Merged Freefall is not evidence for Controlled Demolition

[LSSBB]

I keep seeing 'freefall' tossed around as evidence for controlled demolition, in threads where it would be off topic to discuss. Well, here is a thread where you can discuss it.
I put it to any proponent of the Controlled Demolition theory for World Trade Center 7 (WTC7), that:

1. There is no definitively sustained period where the exterior of WTC7 is seen to collapse AT freefall acceleration.
2. Any period of freefall acceleration is not proof of controlled demolition.

The first item I say because of measurement uncertainty: you cannot say precisely what the acceleration is at any time. Since CD proponents say the building freely falling is evidence that all support is removed, since gravity is constant for this purpose, the acceleration would be constant, which cannot be claimed due to measurement error. For research material, search the femr2 video thread as a start.

The second item I say because force applied from the interior collapse is putting additional load on the exterior, so that when the exterior finally gives under the increased load, the resistance from the collapsing bottom of the exterior is balanced somewhat by the applied load from the interior. With those two forces acting in opposite directions plus the force of gravity, the result can be acceleration at or above that of gravity Graphically:

Ok Truth seekers, time to put your money where your mouth is. Prove to the world that there was significant sustained freefall (right at the acceleration of gravity), or that periods of freefall cannot be explained by a collapse without demolitions.

 

[Oystein]

I'd add that even if some sub-assembly of a collapsing building experienced actual free-fall (i.e. no other [significant] force acting on it other than gravity) at any sub-period of time, this still would not be proof of CD, as of course it is perfectly possible for any part of a building to detach from the rest of the building in the course of a building collapse and fall freely until it impacts something below.

The easiest example could be a single brick that breaks free from a crumbling wall.
The next easiest example could be a sheet of connected bricks, a wall panel, or something similar breaking free from the wall.
The next easiest example could be an assembly of wall panels breaking free from the rest of the wall as a unit.
The next easiest example could be the upper portion of a wall breaking free from both the lower part and the interior of the building.
Etc.

To disprove a global claim like "free-fall of a subassembly is (absolutely, always) proof for CD", it suffices to bring just one example where it isn't.
I gave four easy to grasp examples from easy-to-do thought experiments.
Concept disproven.

 

[LSSBB]

I'd add that even if some sub-assembly of a collapsing building experienced actual free-fall (i.e. no other [significant] force acting on it other than gravity) at any sub-period of time, this still would not be proof of CD, as of course it is perfectly possible for any part of a building to detach from the rest of the building in the course of a building and fall freely until it impacts something below.

The easiest example could be a single brick that breaks free from a crumbling wall.
The next easiest example could be a sheet of connected bricks, a wall panel, or something similar breaking free from the wall.
The next easiest example could be an assembly of wall panels breaking free from the rest of the wall as a unit.
The next easiest example could be the upper portion of a wall breaking free from both the lower part and the interior of the building.
Etc.

To disprove a global claim like "free-fall of a subassembly is (absolutely, always) proof for CD", it suffices to bring just one example where it isn't.
I gave four easy to grasp examples from easy-to-do thought experiments.
Concept disproven.

Thanks, Oystein, good addition.

 

[jaydeehess]

I have in the past asked that actual building collapse videos other that those of the WTC structures , be put through the same analysis and a comparison made. Compare partial or total collapse acellerations for known fire or earthquake induced collapses, as well as those in straight down controlled demolitions.
However it seems no truther is interested enough to go about proving that such statements as ' free fall=CD ' and prefer to simply put it forth as an unsubstantiated declaration.

I also appreciate the pointing out that if free fall is the result of a severing of lower columns through an eight storey section then the acelleration of the now detached upper portion of the building cannot exceed g. I have in the past asked several 911 conspiracy proponents to explain the over-g measurements. I have seen patently ridiculous claims of implosions sucking the structure down and equally implausible space-a-beam claims but so far no known physics to explain it. I suspect that the reason is that as soon as they introduce other factors along the line of that described in the OP they understand that their premise of freefall = CD collapses immediately.(pun intended)

 

[lexicon008]

I have in the past asked that actual building collapse videos other that those of the WTC structures , be put through the same analysis and a comparison made. Compare partial or total collapse acellerations for known fire or earthquake induced collapses, as well as those in straight down controlled demolitions.

Problem is i don't beleive there are any examples outside of actual demolitions of steel framed skyscraper complete straight down collapse due to fire or earthquake. Partial yes, but how much of a partial collapse would be considered enough to compare? Or are we considering any building material and simply looking at timing?

 

[DGM]

Problem is i don't beleive there are any examples outside of actual demolitions of steel framed skyscraper complete straight down collapse due to fire or earthquake. Partial yes, but how much of a partial collapse would be considered enough to compare? Or are we considering any building material and simply looking at timing?

This is a good thing, actually. It means that engineers have done their job and it takes an historic event to compromise these structures. Makes me feel good.

Unless you don't think the events of 9/11 where historic (as told by the OS).

 

[jaydeehess]

Problem is i don't beleive there are any examples outside of actual demolitions of steel framed skyscraper complete straight down collapse due to fire or earthquake. Partial yes, but how much of a partial collapse would be considered enough to compare? Or are we considering any building material and simply looking at timing?

