Merged Freefall is not evidence for Controlled Demolition

[Senenmut]

The resistance is matched and overcome by the load applied by the interior collapsing first. Please reread the OP.

are you speaking of the computer sim that did not show FF?

 

[Senenmut]

Correct me if i am wrong Senemut but by your understanding of freefall; are we to take that 8 floors just disintegrated into dust and offered no resistance? How much explosives would be required for that? If so what material would have been powerful enough for that? Remember that this material must not cause any loud sounds and completely destroy 47 columns in a matter of a millisecond(well at least according to your understanding).

dust? im not wtcdust now am I? maybe iron rich microspheres or something like that..... haha.....anyway, if one can turn 1 inch of steel (at connection points or to columns) to razor thin, and make columns buckle where you want them to buckle, then I think you are closer to the truth.

 

[LSSBB]

are you speaking of the computer sim that did not show FF?

No, I am not. If you want to bring a computer sim into it, be sure to spell out all assumptions and directly show why it disproves any elements of my OP.

 

[LSSBB]

dust? im not wtcdust now am I? maybe iron rich microspheres or something like that..... haha.....anyway, if one can turn 1 inch of steel (at connection points or to columns) to razor thin, and make columns buckle where you want them to buckle, then I think you are closer to the truth.

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_2854449b6c54b826e6.jpg[/qimg]

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_2854450f1b21e84975.jpg[/qimg]

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_2854450fd8c715f054.jpg[/qimg]

Please explain why this is relevant.

 

[Miragememories]

Correction

I would like to make a correction to the incorrect data appearing in post #28.

Migraine is my only excuse for saying 9 video frames. By my measurement, it should have been 30 video frames
or 1 second.

5503F and 5533F

The video for the above composite shows the amazing vertical stability maintained during the WTC7 north and west face high speed collapse.

The point of failure is on lower floors and out of view.

In one fell swoop all vertical support across complete floors was removed in harmony (balance), and the whole tower dropped straight down as shown in the collapse videos.

Any vertical resistance from the east or west side would slow the descent on the resisting side.

This would be quite visible as a growing downward slope for the side offering the least resistance.

Other than the classic controlled demolition roofline kink, I see no resistance to the drop offered by the east and west sides of the WTC7 tower.

How do you get the vertical support for several whole floors to fail completely, rapidly and in unison?

Office furnishings fires?

MM

 

[LSSBB]

I would like to make a correction to the incorrect data appearing in post #28.

Migraine is my only excuse for saying 9 video frames. By my measurement, it should have been 30 video frames
or 1 second.

5503F and 5533F
[qimg]http://imageshack.us/a/img542/2873/dmp.png[/qimg]

The video for the above composite shows the amazing vertical stability maintained during the WTC7 north and west face high speed collapse.

The point of failure is on lower floors and out of view.

In one fell swoop all vertical support across complete floors was removed in harmony (balance), and the whole tower dropped straight down as shown in the collapse videos.

ETA: we cannot see the bottom of the shell as the columns collapse, however the moment frame would redistribute the load across the front to create a more uniform breakage.
Any vertical resistance from the east or west side would slow the descent on the resisting side.

This would be quite visible as a growing downward slope for the side offering the least resistance.

Other than the classic controlled demolition roofline kink, I see no resistance to the drop offered by the east and west sides of the WTC7 tower.

How do you get the vertical support for several whole floors to fail completely, rapidly and in unison?

Office furnishings fires?

MM

The amazing stability is due, as I understand it, to the moment frame construction of the exterior.

As far as the resistance, please reread the OP. It is not removed, it is overcome by the load of the collapse from within.

 

[Justin39640]

dust? im not wtcdust now am I? maybe iron rich microspheres or something like that..... haha.....anyway, if one can turn 1 inch of steel (at connection points or to columns) to razor thin, and make columns buckle where you want them to buckle, then I think you are closer to the truth.

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_2854449b6c54b826e6.jpg[/qimg]

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_2854450f1b21e84975.jpg[/qimg]

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_2854450fd8c715f054.jpg[/qimg]

Um... those are pictures of steel after having been attacked by a corrosive. Do I have to post my pics again of steel battery cases that show the same sort of corrosion? (room temp, sulfuric acid attack)

 

[LSSBB]

I would like to make a correction to the incorrect data appearing in post #28.

