ozeco41
Philosopher
And, at the risk of jumping two steps ahead, that sequence by itself disproves published truther claims for CD.
But I will see if david.watts wants to take it step by step.
Merged Freefall is not evidence for Controlled Demolition
- Thread starter LSSBB
- Start date
And, at the risk of jumping two steps ahead, that sequence by itself disproves published truther claims for CD.
But I will see if david.watts wants to take it step by step.
LSSBB
Devilish Dictionarian
I echo what the others said in reply, and reiterate that:
1. There is no evidence supporting a sustained period of "free fall"
2. Therefore NIST's statement regarding "free fall" is irrelevant.
I am not here to defend NIST. I am here to get to the Truth. How about you?
Seymour Butz
Muse
- Joined
- Jun 20, 2008
- Messages
- 884
There's a simpler thing that proves his question to be irrelevant.
NIST was talking about the north face ONLY. and since any same person would agree that some internal structures failed, resulting in the drop of the penthouse some 7 seconds before global collapse, then it's undeniably true that the entirety of 7 at no time was in free fall.
LSSBB
Devilish Dictionarian
This also is correct. I saw Beachnut make reference to this before. The Center of Gravity of WTC7 did not get to free fall acceleration, and thus the assembly as a whole. It was good of you to bring up the point that all observations are of the observable portion of the exterior only.
The Big Dog
Unregistered
- Joined
- Jul 26, 2007
- Messages
- 29,742
Simple.
NIST did not say that:
Chndler:
"Any number of
measurements using a variety of methods indicate the northwest corner of WTC 7 fell with an
acceleration within a few percent of the acceleration of gravity.
Yet your report contradicts this,
c
laiming 40 percent slower
than free fall, based on a single data point."
Shyam Sunder: Well, the-first of all, gravity is the loading function that applies to the structure-applies
to all bodies on this particular-on this planet, not just in Ground Zero. The analysis showed there is a
difference in time between a free fall time-a free fall time would be an object that has no structural
components below it. And if you look at the analysis of the video, it shows that the time it takes for the
17-for the roof line of the video to collapse down the 17 floors that you can actually see in the video,
below which you can't see anything in the video, is about 3.9 seconds. What the analysis shows, and the
structural analysis shows, or the collapse analysis shows, is that same that it took for the structural
model to come down from the roof line all the way for those 17 floors to disappear is 5.4 seconds. It's
about 1.5 seconds, or roughly 40 percent, more time for that free fall to happen. And that is not at all
unusual, because there was structural resistance that was provided in this particular case. And you had a
sequence of structural failures that had to take place. Everything was not instantaneous.
Not gonna fix the formatting, david. Problem?
lolz
LSSBB
Devilish Dictionarian
david.watts
... Given that “free fall is impossible for a naturally collapsing building” due to the structural components below providing resistance ...
alienentity
... It's a bare assertion, made by a person who isn't a structural engineer, nor a demolitions expert, nor even a forensic fire and safety expert.
So I reject the statement as unsupported ...
That bare assertion is supported by physics. I know, alienentity even rejected physics as unsupported years ago when he simpliy added the fall times of different building parts. Funny but true.
Mark F
... NIST had a mandate to find out what initiated the collapse and argue the details all you want, they got that fundamentally right. Job done. ...
NIST described just the wrong collapse mechanism. They knew before what they wanted to accomplish. They described it in the Interim Report years before the Final Report.
...and OOPS, the FEA did exactly that BUT they had to plant additional fires, they had to guide the fire by opening the windows (not by threshold temperatures) but by hand, they had to raise the temperature of the column in question for hours and hours (and hours after the last photographic evidence for any fire in that region) just to reach the necessary temperature. At the same time they needed an unbarced column length of 3 floors minimum just to bow that column in time. And miraculously their hand guided FEA did all of this but collapsed much to slow and in a complete different fashion. Job not done.
old ranting Beachnut
... and no clue what physics is.
Right, NIST had no clue what perspective is. Therefore they measured a horizontal "pull in" of the north wall as seen by "camera 3" as downward movement and declared that wrong measurement as slow onset of downward movement.
And that "stage one" of a slow onset of "downward" movement was their evidence for "structural components below providing resistance".
Now go back to what David Watts wrote. Of course, it's the same argument that Chandler used. Tell your never learning friend Alienentity about that physical phenomenon.
Btw, where is your calculation to determine 1) the center of mass of the falling WTC7 and 2) how fast is it according to your calculation?
...or did you just adapted my old description about the still connected falling core that pulled the north face 1) inside and 2) accelerated it above gravity downwards after total failure?
But be careful! I'm sure you heavily criticized me for these thoughts about a falling center of mass behind that north wall.
And yes, I remember that the old thread about the "NIST free fall failure" never came to an end because no one could explain how the entire middle section of the core could have changed from standing to falling within a fraction of a second. There was no such thing like a slow onset and there was no such thing like a crumbling core inside the building. The NIST FEA is pure fantasy. The entire middle section of the core went down as one piece and was still connected to the outer shell.
