Merged Freefall is not evidence for Controlled Demolition

[LSSBB]

No particular reason that I have not participated since 2008. The reason I returned was because I saw a reference to JREF and that reminded that I had been here before. I had condensed some things NIST had stated regarding WTC7 into a short, simple proof. So I decided to post it here to see if anyone here could disprove it. To argue against the proof is to argue against NIST. But, I see a lot of people do not agree. But, I have yet to see it disproved. And thanks for the welcome back to the forums.

Yet to see what disproved? No one has yet proven a significant period where the building was freely falling, and no one has proven that it is impossible for the observed exterior of a freely collapsing building to reach, or even exceed, freefall acceleration.

 

[jaydeehess]

Mark F replies:
"Beyond the fact that no one has ever given a satisfactory reason why we should even care about free-fall, it was not in their mandate for NIST to go any farther than they did."
I don't think we're disagreeing. The claim is supposed to be that these 2.25 seconds actually undermine the accuracy of the simulations they provided - as simulations of the collapse. If this is the case, then even if the NIST study is valuable vis-a-vis building safety, it brings into question its value vis-a-vis an accurate explanation of the collapse.

Again, even if this isn't the general purpose of NIST or their study, it's of independent interest whether this aspect of the study is accurate or not.

No simulation will ever 100% match observed collapse. That is impossible. If it were possible one would expect that someone among 2000 professionals in the business of structural design would have produced it sometime in the last dozen years.
However, the claim here us specifically that the fea based animation shows no basis for a free fall period of 2.25 seconds.
There are several problems with the claim. First, as pointed out above, there is a point in the animation at which there is basically no column at the eight floor level, that is less than around 45 degrees from vertical. At that tilt, with consequent loss of bottom end constraint ( the fastening of columns to foundation, disallowing that end from sliding away) would result in basically zero vertical support for the 40 floor section above.
Second, AE911T's characterization of the 2.25 second period is not accurate. It is rather disingenuous to accuse NIST of not explaining every detail if one is going to be equal or greater in one's parsimony wrt detail. In point of fact that time period saw the acelleration, of the points on the building being monitored, to increase to 'g' only as as it further increased through that rate. So what? Well, given that in simple vertical motion no object falling freely can exceed 'g' unless another force on that object is in play. Secondly, this collapse was decidedly not 1d event. It was a sequence of collapse taking place in, obviously ( though AE911T never seems to grasp this), in a 3 dimensional structure. Thus simple vertical motion analysis is most certainly vastly too simplistic an analysis on which to make the declarations that AE911T does. Rotational effects can easily increase the 1d measurement and show an increase in acceleration.
Internal collapse as is patently obvious as happening prior to facade fall, can cause a leveraged downward force on the structure of the facade, thus increasing the force causing the facade to fall.

AE911T's declarative statements simply do not take into account anything other than a simplistic, high school level , analysis, yet they tout this as a challenge to the extreme number crunching that is the NIST finite element analysis!

It is commonly known as folly to bring a knife to a gun battle. What does it say then of the group that doesn't even understand that they are the one holding a knife while the other guy brandishes a .45 automatic?

 

[beachnut]

No particular reason that I have not participated since 2008. The reason I returned was because I saw a reference to JREF and that reminded that I had been here before. I had condensed some things NIST had stated regarding WTC7 into a short, simple proof. So I decided to post it here to see if anyone here could disprove it. To argue against the proof is to argue against NIST. But, I see a lot of people do not agree. But, I have yet to see it disproved. And thanks for the welcome back to the forums.

It is BS, nonsense, fantasy. You took stuff made up by nuts in 911 truth, it was wrong at

Can you disprove this simple proof?
I. Given that “free fall is impossible for a naturally collapsing building”

Your first statement is false. You made it up, or plagiarized if from the 911 truth CD fantasy bag of woo.

