Merged Freefall is not evidence for Controlled Demolition

[ozeco41]

...In fact, to speed things up I barely skimmed your posts for that very reason.

Sure - you know where I would be coming from.

And my recent posts mostly explanatory stuff for d.w....

....my answer to the OP in three letters "Yes"

 

[Richard the G]

Some want me to state things wrong with the NIST report. I copy and pasted the following from, of course, ae911truth. How do you treat the following:


NIST used numerous unscientific methods and fraudulent inputs to get the key girder to fail in its computer simulation.

NIST arbitrarily added 10% to the temperature results of its fire dynamics simulation (FDS)

To get the shear studs on the floor beams to fail, NIST assumed high steel temperatures and applied the heat in 1-1/2 seconds over the entire north east part of floor 13. This method does not allow for heat dispersal or beam sagging.

NIST heated the floor beams, but not the slab. Since concrete expands at 85% the rate of steel, leaving this expansion out of the calculations of the failure of the shear studs is fraudulent.

NIST failed to account for beam sag that would have prevented the floor beams from expanding lengthwise more than 4.75 inches.

Thermal expansion would cause the bottom flange to expand more than the top flange, forcing the beam to bow downward. The NIST hypothesis does not allow for downward bowing.

9/11 researcher David Cole went through the hundreds of drawings and found drawing 1091 which shows the girder seat was 12 inches wide (as noted above), not the 11 inches claimed in the final report. He also found drawing 9114, which shows flange stiffeners at the column 79 end of the girder between column 44 and 79.

NIST omitted these flange stiffeners that would have prevented the bottom flange from folding as required for their collapse to begin. The girder would have to be pushed almost all the way off the seat, not just half way, before the bottom flange would buckle

NIST’s drawing of column 79 omits flange stiffeners that would have prevented the girder's failure

Even those who have accepted the official story must acknowledge that NIST’s misstatements of its own report are not mistakes. They are bending the facts to accommodate a theory that cannot, so to speak, stand up.

Structural engineer Ron Brookman found that the Salvarinas “Fabrication and Construction Aspects” a document that outlines the basic structural system of WTC 7, shows 30 shear studs on the girder in question.

Davin Coburn, editor/researcher for Popular Mechanics, told Charles Goyette in this radio interview that he had seen a photo of the 10-story gouge
Coburn: "When the North Tower collapsed … there was damage to Building 7 … What we found out was … about 25% of the building’s south face had been carved away from it …"
“We have seen pictures that are property of the NY Police Department and various other governmental agencies that we were not given permission to disseminate …”
Goyette: "Popular Mechanics got to see them, but the average American citizen can’t see them."
Coburn: "Correct."

Shyam Sunder misinforms Popular Mechanics in the article “Debunking The 9/11 Myths” by telling the writers that there was a fire on floor five of WTC7 that lasted up to seven hours. There was no fire reported on that floor and no reason to think there was one.

We read of NIST’s contention that heat had caused five 13th floor beams, framing into a long span girder, to expand.* They said that 5.5” was enough to push the girder across its 11” seat on column 79 beyond the vertical web, so that the lower flange of the girder became exposed to the entire weight of that floor area. NIST said that the flange could not support that load and folded upwards.

We further noted that NIST said that the 5.5” expansion was the maximum possible expansion. This is because any additional heating would soften the beam, leading to sagging rather than any greater pushing.

Thus NIST’s claim of an 11” beam seat and the maximum push of 5.5” were inextricably interwoven. Both had to be true for NIST's explanation to work. When NIST was notified last year about the seat width discrepancy, they issued an erratum document admitting this error in June 2012. *

However, in that same document they went on to say that they had also spotted another error, and added another paragraph to their erratum document. They claimed that a ‘typographical error’ had been made and that the 5.5" distance should have been 6.25".* Apparently they had transposed two figures, said to be axial and lateral expansion figures, and this new erratum document simply reversed them.

With the beam seat confirmed at 12” wide and the newly required sideways movement 6.25”, they nevertheless stood by their original theory.

Now that the newly required sideways shift distance of 6.25” was confirmed for the acknowledged 12”-wide girder seat, NIST’s earlier contention concerning the maximum heat (600° C.) before the beams would sag would come into question.

In our earlier videos we presented our carefully calculated findings that at the temperature required to expand by 6.25”, the beam would indeed have lost much of its strength, and would certainly be sagging rather than pushing the girder.

