Merged Freefall is not evidence for Controlled Demolition

[NoahFence]

The purpose of providing a link is not to give you my interpretation of it. It's pretty damn obvious Jennings was trapped in WTC7 as a result of explosions that occurred before either of the towers collapsed.

I asked you for another example, it's pretty damn obvious that you don't have one.

There's a reason for that -

There are ZERO examples of controlled demo that have explosives going off, and the building stands for hours after. You can't find one that stands for more than 30 seconds after the initial blasts ffs.

STOP LYING

 

[jaydeehess]

This view of WTC7's south side, viewing from the SE corner indicates a primarily inward collapse.

[qimg]http://imageshack.us/a/img189/8922/7xw3.jpg[/qimg]

A view of the SE corner shows where the western section of the building went?
How about a pic of that instead. Are you dishonest or delusional?

The collapse sequence below shows the prolonged vertical stability of the collapse.

It shows the stability of the upper parts of the northern moment frame.

Because of damage to the SW corner and the gouge in the middle of the south face of WTC7, it was not surprising that later in the global collapse the remaining structure would lean south.

And fall south, after all you are saying that both south face and north face are leaning south. Do you think about what you are posting or do you just randomly post your musings?

 

[NoahFence]

I guess CM doesn't need the money.

 

[Miragememories]

"A view of the SE corner shows where the western section of the building went?"

Yes.

You can see down to the SW corner of WTC7 with only a bit of the base cropped.

It is obvious the collapsing south side was not predominantly in the street as you would have everyone believe.

"It shows the stability of the upper parts of the northern moment frame."

8 storeys of freefall collapse and the frame does not break up, even when its speed is reduced by collision with the mounting debris pile.

WTC7 covered a city block in NYC about the size of a football field.

It was surrounded by perimeter columns which were a major part of that moment frame.

A moment frame that we know had SW corner damage and a multi-storey center gouge on its south side.

The view of the north side of WTC7 during its collapse, shows that whatever was happening on the lower floors, it was happening synchronously and at a speed that was removing all the perimeter columns as if they were not there.

"And fall south, after all you are saying that both south face and north face are leaning south. Do you think about what you are posting or do you just randomly post your musings?"

I agree that in other views, later in the collapse, the remaining WTC7 begins to lean south.

But what significance does this hold when considering WTC7's incredible collapse speed and vertical stability, while being totally destroyed in seconds?

Why would floor by floor, all the perimeter columns suddenly offer no resistance?

On the northern, western and eastern sides of WTC7, there was little known physical damage to the perimeter columns.

But at 5:20 p.m. on 9/11, all the perimeter columns for 8 floors, behaved as if they were removed by human intervention.

WTC7 could not miraculously transfer vertical load to the perimeter columns with such orchestrated perfection as to make all 4 sides of WTC7 drop for 8 storeys with such vertical precision.

Office furnishing's fires did not create this.

MM

 

[LSSBB]

8 storeys of freefall collapse

Bzzzzt, FAIL.

No CONSTANT free fall proven.

Load balancing the resistance has not been disproved, and it accounts for ALL acceleration curves, unsupported drop does not.

No support for 8 story drop conjecture.

Thanks for playing, better luck next time.

 

[fitzgibbon]

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

Bumping for MirageMemories' attention

 

[Reactor drone]

This view of WTC7's south side, viewing from the SE corner indicates a primarily inward collapse.

[qimg]http://imageshack.us/a/img189/8922/7xw3.jpg[/qimg]

You do realise that that part of the SE corner that's visible isn't the lower SE corner in the "as built" location don't you? Those corner windows only started on the seventh floor.


ETA- In fact looking at it closely those look like the double height windows in the middle of the building so the lowest window there will be the 20th floor.

 

[000063]

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.

He said "go figure". That mean's it's everyone else's job to do the figures to back up his assertion. Weren't you paying attention?

Another grand if you can produce another example of controlled demolition where the explosives go off but the building doesn't collapse for another several hours.

I'll double it.

Even if any did exist, I strongly doubt Clay's ability to find them.

The collapse sequence below shows the prolonged vertical stability of the collapse.

