Merged Freefall is not evidence for Controlled Demolition

[ozeco41]

...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.

If you still have some belief that there was CD my advice is still try working with WTC1 and WTC2 collapses. Once you are convinced that there was no CD with those two buildings most of your faith in AE911 should disappear. That will be a big step. But it will prepare you for getting WTC7 into perspective.

Meanwhile you will resent me or others keep repeating that AE911 are wrong and that Gage is professionally dishonest ..but it is sad reality that the main reason they push WTC 7 collapse is because it is harder to disprove CD.

You are trapped by their false logic that it is debunkers responsibility to disprove CD - that is false. There has never been a case made for CD.

However me persisting and telling you that is not going to be persuasive.

And your own "flight path" has so far taken many days to get two steps:
1) - the first one being "If you take all the columns out from under a generic building it will fall"
2) - the second one "if the visible façade of WTC7 fell with bits of it at free fall all support from under that façade was gone."

So let me try to add in another step to build on those two for the WTC7 façade.

Measurements by femr2 reported in the "Femr2 visual measurement" thread (I'll find the title and link) relate to this fact that you have accepted:

...Yes, 7 did kink and shudder...

femr2's measurements show that the façade started to move many seconds before the rapid fall. It started to move in small distances and slowly THEN progressively built up to bigger distances and faster as it totally collapsed.

Think carefully about that sequence - building up from small slow movements.

It is what we should expect for a progressive collapse caused by fire affected structure starting to fail little by little and building up.

It is not what we would expect from explosive cutting of columns under the bit of building we are measuring. If it was explosive cutting the sequence should be "Bang..Drop" and not "No bang - little bit of movement building up over many seconds to sudden drop."

 

[david.watts]

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?

I believe your reference to "curtain wall" refers to walls/sides of the building.

"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."

You believe it was a "shell." ozeco (#614) also believes it was just a "visible shell."
Do most of you also think it was just a "shell?"

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

Yes, but neither can you. You did make a case above for there to be little left of the interior that lead you to conclude "this does not mean it was literally hollow... just a shell." And by being "just a shell," most but not all support was gone. Fair enough.

I think you can make a case that there was at least significant interior and support left. The penthouse fell, therefore the interior support below the penthouse ("EPH"?) was providing no more support. (The screen wall is that the "WPH?")

The penthouse fell and about 5 seconds later, the screen wall started to collapse. So, just prior to the screen wall falling, the building, including the screen wall was still fully supported minus the support for the penthouse AND whatever other support the collapsing penthouse might have taken out or damaged. The building was standing upright, the roofline remaining just about level. While saying the roofline was not perfectly level, the 4 corners had not descended. So all 4 corners of the building were being supported. Therefore, I contend much if not most of the support remained until the screen wall began its collapse. And therefore, it was not just a "shell." If it was "just a shell" the screen wall would have already collapsed.

 

[DGM]

david.watts:

You should try as hard to understand as you are trying to get the CD idea to fit.

You're making me dizzy with all your twisting.

 

[alienentity]

I believe your reference to "curtain wall" refers to walls/sides of the building.... And therefore, it was not just a "shell." If it was "just a shell" the screen wall would have already collapsed.

Technically the last statement isn't true, since the exterior walls were 'moment frames' and capable of standing on their own. So an empty shell, all else being equal, would stand just fine.

But nobody knows what percentage of the internal structure fully or partly collapsed before the exterior columns buckled. Was it 30%, 50%, 70%?

Whatever it was, it wasn't the 'whole building' falling at once. Not by a long shot. This is a simple fact. Therefore the premise that 'all support was lost simultaneously throughout the entire building' is false, or at least not supported by the evidence.

And that is the entire basis for the Freefall = CD argument.
That is why it is a fallacious argument.

Nevermind there were no explosions as this happened. In an often painful exercise of reality denial, truthers will offer this video as 'proof' of explosions as it fell. This argument is also self-debunking.

 

[jaydeehess]

How much is 'left' behind the north exterior wall of WTC 7 at the time that exterior begins to fall?

To my mind most of the structure, between the perimeter and the core, would have still been there.
However, when the lower core structure, from eighth floor down, is lost to progressive collapse, the cantilever truss's support at the north side of the core is lost. That means the cantilever trusses are no longer holding anything up. That means 40 storeys of norh side no longer have support.
Since the failure was at the core, the entire north side of the building leans top to the south, while those trusses carry the lower part to the north as they tilt. (shown in the NIST animation). If those trusses were moving north then all of the column's below them were also tilting with their tops(at the 8th floor) to the north.

