Continuation: 'What about building 7?'

[ozeco41]

Georgio, yes this is true. However, Richard Gage has said there are only two forces at play in a collapse: gravity and resistance. To him, freefall means all supports must be knocked out simultaneously and he claims zero resistance and this is evidence of freefall.

Which is a partial truth - one that relies on an implied simple system. And the false implication that it is the WTC7 scenario. It wasn't. And then we superimpose the "truther" arse about approach to logical reasoning. A known, measured and AFAIK agreed fact is that NIST and Chandler both found and agreed that part of that facade fell at something averaging "G". So - even without femr2's far more accurate measurement - the claim of AVERAGE G in the Gage simplified reasoning supports "over G". And anyone who needs that explaining should probably think again.

>g collapse means that we have to allow for a third force to enter the equation, such as torquing or leveraging. And then we COULD have gravity PLUS leveraging MINUS resistance PLUS torquing....

That explanation Chris is both true and valid enough for a lay audience. The actual problem is wrong identification of the system boundary around the body for which we are analysing the free body physics. And putting it in brutally simple terms - anyone who does not understand that statement should listen to those who do OR improve their own understanding of physics. No apology from me - I'm no longer as patient and courteous as Chris in the face of false claims in physics.

Not such a simple formula any more. It's a response to a Richard Gage claim and why I consider it an important rebuttal to the evidence he offers for CD.

Gage was and is wrong. You are right.

 

[ozeco41]

Confusion of "Over G" and the relevant "Free Body Physics".

Recent posts once again high light the confusion that exists over this topic.

So here is one of my favourite thought exercises for everyone to try.


Scenario:
I take you to the top of a tall building - name your own choice.

The equipment is:
1) You - the "experimental candidate"
2) A tall box which you can stand in - fully enclosed - breathing holes and a door on one tall side. Height of box such that, standing vertically in the box, your head is in contact with the "ceiling" - reasons will become obvious;
3) One tennis ball.

Experimental Method:
I ask you to stand in the box, hand you the tennis ball, close the door of the box, hold it out clear of the roof of the building; AND drop the lot - box, you, tennis ball.

(Qualitative descriptions will do - save the maths and associated assumptions.)

Ignoring air resistance
1) What is the vertical acceleration of the total system - box, you, ball?
2) What force is between the top of the box and your head?

You have nothing to keep you occupied for the immediate future so you throw the tennis ball towards the floor of the box:

3) What is the absolute (i.e. relative to ground) acceleration of the tennis ball whilst you are throwing it downwards but before you release it?
4) What is the absolute acceleration of the tennis ball after it leaves your hand and before it hits the floor of the box?

5) What is the absolute acceleration of the Box whilst you are throwing the ball but before you release it?
6) What is the absolute acceleration of the Box after you release the ball and before it hits the floor?

Next the ball hits the floor and rebounds.

7) Describe what happens to the acceleration of the box at the moment of rebounding - i.e. whilst the ball is compressing then decompressing in rebound.
8) Ditto once the ball has rebounded.

9) Identify any occurrences of "over G"


AND it is directly "on topic" - it addresses the foundation principles of physics supporting the confused issue of "over G" - at WTC7 naturally.

 

[JayUtah]

Cut the crap Jay.

I am. You want to have your cake and eat it too. You lambast non-technical commentators like Chris Mohr, but then you want us to accept patently unqualified pseudo-experts like Chandler if they speak on your behalf.

What you don't realize is that I don't accept either Chandler or Mohr. I bear none of them animosity, but neither of them is an expert. I give Mohr credit for admitting he is a layman, but that doesn't factor into my criticism of your blatant hypocrisy.

Either...

Straw man. I don't subscribe to your dichotomy. As much as you want to paint Chris Mohr as our fearless leader, Chris Mohr does not speak for me. I haven't seen any of his videos and I don't rely on his beliefs or research in order to form my opinion regarding Truther claims. In fact, he and I vehemently disagree on Richard Gage's moral mandate.

