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

[Grizzly Bear]

Sudden is not instantaneous and we are talking about 78 columns on 7 to 8 floors.
Do you understand this:
"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."

I understand your latter statement perfectly. Sunder is referring to the internal collapse prior to to onset of global collapse, which you're talking about.

What I am talking about is that the building was designed as a system, and when it lost enough of the interior structure, the exterior frame began to fall. And when it began it was rather sudden as expected. When the columns buckled, they had lost any value as load bearing members, and hence no support.

Again, just curious why this isn't viable to you. You're asserting that those statements are significant, but not rationalizing how they prove/disprove your case. All you can viably prove with this broad statement is that the structural integrity was gone, not why it was gone... I've yet to see you move that far. If you want to make a rational case you really need to focus on what evidence you have available and what the faults from the engineering explanations are.

 

[triforcharity]

Sure man.

It's true, it's true. A 47 story skyscraper does not look like a chimney or a two story house.

Lets do another comparison shall we?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6_czyNCNhDI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hm1u6qZyQ4w

You have a problem with following directions, don't you.

Compare the smokestack and the chimney collapse.

Nowhere did I say to compare them to 7WTC.

First one is misleading, as it did not show the penthouse collapse. Nil and void.

Second video, same thing. Completly leaves off the collapse of the penthouse.

Did you have something else you want me to look at?

 

[Sabretooth]

How does this prove explosives exactly?

I thought you'd never ask, thank you.

Sudden is not instantaneous and we are talking about 78 columns on 7 to 8 floors.
Do you understand this:
"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."

Hold on, C7…Grizzly asked point blank how this proves explosives. You acknowledged his inquiry and then completely failed to answer it. Just because there was a sequence of structural failures, this does not prove explosives and/or CD were used to do so. We all want to hear your explanation as to why these failures prove that explosives were the culprit.

This is why folks are irritated. If you honestly and truly want people to grasp what you are implying, skirting pertinent questions is not the way to go.

 

[tsig]

I have answered this several times. It does not matter that no other CD have fallen at FFA. The point is: FFA requires that all the supporting structure on 7 to 8 floors must be removed simultaneously.

The difference between FFA and near FFA is indeclinable when looking at a video of the implosion. WTC 7 looks like a CD.

So it looks like a CD except it doesn't look like a CD.

 

[AZCat]

No it doesn't.

Yes it does. C7's claim, once revised, is that you can't tell the difference between a free-fall acceleration and a near free-fall acceleration just by looking at a video. While it isn't clear how "near" a "near free-fall acceleration" C7 intends, I agree with the spirit of his claim - that the human eye is an inadequate instrument for this measurement.

 

[GStan]

Yes it does. C7's claim, once revised, is that you can't tell the difference between a free-fall acceleration and a near free-fall acceleration just by looking at a video. While it isn't clear how "near" a "near free-fall acceleration" C7 intends, I agree with the spirit of his claim - that the human eye is an inadequate instrument for this measurement.

Sorry. I'm with ya. I was just being sarcastic. Should've added a smiley.

 

[Scott Jurgenson]

Sorry. I'm with ya. I was just being sarcastic. Should've added a smiley.

Sarcasm over Text or the Interwebzzz is always risky without the use of "lol" "haha" or ""

 

[Gamolon]

You are missing the point. The rest of the fall is irrelevant to the point.

We are discussing the 2.25 seconds of FFA.

No, you specifically said that the 5.4 second collapse time seen in the video was fraudulent.

The 5.4 seconds is fraudulent.

I want to know how it is fraudulent if I can watch the video and see the roof line drop out of view in 5.4 seconds.

How is it fraudulent?

 

[Gamolon]

"[FONT=&quot]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]

You keep quoting this.

Was there structural resistance present in the collapse of WTC7?

 

[TruthersLie]

You all are being too hard on truthers. Remember

IF there is FFA = CD
If there is no FFA= CD
If threre was a full moon=CD
If there was no moon =CD
If Bush was president=CD the evil bastards
If Obama was president =CD the evil bastards
If wtc7 was reported arly =CD
If it wasn't reported at all =CD.

Remember the correct answer to any claim by a non truther is Inside jobby job. Inside jobby job.

 

[jaydeehess]

1)


2)


3)


Three very relevent questions for MirageMemories about his own contentions.
Three very relevent questions that MirageMemories will likely not adress other than to perhaps re-state his contentions.
Three very relevent questions that likely indicate to MirageMemories, somehow, that I and others here are "ignorant and bigoted".

4)

All of your questions have been answered but no doubt you will continue to ignore any responses until you hear what you want to hear.

No, all you have done is either re-state your position or add more illogic to it. In fact 1) is worded as it is because you stated that since Dodds got it wrong he was obviously intentionally mis-informed. Then you were asked if the FF was lieing and said no, he was mis-informed. I now want to know how a truthful FF could be mis-informed that he had WITNESSED the collapse of a 50 storey structure. So far you have been silent on that.