A lie makes your proof silly nonsense. Out of the box wrong. Bet the Bilbo guy will like your lies packaged up to look like a proof. Copy and paste 911 truth lies, and make it look like a proof.
http://bilbos1.blogspot.com/2013/12/example-2-of-relevant-evidence-of-wtc.html

There are people who fall for lies like you do.

 

[jaydeehess]

jaydeehess replies:
"THAT is what it would take to have me consider the veracity of any group's bitch on this aspect of the NIST investigation."

Thanks for the reply. While I agree more generally that one problem with trutherism is the failure to provide a comparably thorough and comprehensive theory, rather than a series of factoids and apparent anomalies, that doesn't by itself undercut the proposed objection to the NIST study. One could, for example, agree with Bilbo that NIST should come up with a new simulation yet reject the controlled demolition hypothesis.

No it doesn't. Read horatious', ozecos, and my posts in this thread. (ETA: add LSSB to that list, probably others I have missed) The premise of the challenge to NIST fails in its own veracity in the first place. Its similar to asking if you have stopped beating your wife.

I have a problem with the characterization of the list you posted a few pages back as containing "factoids" since each of them are either ignoring details inconvenient to the supposed veracity of the statement, misstatement of fact, or outright incorrect.

 

[egalicontrarian]

beachnut replies:

"You have asked no question, and have no position? And I am off topic?"
While it's implicit in my posting on this particular thread, you're right that I should have stated an explicit question. That question is: what do people think of this more narrow version of the "free fall" argument, and why?

"Relevant? Bilbo is a CTer on 911, and he thinks crazy web sites which lie politely offer evidence. They don't, I am on topic and Bilbo is full of woo."
You are not on topic because this thread is not about which websites Bilbo likes or whether he is full of woo.

"Did you read NIST? No."
We can assume for the sake of argument that I haven't even heard of NIST, let alone read anything by them. My post didn't presuppose that I had read NIST.

"You sure to lay on what you think is fancy talk."
I am more than happy to explain any terminology or concepts that are too fancy; but you have to identify what those are before I can explain them.

"BTW, CD will never be credible, it is a fantasy. So your claim it might is woo."
I suspect as well that CD will never be credible. What I was interested in here is a particular argument - more modest than the one considered earlier.

"You don't believe 911 was an inside job, so what do you need?"
Primarily, I find the phenomenon of laypersons taking themselves to be competent to adjudicate expert disputes to be itself interesting, and I enjoy things that interest me. Moreover, of the many cases of this phenomenon, I find 911 trutherism the most interesting. And again - I enjoy things that interest me.

Let me know if you have any other illuminating commentary!

 

[egalicontrarian]

In reply to jaydeehess:

I agree with you that truther literature glosses over important general facts like that things like simulations are always idealized in some respects, and that their literature uses high school-level science in a way that glosses over the fact that much more than high school science is involved in these studies. Both of these things help the truther movement convince laypersons, and are part of the reason why, as a layperson, my credence in truther literature is even lower now than it was in the past.

 

[beachnut]

beachnut replies:

"You have asked no question, and have no position? And I am off topic?"
While it's implicit in my posting on this particular thread, you're right that I should have stated an explicit question. That question is: what do people think of this more narrow version of the "free fall" argument, and why? ...

There are good answers to your implicit question. You could read NIST too.

"Relevant? Bilbo is a CTer on 911, and he thinks crazy web sites which lie politely offer evidence. They don't, I am on topic and Bilbo is full of woo."
You are not on topic because this thread is not about which websites Bilbo likes or whether he is full of woo. ...

When your friend Bilbo links to web sites based on nonsense about 911, it is a good sign his 911 claims are BS. And what do you know, Bilbo's blog on 911 issues are hogwash. Woo, born of woo, worshiping woo.

"Did you read NIST? No."
We can assume for the sake of argument that I haven't even heard of NIST, let alone read anything by them. My post didn't presuppose that I had read NIST. ...

Your post would be evidence you did not read NIST. yes.

