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

C7 said:
He was saying that their computer model collapsed at 40% greater than FFA.

"[FONT="][SIZE=3]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 [B]roughly 40 percent, more time for that free fall to happen.[/B][/SIZE][/FONT][/quote]
[QUOTE="lapman, post: 6270337, member: 17495"]That is true. The collapse of the 17 floors was 40% greater than FFA. 17 floors does not equal 8 floors.
Click to expand...
Correct

NIST used a starting and ending point. This method did not show the FFA portion.

Mr Chandler measured the drop of the roof line at the north-west corner and it was indistinguishable from FFA. He confronted NIST with this information and asked them why they had missed it. They said they would look into it and in the final report NIST acknowledged FFA for 8 floors.
They said this 100 feet of FFA fits their model - but it doesn't. Their model falls at 40% greater than FFA because there is always structural resistance.

nistwtc7modelvideo14s16.jpg


vidgifcompars.jpg
 
Christopher7 said:
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]
Click to expand...

Ok.

What part don't you understand? The 5.4 seconds they give is the same time is takes for the roof line to disappear in the video. Do you have a different video that shows 3.9 seconds?

If free fall would have occurred, it would have taken 3.9 seconds. Obviously there was structural resistance because it did NOT come down in 3.9 seconds, but it came down in 5.4 seconds.

5.4 is 40% more than 3.9.

You even admitted above that he was talking about the GLOBAL COLLAPSE yet continue to use his comments about the 2.5 seconds.

Since you seem to keep avoiding the question, why is 5.4 fraudulent when it agrees with VISUAL evidence in the videos?
 
Christopher7 said:
Their model falls at 40% greater than FFA because there is always structural resistance.
Click to expand...

Then why does their collapse time of 5.4 seconds match the damn video collapse time??????

Is the collapse time shown in the video incorrect because WTC7 forgot to add 2.5 seconds of free fall into it's television collapse debut?

:confused::confused::confused:
 
Christopher7 said:
Correct

NIST used a starting and ending point. This method did not show the FFA portion.

Mr Chandler measured the drop of the roof line at the north-west corner and it was indistinguishable from FFA. He confronted NIST with this information and asked them why they had missed it. They said they would look into it and in the final report NIST acknowledged FFA for 8 floors.
They said this 100 feet of FFA fits their model - but it doesn't. Their model falls at 40% greater than FFA because there is always structural resistance.

[pics omitted]
Click to expand...

Would it be simpler just to say you don't understand basic physics and you don't know what you're talking about?

Once the columns buckled, they no longer provide any meaningful resistance. You're suggesting that those buckled columns had the capability to support or slow down hundreds of tons of material.

They buckled because they no longer could support the building, not the other way around. Therefore, their structural integrity had long since vanished. There would be little, if any, resistance from those columns at that point because they were completely useless once they failed.

...oh, and you STILL have not proven and/or explained why FFA = CD...stop quotemining NIST & Friends and prove your theory.
 
Christopher7 said:
Correct

NIST used a starting and ending point. This method did not show the FFA portion.
Click to expand...
That is correct.
Mr Chandler measured the drop of the roof line at the north-west corner and it was indistinguishable from FFA. He confronted NIST with this information and asked them why they had missed it. They said they would look into it and in the final report NIST acknowledged FFA for 8 floors.
They said this 100 feet of FFA fits their model
Click to expand...
That is correct.
- but it doesn't. Their model falls at 40% greater than FFA because there is always structural resistance.
Click to expand...
That is incorrect. Even with the 8 floors of FFA, it still took 40% longer for the building to collapse completely. This is the part that you deny.
 
Gamolon said:
Then why does their collapse time of 5.4 seconds match the damn video collapse time??????

Is the collapse time shown in the video incorrect because WTC7 forgot to add 2.5 seconds of free fall into it's television collapse debut?

:confused::confused::confused:
Click to expand...
Frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn.

David Chandler did a video on that:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iXTlaqXsm4k

All I care about is the 2,25 seconds of FFA.
 
Christopher7 said:
Frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn.

David Chandler did a video on that:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iXTlaqXsm4k

All I care about is the 2,25 seconds of FFA.
Click to expand...
Of course that's all you care about. That's the straw you can hold onto while denying everything else that is inconvenient to your fantasy. You refuse to attempt to grasp the concept of when a support fails, it no longer gives support. Instead you chant your support removal BS and misquote Sunder.
 
sabretooth47 said:
Once the columns buckled, they no longer provide any meaningful resistance.
Click to expand...
There are 57 exterior columns. As you can see in the computer model they are buckling in different places in different ways. There is never a time when there is no resistance. Over one second into the observed FFA in the videos, the computer model is still providing resistance. It is therefore not falling at FFA.
 
