Split Thread 7WTC - controlled demolition or fire and damage induced collapse?

[TSR]

The videos don't show the bottom part that exploded. Eight of the lower floors were removed with explosives.

.
In your opinion.

And that opinion is supported by what relevant training or experience, again?
.

This is the only way the top part could fall at free fall acceleration.

Hand waving and denial cannot change this is a simple fact of physics.

.
It is not a simple fact, it is your opinion.

One contradicted by every other recognized authority who has looked at the matter.

So, what is your relevant training or experience that we should take your word over theirs?
.

 

[332nd]

The videos don't show the bottom part that exploded. Eight of the lower floors were removed with explosives. This is the only way the top part could fall at free fall acceleration.

Hand waving and denial cannot change this is a simple fact of physics.

Oh, a simple fact of physics? What's the formula for the collapse then?

 

[Christopher7]

.
In your opinion.

No, it is a matter of fact and your denying it proves you are in denial.

And that opinion is supported by what relevant training or experience, again?

[FONT=&quot]Lead investigator for NIST, Shyam Sunder, stated:[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]"a free fall time would be an object that has no structural components below it . . . 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."[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]In other words, the NIST progressive collapse hypothesis does not include a period of free fall acceleration because there is always structural resistance. [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]The only way to get a building to fall at free fall acceleration is to remove all the supporting structure [/FONT][FONT=&quot]simultaneously [/FONT][FONT=&quot]with explosives.[/FONT]

 

[Christopher7]

oh, a simple fact of physics? What's the formula for the collapse then?

ffa = cd

 

[TSR]

ffa = cd

.
So, your opinion *isn't* supported by any physics which you can demonstrate.

All you have left is your training and expertise -- which is *what*, exactly?
.

 

[Christopher7]

.
So, your opinion *isn't* supported by any physics which you can demonstrate.

All you have left is your training and expertise -- which is *what*, exactly?
.

Hello? I guess you missed this:
[FONT=&quot]Lead investigator for NIST, Shyam Sunder, stated:[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]"a free fall time would be an object that has no structural components below it . . . 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."[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]In other words, the NIST progressive collapse hypothesis does not include a period of free fall acceleration because there is always structural resistance. [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]The only way to get a building to fall at free fall acceleration is to remove all the supporting structure [/FONT][FONT=&quot]simultaneously [/FONT][FONT=&quot]with explosives.[/FONT]

 

[TSR]

The only way to get a building to fall at free fall acceleration is to remove all the supporting structure simultaneously with explosives.

.
Except for the teeny tiny fact that the *building* did not fall at free fall.

One small portion did, and that only for a few seconds.

Why would they only CD *part* of the building?

And I guess you missed the part where you were supposed to tell us all your training and expertise or the part where you were supposed to actually *demonstrate* the physics involved by doing the math?
.

 

[Reactor drone]

.
Except for the teeny tiny fact that the *building* did not fall at free fall.

One small portion did, and that only for a few seconds.

Why would they only CD *part* of the building?

.

And, more specifically, why CD partof the building after the building had started falling. Surely it's a bit redundant to start demolishing a building after it's started to fall.

 

[Christopher7]

.
Except for the teeny tiny fact that the *building* did not fall at free fall.

One small portion did, and that only for a few seconds.

Why would they only CD *part* of the building?

And I guess you missed the part where you were supposed to tell us all your training and expertise or the part where you were supposed to actually *demonstrate* the physics involved by doing the math?.

I'm quoting NIST. WTC 7 fell at free fall acceleration.
NCSTAR 1-A pg 45 [pdf pg 87]
"The slope of the velocity curve is approximately constant between about 1.75 s and 4.0 s, and a good straight line fit to the points in this range (open-circles in Figure 3-15) allowed estimation of a constant downward acceleration during this time interval. This acceleration was 32.2 ft/s2(9.81 m/s2), equivalent to the acceleration of gravity g." [within 0.1%]

[FONT=&quot]NCSTAR 1-9 Vol.1 pg 588 [pdf pg 250][/FONT]
the entire building above the buckled-column region moved downward as a single unit


Denial is a powerful thing. No matter how conclusive the proof, it just won't be accepted.

 

[triforcharity]

I'm quoting NIST. WTC 7 fell at free fall acceleration.
NCSTAR 1-A pg 45 [pdf pg 87]
"The slope of the velocity curve is approximately constant between about 1.75 s and 4.0 s, and a good straight line fit to the points in this range (open-circles in Figure 3-15) allowed estimation of a constant downward acceleration during this time interval. This acceleration was 32.2 ft/s2(9.81 m/s2), equivalent to the acceleration of gravity g." [within 0.1%]

[FONT=&quot]NCSTAR 1-9 Vol.1 pg 588 [pdf pg 250][/FONT]
the entire building above the buckled-column region moved downward as a single unit


Denial is a powerful thing. No matter how conclusive the proof, it just won't be accepted.

Quotemining is a very weak thing, considering we can destroy it with one post.

 

[TSR]

I'm quoting NIST. WTC 7 fell at free fall acceleration.