Migraine is my only excuse for saying 9 video frames. By my measurement, it should have been 30 video frames
or 1 second.

5503F and 5533F
[qimg]http://imageshack.us/a/img542/2873/dmp.png[/qimg]

The video for the above composite shows the amazing vertical stability maintained during the WTC7 north and west face high speed collapse.

The point of failure is on lower floors and out of view.

In one fell swoop all vertical support across complete floors was removed in harmony (balance), and the whole tower dropped straight down as shown in the collapse videos.

Any vertical resistance from the east or west side would slow the descent on the resisting side.

This would be quite visible as a growing downward slope for the side offering the least resistance.

Other than the classic controlled demolition roofline kink, I see no resistance to the drop offered by the east and west sides of the WTC7 tower.

How do you get the vertical support for several whole floors to fail completely, rapidly and in unison?

Office furnishings fires?

MM

The amazing stability is due, as I understand it, to the moment frame construction of the exterior.

As far as the resistance, please reread the OP. It is not removed, it is overcome by the load of the collapse from within.

By the way, the apparently uniform breakage of the columns at the bottom would also be due to the moment frames redistributing the load.

 

[Oystein]

...
In one fell swoop all vertical support across complete floors was removed in harmony (balance), and the whole tower dropped straight down as shown in the collapse videos.
...

Too esoteric. Sounds like you feel you'd need to insert magic there for a natural (non-CD) explanation. So your choice of wirds reveals an "argument from ignorance" logical fallacy.
Whole tower didn't drop "straight" down:
- Much of the northwall that we see here dropped towards south (the kink is the result of the east-of-center portion shifting south the furthest)
- Some wall section from the north wall (north-east corner?) dropped northwards so much that it landed on top of another highrise across the street, essntially destroying that building, Fiterman Hall, as you well know
- Some wall section on the west side fell westward across the street and impaled itself into the Verizon bldg wall

MM, why do you repeat the long-debunked, false claim that "the building" dropped "straight" down (i.e. "into its footprint")? Haven't I told you often enough to please not lie?

 

[Miragememories]

The video for the above composite shows the amazing vertical stability maintained during the WTC7 north and west face high speed collapse.

The point of failure is on lower floors and out of view.

In one fell swoop all vertical support across complete floors was removed in harmony (balance), and the whole tower dropped straight down as shown in the collapse videos.

Any vertical resistance from the east or west side would slow the descent on the resisting side.

This would be quite visible as a growing downward slope for the side offering the least resistance.

Other than the classic controlled demolition roofline kink, there is no observable resistance to the drop offered by the east and west sides of the WTC7 tower.

"The amazing stability is due, as I understand it, to the moment frame construction of the exterior.

As far as the resistance, please reread the OP. It is not removed, it is overcome by the load of the collapse from within."

"By the way, the apparently uniform breakage of the columns at the bottom would also be due to the moment frames redistributing the load."

I have read your OP.

You ignore the requirement for the columns at the bottom to break in unison in order to achieve the balanced drop shown clearly in the WTC7 collapse videos.

There is really no point in nitpicking about whether WTC7 was dropping at freefall, or just merely close to freefall.

A redistribution of the load requires time.

For your belief to hold water, the load was redistributed and overcame all the WTC7 perimeter columns so fast that the roofline did not tilt during this drop.

Column 79, which according to the NIST's hypothesis supposedly initiated the collapse, was located toward the eastern end of WTC7 and not at its center.

A load redistribution spreading outward from that location, to do what you suggest, would require the east side perimeter columns to stand firm, wait until the distant west side columns were overloaded, and then all fail at the same time.

Not to mention the north and south perimeter columns.

Such an amazing coincidence of failure is quite absurd.

Without human intervention to make it happen synchronously, WTC7 could never have dropped in the manner observed.

MM

 

[beachnut]

http://imageshack.us/a/img546/4971/xd4.png

The video for the above composite shows the amazing vertical stability maintained during the WTC7 north and west face high speed collapse.