Let me say that again. Chris Mohr does not speak for me. Sorry, but you do not get to personalize the debate in that way. You can't make headway without trying to shoehorn your critics into scripts you've prewritten for them. Maybe that's why the Truth movement has no credibility outside its walled gardens.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

Yes.

To prove CD you have to eliminate the alternates. To do that means show that the initiation mechanism could not have been "natural" (horrible term) i.e. fire, motor vehicle impact, something falling on etc etc.

And IF you can prove the mechanism then the acceleration resulting from it is irrelevant. (To be pedantic it could be a point of argument to support proof of the mechanism - but let's not complicate with logical pedantry) (Yet) (before we need to. )

My "cop out" of "almost certainly" in previous posts was to ease my way around two obvious "yes buts":

1) "What if CD was the only thing that could cut those initiating members?" - well prove that is true and you don't need acceleration. Circles back to my main point - you have to prove the mechanism was CDed.

2) the possibility of "staged" devices firing during the collapse...a complication I could deal with but no point complicating the simple explanation until someone raises that specific "yes but".

Just to be frankly realistic... if the arson/thermite method of demolition had any legs... we wouldn't be talking about the NIST down to the hair splitting detail the way Gerry's wanted. Ziggi wouldn't be worried about imaginary internet names, and Tony wouldn't be worried about freefall, etc.

FEMA's investigation of WTC 5 is a good example. They found and exhibited examples of floor connections that failed from plastic deformation and creep that resulted in "tearing" of the webs/bolt insertions. There is absolutely no reason IMO that an engineer or architect couldn't have produced such exhibits for WTC 7 that demonstrate a failure mode consistent with the incendiary and munitions angle.

There's no reason given audio signatures of the collapses, the lack of explosive remnants, the lack of visual signatures, or the lack of photographic documentation showing failure modes of structural members to conclude "CD"

Those alone decapitate the argument at its source...

AE911truth, and the members of such groups participating in this thread are more concerned with job titles and personal jabs as measurements of fact, than the prerequisite question "is the claim true, and supported by fact"

ETA: you're obviously aware of all this already....

 

[JSanderO]

femr2 was considered a "truther" due to his earliest beliefs. He was actually an example of a real "truther". He was in search of the truth.

Good job "researcher"

Truth is a not a good word in the 9/11 universe... For the destruction of the WTC and even the Pentagon.. -UNDERSTANDING- seems to be what people are in search of.

The truth word harken to lying... its opposite... It's also more noble than -understanding-.

 

[DGM]

Truth is a not a good word in the 9/11 universe... For the destruction of the WTC and even the Pentagon.. -UNDERSTANDING- seems to be what people are in search of.

The truth word harken to lying... its opposite... It's also more noble than -understanding-.

OK. The point, I see no evidence any of the current crop is looking for this either. They want confirmation.

 

[LSSBB]

Cut the crap Jay. Either 1) you endorse the view that laymen like Chris and anonymous forum posters can prove NIST and other scientific reports wrong with their forum posts and YouTube videos, or 2) you do not as you have insisted up to this point.

Either option puts you in a tight spot since 1) would ruin all of your old replies to gerrycan and other truthers on this forum, and 2) would mean telling Chris his 238 points and YouTube videos are crap.

Jay knows my qualifications. So do Chris and Ozeco41. I know Ozeco41 and Jay's qualifications. I may have seen pgimeno's, however I have seen the work he did on mapping the acceleration profile of the façade of WTC7. I can say it puts Chandler's work to shame. And it was checked by a PhD in (I think) Computational Mathematics on this forum who posts under his own name. It's funny you trying to judge Chris on what he understands, because your demonstrated understanding is way outclassed here.

ETA: for what it's worth, Oystein also knows my qualifications. I have had a very valid reason for not posting in my own name, also.

ETA2: Beachnut also knows my qualifications, and I know his.

 

[Spanx]

I don't see that any form of qualification is needed to work this out.

Without evidence of controlled demolition there is nothing. Saying the speed of collapse is evidence is nothing more than a joke.