Yet another careless error by NIST was found. While discussing how we should raise this subject with NIST, a member of our team made another startling discovery which moved the entire debate into new territory. Upon close examination of the connection between Column 79 and the girder – a connection that NIST claimed failed – he spotted another steel element in the drawing that had not been previously mentioned. “Stiffener plates” were specified at the end of the girder and welded in place to both sides of the web and to the bottom flange.

NIST’s failure to show these stiffeners or take them into account in its analysis is yet another area where the omissions and incorrect statements are so egregious, anyone who understands these issues must by now begin to question NIST’s motives.

When we mentioned these stiffeners to mechanical engineer Tony Szamboti, who is involved in structural design in his professional work, he explained their role in such situations. He went on to say “The discovery of the girder stiffener plates in drawing #9114 is a game changer, because this drawing covers the exact location where NIST says the collapse initiated.”

Basically, these stiffeners brace the end of a girder between the lower load-bearing flange and its vertical web, so that if for any reason the girder did move laterally on its seat, the flange can transmit the extra load to that web and not fold upwards. In effect they make an I-beam end almost*into a "box" section.

This*discovery changes the debate. Whether the girder travel was 5.5” or 6.25” was now irrelevant because even at up to a 9” lateral move, that girder end would still have enough strength to remain*on its seat.*(It should be remembered that the girder was also held in place vertically by the five attached beams that were framed into it, and therefore the girder could not tip over sideways either – as was also postulated by NIST.)

The presence of these stiffener plates was brought to NIST’s attention by structural engineers. The lack of response from NIST has been*deafening, until just a few weeks ago.

On October 25, 2013, NIST replied to questions about the failure to include the stiffeners in many figures in the final WTC 7 report. They did acknowledge that they had consulted Frankel shop drawing #9114, but claimed:

“The web stiffeners shown at the end of the girder in Frankel drawing #9114 prevent web crippling. The structural analyses of WTC 7 did not show any web crippling failures. Therefore, the web crippling plates did not need to be included in the models/analyses.”

Wow you have been sitting on this since 2008. You must be really frustrated.! But am I correct to assume you agree with the Nist report on WTC 1 and 2 or do you have a similar list of comments?

 

[david.watts]

Post #568. Me: "Note: I have learned a lot here especially about the reasons why you believe what you do. And you have made many valid points. Much of that reasoning is sound. But I think a lot of it starts from a faulty base, e.g., the NIST report which I think is not sound."


I now understand many, if not most of you do not use The NIST report to support your stances. I thought wrong apparently, that you did. I did use "e.g." and not "i.e." implying I thought you had other bases as well that I thought were faulty. I have to admit, none come to mind right now. So, if when I wrote this, I had others in mind, I do not recall any. And maybe I didn't.

After stating that I thought it wasn't sound. I was asked to point out why. THAT was the reason I made the post pointing out at least some areas that showed it was not sound. I did not post those points to change subject. And of course, it was not I that came up with the points. As long as I was making the post I thought I would ask how you treat those points.

BTW, as to Gage, he wasn't the one who wrote those things, at least not all.
But I think you are equating everything that comes from ae911truth with Gage. Fair enough.

 

[david.watts]

Back to WTC7, regarding the "global" collapse, I wholeheartedly disagree about when global collapse began. I say "global" refers to "everything." The time NIST uses as the start of the "global" collapse is not when "everything" is collapsing. NIST starts it earlier. Granted, some collapse was taking place on the interior. As to the entire building, WTC7, when some of the interior was collapsing, the building was "partially" collapsing. But only when every point had started down, only then was it "global." And the amount of time for WTC7 to "globally collapse," was therefore, much shorter than NIST said it was.


I'll bet nobody agrees.

 

[Fonebone]

hey ERGO

Why did I even bother to check that OpEd News link? 'it is well known that not just all of the concrete, but all of the filing cabinets, chairs, computers, telephones, and everything else, including all of the people, were pulverized into all of that fine floating dust/powder that covered Manhattan inches deep. '

David, please tell me you don't actually believe the above. If this is your idea of a joke it's not funny.

Either way I've lost interest in your thought exercise. It was worth considering for about 30 seconds until we moved on. The hypothetical scenario didn't happen. When are you going to start talking about reality?