If you have eyes and understand physics (just like you always need to tell everybody unasked) then you can see it just by looking at the FALLING building.
Please provide your calculations and publish it peer reviewed at FOX just to be sure you are right. If you need any measurements, please go to the web page of major tom. There you will find anything you need. ;-)
... Given that “free fall is impossible for a naturally collapsing building” due to the structural components below providing resistance ...
alienentity
... It's a bare assertion, made by a person who isn't a structural engineer, nor a demolitions expert, nor even a forensic fire and safety expert.
So I reject the statement as unsupported ...
That bare assertion is supported by physics. I know, alienentity even rejected physics as unsupported years ago when he simpliy added the fall times of different building parts. Funny but true.
Mark F
... NIST had a mandate to find out what initiated the collapse and argue the details all you want, they got that fundamentally right. Job done. ...
NIST described just the wrong collapse mechanism. They knew before what they wanted to accomplish. They described it in the Interim Report years before the Final Report.
...and OOPS, the FEA did exactly that BUT they had to plant additional fires, they had to guide the fire by opening the windows (not by threshold temperatures) but by hand, they had to raise the temperature of the column in question for hours and hours (and hours after the last photographic evidence for any fire in that region) just to reach the necessary temperature. At the same time they needed an unbarced column length of 3 floors minimum just to bow that column in time. And miraculously their hand guided FEA did all of this but collapsed much to slow and in a complete different fashion. Job not done.
old ranting Beachnut
... and no clue what physics is.
Right, NIST had no clue what perspective is. Therefore they measured a horizontal "pull in" of the north wall as seen by "camera 3" as downward movement and declared that wrong measurement as slow onset of downward movement.
And that "stage one" of a slow onset of "downward" movement was their evidence for "structural components below providing resistance".
Now go back to what David Watts wrote. Of course, it's the same argument that Chandler used. Tell your never learning friend Alienentity about that physical phenomenon.
Btw, where is your calculation to determine 1) the center of mass of the falling WTC7 and 2) how fast is it according to your calculation?
...or did you just adapted my old description about the still connected falling core that pulled the north face 1) inside and 2) accelerated it above gravity downwards after total failure?
But be careful! I'm sure you heavily criticized me for these thoughts about a falling center of mass behind that north wall.
And yes, I remember that the old thread about the "NIST free fall failure" never came to an end because no one could explain how the entire middle section of the core could have changed from standing to falling within a fraction of a second. There was no such thing like a slow onset and there was no such thing like a crumbling core inside the building. The NIST FEA is pure fantasy. The entire middle section of the core went down as one piece and was still connected to the outer shell.
If you have eyes and understand physics (just like you always need to tell everybody unasked) then you can see it just by looking at the FALLING building.
Please provide your calculations and publish it peer reviewed at FOX just to be sure you are right. If you need any measurements, please go to the web page of major tom. There you will find anything you need. ;-)
kid meatball
Critical Thinker
- Joined
- May 6, 2013
- Messages
- 303
But you can't see or hear any explosions. Hmm. Don't all deliberate demolitions use really loud explosions? Wait, you're going to show us all the silent, controlled demolitions of buildings now, aren't you? To prove me wrong, I mean. I'm wrong, aren't I? They take down buildings with undetectable bombs all the time, don't they?
911KookDetector
Thinker
IT MUST HAVE BEEN DA NANOTERMITES!
egalicontrarian
Scholar
- Joined
- Nov 23, 2013
- Messages
- 65
Bilbo has been replying to some of the points made here, as I've been debating with him. Again, I have to put spaces in the link since I'm new:
http: //bilbos1.blogspot.com/2013/12/example-2-of-relevant-evidence-of-wtc. html
http: //bilbos1.blogspot.com/2013/12/example-2-of-relevant-evidence-of-wtc. html
You don't understand physics, that is not news. Free-fall is not a sign of CD, so you don't do physics. You spread lies.
12 years of failure. Wait, are you saying Free-fall is not evidence for Controlled Demolition, the weak insult had me laughing to much to figure out what you are trying to say, or explain?. Better try again. 12 years and what have you proved? nothing
http://bilbos1.blogspot.com/2013/12/example-2-of-relevant-evidence-of-wtc.html
Poor Bilbo is lost in woo on 911. If he has a rational side, you need to have him apply his critical thinking skills to 911 truth to see the massive fraud, and silly lies.
http://bilbos1.blogspot.com/2013/12/example-2-of-relevant-evidence-of-wtc.html
It is like debunking Santa to a 5 year old. Don't do it. If he was an engineer, or able to comprehend engineering and physics (which any smart layperson can, and do) he would not be so silly making excuses for the lies, and the fantasy of CD made up my nuts in 911 truth.
it is sad people fall for 911 truth lies so easy, and without effort
Not sure you can get more "cartoon physics", or be more wrong.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BV7TPvk__kE
faster than g, all in a gravity collapse. OOPS, 911 truth is wrong, Got Physics?