What is left behind the wall? Doesn't matter since the lower 8 floors or so no longer support the entire northwest third of the structure.

 

[ozeco41]

...You believe it was a "shell." ozeco (#614) also believes it was just a "visible shell."

Hogwash david. It acted like a shell except for some minor details. No way was it "just" a shell. Remember the measured bit went "over G" which is near certain indication that something inside the "shell" was pulling it down.

I and several others are trying to explain something complicated for you. We don't know the exact details. I am using simplified explanations which you should be able to comprehend.

You persist in behaving like a typical evasive truther:
1) You wont tell us what you think or where you are headed by your near zero progress "one step at a time" AND
2) You keep looking for nits to pick in our simplified explanations WHILST
3) You ignore my advice to try to get some basic understanding of the physics. AND
4) You ignore my advice to start with easier targets than WTC7.

[/end-frustration-rant ]


Now back on the issue of the early movement of WTC 7.

That movement was measured for the north façade, for one point on that façade, it showed movement two minutes before the north façade made the "big plunge".

The fact for you to think about:
How does movement TWO MINUTES before the plunge fit with explosive cutting of the façade columns??? 'cos I say it doesn't fit.

Do some hunting through Discussion of femr's video data analysis. Look for femr2's posts and the cue "early motion".

...The penthouse fell and about 5 seconds later, the screen wall started to collapse. So, just prior to the screen wall falling, the building, including the screen wall was still fully supported minus the support for the penthouse AND whatever other support the collapsing penthouse might have taken out or damaged. The building was standing upright, the roofline remaining just about level. While saying the roofline was not perfectly level, the 4 corners had not descended. So all 4 corners of the building were being supported. Therefore, I contend much if not most of the support remained until the screen wall began its collapse. And therefore, it was not just a "shell." If it was "just a shell" the screen wall would have already collapsed.

You are creating your own strawman. There is so much wrong with how you reason from this collection of partial truths.

 

[DGM]

You are creating your own strawman. There is so much wrong with how you reason from this collection of partial truths.

Almost like he needs this to justify a belief.

 

[ozeco41]

Almost like he needs this to justify a belief.

Yes - but I think he is trying to understand.

The big problem for non-physics people trapped by "truth" stuff: Cannot do the physics themselves; AND Have difficulty trusting folks like us who have varying levels of physics comprehension. (And of explaining skill. )

Learning physics to the level needed for WTC collapse understanding working from details is a hard path. A career long learning for most of us. A lot of professional engineers and academics get lost. Understanding failure and collapse mechanisms is a least one grade more complicated than designing new buildings to be safe within code guidelines.

I'm 72 yo - been working with and teaching applied physics most of my life AND 6 years plus thinking thorough all the complexities of WTC collapses. About 12000 posts on the topic on forums. Most of them near enough right - I ballsed one up on 911Forum a couple of days back Couldn't believe what I'd written when I looked back at it.

No way could I have explained a lot of the WTC collapse stuff back in 2006. I'm a damn sight more confident now but - WTC 9/11 is a big challenge to anyone coming new to the material. Especially if they have been conned by the snake oil merchants.

 

[LSSBB]

Yes - but I think he is trying to understand.

The big problem for non-physics people trapped by "truth" stuff: Cannot do the physics themselves; AND Have difficulty trusting folks like us who have varying levels of physics comprehension. (And of explaining skill. )

Learning physics to the level needed for WTC collapse understanding working from details is a hard path. A career long learning for most of us. A lot of professional engineers and academics get lost. Understanding failure and collapse mechanisms is a least one grade more complicated than designing new buildings to be safe within code guidelines.

I'm 72 yo - been working with and teaching applied physics most of my life AND 6 years plus thinking thorough all the complexities of WTC collapses. About 12000 posts on the topic on forums. Most of them near enough right - I ballsed one up on 911Forum a couple of days back Couldn't believe what I'd written when I looked back at it.

No way could I have explained a lot of the WTC collapse stuff back in 2006. I'm a damn sight more confident now but - WTC 9/11 is a big challenge to anyone coming new to the material. Especially if they have been conned by the snake oil merchants.

Well, once he encounters all the algorithm battles in the femr2 video thread, he might just switch to basket weaving as a hobby, and I wouldn't blame him.

 

[DGM]

Yes - but I think he is trying to understand.