Is this the current version of "straight down"/"in its own footprint"? Another technical-sounding but ultimately meaningless phrase?

...

8 storeys of freefall collapse and the frame does not break up, even when its speed is reduced by collision with the mounting debris pile.

....

The view of the north side of WTC7 during its collapse, shows that whatever was happening on the lower floors, it was happening synchronously and at a speed that was removing all the perimeter columns as if they were not there.

...
MM

Except for the parts where it wasn't falling at freefall speed, which is not necessarily evidence of actual free fall, despite frequent truther attempts to conflate the two.

You do realise that that part of the SE corner that's visible isn't the lower SE corner in the "as built" location don't you? Those corner windows only started on the seventh floor.


ETA- In fact looking at it closely those look like the double height windows in the middle of the building so the lowest window there will be the 20th floor.

Oh boy, I wonder how MM is going to ignore this one!

 

[Justin39640]

Yes.

You can see down to the SW corner of WTC7 with only a bit of the base cropped.

It is obvious the collapsing south side was not predominantly in the street as you would have everyone believe.

...

Office furnishing's fires did not create this.

MM

Um...
You might want to look closely. It appears that the south side of the collapsed building is mostly... in the street. Those guys are standing... in the street.

You need to give fire a lot more respect. You don't (or refuse to) understand what an animal it really can be.

 

[Miragememories]

"Um...

You might want to look closely.

It appears that the south side of the collapsed building is mostly... in the street.

Those guys are standing... in the street.

You need to give fire a lot more respect.

You don't (or refuse to) understand what an animal it really can be."

You might like to think about what you see?

When a 47-story office tower totally collapses in seconds, what do you expect happens when it collides with its ever-growing mound of wreckage?

The sidewalks in NYC are not as wide as you think.

MM

 

[000063]

Do you want to make an actual direct assertion and support it, or just make arguments by implication?

 

[thedopefishlives]

You might like to think about what you see?

When a 47-story office tower totally collapses in seconds, what do you expect happens when it collides with its ever-growing mound of wreckage?

The sidewalks in NYC are not as wide as you think.

MM

Wait, so it didn't collapse neatly into its own footprint?

 

[000063]

It had "prolonged vertical stability". Pay attention!

(Note how I don't actually contradict you, leaving open the possibility that those are the same thing.)

 

[marcus777]

I asked you for another example, it's pretty damn obvious that you don't have one.

There's a reason for that -

There are ZERO examples of controlled demo that have explosives going off, and the building stands for hours after. You can't find one that stands for more than 30 seconds after the initial blasts ffs.

STOP LYING

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lcb37yyHgT8

If you watch this CD here, there is a brief period of silence between the initial explosions and the explosions in which the building starts to fall.

What would happen to the building if the final explosives didn't go off?
I'm guessing it would sit there all day, maybe leaning or bulging a bit but would still be standing......and would need very little to finish the job.


Were explosions going off 'slowly' throughout the day? who knows. Did the majority of explosions occur whilst the towers were collapsing? who knows.

The above could explain why very little explosives would be needed to finish the job so to speak and I'm yet to see a video of 7 going down that has a clear sound recording.

 

[NoahFence]

Were explosions going off 'slowly' throughout the day? who knows. Did the majority of explosions occur whilst the towers were collapsing? who knows.

Who knows?? I do. Rational people do. How do we know?

You didn't happen to notice the hundreds (thousands?) of people in the immediate vicinity of WTC 7 all day, did you? Don't you suppose they would have heard explosions going off periodically during the day? I think someone may have said something by now if there were.


Or are we back on "hush-a-boom" explosives that don't make any sound?

 

[beachnut]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lcb37yyHgT8

If you watch this CD here, there is a brief period of silence between the initial explosions and the explosions in which the building starts to fall.

What would happen to the building if the final explosives didn't go off?
I'm guessing it would sit there all day, maybe leaning or bulging a bit but would still be standing......and would need very little to finish the job.


Were explosions going off 'slowly' throughout the day? who knows. Did the majority of explosions occur whilst the towers were collapsing? who knows.

The above could explain why very little explosives would be needed to finish the job so to speak and I'm yet to see a video of 7 going down that has a clear sound recording.