We are only seeking to falsify the supposed axiom that freefall= CD and thus are only interested in timing of a collapse, thus partial collapses fit the bill. How much partial collapse you ask. I would say it would have to be more than half a dozen storeys coming down as a block even if it does not involve the full width or depth of the structure.
I will grant that earthquake collapse likely is not a good comparison as an obvious outside force is involved that generally acts perpendicular to gravity.

 

[jaydeehess]

Of course one could require a greater match to 911 collapses such as global collapse. However if one needs that level of match, and I cannot envision why that would be to just illustrate the premise, then one should also match construction techniques. Thus we need collapses involving long span open floor concept structures.

 

[lexicon008]

We are only seeking to falsify the supposed axiom that freefall= CD and thus are only interested in timing of a collapse, thus partial collapses fit the bill. How much partial collapse you ask. I would say it would have to be more than half a dozen storeys coming down as a block even if it does not involve the full width or depth of the structure.
I will grant that earthquake collapse likely is not a good comparison as an obvious outside force is involved that generally acts perpendicular to gravity.

Well in my unlearned opinion the free fall = CD argument really fails almost immediately since just about every CD i've witnessed (and no i haven't actually timed them) does not allow for free fall in the truest sense. The columns are blown in a sequence and as a result there are almost always lateral restraints or intact verticle columns for a period of time.
This immediately leads to resistance and therefore lack of free fall in almost every case.
Now having said that, the wtc did not fall at free fall.
They fell close to (in the sense that they fell very fast for a resistant structure which for the most part a CD isn't as it has much of the structure removed or weakened prior to collapse initiation). They fell relatively symetrically (even though we can see they were assymetrically damaged). In a CD this symmetry is done by design not by random chance that all the piece fell into place properly (no pun intended).
So yes..the free fall = CD argument essentially fails. It is however pretty hard to not say that the collapses happened alot faster then one would expect from a resistant structure. This is what implies that there was some other forces involved..one of which could have been CD.

 

[LSSBB]

Of course one could require a greater match to 911 collapses such as global collapse. However if one needs that level of match, and I cannot envision why that would be to just illustrate the premise, then one should also match construction techniques. Thus we need collapses involving long span open floor concept structures.

I don't think collapse comparisons are necessary or relevant, unless someone can show me why. This for all intents and purposes is a unique building construction with unique circumstances. No building like this has ever been subject to CD either. All that is necessary here is to show that free fall is evidence of controlled demolition.

The above freefall is a good point, although it has not been definitively shown to have occurred. There exists a significant probability that the exterior of wtc7 fell at over g, and that can be explained by interior collapse applying a load and cannot be explained by controlled demolition eliminating all support.

 

[LSSBB]

Well in my unlearned opinion the free fall = CD argument really fails almost immediately since just about every CD i've witnessed (and no i haven't actually timed them) does not allow for free fall in the truest sense. The columns are blown in a sequence and as a result there are almost always lateral restraints or intact verticle columns for a period of time.
This immediately leads to resistance and therefore lack of free fall in almost every case.
Now having said that, the wtc did not fall at free fall.
They fell close to (in the sense that they fell very fast for a resistant structure which for the most part a CD isn't as it has much of the structure removed or weakened prior to collapse initiation). They fell relatively symetrically (even though we can see they were assymetrically damaged). In a CD this symmetry is done by design not by random chance that all the piece fell into place properly (no pun intended).
So yes..the free fall = CD argument essentially fails. It is however pretty hard to not say that the collapses happened alot faster then one would expect from a resistant structure. This is what implies that there was some other forces involved..one of which could have been CD.

I disagree that it is hard to not say that the collapse happened faster than would be expected from a resistant structure, for the reason I gave in point 2: The interior collapse applies a load on the exterior of the building.

 

[Oystein]

Well in my unlearned opinion the free fall = CD argument really fails almost immediately since just about every CD i've witnessed (and no i haven't actually timed them) does not allow for free fall in the truest sense.
...
Now having said that, the wtc did not fall at free fall.
...
So yes..the free fall = CD argument essentially fails.
...

But this is Gage's argument, it is supposedly supported by 1900+ architects and engineers, and yet you understand - correctly! - that it is an invalid argument!

What does that tell you about the reliability of the arguments pushed by leading proponents of 9/11 Truth?

 

[lexicon008]

But this is Gage's argument, it is supposedly supported by 1900+ architects and engineers, and yet you understand - correctly! - that it is an invalid argument!

What does that tell you about the reliability of the arguments pushed by leading proponents of 9/11 Truth?

That is only 1 part of the argument.
If it was the Column 79 of the argument then maybe the whole argument collapses ;P

 

[lexicon008]

I disagree that it is hard to not say that the collapse happened faster than would be expected from a resistant structure, for the reason I gave in point 2: The interior collapse applies a load on the exterior of the building.

perhaps but in the case of 7 the interior collapsed laterally did it not (if your assuming the interior structure collapsed and left a hollow shell)? This would presumably lead to only the furthest side of the interior collapse having a load that could cause an over G pull. The side that had collapsed internally first did not start collapsing externally immediately. So how can we say that it was loaded and pulled down above G?
And this is not what NISTs computer model shows unless i'm missing something.

 

[Oystein]

That is only 1 part of the argument.
If it was the Column 79 of the argument then maybe the whole argument collapses ;P

It's a pretty central argument - it really is their main pillar of the 7 debate!

But their other pillars also fail:

- They claim there was a "rapid onset" of the collapse - there wasn't
- They claim there were "sounds of explosions at ground floor – a second before the building's destruction" - not true, no comparison at all to real CDs
- They claim "Symmetrical structural failure" - that is an ill-defined term, and I say it's not true - WTC7 showed significant asymmetries
- They claim it fell "through the path of greatest resistance" - there is no evidence for this
- They claim that falling "through the path of greatest resistance" is a "characteristics of classic controlled demolition with explosives" - utter nonsense
- They claim that WTC7 dropped into ots footprint - it didn't
- They claim that dropping into footprint is a "characteristics of classic controlled demolition with explosives" - not true: many CDs fall outside of the footprint, non-CDs can fall into it

What a load of fail!

 

[lexicon008]

But their other pillars also fail:

- They claim there was a "rapid onset" of the collapse - there wasn't

i guess that depends on your definition of rapid and when you feel the collapse started.

- They claim there were "sounds of explosions at ground floor – a second before the building's destruction" - not true, no comparison at all to real CDs

agreed, there is very little in terms of sound evidence..but..most CDs are not done on a complete in use structure. They remove much of the materials that could dampen sound such as drywall, roofing, carpeting, furniture etc. They have preweakened the walls and floors. But I admit this does tend to argue against CD since with no preweakenig you should really need more explosives..unless you preweaken with the thermite

- They claim "Symmetrical structural failure" - that is an ill-defined term

agreed


- They claim it fell "through the path of greatest resistance" - there is no evidence for this

well again that depends on your terminology here. They cannot really prove it was the path of greatest resistance since resistance of the structure was not measured at the time of collapse so yes they are technically wrong. I think the point here was that it is unusual for a structure such as this to collapse through itself and not tip over say.


- They claim that falling "through the path of greatest resistance" is a "characteristics of classic controlled demolition with explosives" - utter nonsense

again agreed, although CDs due tend to collapse more neatly then non CDs i think

- They claim that WTC7 dropped into ots footprint - it didn't

it was pretty damn close

- They claim that dropping into footprint is a "characteristics of classic controlled demolition with explosives" - not true: many CDs fall outside of the footprint, non-CDs can fall into it

agreed in essence but again you look at the statement too literally maybe?

 

[LSSBB]

perhaps but in the case of 7 the interior collapsed laterally did it not (if your assuming the interior structure collapsed and left a hollow shell)? This would presumably lead to only the furthest side of the interior collapse having a load that could cause an over G pull. The side that had collapsed internally first did not start collapsing externally immediately. So how can we say that it was loaded and pulled down above G?
And this is not what NISTs computer model shows unless i'm missing something.

I am not saying the shell was hollow, only that he interior collapse preceded the exterior. We also cannot see the interior of the collapse, so we cannot see the direction of the progression outward from column 79, and also one wall is, I believe, not visible. There can be multiple points of attachment where a load is being applied on all walls.

 

[lexicon008]

I am not saying the shell was hollow, only that he interior collapse preceded the exterior. We also cannot see the interior of the collapse, so we cannot see the direction of the progression outward from column 79, and also one wall is, I believe, not visible. There can be multiple points of attachment where a load is being applied on all walls.

well there lies the problem..where were the points of attachment and how much were they affecting the collapse? You can't really prove that the above G pull was due to load if you can't prove that there was load and where it was to begin with.
The visual record shows a wave of collapses from left to right (on the video) in terms of the east penthouse collapse then we see windows breaking from left to right. I agree with you that this implies internal collapse of some sort but we cannot say for sure that those collapses had any >G affect on the structure as it collapsed since the outer facade fr the most part collapsed as a whole and not from left to right (based of course on what we can see).

 

[LSSBB]

well there lies the problem..where were the points of attachment and how much were they affecting the collapse? You can't really prove that the above G pull was due to load if you can't prove that there was load and where it was to begin with.
The visual record shows a wave of collapses from left to right (on the video) in terms of the east penthouse collapse then we see windows breaking from left to right. I agree with you that this implies internal collapse of some sort but we cannot say for sure that those collapses had any >G affect on the structure as it collapsed since the outer facade fr the most part collapsed as a whole and not from left to right (based of course on what we can see).

I don't have to prove anything. The point is to prove that the observed behavior can only be explained by controlled demolition. If you cannot do that, then the observed behavior cannot be used as evidence of controlled demolition.

 

[lexicon008]

"I don't have to prove anything. The point is to prove that the observed behavior can only be explained by controlled demolition. "

you win..it can't

"If you cannot do that, then the observed behavior cannot be used as evidence of controlled demolition"

not entirely true. The behaviour can't ONLY be explained by CD, other things could cause it, but CD could certainly cause the behaviour and therefore the behaviour could be consistent with CD.