The big problem for non-physics people trapped by "truth" stuff: Cannot do the physics themselves; AND Have difficulty trusting folks like us who have varying levels of physics comprehension. (And of explaining skill. )

Learning physics to the level needed for WTC collapse understanding working from details is a hard path. A career long learning for most of us. A lot of professional engineers and academics get lost. Understanding failure and collapse mechanisms is a least one grade more complicated than designing new buildings to be safe within code guidelines.

I'm 72 yo - been working with and teaching applied physics most of my life AND 6 years plus thinking thorough all the complexities of WTC collapses. About 12000 posts on the topic on forums. Most of them near enough right - I ballsed one up on 911Forum a couple of days back Couldn't believe what I'd written when I looked back at it.

No way could I have explained a lot of the WTC collapse stuff back in 2006. I'm a damn sight more confident now but - WTC 9/11 is a big challenge to anyone coming new to the material. Especially if they have been conned by the snake oil merchants.

All true but, the first step is a logical one.

In order to ask the question of CD to this degree you first have to accept that there was a means and a reason to do it in the first place. I've never seen anyone present anything that could get me past step one.

Accepting anything AE says involves a belief that has no basis in reality.

 

[ozeco41]

Well, once he encounters all the algorithm battles in the femr2 video thread, he might just switch to basket weaving as a hobby, and I wouldn't blame him.

I know. If he seriously wants the info I'll dig it out for him.

I looked at the thread - not hard for old hands like us to separate the multiple personality/antitruther/NIST_could_never_make_the_slightest_error battles. (I think those are the main three - each with sub themes )

...but the thread is not one to recommend to a newbie without anyone to hold his hand. So I'll volunteer. Actually the material probably easier to access on 911forum - none of the JREF "noise" and the truther friendly environment^# may suit d.w



^# Actually it is neutral BUT for those of us accustomed to JREF's truther hostile climate it seems truther friendly.

 

[ozeco41]

...Accepting anything AE says involves a belief that has no basis in reality.

Yes. I've suggested several times that he tries to come from a zero base.

I could (many of us could) carve up the AE911 nonsense BUT I cannot do it from memory for more than 30-50% of the items on long list without researching the details. Plus writing a 2000 word post which many members don't appreciate. And people who quote AE911 stuff wont accept - maybe don't compute - generic answers.

 

[beachnut]

I...
...but the thread is not one to recommend to a newbie without anyone to hold his hand. So I'll volunteer. Actually the material probably easier to access on 911forum - none of the JREF "noise" and the truther friendly environment^# may suit d.w

^# Actually it is neutral BUT for those of us accustomed to JREF's truther hostile climate it seems truther friendly.

David is here to spread the word. David is stuck in a religion of lies. He is on a mission, a crusade to spread the "truth". A religion of CD - faith based, looking for converted followers in the name of woo. He knows he is right, cause his prophets tell him so. Evidence is not needed when your faith is strong. If he was an engineer, he could fake his scenario better. Maybe he should google up some engineering stuff to mix with the scenario for the CD free-fall.

Trying to get more CD believers at a skeptics forum.

 

[david.watts]

Originally Posted by david.watts 
I believe your reference to "curtain wall" refers to walls/sides of the building.... And therefore, it was not just a "shell." If it was "just a shell" the screen wall would have already collapsed.

alienentity: Technically the last statement isn't true, since the exterior walls were 'moment frames' and capable of standing on their own. So an empty shell, all else being equal, would stand just fine.

I can’t disagree that the moment frame -- I am taking your word for it that the exterior walls were moment frames -- would be capable of "supporting themselves;" at least as far as I understand moment frames.

But if that were the case, what would be supporting the screen wall?

alienentity: Whatever it was, it wasn't the 'whole building' falling at once. Not by a long shot. This is a simple fact.

I agree. Interior parts collapsed prior to the exterior. So yes, the whole building did not fall all at once.

“Therefore the premise that 'all support was lost simultaneously throughout the entire building' is false, or at least not supported by the evidence. And that is the entire basis for the Freefall = CD argument."

However, that -- 'all support was lost simultaneously throughout the entire building' -- is NOT the entire basis for the Free fall = CD argument. I say that based on how you stated it. I will get back to this and tell you why I say that is not so.

………..

DGM: In order to ask the question of CD to this degree you first have to accept that there was a means and a reason to do it in the first place. I've never seen anyone present anything that could get me past step one.

I would like to address this later or in another thread.

…………..

LSSBB: “…once he encounters all the algorithm battles in the femr2 video thread…”

Could you or someone point me to particular places “in femr2” that would fairly quickly sum up what it is you want me to understand? And no, I don’t need someone to ‘hold my hand.’