"You sure to lay on what you think is fancy talk."
I am more than happy to explain any terminology or concepts that are too fancy; but you have to identify what those are before I can explain them. ...

Thanks. Pilots need all the help they can get, and pilots who had everything, like me, need more. "how do you know... "

"BTW, CD will never be credible, it is a fantasy. So your claim it might is woo."
I suspect as well that CD will never be credible. What I was interested in here is a particular argument - more modest than the one considered earlier. ...

Any layperson with some skills in research, reading comprehension, and logic can see Bilbo's argument is faulty.
The argument was based on a fantasy. Like debating Santa Claus, what is the purpose. I can make my 11 year old support Santa to her sisters by explaining what Santa will fail to bring her. Bilbo's evidence is nonsense, thus my contention you can take his evidence and apply it to any fantasy and be equally effective. No wonder why 911 truth remains in the pit of ignorance, only fooling the gullible; like Bilbo, your friend.

"You don't believe 911 was an inside job, so what do you need?"
Primarily, I find the phenomenon of laypersons taking themselves to be competent to adjudicate expert disputes to be itself interesting, and I enjoy things that interest me. Moreover, of the many cases of this phenomenon, I find 911 trutherism the most interesting. And again - I enjoy things that interest me. ...

I have "met" a layperson who can debunk all of 911 truth, and their major is English. Seems knowing English, having the ability to research and comprehend can be as knowledgeable as an engineer, mathematician, and physics on 911 issues. What is you major?

Let me know if you have any other illuminating commentary!

Your friend Bilbo posts lies about 911. He cuts and pastes his way to CT woo-land. You posted silly claims which have no merit from Bilbo.
The CT that Bilbo has is not defined, has no supporting evidence; which is indicative of 911 truth. You think 911 truth has something, but you can't find any evidence. 12 years, 911 truth has failed to produce any evidence, and you will not be reading NIST.

 

[alienentity]

jaydeehess replies:
One could, for example, agree with Bilbo that NIST should come up with a new simulation yet reject the controlled demolition hypothesis.

That's why this whole inquiry has been a scientific dead-end for a while now: there is no hard evidence to support the controlled demolition theory, while there is hard evidence to support the fire/collapse theory. (After all, the fires were a fact, as is the damage they can do to steel components)

So yes, CD remains an alternative, but ultimately failed hypothesis. There are a number of other equally improbable conspiracy theories out there, including one which involves some kind of death ray (Judy Wood and her followers).

So what? NIST has no responsibility to appease die-hard conspiracists who would reject any finding that disagreed with them anyway. You're not going to shut up all the nutjobs no matter what you do.

Scientifically the matter is settled, although nobody will ever have all the exact details of the collapses, since they were not observable and have to be inferred through models. Just as the first JFK bullet is inferred by the injury of a witness by chards of concrete, and the actual bullet which killed JFK can never be actually seen in any minute detail as it did the damage.
Most rational people will accept (as they should) that LHO shot JFK twice and killed him. You can certainly speculate about his motivations and connections, but nothing can be proved about them.
But the insistence on an alternative hypothesis as inherently 'better' because it isn't official is just plain silly - yet in both instances (JFK and 9/11) the 'official' story is rejected by the conspiracist in favour of more exotic and unproven ideas.
So it is, and so it will be.

You're right - NIST's analysis is not perfect, but that doesn't mean there were explosives in any of the buildings. That's where you get an A and truthers get an F.

 

[jaydeehess]

Aliene, pls edit my name out. It looks like I wrote that.

 

[kid meatball]

But, I have yet to see it disproved.

You need to do some reading. There are 290 posts in this thread. There are probably dozens of posts that disprove your free fall=cd and NIST said so. There are posts that disprove it long before you posted your "logic."

