Merged Freefall is not evidence for Controlled Demolition

[LSSBB]

All people should be interested in the truth about 9/11, and in particular the truth behind the 8 story freefall shown in the WTC7 videos.

Doesn't playing a silly hand-waving game of; "gee WTC7 was falling like a brick, but I think we can prove it didn't attain FFA", bother you?

Verifiable scientific evidence has shown that the collapse of WTC7 is not plausibly explained by the final NIST report.

And whether or not WTC7 was plummeting to the earth at FFA or 0.99 FFA makes no real difference to the obvious significance of such a high speed building collapse.

During that portion of the collapse when WTC7 was dropping for 8 storeys, did you not try and visualize the pattern of support failure required to achieve a balanced high speed floor area collapse?

DROP-DROP-DROP-DROP-DROP-DROP-DROP-DROP

All the perimeter columns for complete floors amazingly 'snapping' at the same moment.

An incredible display of balanced-overloading, accidentally achieved by uncontrolled office furnishings fires?

There is a reason why prior to 9/11, no one had ever seen fire alone produce such a total high speed collapse of a steel-structured highrise.

The odds for such a thing happening are astronomically against.

MM

Take a look at the acceleration curves, please. Factoring in measurement error, you cannot determine exactly what the acceleration is at any time, and you cannot say it is constant. You cannot also say it is freely falling for 1, 8 or any number of floors, because you can get 'g' acceleration ('free fall') from a combination of being pulled down from the inside and resisted from below. If you don't agree, show your work. Do not try to handwave your way out of this and not expect to have that called out.

 

[fitzgibbon]

[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.

You claim to work in a position that would require accurate visual analysis (ie reading a waveform, recognising an unwanted jump-cut, etc.). Even a cursory examination of the two images you provided shows that WTC7 didn't retain "amazing vertical stability". A quick look at the angle of the roofline between the left corner and the centre block shows the angle increasing. Since this would've been recorded by a camera on the long end of zoom (if not at full zoom), we can rule out an optical illusion created by a lens at wide angle.

This leaves 3 possibilities in my book (there's probably more but I'm limiting this to my experience and judgment as an editor [that plus I really haven't the time/inclination to chase truthers down the WTC7 rabbit hole]):

1. The left corner of the building is descending at a slower rate than the centre section of the building thus increasing the angle of the roofline between the left corner of the building and the centre section

2. Both sections are descending at the same rate but the left corner is pivoting towards the camera thus increasing the angle of the roofline between the left corner of the building and the centre section

3. Both sections are descending at the same rate but the centre section is pivoting away the camera thus increasing the angle of the roofline between the left corner of the building and the centre section

To use an analogy you should be familiar with, imagine you're using the joystick on an Abekas A51 to adjust an image. The X axis is left-right, the Y axis is the vertical axis and the Z is the zoom (or in this case closer-to or further-away from the camera). So in instance #1, there's a change in ∆Y, that is to say, there's a change in relative heights between the left corner and the centre section. In instances #2 & #3, there's a change in ∆Z with either the left corner coming closer to the camera relative to the centre section or else the centre section receeding.

In any case, it can't with any honesty be said that the left corner and the centre section stay in "amazing vertical stability" because that conclusion can't be exclusively drawn from the data you're providing.

HTH
Fitz

 

[Clayton Moore]

All people should be interested in the truth about 9/11, and in particular the truth behind the 8 story freefall shown in the WTC7 videos.

Doesn't playing a silly hand-waving game of; "gee WTC7 was falling like a brick, but I think we can prove it didn't attain FFA", bother you?

Verifiable scientific evidence has shown that the collapse of WTC7 is not plausibly explained by the final NIST report.

And whether or not WTC7 was plummeting to the earth at FFA or 0.99 FFA makes no real difference to the obvious significance of such a high speed building collapse.

During that portion of the collapse when WTC7 was dropping for 8 storeys, did you not try and visualize the pattern of support failure required to achieve a balanced high speed floor area collapse?

DROP-DROP-DROP-DROP-DROP-DROP-DROP-DROP

All the perimeter columns for complete floors amazingly 'snapping' at the same moment.