............

I will reply to jaydee and ozeco next. I will get right to it.

 

[Richard the G]

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?

No you are wrong.

I think you probably went wrong many years ago when you started to believe the nonsense that ae911truth spout. After believing it for a while you are unable to see the absurdities of some of ae911truth's truth. Just look at their top 10 reasons to believe.

You have now moved from believer to apostle. I pity you in a few years.

It is very unlikely that a building will fail all at once, without a controlled demolition. Natural failures such as those you can see at WTC 1, 2, 5, 6 and 7 were much more complex. Its all about one element failing, then another and so one.

Sometimes these local failures were associated with large obvious movements... such as when the internal column fails on WTC 7 causing the penthouse to fail. Or when the floors fail immediately before the perimeter frame buckles. You cannot see what is happening on the inside from the outside. You cannot see the sagging floors or the beams acting like cantenaries supporting the failed columns before the perimeter fails, buckles and collapses. Sometimes the failures resulted in imperciptible movements such as the sheared columns that were supported by the hat truss in the towers.

And then when you get a global failure of say WTC1. You assume that it all falls at once and the falling mass impacts on each floor by floor...it does and in a millisecond the loads exceed capacity and the next level fails.

I suggest the only hope for your sanity is counselling with some real engineers. Go to an AISC, ACI, ASCE or CTBUH conference and speak to the real engineers. I think you need some solid engineering therapy

 

[JSanderO]

Technically the last statement isn't true, since the exterior walls were 'moment frames' and capable of standing on their own. So an empty shell, all else being equal, would stand just fine.

That's not accurate. The north curtain wall was hung from the 17 columns and spandrels which had moment connections. But the entire set of columns from col 44 to and including col 54 (8) were on the ends of cantilever girders at floor 6. There were 5 columns on the east and one of them did not extend to bedrock where the service ramp was. There were 4 on the west side and 2 of them were sloping columns framed into the wind truss.

The IB and the kink were evidence that the cantilever girders had failed and that the floors between at least columns 47 and 55 had come free from the perimeter columns and spandrels.

 

[JSanderO]

How much is 'left' behind the north exterior wall of WTC 7 at the time that exterior begins to fall?

To my mind most of the structure, between the perimeter and the core, would have still been there.
However, when the lower core structure, from eighth floor down, is lost to progressive collapse, the cantilever truss's support at the north side of the core is lost. That means the cantilever trusses are no longer holding anything up. That means 40 storeys of norh side no longer have support.
Since the failure was at the core, the entire north side of the building leans top to the south, while those trusses carry the lower part to the north as they tilt. (shown in the NIST animation). If those trusses were moving north then all of the column's below them were also tilting with their tops(at the 8th floor) to the north.

What is left behind the wall? Doesn't matter since the lower 8 floors or so no longer support the entire northwest third of the structure.

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=1167&pictureid=8429[/qimg]

They weren't cantilever trusses... they were cantilever girders... MG27s

 

[ozeco41]

David is here to spread the word....
Trying to get more CD believers at a skeptics forum.

Could well be. If he is he is several grades less competent at the game than C Sarns - and at least one grade less than T Sz - both of them can sprinkle in "engineeringese" to make it look as if there is some substance. C7 with far more success IMO than T Sz who is transparently out of his depth when up against a competent engineer.

Time will tell with David. My default is "treat them as genuine till they persuade me otherwise". So opposite to yours - and I focus on what they say now - disregarding what they wrote in the distant past.

He is still trying to respond to every derail thrown at him. Needs to pick a topic path and focus. But I've said that a few times.

 

[jaydeehess]

They weren't cantilever trusses... they were cantilever girders... MG27s

Well my bad. I have seen them referred to as both. I also did not bother illustrating that they actually extended beyond their main support column to the north.

 

[jaydeehess]

Could well be. If he is he is several grades less competent at the game than C Sarns - and at least one grade less than T Sz - both of them can sprinkle in "engineeringese" to make it look as if there is some substance. C7 with far more success IMO than T Sz who is transparently out of his depth when up against a competent engineer.

Time will tell with David. My default is "treat them as genuine till they persuade me otherwise". So opposite to yours - and I focus on what they say now - disregarding what they wrote in the distant past.

He is still trying to respond to every derail thrown at him. Needs to pick a topic path and focus. But I've said that a few times.

[Derail] You consider Sarns better at engineeringese than Tony! Does not say much about the later given that the former is a carpenter![/derail]