The disproof is simple and has been said repeatedly in the last 24 hours. While your logic is sound, your "givens" are fiction. My first post in this thread ruins your proof. Free fall is not a distinct characteristic of a controlled demolition. Unless you can find an analysis of the thousands of controlled demolitions that highlights the distinct appearance of a brief free fall in the building then you have a leg to stand on. This means that it is up to you to provide proof that free fall is very common in controlled demolitions. Until then, free fall has nothing in common with deliberate demolition.

 

[Brass]

If WTC7 was a controlled demolition, then why did the following happen?

- WTC7 collapse ravaged nearby buildings. Controlled demolitions don't do that - that's why they're called "controlled."

- Why did the East Mechanical Penthouse fall, which was followed by a 5-10 second delay, and then the rest of the building go?

- Where are the very loud and obvious detonations seconds before the collapse? Surely that would have been captured on film?

- Where are the very obvious blast of light? Surely that would have been captured on film?

- Why did FDNY Chief Daniel Nigro set up a collapse zone at 2:30 PM EST on 9/11; three full hours before the building collapsed? He made the decision to do it, no one told him.

Answer those, and then maybe we'll talk...

Spoiler: He won't.

Bumping these so david.watts can see them and answer them.

I mean, ask questions and demand answers, right?

 

[Mark F]

Mark F replies:
"Beyond the fact that no one has ever given a satisfactory reason why we should even care about free-fall, it was not in their mandate for NIST to go any farther than they did."
I don't think we're disagreeing. The claim is supposed to be that these 2.25 seconds actually undermine the accuracy of the simulations they provided - as simulations of the collapse.

Then whoever is making such a claim should present their evidence that 2.25 seconds of free-fall (actually that was just an average over 2.25 seconds - part of it was faster, part slower) undermines NIST's collapse model even though the were not trying to explain 2.25 secs of FFA.

This period of FFA occurred after the collapse was initiated. NIST's interest is what initiated the collapse. Once the collapse is initiated the building is going to do what it is going to do and whatever that is may be of some minor academic interest or amateur amusement but I fail to see how it sheds any light upon future improvements in building safety. That latter bit is what NIST is all about.

Again, even if this isn't the general purpose of NIST or their study, it's of independent interest whether this aspect of the study is accurate or not.

Then some independent group with access to say, around 2,000 experts should independently study this. I fail to see why my tax dollars should be involved in trying to appease a handful of internet lunatics who can't grasp that how fast something falls tells you nothing about why it fell.

 

[jaydeehess]

Explaining a short period of acceleration near 'g' (both above and below) is of academic interest to a small group. 9/11 conspiracy theorists and 9/11 conspiracy debunkers. That's about it!

I personally see no particular use for knowing, let alone hypothesizing, the minutia of a time period of 2.25 seconds in a collapse that had started 15+ seconds earlier. By that time the dynamic interactions within the structure are quite chaotic. There is no way to truly determine what was specifically happening inside the structure either. How anyone could possibly get details correct beyond what the NIST fea illustrated , with any confidence in its veracity, is beyond me.

 

[ozeco41]

....I had condensed some things NIST had stated regarding WTC7 into a short, simple proof...

You keep claiming it is a "proof" when it isn't. Setting aside your untruthfulness on that aspect this was the opening statement of your post which claimed to present a "proof":

Can you disprove this simple proof?....

..there are at least two fatal errors in those six words. That alone must be some sort of record.

ERROR #1 - Every element of fact which your claim relies on is in error. The logic you rely on requires logical AND of all those elements. So you are not simply wrong but wrong several times over.

ERROR #2 - it is NOT our burden to prove your claim wrong - it is your burden to prove it right. You have not done so. And you have ignored advice which has identified multiple errors of fact for you.

So your claim does not warrant any response - the errors of fact have been identified for you. I identified that all your claimed facts are in error. Other members have variously identified that some of the facts as claimed by you are wrong.

...But, I see a lot of people do not agree.

Stop playing mendacity by word twisting and innuendo. You have been shown where your claimed facts are wrong.

...But, I have yet to see it disproved.