.
No, you are quote mining, since it is very clear that your excerpt refers to Stage 2 of 3 of the collapse. Because it also says:

"In Stage 1, the descent was slow and the acceleration was less than that of gravity. This stage corresponds to the initial buckling of the exterior columns in the lower stories of the north face. By 1.75 s, the norht face had descended approximately 2.2 m (7 ft)."

and

"In stage 3, the acceleration decreased somewhat as the upper portion of the north face encountered increased resistance from the collapsed structure and the debris pile below. Between 4.0 s and 5.4 s, the north face fell an additional 39.6 m (130 ft)."

Funny that you don't include that.

Is it because it shows that you are lying when you claim that the entire building fell at free fall?
.
[/QUOTE]

 

[Christopher7]

Quotemining is a very weak thing, considering we can destroy it with one post.

Dude

"Quotemining" is a slapstick deny-all catch phrase.

These quotes are from the NIST final report on WTC 7.

WTC 7 fell at free fall acceleration for about 100 feet.

Deal with it.

 

[TSR]

Quotemining is a very weak thing, considering we can destroy it with one post.

.
And just did
.

 

[TSR]

WTC 7 fell at free fall acceleration for about 100 feet.

Deal with it.

.
Progress!

Only for 100 feet.

So as I have been saying, not the entire building. Can we count on you not to try to suggest otherwise again?

Now, can you tell us why they only initiated the CD after the building was already collapsing, and why they on CD part of it?
.

 

[Christopher7]

.Only for 100 feet.

Any amount of free fall acceleration is:
1) Not possible in a "progressive" collapse
2) Can only be achieved by removing ALL the supporting structure

Are you with me so far?

So as I have been saying, not the entire building.

I guess you missed this part:

NCSTAR 1-9 Vol.1 pg 588 [pdf pg 250]
the entire building above the buckled-column region moved downward as a single unit

and this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ixwx19t2IMQ

Have you any idea how stupid you look to anyone other than another denier?

 

[AZCat]

Any amount of free fall acceleration is:
1) Not possible in a "progressive" collapse
2) Can only be achieved by removing ALL the supporting structure

Are you with me so far?

No, I don't think I'm with you so far. Why #1? Please explain.

 

[TSR]

Any amount of free fall acceleration is:
1) Not possible in a "progressive" collapse

.
Because ... ?
.

2) Can only be achieved by removing ALL the supporting structure

.
Except that NCSTAR contradicts this in both Stage 1 and Stage 3 -- the only supporting structure involved in the free fall was that directly under the penthouse.
.

Are you with me so far?

.
You were wrong twice, right there with you.
.

I guess you missed this part:

NCSTAR 1-9 Vol.1 pg 588 [pdf pg 250]
the entire building above the buckled-column region moved downward as a single unit

[/COLOR]

.
Once again, you quote-mine. The full quote is "When all the exterior columns had buckled, as shown in Figure 12-62, the entire building above the buckled-column region moved downward as a single unit, resulting in the global collapse of WTC7."

Which happened, according the NCSTAR, about 23.5 s into the collapse. WHich is well into Stage 3, where they say the collcapse had slowed again.

Do you have any idea how dishonest you appear to, well, everyone when you quotemine like this?
.

 

[Christopher7]

Any amount of free fall acceleration is:
1) Not possible in a "progressive" collapse
2) Can only be achieved by removing ALL the supporting structure

No, I don't think I'm with you so far. Why #1? Please explain.

You are very slow on the uptake. Please read the following slowly and keep reading it over end over until it sinks in:
[FONT=&quot]"a free fall time would be an object that has no structural components below it . . . 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."[/FONT]

 

[AZCat]

Any amount of free fall acceleration is:
1) Not possible in a "progressive" collapse
2) Can only be achieved by removing ALL the supporting structure

You are very slow on the uptake. Please read the following slowly and keep reading it over end over until it sinks in:
[FONT=&quot]"a free fall time would be an object that has no structural components below it . . . 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."[/FONT]

I don't think this excerpt means what you think it means. It appears you are confusing the phrase "free fall time" with "any amount of free fall acceleration".

Do you have any basis for #1 other than this excerpt?

 

[Christopher7]

I don't think this excerpt means what you think it means. It appears you are confusing the phrase "free fall time" with "any amount of free fall acceleration".

No, Free fall means "falling thru air" NO RESISTANCE. The proper term is "acceleration" but free fall is free fall no matter what terminology one uses.

They also use the term "gravitational acceleration" - it means the same thing.

One more time for the learning impaired:
NCSTAR 1-A pg 45 [pdf pg 87]
"The slope of the velocity curve is approximately constant between about 1.75 s and 4.0 s, and a good straight line fit to the points in this range (open-circles in Figure 3-15) allowed estimation of a constant downward acceleration during this time interval. This acceleration was 32.2 ft/s²(9.81 m/s²), equivalent to the acceleration of gravity g." [within 0.1%]

Perhaps Ryan can help you out on this. Ryan?