You have also been asked many times now what the value of 'planting' a story of a WTC7-like structure having collapsed due to impact from WTC1's demise would be when a few minutes later the dust would clear and if WTC7 is not standing then the logical reasoning would be that it suffered great physical damage due to the two collapses. In this case all you have done is re-state your position that a 'cover story' (even that term is rather odd in this context as it 'covers' nothing) would be neccessary.

Furthermore you really have not established how or why demolishing an entire structure would be more efficient at destroying anything that was in the building such that it is a certainty that this material is completely and utterly unretreivable.

Are you sure you aren't a Harper supporter?

MM

Oh yeah, I am absolutlly sure of it.

So far all you have done then is supply evidence that uke2 is correct in his 5)

 

[jaydeehess]

You all are being too hard on truthers. Remember

IF there is FFA = CD
If there is no FFA= CD
If threre was a full moon=CD
If there was no moon =CD
If Bush was president=CD the evil bastards
If Obama was president =CD the evil bastards
If wtc7 was reported arly =CD
If it wasn't reported at all =CD.

Remember the correct answer to any claim by a non truther is Inside jobby job. Inside jobby job.

A corallery(sp?) to this is that;
Collapses were caused by explosives
unless they were caused by therm(?)te
unless they were caused by a DEW
unless they were caused by a thermobaric bomb
unless they were caused by a mini-nuke
unless they were caused by missiles
BUT what they were not caused by is impact or fire damage
BECAUSE they were an inside jobby-job.

 

[triforcharity]

A corallery(sp?) to this is that;
Collapses were caused by explosives
unless they were caused by therm(?)te
unless they were caused by a DEW
unless they were caused by a thermobaric bomb
unless they were caused by a mini-nuke
unless they were caused by missiles
BUT what they were not caused by is impact or fire damage
BECAUSE they were an inside jobby-job.

GD you people! You keep forgetting MOTHRA!!

 

[TruthersLie]

Thank you MOTHRA member Tri. I knew I brought you around to it...

and it wouldn't be unless... it would be BECAUSE mothra did it.

 

[Christopher7]

Sudden is not instantaneous and we are talking about 78 columns on 7 to 8 floors.
Do you understand this:
"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."

I understand your latter statement perfectly. Sunder is referring to the internal collapse prior to to onset of global collapse, which you're talking about.

Wrong. Dr. Sunder is talking about the global collapse.

Here is the entire section:
[FONT=&quot]Male Speaker: Our next question comes from David Chandler, of the American Association of Physics Teachers. "Any number of competent measurements used in 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, claiming 40 percent slower than free fall, based on a single data point. How can such a publicly visible, easily measurable quantity be set aside?" Shyam Sunder: Can you repeat the question, please? Male Speaker: Sure. "Any number of measurements used in 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, claiming 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.[/FONT]

 

[triforcharity]

And yet again, he is talking about the Northwest corner.

 

[lapman]

Wrong. Dr. Sunder is talking about the global collapse.

Here is the entire section:
[FONT=&quot]Male Speaker: Our next question comes from David Chandler, of the American Association of Physics Teachers. "Any number of competent measurements used in 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, claiming 40 percent slower than free fall, based on a single data point. How can such a publicly visible, easily measurable quantity be set aside?" Shyam Sunder: Can you repeat the question, please? Male Speaker: Sure. "Any number of measurements used in 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, claiming 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.[/FONT]

Wow. Sunder is talking about THE ENTIRE COLLAPSE BEING FFA and not the 2.5 seconds. You have completely taken him WAY out of context. Why am I not surprised that you are being blatantly dishonest?

ETA: We must not forget that this was done BEFORE the final report was published.

 

[Christopher7]

Yes it does. C7's claim, once revised, is that you can't tell the difference between a free-fall acceleration and a near free-fall acceleration just by looking at a video. While it isn't clear how "near" a "near free-fall acceleration" C7 intends, I agree with the spirit of his claim - that the human eye is an inadequate instrument for this measurement.

A rare moment of agreement. Thank you.

 

[Christopher7]

Wow. Sunder is talking about THE ENTIRE COLLAPSE BEING FFA and not the 2.5 seconds. You have completely taken him WAY out of context.

Wrong. He was saying that their computer model collapsed at 40% greater than FFA.

"[FONT=&quot]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.[/FONT]

ETA: We must not forget that this was done BEFORE the final report was published.

He made that statement before he was confronted with the truth. NIST had lied about there being no free fall acceleration in the Draft report.

 

[lapman]

Wrong. He was saying that their computer model collapsed at 40% greater than FFA.

"[FONT=&quot]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.[/FONT]

That is true. The collapse of the 17 floors was 40% greater than FFA. I don't know about your world, but 17 floors does not equal 8 floors in the real world.

He made that statement before he was confronted with the truth. NIST had lied about there being no free fall acceleration in the Draft report.

Lie. NIST counted the entire collapse time. There really was no need for them to go into the detail since it would do nothing to prevent the collapse from happening. They used Chandler's measurements to get the detail to please the twoofers. However, Sunders comment does not apply to the 2.5 seconds of FFA. Your misuse of his quote only shows your dishonesty and your complete refusal to find and accept the truth.