Do you recognize the folly of your position yet ?
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=9347526#post9347526

Five hundred posts discussing the physics exhibited during the collapse of the three WTC towers
based on the assertion that none contained a reinforced steel encased concrete core.
Frankly , I don't think Harold Feinstein was "mistaken". The two twin WTC towers DID have concrete
encased STEEL hermetrically sealed CONCRETE core. Bic ?

 

[jaydeehess]

Do you recognize the folly of your position yet ?
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=9347526#post9347526

Five hundred posts discussing the physics exhibited during the collapse of the three WTC towers
based on the assertion that none contained a reinforced steel encased concrete core.
Frankly , I don't think Harold Feinstein was "mistaken". The two twin WTC towers DID have concrete
encased STEEL hermetrically sealed CONCRETE core. Bic ?

You are quite entitled to be what most people refer to as "wrong", and its obvious you wish to avail yourself of that right.

 

[ozeco41]

Do you recognize the folly of your position yet ?
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=9347526#post9347526

Five hundred posts discussing the physics exhibited during the collapse of the three WTC towers
based on the assertion that none contained a reinforced steel encased concrete core.
Frankly , I don't think Harold Feinstein was "mistaken". The two twin WTC towers DID have concrete
encased STEEL hermetrically sealed CONCRETE core. Bic ?

Not only "wrong" but Off Topic.

Wrong may be forgivable ... but....

 

[david.watts]

I posted: "if an entire generic building ‘x’ -- all four walls and roof and roofline -- began falling “all at once,” whatever was supporting the entire building -- all four walls and roof and roofline -- must have given way “all at once.”

No one answered "no."

After the penthouse fell, the building was standing "still." I understand things were happening in the interior. Also, some "kinking" occurred. And, the building "shuddered" some. But then, while still standing, the entire building came down all together and did so "all at once." So I take it we agree that all of what was supporting the still standing building -- and there was still a lot of building and therefore, there must have still been a lot of support remaining -- "must have given away "all at once.""

Where do I go wrong with this?

 

[ozeco41]

Back to WTC7, regarding the "global" collapse, I wholeheartedly disagree about when global collapse began. I say "global" refers to "everything." The time NIST uses as the start of the "global" collapse is not when "everything" is collapsing. NIST starts it earlier. Granted, some collapse was taking place on the interior. As to the entire building, WTC7, when some of the interior was collapsing, the building was "partially" collapsing. But only when every point had started down, only then was it "global." And the amount of time for WTC7 to "globally collapse," was therefore, much shorter than NIST said it was.


I'll bet nobody agrees.

Why should they when you are playing with words and posting gobbledegook?

I'll repeat my advice: Forget trying to get us to disprove all the AE911 rubbish. Start yourself from the easier end of the topic. AND start with Twin Towers - all the necessary evidence is visible.

(Remember the main reason the Truth Movement favours WTC7 is that the evidence is hidden - they cannot prove CD so they want debunkers to prove "No CD". That tactic is dishonest no matter what facts they raise.)

The "Scientific Method" is based on publishing hypotheses and making better hypotheses. The default hypothesis for WTC1 and WTC2 is "aircraft impact plus unfought fires == collapse. To demonstrate CD the truth movement has to present and support a better hypothesis.

The logic is very simple...if there isn't a better hypothesis then the hypothesis we have is the best one.

Try this as an example of an hypothesis built from a zero base which is what we have with WTC 9/11 collapses - initially WTC1 and WTC2. I will "quote" it to keep it distinct:

Let me start on the base premise definitional stuff (note - only "start" )

The base facts are:
1) Towers were standing early on 9/11;
2) Aircraft struck towers, did damage, started fires;
3) Fires not fought, damage accumulated;
4) Buildings collapsed.

All those undeniable fact - anyone tries denying those I don't waste time with. (And, for your assistance, you will find that I write somewhat like a lawyer. So what I say is what I mean and nothing more.)

So those four true facts are sufficient, stand alone, to support the hypothesis:
"Impact damage plus unfought fires resulted in collapse." <<<< So we have a "default hypothesis" which is easily supported by any necessary evidence and reasoning.

If you, AE911 or anyone else wants to overturn that hypothesis they have to produce a better one - scientific method. (Produce a better one subsumes any necessary "prove bits of the default wrong")

Now there is no CD in there because (a) no evidence for CD; AND (b) the collapse mechanism does not need help from CD.