No explosives were used. The above explains gravity is used as the primary energy to destroy building in CD. Not to explain woo of 911 truth.

CD of WTC 7? lol, there were zero explosives used on 911.

No explosives were needed because fire did it. Fire, heat energy, things 911 truth can't understand because they can't think for themselves.

...
Office furnishing's fires did not create this.

MM

Fire can't beat steel. 911 truth's insane claims of super steel, can't fail in fire.

Wood is laughing.

12 years of failure, coming in September. How will you celebrate 12 years of failure? Silk/Linen or Pearls?

 

[jaydeehess]

[qimg]http://imageshack.us/a/img189/8922/7xw3.jpg[/qimg]

Yes.

You can see down to the SW corner of WTC7 with only a bit of the base cropped.

It is obvious the collapsing south side was not predominantly in the street as you would have everyone believe.

[qimg]http://imageshack.us/a/img194/3379/3pp.png[/qimg]



8 storeys of freefall collapse and the frame does not break up, even when its speed is reduced by collision with the mounting debris pile.

WTC7 covered a city block in NYC about the size of a football field.

It was surrounded by perimeter columns which were a major part of that moment frame.

A moment frame that we know had SW corner damage and a multi-storey center gouge on its south side.

The view of the north side of WTC7 during its collapse, shows that whatever was happening on the lower floors, it was happening synchronously and at a speed that was removing all the perimeter columns as if they were not there.



I agree that in other views, later in the collapse, the remaining WTC7 begins to lean south.

But what significance does this hold when considering WTC7's incredible collapse speed and vertical stability, while being totally destroyed in seconds?

Why would floor by floor, all the perimeter columns suddenly offer no resistance?

On the northern, western and eastern sides of WTC7, there was little known physical damage to the perimeter columns.

But at 5:20 p.m. on 9/11, all the perimeter columns for 8 floors, behaved as if they were removed by human intervention.

WTC7 could not miraculously transfer vertical load to the perimeter columns with such orchestrated perfection as to make all 4 sides of WTC7 drop for 8 storeys with such vertical precision.

Office furnishing's fires did not create this.

MM

You still fear showing the aerial pic that has wtc7 draped across WTC 7?

Those exterior panels lying on top of the rubble, north face panels lying on top of debris south of the building MM. Shows that the major part of the building fell south

North perimeter columns below the transfer trusses were shoved north as the south end of those trusses collapsed when the columns of the core failed. That resulted in no ability of the north side to be supported.

There is NO sustained descent at g which would be required in your scenario. Instead acceleration ramps up to and exceeds g. Your assertions cannot explain that at all.

Basically yours is nothing but bare assertion with no technical backing whatsoever. Isn't it about time that AE911T actually did an engineering study , an FEA, to determine if their bald claims have any weight. Talk about insufficient support.......

 

[Richard the G]

Every 6 months these subjects reappear and the same arguments are rehashed. Except the more they repeat the less technical the detail.

 

[jaydeehess]

Every 6 months these subjects reappear and the same arguments are rehashed. Except the more they repeat the less technical the detail.

Exactly!

AE911T has made claims about, for instance, Wtc7' fire spread, claiming it could not follow the path that the NIST fea indicated it did. Instead of running their own fea they backed the utterly simplistic musings of a carpenter who seems to have used MSPaint to produce illustrations of how he , with no experience and no technical backing, assumes the fire would spread. So one wonders why a cadre of engineers would not only wait a decade, but also back such a ridiculously flawed report (random musings).

Much the same can be said of the claim that FFA = CD. This is the musing of a high school physics teacher that no engineer has bothered to investigate in technical form. Instead AE911T chooses to simply accept such a claim as does the video editor above, MM.

 

[LSSBB]

Every 6 months these subjects reappear and the same arguments are rehashed. Except the more they repeat the less technical the detail.

I specifically started this thread to address the free fall claim separately, so whenever it comes up elsewhere on a derail, the offending slice of Gish gallop can be referenced back here. It also serves as an easy reference solely for the free fall claim, which seems to be a core tenet of the Truther creed.
Yes, it is simple. And a high school physics teacher should be able to tell that a bouncy acceleration graph is not proof of constant free fall.