Try reading the posted responses. Your claimed facts are wrong. You are claiming things which are not true when a lot of the errors have been identified for you.

 

[Redwood]

Unless there are any truthers who believe that the shell of WTC 7 would have remained standing after the fall of the penthouses and can explain how the fall of the north facade is actually independent of the internal collapse and can provide a motive for the Vast Conspiracy to bring down the north facade at g for a distance of ~30 meters, this discussion is completely academic, IMHO.

 

[LSSBB]

Unless there are any truthers who believe that the shell of WTC 7 would have remained standing after the fall of the penthouses and can explain how the fall of the north facade is actually independent of the internal collapse and can provide a motive for the Vast Conspiracy to bring down the north facade at g for a distance of ~30 meters, this discussion is completely academic, IMHO.

That's the thing, Truthers come blazing thinking they are armed with the killer evidence, only There's No There, There. They are shooting blanks and don't know it.

 

[egalicontrarian]

jaydeehess replies:
"Explaining a short period of acceleration near 'g' (both above and below) is of academic interest to a small group. 9/11 conspiracy theorists and 9/11 conspiracy debunkers. That's about it!"
Granted, but surely this should also be of interest to a forum specifically on 9/11 conspiracy theories, in a thread specifically on what a period of free fall proves.

"I personally see no particular use for knowing, let alone hypothesizing, the minutia of a time period of 2.25 seconds in a collapse that had started 15+ seconds earlier. By that time the dynamic interactions within the structure are quite chaotic. There is no way to truly determine what was specifically happening inside the structure either. How anyone could possibly get details correct beyond what the NIST fea illustrated , with any confidence in its veracity, is beyond me."
This is a fine point - it challenges specifically the claims that (i) NIST's simulation doesn't account for the 2.25 seconds in a way that is relevant to explaining the cause of the collapse and (ii) that we can make any particularly confident claim about what even could explain the 2.25 seconds. But as a layperson - which I am and, as far as I can tell, you are as well - it is at least somewhat important to know that experts themselves are convinced that this is a good enough reason not to pursue this particular question any further.

 

[alienentity]

Aliene, pls edit my name out. It looks like I wrote that.

Sorry 'bout that. By the time I saw this my editing window was closed.

 

[alienentity]

jaydeehess replies:
"Explaining a short period of acceleration near 'g' (both above and below) is of academic interest to a small group. 9/11 conspiracy theorists and 9/11 conspiracy debunkers. That's about it!"
Granted, but surely this should also be of interest to a forum specifically on 9/11 conspiracy theories, in a thread specifically on what a period of free fall proves.

Now that you mention it, this 'freefall' thing didn't start the conspiracy fever; it's one of the artifacts of it.
Both Niels Harrit and Stephen Jones have remarked that they were initially drawn into the web of woo upon discovering building 7 and noticing that it, in their uneducated opinions, looked like a controlled demolition.

Back in those days it was fashionable for conspiracists to edit the video so it contained no audio and began just before global collapse. That way it had the strongest similarity to a real CD if one didn't notice the omissions.
Hmmm, not much has changed in all those years - it's still being misrepresented, but now with added 'freefall' and magic 'nanothermite'.
The woo just grows over time, left to itself.

 

[egalicontrarian]

alienentity replies:
"Now that you mention it, this 'freefall' thing didn't start the conspiracy fever; it's one of the artifacts of it.
Both Niels Harrit and Stephen Jones have remarked that they were initially drawn into the web of woo upon discovering building 7 and noticing that it, in their uneducated opinions, looked like a controlled demolition. Back in those days it was fashionable for conspiracists to edit the video so it contained no audio and began just before global collapse. That way it had the strongest similarity to a real CD if one didn't notice the omissions."

I agree with this, and it's one of the reasons why, as a layperson, it's so hard to place any trust at all in the testimony of the leaders of the truth movement, even when those leaders have some form of relevant expertise. The history of the movement undermines its own epistemic credibility.