Last edited:
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
They are not incorrect. As illustrated in the fea based animation, at the time that ffa+ period takes place, the columns of the lower floors were buckled far from vertical. A column at 45 deg theoretically still takes half the load it did while vertical. However that requires the column be restrained in the horizontal at both ends otherwise it offers no load bearing capability.
It would absorb some velocity through momentum transfer from falling mass on lower, relatively stationary lower columns. The mass ratio is no less than 40:7, meaning at best this would reduce falling mass velocity by a max of about 12%.
Next: did the entire north half of the structure fall in one solid piece?
911KookDetector
Thinker
Good point, beachnut. I'm college educated but I'm not an engineer like yourself. I may not be able to understand most of the crazy differential equations and what not you guys do, but one certainly doesn't need to be a credentialed P.E. or physicist to laugh at the endless amounts of woo within 911 twoof.
Although I consider myself a layman in regards to these fields, I like to think that I have a fundamental knowledge of basic concepts of physics and engineering which allow me to dismiss most 911 Truther claims within seconds, anyway.
Actually, I feel like I have substantially increased my knowledge not only on the 911 attacks but in these fields as a whole, simply from reading the NIST reports, ASCE Building Performance Report, Bazant and Zhou, Gilsanz and Ng etc.
Why do 911 Twoofers avoid these scientific papers, and where are THEIRS after 12+ years? What about their alternate calculations? I have been asking this question vehemently throughout my debunking career. Do you have any idea where these things are for Truthers, beachnut?
david.watts
Critical Thinker
- Joined
- Nov 25, 2008
- Messages
- 293
Watch -- I know you already have -- the videos of WTC7 collapsing. Now let me ask: How is it possible for WTC 7 to go into instant free fall? And I mean it was instant. First, the penthouse fell. Second, the building remained standing , the roofline perfectly still/stationary. -- it was supported by structural resistance. Third, it instantly began free falling from a standstill. It was instant. The building was standing still. It was up straight supported by the resistance below; its roofline perfectly level and not moving; then, … instant free fall. After the penthouse fell:
“What is particularly striking is the suddenness of onset of free fall. Acceleration doesn’t build up gradually. The graph [measuring the building’s descent] simply turns a corner. The building went from full support to zero support instantly.” (...i.e., from a standstill instantly into a free fall. Does anything NIST says contradict this? And if it does, does that agree with what we can all see in the videos?)
“The onset of freefall was not only sudden, it extended across the whole width of the building… The fact the roof stayed level shows the building was in free fall across the entire width.”
Everything above matches exactly what anyone can see in the many videos.
Do not any of you see what I -- and most people -- see? I expect all of you to say, "no, that's not what I see." If so, what the heck are you seeing?
“What is particularly striking is the suddenness of onset of free fall. Acceleration doesn’t build up gradually. The graph [measuring the building’s descent] simply turns a corner. The building went from full support to zero support instantly.” (...i.e., from a standstill instantly into a free fall. Does anything NIST says contradict this? And if it does, does that agree with what we can all see in the videos?)
“The onset of freefall was not only sudden, it extended across the whole width of the building… The fact the roof stayed level shows the building was in free fall across the entire width.”
Everything above matches exactly what anyone can see in the many videos.
Do not any of you see what I -- and most people -- see? I expect all of you to say, "no, that's not what I see." If so, what the heck are you seeing?
It doesn't - check out the NIST acceleration graphs. The rest of your approach to this question fails for this very reason.
Meanwhile if we accept what you claim as gospel truth we're left with the conclusion that thousands of charges detonated simultaneously in order to remove 8 storeys-worth of support. That's nuts as a concept alone, and in reality the absence of thousands of visible flashes and the deafening and damaging blast wave proves it wrong.
You have hitched your wagon to an insane horse. Get off quick!
Clayton Moore
Banned
- Joined
- Apr 23, 2008
- Messages
- 7,508
If/when the Penthouse fell the enabling structural damage was below the penthouse. How did that enabling structural damage expand and gear up to enable a global collapse? Damage is not multi-directional it's DOWN.
egalicontrarian
Scholar
- Joined
- Nov 23, 2013
- Messages
- 65
While the brevity and superficiality of Bilbo's posts often do indicate insufficient effort on his part as a layperson adjudicating a technical dispute, the overwhelming majority of your comments, beachnut, have been much worse. They are almost pure rhetoric, and not very helpful. As you can see in my thread with Bilbo, what I am more interested in are substantive points. The last point you make in your post could be interesting if it involved more than a random Youtube clip, which shouldn't convince anyone of anything (a common strategy of truthers themselves, of course).
Anyway, it would be fun if more people might actually participate in my debate with Bilbo.
ozeco41
Philosopher
(Shifted goalposts noted - and your lack of response to advice offered by several members.)
It didn't - Why ask the question?
That is one funny definition of "instant' - First this second that third something else - yet you call it "instant".
The rest of the post is too confused to respond to.
You need to decide what you mean by "the building".