So david let's see if any ONE of your claimed facts can change that hypothesis. I care not if you take the bare bones version as I have posted OR you use the full WTC 9/11 range of available evidence.

Go for it. Pick ONE fact - prove it is true THEN show how it would change the default hypothesis.

 

[ozeco41]

I posted: "if an entire generic building ‘x’ -- all four walls and roof and roofline -- began falling “all at once,” whatever was supporting the entire building -- all four walls and roof and roofline -- must have given way “all at once.”

No one answered "no."

After the penthouse fell, the building was standing "still." I understand things were happening in the interior. Also, some "kinking" occurred. And, the building "shuddered" some. But then, while still standing, the entire building came down all together and did so "all at once." So I take it we agree that all of what was supporting the still standing building -- and there was still a lot of building and therefore, there must have still been a lot of support remaining -- "must have given away "all at once.""

Where do I go wrong with this?

Go back and read your second paragraph. Then re-write it so you don't keep shifting from "part of" to "all of" the building. Here let me make it easy by colour coding

Part of building
whole of building
Ambiguous "part" or "whole"
Wrong - self contradictory
..and some of your reasoning has error on top of error ... and I cannot use "striped colours"

 

[david.watts]

You really can't figure out what I am saying?

Alright, substitute "building" with "remaining building." Or "entire" with "entire remaining."

I'll ask again, you really can't figure out what I am saying?

Sorry, back in about 6 hours.

 

[beachnut]

Do you recognize the folly of your position yet ?
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=9347526#post9347526

Five hundred posts discussing the physics exhibited during the collapse of the three WTC towers
based on the assertion that none contained a reinforced steel encased concrete core.
Frankly , I don't think Harold Feinstein was "mistaken". The two twin WTC towers DID have concrete
encased STEEL hermetrically sealed CONCRETE core. Bic ?

What does your fantasy concrete core, a silly lie, have to do with free-fall lies about CD? 12 years has 911 truth with no evidence, and big lies.
bic, you believe in big lies, when told over, and over, they become dumber lies

how do you get out of an elevator sealed in a concrete core - the concrete core claim is insane

 

[JSanderO]

I posted: "if an entire generic building ‘x’ -- all four walls and roof and roofline -- began falling “all at once,” whatever was supporting the entire building -- all four walls and roof and roofline -- must have given way “all at once.”

No one answered "no."

After the penthouse fell, the building was standing "still." I understand things were happening in the interior. Also, some "kinking" occurred. And, the building "shuddered" some. But then, while still standing, the entire building came down all together and did so "all at once." So I take it we agree that all of what was supporting the still standing building -- and there was still a lot of building and therefore, there must have still been a lot of support remaining -- "must have given away "all at once.""

Where do I go wrong with this?

You can't see anything BUT the curtain wall and that was attached to the spandrels and the perimeter columns. You can safely assume that what you see collapsing as a "building" is probably minimally JUST the curtain wall and the spandrels and columns of the perimeter. As the EPH and the WPH went down BEFORE the curtain wall you see... a reasonably safe assumption is that there was actually little left of an intact building within the curtain wall. the inward bowing of the curtain wall is yet another tell tale sign that there was no floor on the other side of the curtain wall. This does not mean it was literally hollow... just a shell. But it means that the insides were already on their way down and it was therefore NOT a building you see, but the curtain wall and perimeter frame.

Obviously since you can't see through the curtain wall... you can't know that there was building there.

Can you?

 

[ozeco41]

You really can't figure out what I am saying?

Can but it is unclear

Alright, substitute "building" with "remaining building." Or "entire" with "entire remaining."

Did that.

I posted: "if an entire generic building ‘x’ -- all four walls and roof and roofline -- began falling “all at once,” whatever was supporting the entire building -- all four walls and roof and roofline -- must have given way “all at once.”

No one answered "no."

After the penthouse fell, the remaining building was standing "still." I understand things were happening in the interior. Also, some "kinking" occurred. And, the remaining building "shuddered" some. But then, while still standing, the entire remaining building came down all together and did so "all at once." So I take it we agree that all of what was supporting the still standing remaining building -- and there was still a lot of remaining building and therefore, there must have still been a lot of support remaining -- "must have given away "all at once."