Christopher7 said:
There are 57 exterior columns. As you can see in the computer model they are buckling in different places in different ways. There is never a time when there is no resistance. Over one second into the observed FFA in the videos, the computer model is still providing resistance. It is therefore not falling at FFA.
Click to expand...

Are we looking at the same model? The one you posted just a few posts ago, right?

I don't interpret that model as showing a provided resistance. The pic at 16 secs looks to me like total support failure and no resistance any longer.
 
Christopher7 said:
Frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn.

David Chandler did a video on that:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iXTlaqXsm4k

All I care about is the 2,25 seconds of FFA.
Click to expand...

Ok, I watched Chandler's video. The gentleman who gives the explanation as to where they got the 5.4 second measurement says they got it from when the top of the parapet disappeared BETWEEN THE TWO BUILDINGS. Answer me this Christopher7. Here is clip from the video that shows the start of the roof line collpase. Notice the video time is :14.
WTC7clip1.jpg


Here is where the roof line disappears. Notice the video time is now at :19. 5 seconds. The red arrow points to the point where it disappears from view BETWEEN THE TWO BUILDINGS.
WTC7clip2.jpg


Here is Chandler's video. Why does he pick the point he did with the yellow arrow as the point the roof line disappeared instead of where it ACTUALLY disappeared from view BETWEEN THE TWO BUILDINGS in the second screenshot above?
WTC7clip3.jpg
 
Christopher7 said:
nistwtc7modelvideo14s16.jpg

...........
There are 57 exterior columns. As you can see in the computer model they are buckling in different places in different ways. There is never a time when there is no resistance. Over one second into the observed FFA in the videos, the computer model is still providing resistance. It is therefore not falling at FFA.
Click to expand...

In the diagram marked "At 16 seconds 1-2 seconds into global collapse" I see columns that would indeed be providing NO structural resistance whatsoever. They at at at least a 30 degree angle. All they are doing is providing mass tat would have to be acellerated to match the velocity of the mass above and since this transfer of momentum is from one mass that is a thousand times greater than the buckling columns the percentage of upper structure momentum being transferred would be on the order of <0.001% as well. IOW you are not going to see or measure this transfer, especially in an acellerating system.

They are offering all the resistance that a stryofoam coffee cup offers a stomping foot.
 
jaydeehess said:
.... and since this transfer of momentum is from one mass that is a thousand times greater than the buckling columns the percentage of upper structure momentum being transferred would be on the order of <0.001% as well. IOW you are not going to see or measure this transfer, especially in an acellerating system.

They are offering all the resistance that a stryofoam coffee cup offers a stomping foot.
Click to expand...

Yes. But it's a point C7 can never accept ... that insignificant and unmeasurable is not the same as zero.

Because Chris has found his Holy Grail and he's clinging to it. Regrettably it's actually a chipped coffee mug with a picture of Scooby-Doo printed on the side, but he's happy and will keep it under his pillow at nights.
 
Gamolon said:
Does the video collapse time match the model collapse time of 5.4 seconds?

Yes or no?
Click to expand...
No. NIST says it took 5.4 sec for the north face to fall 17 floors and that is when the roof line falls below the building in front where the yellow arrow is in Mr. Chandlers video. He made that clear.

The video you posted is using the wrong ending point.
 
jaydeehess said:
In the diagram marked "At 16 seconds 1-2 seconds into global collapse" I see columns that would indeed be providing NO structural resistance whatsoever.
Click to expand...
That is utter nonsense.
[FONT=&quot]"a free fall time would be an object that has no structural components below it"[/FONT]
What part of no don't you understand? :rolleyes:
 
Christopher7 said:
That is utter nonsense.
[FONT=&quot]"a free fall time would be an object that has no structural components below it"[/FONT]
What part of no don't you understand? :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
What part of he is talking about the entire structure falling at FFA and NOT the 8 floors are you not understanding? Then again, that's inconvenient to your fantasy, so you purposely ignore that fact.
 
Christopher7 said:
Correct

NIST used a starting and ending point. This method did not show the FFA portion.

Mr Chandler measured the drop of the roof line at the north-west corner and it was indistinguishable from FFA. He confronted NIST with this information and asked them why they had missed it. They said they would look into it and in the final report NIST acknowledged FFA for 8 floors.
They said this 100 feet of FFA fits their model - but it doesn't. Their model falls at 40% greater than FFA because there is always structural resistance.

[qimg]http://a.imageshack.us/img830/7267/nistwtc7modelvideo14s16.jpg[/qimg]

[qimg]http://a.imageshack.us/img171/1667/vidgifcompars.jpg[/qimg]
Click to expand...

The pictures from the video do not show the relevant floors of collapse. Do they?

The sim does.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom