releases tennis ball. The force is internal to the total system. Remember that point for the next comment.

3) "that's cheating, as nothing pushed the building downwards in WTC7.".....Why? and "Where did I even suggest it was analogous to WTC7 rather than analogous to basic principles?" I certainly did not intend to directly model WTC7. HOWEVER isn't the key feature of "Over G" appearing in the actual setting of WTC7 that the additional acceleration comes from a downwards force which MUST be internal to a "separate system of falling mass"?

4) "Yes it's an isolated system" True. And with one>>>two isolatable sub-systems internal to that one "isolated system". Therefore?

5) "I don't think it's a good example if something makes force down."....How do you get acceleration without force? Isn't that the key issue for the exercise AND for WTC7?

I appreciated your crane failure explanations/examples at the time they were posted. I'll defer commenting on your two balls model at this stage. My post was intended as fun - not to start a competition.

 

[swright777]

Only a truther would think an experiment is necessary to prove that if you light a fire under something it will get hot.

Your post caused an involuntary experiment where I found that gatorade is not nearly as refreshing when it comes out of my nose.

 

[enik]

… Surely you aren't expecting Gamolon to do such work for you, right?

Of course not. Just for him to answer the question.

The sticky wicket imho is how to implement all of this with absolute no one discovering your placement of these charges and their control systems

Can you provide me with an example of what this charge and its control system would look like?

nor leaving dozens of heavy structural members with definitive evidence of having been subjected to thermitic materials since in the real WTC7 no such physical evidence exists.

Again, can you provide me with an example of a column from a known CD with thermitic materials?

I don't feel NIST is wrong.

That was not my question.

… If you are asking how could freefall or over freefall be achieved with a fire induced collapse…

I never brought up the topic of freefall, nor do I care whether freefall occurred in WTC 7 or not.

Please elaborate on your hypothesis. As things stand, there is abundant proof that buildings can collapse completely due to fire

Can you provide me with an example of a high rise completely collapsing solely due to fire.

But do you have a hypothesis? See, jaydeehess has put forth a sketch of a hypothesis that at first sight, and without going into much detail, matches a fair amount of observables. Do you have one?

Yes I do. I am not sure what your point is since my FE analysis supports the topic of this thread.

 

[Gamolon]

That was not my question.

WTH?!

But you could do one, if you felt the NIST was wrong?

My reply:

I don't feel NIST is wrong.

Am I missing something here?

 

[Gamolon]

Can you provide me with an example of a high rise completely collapsing solely due to fire.

Sure, as soon as you find us a few scenarios where we are comparing apples to apples.

First thing I'll ask you is this. Find me an example of a building that was either similar in design in to the twin towers or WTC7.

I have asked this question many times and nobody is able to answer this.

Or are you one of those people that believes every single building should react the same to fires?

 

[pgimeno]

I never brought up the topic of freefall, nor do I care whether freefall occurred in WTC 7 or not.

Any coherent hypothesis must match the observables. If you don't care the observables when elaborating your hypothesis, it is invalid.

Can you provide me with an example of a high rise completely collapsing solely due to fire.

Why should I? There have not been so many big fires in high rises as to have a reliable statistics. Also, none of the fires that have happened so far in high risings could be compared to the unfought fires in WTC7. Nor any of these high rises had such long girders. Nor were they damaged so severely. And of course you're not using the fires in the towers, with the SFRM insulation dislodged, for comparison, are you?

In short, there's nothing to establish a valid comparison to, and your attempt at establishing and invalid one does not sound honest to me. But we do know that fires do cause the collapse of buildings, and that steel is vulnerable to fire. And we know that some firefighters did figure out that WTC7 was likely to fall, from their own experience with other buildings, high rises or not. Want videos of buildings collapsing due to fire? I have some. Let me establish a different standard for comparison: both are buildings, both had fires, both collapsed. Why do you focus on the detail that it must be a high rise? Is there something in a high rise, that makes it invulnerable to the possibility of a collapse by fire?

Example of building collapsing completely by fire:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p22OkclAU3o

But do you have a hypothesis? See, jaydeehess has put forth a sketch of a hypothesis that at first sight, and without going into much detail, matches a fair amount of observables. Do you have one?

Yes I do. I am not sure what your point is since my FE analysis supports the topic of this thread.

What is your hypothesis? Does it match the observables?

 

[pgimeno]

Am I missing something here?

I think his question could be parsed as:

"In the hypothetical case that you felt NIST was wrong, could you do a FEA?"

 

[enik]

WTH?!

My reply:

Am I missing something here?

Very simple question. You assume the NIST report for WTC 7 is not quite correct. So the answer to my question is: Yes, I can do my own analysis, or No, I can not do an analysis.

… Find me an example of a building that was either similar in design in to the twin towers …

What about the Aon Center in Chicago?

 

[beachnut]

Of course not. Just for him to answer the question.

But???

Debunkers are not smart. They have taken just enough engineering courses to sound like they know what they are talking about

Projecting?

Can you provide me with an example of what this charge and its control system would look like?

Why can't you? Are you a CD truther?

Again, can you provide me with an example of a column from a known CD with thermitic materials?

911 truth is making the CD claim, they failed to find one piece of steel from the WTC with blast effects, or thermite damage.

That was not my question.

Inside Job Evidence is in the Physics of WTC #1

What is your evidence WTC 7 was an inside job - you never listed your evidence for WTC 1, can you for 7? When? Soon?

I never brought up the topic of freefall, nor do I care whether freefall occurred in WTC 7 or not.

That is good, but how do you come up with the inside job stuff?

Can you provide me with an example of a high rise completely collapsing solely due to fire.

One Meridian Plaza, destroyed by fire, had to be taken apart, the same as collapsing, but the fire was put out before global collapse; a good fire to study for what goes wrong, and right in fires. Did you miss this, a simple office fire totaled a building. Yep.

Windsor Building, totaled by fire. The steel only portion, collapsed, completely collapse, and the fires were fought. There goes your failed come back so you can back in some idiotic inside job based on fantasy.

WTC 5 and 6, destroyed by fire, fires fought to save global collapse; internal failures of steel.. Missed it? There goes the 911 truth inside job, as the thermite must of failed in 5 and 6.

How can we compare a very unique building to any other building, or deny fire destroys building, the strength of steel? Was this a serious question? Are you really that deep into the inside job woo to gish gallop your way to this silly question?

Yes I do. I am not sure what your point is since my FE analysis supports the topic of this thread.

Does this mean you have dropped your inside job stuff? Or will you continue to make your FEAs look like a collapse by changing the parameters? Are you, it has to look like the collapse to be a valid model? Gee, I can do a math/physics only model and it looks like numbers. What does E=mc² look like? 911 truth, 11 years with no sign of truth, and no action.

You confirm NIST.

 

[enik]

Any coherent hypothesis must match the observables. If you don't care the observables when elaborating your hypothesis, it is invalid.

Again, my FEA matches the thread topic. Isn’t there another thread regarding WTC 7, CD or no CD?

And of course you're not using the fires in the towers, with the SFRM insulation dislodged, for comparison, are you?

Nope.

In short, there's nothing to establish a valid comparison to, and your attempt at establishing and invalid one does not sound honest to me. But we do know that fires do cause the collapse of buildings, and that steel is vulnerable to fire. And we know that some firefighters did figure out that WTC7 was likely to fall, from their own experience with other buildings, high rises or not. Want videos of buildings collapsing due to fire? I have some. Let me establish a different standard for comparison: both are buildings, both had fires, both collapsed. Why do you focus on the detail that it must be a high rise? Is there something in a high rise, that makes it invulnerable to the possibility of a collapse by fire?

So the NIST report for WTC 7 was not relevant, as a few here have stated?

 

[jaydeehess]

Of course not. Just for him to answer the question.

You seem completely unwilling to actually prove CD. Why is that?

Can you provide me with an example of what this charge and its control system would look like?

Such charge and control system is an artifact of a truther CD scenario so I'd have to throw that back into the court of those seeking to come up with a believeable CD scenario.

Again, can you provide me with an example of a column from a known CD with thermitic materials?

Such an event is is an artifact of a truther CD scenario so I'd have to throw that back into the court of those seeking to come up with a believeable CD scenario.

Can you provide me with an example of a high rise completely collapsing solely due to fire.

Not relevent to the thread really. Either it did collapse due to fire, and the NIST research supports that scenario, or, as the 911TM would have us believe, controlled demolitions chages of some sort were in place and are responsible for the global collapse of WTC 7, and this scenario is, so far, unsupported by any research whatsoever.

 

[jaydeehess]

So the NIST report for WTC 7 was not relevant, as a few here have stated?

The NIST report on WTC 7 is not relevant to any scenario insisting that controlled demolition charges were in place in that structure.

 

[LSSBB]

Very simple question. You assume the NIST report for WTC 7 is not quite correct. So the answer to my question is: Yes, I can do my own analysis, or No, I can not do an analysis.

What about the Aon Center in Chicago?

Last time I looked out my window at work, the Aon tower was still standing. Did it get hit by a plane and have a major fire, that I was unaware of?

 

[enik]

Last time I looked out my window at work, the Aon tower was still standing. Did it get hit by a plane and have a major fire, that I was unaware of?

Will it collapse similar to WTC 1 if a jet crashed into it and fires left burning for over an hour?