It makes sense now BUT:

A) By the first use of "still" I take it you mean "continues to stand" and not "stands without moving? AND
B) You haven't moved from your first "big question" other than to shift from a generic building to the visible shell of partly collapsed WTC7.

 

[jaydeehess]

After the penthouse fell, the building was standing "still." I understand things were happening in the interior. Also, some "kinking" occurred. And, the building "shuddered" some. But then, while still standing, the entire building came down all together and did so "all at once." So I take it we agree that all of what was supporting the still standing building -- and there was still a lot of building and therefore, there must have still been a lot of support remaining -- "must have given away "all at once.""

Where do I go wrong with this?

So the global collapse meant "all". All except that which had already collapsed.

The building was standing still, all except for what was collapsing from the rooftop structures, all except for the entire structure shuddering, except for the massive 40 storey buckling on the north facade known as the kink.

Where did you go wrong with that?

 

[Fonebone]

Not only "wrong" but Off Topic.

Wrong may be forgivable ... but....

Off topic eh .?
And how might that be ?

I suggest you read the bottom paragraph of the OP

 

[LSSBB]

Off topic eh .?
And how might that be ?

I suggest you read the bottom paragraph of the OP

The OP concerns WTC7, if that was not clear to you. Freefall isn't even a question for WTC1 and 2, they were nowhere close. If you want to debate the twin towers and how fast they initially began to collapse, I recommend you visit the Tony Szamboti Publishes a Paper thread, somewhere in the forum.

 

[david.watts]

Can but it is unclear

Did that.It makes sense now BUT:

A) By the first use of "still" I take it you mean "continues to stand" and not "stands without moving? AND
B) You haven't moved from your first "big question" other than to shift from a generic building to the visible shell of partly collapsed WTC7.

A) By the first use of "still" I take it you mean "continues to stand" and not "stands without moving?"

Yes, 7 did kink and shudder.

B) You haven't moved from your first "big question" other than to shift from a generic building to the visible shell of partly collapsed WTC7.

That is true. Of course, I am trying relate the two together.

 

[beachnut]

A) By the first use of "still" I take it you mean "continues to stand" and not "stands without moving?"

Yes, 7 did kink and shudder.

B) You haven't moved from your first "big question" other than to shift from a generic building to the visible shell of partly collapsed WTC7.

That is true. Of course, I am trying relate the two together.

You are trying to back in CD, a fantasy based on ignorance and silly claims like your path of least resistance law, and other woo.

http://www.opednews.com/Diary/9-11-How-many-virtual-pro-by-David-Watts-080324-705.html You can't stop the lies about 911.

What is the next step into trying to back in CD to people who used evidence, not NIST, to figure out it was a gravity collapse, due to fire? Why does 911 truth bash NIST and fail to use evidence? In you work with the free-fall nonsense, and other failed ideas, how have you been about to avoid using evidence? Is that a learned skill, or does it come naturally? Is it your duty to spread the big lie, is this the OpEdNews goal, to spread lies and make money from advertising? Is this the only conspiracy with this nonsense of spreading lies? Spreading lies for OpEdNews is your duty, the party-line for OpEdNews? OpEdNews goal is to spread lies on 911. Is that why you support lies about 911? Policy?

Over the years OEN has published thousands of articles on 911. Almost all have questioned the official 911 Report. Every editor at Opednews believes that report was anywhere from flawed and incomplete to a major cover-up. So we have, at Opednews, covered the questions over and over again, until we reached a point where we set some rules that we would only publish new perspectives

OEN has set a policy of censorship, and only woo on 911 is published. CD is in, reality is out. Cool, ignorance is king, the big lie is in.

The business of selling lies must be down. Disciples of woo from OEN are out beating the bushes for support. OEN is not free press, it is a celebration of ignorance, bad research, and woo.

 

[GlennB]

B) You haven't moved from your first "big question" other than to shift from a generic building to the visible shell of partly collapsed WTC7.

That is true. Of course, I am trying relate the two together.

Well, you can't.

The generic building is undamaged internally (or at least, you haven't specified otherwise) while WTC7 was know to have undergone - and still be undergoing - internal collapse while having suffered several hours of unfought fire.

Beachnut is right. You're trying to somehow equate the two very different scenarios in order to 'back in' a CD theory.

So, why not just describe your CD theory?