An incredible display of balanced-overloading, accidentally achieved by uncontrolled office furnishings fires?

There is a reason why prior to 9/11, no one had ever seen fire alone produce such a total high speed collapse of a steel-structured highrise.

The odds for such a thing happening are astronomically against impossible.

MM

ftfy

 

[LSSBB]

ftfy

Hot air. Prove it. Go on. Assign probabilities, do a fault tree. You just speaking crud won't cut it. Put up or shut up.

 

[DGM]

Verifiable scientific evidence has shown that the collapse of WTC7 is not plausibly explained by the final NIST report.

You should add a statement that it was shown to you. No one else has seen this.

During that portion of the collapse when WTC7 was dropping for 8 storeys, did you not try and visualize the pattern of support failure required to achieve a balanced high speed floor area collapse?

Yes, I have.

All the perimeter columns for complete floors amazingly 'snapping' at the same moment.

Funny. that's not how I visualized it. I pictured, exterior columns buckling over multiple floors due the internal collapse that started several seconds before.

It gets easier to understand when you stop fixating on one aspect and look at the big picture.

The odds for such a thing happening are astronomically against.

MM

Has anyone ever explained to you the odds of something happening that has already occurred?

 

[Clayton Moore]

Hot air. Prove it. Go on. Assign probabilities, do a fault tree. You just speaking crud won't cut it. Put up or shut up.

Less than 15 seconds to collapse. There you go.

 

[LSSBB]

Less than 15 seconds to collapse. There you go.

What about it? Are you including the time the inside was already collapsing? You just saying things ain't proof of squat. It may fool 98.7 people, but it's not fooling anyone here, except yourself.

If you don't have anything meaningful to contribute, please, just leave the thread.

 

[djlunacee]

Less than 15 seconds to collapse. There you go.

and that means what? grilled cheese and chicken noodle soup for everyone?

 

[Clayton Moore]

What about it? Are you including the time the inside was already collapsing? You just saying things ain't proof of squat. It may fool 98.7 people, but it's not fooling anyone here, except yourself.

If you don't have anything meaningful to contribute, please, just leave the thread.

If the inside was collapsing how did the "walls/outside" collapse straight down?

Or should I say from bottom to top since the top of WTC7 was intact as it disappeared.

How did the sides of WTC7 not fail by getting pulled into the internal collapse?

 

[jaydeehess]

If the inside was collapsing how did the "walls/outside" collapse straight down?

Or should I say from bottom to top since the top of WTC7 was intact as it disappeared.

How did the sides of WTC7 not fail by getting pulled into the internal collapse?

The outside walls final displacement illustrates that they were not falling straight, the west part was tilting south and the east part was tilting northeast. Get your facts straight troll

The top of WTC 7 Was far from 'intact' or did you miss the part where the central portion of the roof collapsed , much of that occurring before the north facade began moving downward?

As mentioned several times now, the pulling on the exterior by the already falling central collapse may have added to the increase in acceleration of the north exterior.
Then again trolls are famous for ignoring actual, reasoned, agruement.

 

[jaydeehess]

All people should be interested in the truth about 9/11, and in particular the truth behind the 8 story freefall shown in the WTC7 videos.

Ok

Doesn't playing a silly hand-waving game of; "gee WTC7 was falling like a brick, but I think we can prove it didn't attain FFA", bother you?

Who are you referring to? The charts illustrate that parts of the north facade achieved and seemed to exceed 'g'. If one wishes to go further than hand waving one needs to explain this INCLUDING the greater than 'g' portion. Have you done that? If not, why not? Could it be because any explanation would remove any requirement for CD?

Verifiable scientific evidence has shown that the collapse of WTC7 is not plausibly explained by the final NIST report.

You need to explain why a minutely detailed explanation is required. Is this FFA period exclusive to controlled demolitions? The NIST report adaquately explains how the building got to the point at which total collapse could not be arrested.

And whether or not WTC7 was plummeting to the earth at FFA or 0.99 FFA makes no real difference to the obvious significance of such a high speed building collapse.