Are we to assume that any controlled demolition that does not fall at free fall speed is not a controlled demolition ?

 

[Dave Rogers]

Straw man. I don't subscribe to your dichotomy. As much as you want to paint Chris Mohr as our fearless leader, Chris Mohr does not speak for me. I haven't seen any of his videos and I don't rely on his beliefs or research in order to form my opinion regarding Truther claims. In fact, he and I vehemently disagree on Richard Gage's moral mandate.

Let me say that again. Chris Mohr does not speak for me.

What I suspect may be going on here, Jay, is not an attempt to personalise the debate, but more an attempt to portray the opposition as monolithic and dishonest. In the truther mindset, it is assumed to be obvious to an informed and intelligent observer that the events of 9/11 were a conspiracy, so the only options (putting it a bit bluntly for emphasis) are to be stupid, a liar supporting the official cover story, or a conspiracy believer. Those of us whom the truthers can't portray as stupid must therefore all be part of the cover-up. The implications are therefore that we obey a hierarchical structure, in order to disseminate the approved narrative correctly, and that this structure must therefore have a leader. When Mark Roberts was active in the debunking movement, he was portrayed as this leader, and whenever any debunker said anything that disagreed with him, this created a cognitive dissonance in truthers that was almost palpable. Now it appears that Chris Mohr has been cast in the Dr. Evil role by truthers, and again it appears to cause them something close to physical pain when other debunkers don't slavishly follow everything he says. The same dissonance can be seen with their attitude to those who disagree with the NIST model, or indeed Bazant's crush-up/crush down model; it's the official cover story, so how can the proponents of the official cover story not agree with it? The only possible explanation - that the truthers are, in fact, wrong - is too terrible to contemplate, but they can't come up with a better explanation; so they attack us for not behaving the way they expect.

Dave

 

[Oystein]

... The implications are therefore that we obey a hierarchical structure, in order to disseminate the approved narrative correctly, and that this structure must therefore have a leader. ...

I think one concept that describes, or explains, a lot of what truthers think and say, is Projection. Witness the obsequious, almost canine adoration, the absolutely total lack of criticism, that Truth leaders like Harrit, Ryan, Gage, Griffin are offered by their faithful disciples. Leaders are a virtual necessity, like Saints or Idols to the deeply religious. The essential anarchy of rational, scientific discourse must be alien to them.

 

[Animal]

Jay knows my qualifications. So do Chris and Ozeco41. I know Ozeco41 and Jay's qualifications. I may have seen pgimeno's, however I have seen the work he did on mapping the acceleration profile of the façade of WTC7. I can say it puts Chandler's work to shame. And it was checked by a PhD in (I think) Computational Mathematics on this forum who posts under his own name. It's funny you trying to judge Chris on what he understands, because your demonstrated understanding is way outclassed here.

ETA: for what it's worth, Oystein also knows my qualifications. I have had a very valid reason for not posting in my own name, also.

ETA2: Beachnut also knows my qualifications, and I know his.

Your qualifications are obvious from your posts, as are Jay''s and several others. Meanwhile troofers lack of qualifications is also evident. They may fool some lay people with the gish gallop and techno babble, but anyone with a bit of education sees right through the BS

 

[BasqueArch]

Since the claims in question involve knowledge of specialized scientific and professional fields, it is entirely reasonable to expect a foundation of relevant knowledge.

The premise of AE911T is precisely that expertise should afford greater credibility. In order to be one of the hallowed few that Richard Gage cites as applicably qualified supporters, a signatory must meet a reasonable standard of licensing or certification. So kindly do not pooh-pooh the idea of necessary expertise. Your organization also believes and attempts to enforce it.

We note simply that the typical procedure for making or contesting claims in a scientific or technically professional field is the publication of it, along with suitable supporting data, in a peer-reviewed journal. This procedure is valuable in that it enforces gatekeeper criteria for weeding out insubstantial claims and a review mechanism to test the putative a priori strength of the claims. Truthers by and large eschew these methods, and I believe it is because they know they cannot meet either the gatekeeper criteria or the review criteria.