The point of failure is on lower floors and out of view.

In one fell swoop all vertical support across complete floors was removed in harmony (balance), and the whole tower dropped straight down as shown in the collapse videos.

Any vertical resistance from the east or west side would slow the descent on the resisting side.

This would be quite visible as a growing downward slope for the side offering the least resistance.

Other than the classic controlled demolition roofline kink, there is no observable resistance to the drop offered by the east and west sides of the WTC7 tower.




I have read your OP.

You ignore the requirement for the columns at the bottom to break in unison in order to achieve the balanced drop shown clearly in the WTC7 collapse videos.

There is really no point in nitpicking about whether WTC7 was dropping at freefall, or just merely close to freefall.

A redistribution of the load requires time.

For your belief to hold water, the load was redistributed and overcame all the WTC7 perimeter columns so fast that the roofline did not tilt during this drop.

Column 79, which according to the NIST's hypothesis supposedly initiated the collapse, was located toward the eastern end of WTC7 and not at its center.

A load redistribution spreading outward from that location, to do what you suggest, would require the east side perimeter columns to stand firm, wait until the distant west side columns were overloaded, and then all fail at the same time.

Not to mention the north and south perimeter columns.

Such an amazing coincidence of failure is quite absurd.

Without human intervention to make it happen synchronously, WTC7 could never have dropped in the manner observed.

MM

Wow, you are using the visual method of woo. The interior is gone many seconds before, you are watch the facade fall. Don't worry, you are using the video, when you need to use math and physics. Failure is your only product, 12 years will be soon, and you will have nothing but failure to show. Good job.

 

[Spanx]

[qimg]http://imageshack.us/a/img546/4971/xd4.png[/qimg]



The point of failure is on lower floors and out of view.


MM

Yep it certainly is.

Have a guess how many fingers I am holding up in my left hand and while your at it guess what hand gesture I'm making with my right hand.

 

[sylvan8798]

quite true..probably using the more dumbed down version so the common guy might understand it. If you start going into principles of least action and such then most people nod off.

Dumbing WRONG down to WRONG still makes it WRONG. Principles of least action "and such" having nothing to do with this.

 

[Dave Rogers]

The idiocy is that there was so little resistance.

I guess some whiz could provide a free fall time vs the actual collapse time for each of the three WTC buildings.

Indeed, "some whiz" would need to have already done so in order to determine how much resistance there was, and would need to have analysed how much would be expected, before being able to describe it as "so little resistance" with the slightest shred of intellectual honesty or respectability.

But I'm sure you were about to show your working.

Dave

 

[Dave Rogers]

sounds like sunder slipped there don't ya think!!

Yes, he made an inexact statement. It would have been more correct to say that free fall would imply an object that has no structural components supporting it, as -for example - unconnected structural elements far below an object would clearly have no effect on its rate of acceleration. Not being a conspiracy theorist, I choose not to pretend that the laws of physics be revised whenever an expert mis-speaks. What's your preference?

Dave

 

[Clayton Moore]

I would like to make a correction to the incorrect data appearing in post #28.

Migraine is my only excuse for saying 9 video frames. By my measurement, it should have been 30 video frames
or 1 second.

5503F and 5533F
[qimg]http://imageshack.us/a/img542/2873/dmp.png[/qimg]

The video for the above composite shows the amazing vertical stability maintained during the WTC7 north and west face high speed collapse.

The point of failure is on lower floors and out of view.

In one fell swoop all vertical support across complete floors was removed in harmony (balance), and the whole tower dropped straight down as shown in the collapse videos.

Any vertical resistance from the east or west side would slow the descent on the resisting side.

This would be quite visible as a growing downward slope for the side offering the least resistance.

Other than the classic controlled demolition roofline kink, I see no resistance to the drop offered by the east and west sides of the WTC7 tower.

How do you get the vertical support for several whole floors to fail completely, rapidly and in unison?

Office furnishings fires?

MM

Exactly.

Discussion of free fall is nothing more than an attempt to distract. The speed of the collapse proves the resistance the lower floors should have provided was not provided. Something removed that resistance. Period.

Then there is the evenness of the entire building's fall. Damage, especially fire damage is slow and helter skelter chaos. The WTC7 collapse was swift and smooth as silk.

 

[Dave Rogers]

Discussion of free fall is nothing more than an attempt to distract. The speed of the collapse proves the resistance the lower floors should have provided was not provided.

The irony is that you neither know the speed of the collapse, nor the speed at which the collapse should have occurred. How you manage to discern that one is greater than the other is a complete mystery.

The reason conspiracy theorists first started to talk about free fall is that they could then assert that the resistance of the structure was zero, which seemed to them to indicate that the entire lower structure had been destroyed before the top blocks began to fall - something, incidentally, that's conclusively disproved by every video of every collapse, not to mention entirely unrepresentative of any controlled demolition. When it was shown that, overall, the rate of acceleration was nowhere near free fall, some tried to preserve the conclusion in the absence of the argument, and hence had to make up bald assertions like the one above, despite a complete absence of evidence. And yet every calculation of collapse times that doesn't invoke non-existent physics comes up with the same conclusion: the collapse times agree, to well within the uncertainties of measurement and modelling, with expected collapse times.

Dave

 

[LSSBB]

[qimg]http://imageshack.us/a/img546/4971/xd4.png[/qimg]

The video for the above composite shows the amazing vertical stability maintained during the WTC7 north and west face high speed collapse.

The point of failure is on lower floors and out of view.

In one fell swoop all vertical support across complete floors was removed in harmony (balance), and the whole tower dropped straight down as shown in the collapse videos.

I highlighted for you words that only serve to emotionally frame how you are looking at this. This is a science and engineering problem, see how different it looks when you don't exercise hyperbole in your descriptions.

Any vertical resistance from the east or west side would slow the descent on the resisting side.

You still don't get it. The load overcomes the resistance. Throughout the descent of the exterior that dynamic changes. Sometimes the resistance is greater, sometimes the load. Therefore you have an acceleration curve that changes. Look at the acceleration curves in the FEMR2 thread.

This would be quite visible as a growing downward slope for the side offering the least resistance.

See above.

Other than the classic controlled demolition roofline kink, there is no observable resistance to the drop offered by the east and west sides of the WTC7 tower.

What the heck is a classic controlled demolition roofline kink???
The kink is because the inside is dropping, it's tenting the exterior wall inward. The wall is resisting the pull due to the moment frame holding it together.

I have read your OP.

You ignore the requirement for the columns at the bottom to break in unison in order to achieve the balanced drop shown clearly in the WTC7 collapse videos.

I leave it out because it doesn't matter for the freefall argument.

There is really no point in nitpicking about whether WTC7 was dropping at freefall, or just merely close to freefall.

Great! Now stop mentioning freefall as evidence. Convince your truther buddies too!

A redistribution of the load requires time.

How much time is that?

For your belief to hold water, the load was redistributed and overcame all the WTC7 perimeter columns so fast that the roofline did not tilt during this drop.

Sure, why wouldn't it have happened this way from the collapse?

Column 79, which according to the NIST's hypothesis supposedly initiated the collapse, was located toward the eastern end of WTC7 and not at its center.

A load redistribution spreading outward from that location, to do what you suggest, would require the east side perimeter columns to stand firm, wait until the distant west side columns were overloaded, and then all fail at the same time.

You think? Show your work.

Not to mention the north and south perimeter columns.

You think? Show your work.

Such an amazing coincidence of failure is quite absurd.

There's that framing again.

Without human intervention to make it happen synchronously, WTC7 could never have dropped in the manner observed.

Not shown by you. Do some work to prove it.

MM

Thanks for the attempt at an effort, better luck next time.

 

[LSSBB]

Exactly.

Discussion of free fall is nothing more than an attempt to distract.

Great! I'll remember that next time a truther brings it up. Including you. I fully expect to never see you say "At Freefall" again. Or any of your links you keep slinging for proof.

 

[DGM]

I highlighted for you words that only serve to emotionally frame how you are looking at this. This is a science and engineering problem, see how different it looks when you don't exercise hyperbole in your descriptions.

His limiting the scope of the discussion to the last few seconds of the collapse also plays to his leaning to propaganda over fact.