How about 1.2 g when trying to claim that the acceleration is indicative of controlled demolition?

During that portion of the collapse when WTC7 was dropping for 8 storeys, did you not try and visualize the pattern of support failure required to achieve a balanced high speed floor area collapse?

Of course! One such visualization, in simplified form, is illustrated in the OP. Did you read it?

All the perimeter columns for complete floors amazingly 'snapping' at the same moment.

An incredible display of balanced-overloading, accidentally achieved by uncontrolled office furnishings fires?

You presume that overloading requires 'snapping' of columns and that buckled or heavily tilted columns offer any support? Why?

There is a reason why prior to 9/11, no one had ever seen fire alone produce such a total high speed collapse of a steel-structured highrise.

The odds for such a thing happening are astronomically against.

MM

Actually its most likely made vastly more probable if the structure in question utilizes long span techniques and/or an assymettric beam placement, and/or construction that incorporated an much smaller building on the same lot.
Kinda reduces the field , now can you tell us how many of these types of structures have suffered such large area, multi floor office fires that have been allowed to burn for hours?

I mean if you want to compare the differences in apples and oranges fine but don't tell us that oranges and apples will behave the same just because they are both fruits.

 

[LSSBB]

If the inside was collapsing how did the "walls/outside" collapse straight down?

Or should I say from bottom to top since the top of WTC7 was intact as it disappeared.

How did the sides of WTC7 not fail by getting pulled into the internal collapse?

You do realize you saw the exterior of the building collapse, and that the inside collapsed first, don't you? Gee, where'd that penthouse go. You know also that there was a moment frame construction to the exterior to hold it together, don't you?

 

[Clayton Moore]

You do realize you saw the exterior of the building collapse, an that the inside collapsed first, don't you? Gee, where'd that penthouse go. You know also that there was a moment frame construction to the exterior to hold it together, don't you?

The weight of floors should have pulled the sides into the center. But they didn't and the frame collapsed on it's own. Go figure.

 

[LSSBB]

The weight of floors should have pulled the sides into the center. But they didn't and the frame collapsed on it's own. Go figure.

You think so? Show your work. Your burden of proof, Clayton.

 

[jaydeehess]

The weight of floors should have pulled the sides into the center. But they didn't and the frame collapsed on it's own. Go figure.

The exterior DID get pulled south take a look at the pictures of the rubble Clayton. The entire western section fell to the SOUTH. The eastern portion, which was not part of the structure that included the old Con-Ed building, and suffered less central damage, fell to the north east, hitting the Fitter man building.

 

[jaydeehess]

You think so? Show your work. Your burden of proof, Clayton.

CM seems to be of the opinion that the moment frame should have disassembled itself as floor slabs hung from it. The work to illustrate this would be interesting but will not, I predict, be forthcoming. If a person could fly by flapping/waving their arms about, CM would need an oxygen supply for the hueghts he could attain.

 

[jaydeehess]

The exterior DID get pulled south take a look at the pictures of the rubble Clayton. The entire western section fell to the SOUTH. The eastern portion, which was not part of the structure that included the old Con-Ed building, and suffered less central damage, fell to the north east, hitting the Fitter man building.

Eta; slight correction... the eastern section appears to have twisted and ended up to the northeast.

 

[Spanx]

The weight of floors should have pulled the sides into the center. But they didn't and the frame collapsed on it's own. Go figure.

Cool, so the penthouse slipped off the side and then they pulled it.

Smooth as silk and as for the penthouse slippery as ky gel

 

[NoahFence]

The weight of floors should have pulled the sides into the center. But they didn't and the frame collapsed on it's own. Go figure.

If the interior wasn't collapsing, how'd the penthouse disappear several seconds before global release?

 

[GlennB]

The exterior DID get pulled south take a look at the pictures of the rubble Clayton. The entire western section fell to the SOUTH. The eastern portion, which was not part of the structure that included the old Con-Ed building, and suffered less central damage, fell to the north east, hitting the Fitter man building.

Rubble pics not really required (naturally, MM and others prefer shots taken from the north, where the tilt during collapse is not detectable)