Some Truthers recognize the importance of this method, as evidenced by their practice of growing parallel organizations and protocols that mimic the rigor of professional and academic publication, but do not ensure or provide it. Again, do not pooh-pooh the notion of rigorous testing of ideas, because you're trying to convey the illusion of it.

You cite specific individuals favorable to your belief and expect us to accept them as authorities, even if we have reasons not to, and even when we point out that they are singular exceptions to a general rule of expressed information and belief. Conversely, you focus on a single critic whom you wrongly characterize as the leader and exemplar of those who disbelieve you. You're here in this "disgraced forum" to obtain the attention you cannot in the real world. Why are you so selective now about what attention you get?

The rationals base their lay opinions on the technical work done by highly competent experienced specialist engineers such as those of NIST and their consultants who did much of the work, such as SEANY, SOM, SGH, Leslie Robertson and others. This engineering work showing that fire caused the collapse of the three Towers is corroborated by leading engineers of the US and other nations, like Arup, Astaneh-Asl, Usmani and others.

The truthers base their lay opinions on the mistaken lay opinions by those technically unqualified to prove that fire did not cause these collapses. It is the burden of truthers to produce competent technical work to the same thorough and rigorous level of analysis as that done by NIST if they are to show that fire did not cause these collapses. They cannot do so and so truther opinions are baseless, that is, they have no qualified, corroborated technical work to support their conspiracist opinions.
In addition there is no evidence that controlled demolition occurred.

That is the difference between the lay claims of the rationals and the lay claims of the conspiracists.

http://www.nist.gov/customcf/get_pdf.cfm?pub_id=909017
First few pages. National Construction Safety Team.

 

[chrismohr]

Yes Chris, you making this declaration was just a matter of formality, because I knew this would happen, as this ALWAYS happens as a matter of rule, and the very post you responded to had this prediction for that very reason:



This is how you act every single time you are confronted with realities that you do not like and could not respond to honestly without changing your mind/challenging your faith.

This is a product of denial.

And oh Chris, do you want to repeat that "free speech hawk" declaration here, since its so convincing coming from you. Maybe add a bit about hypocrisy

Ziggi, here's what I censored myself from saying yesterday. A few months ago, when I was upset by a couple emails you sent me that were dripping with contempt, abuse and putdowns, I sent them off to a friend who is a 9/11 Truth activist. In his email back to me he said, "Ziggi is insane." Then he advised I stop interacting with you. Good advice, as your behavior on this forum proves.
To say that NIST was very conservative in listing which floors were burning in Building 7 is not silly. I believe they counted only as floors which burned the ones where they could see flames coming out, and didn't count floors where smoke blocked the view or where the flames were further inside. That is debatable, but it doesn't merit putdowns and sarcasm and taunting.
The >g argument, which I made from the NIST graph (do you understand that even this less accurate graph shows the possibility of >g collapse?) which was later confirmed by the much more accurate measurements of femr2, is a valid one. It IS >g, because there are more than just two forces (gravity and resistance) at play. A third force not mentioned by Richard Gage is in the equation to push the perimeter wall down at >g. There is nothing stupid or ignorant about my assertion.
Just as I do not speak for JayUtah, other people here do not speak for me. Your attempts in private emails to hold me responsible for the things others say falls on deaf ears. I am certainly neither a leader nor a frontman here.
Of course you defend David Chandler's "Pearls Before Swine" video attacking me, and denying it is an attack even as it ends with the "Pearls Before Swine" putdown. Even as he claims that no one should take anything I say seriously because of mistakes I made. Even as he leaves a dead link to a video I corrected and replaced four years ago (and told him about). Yes, he had valid corrections to my errors, which I appreciated. Yes, you have made some valid corrections to the discussion of Building 7 and the iron-rich spheres, which I have also appreciated. I do not appreciate your putdowns.
When a person on your side of this debate writes to me personally and says "Ziggi is insane," that's strong stuff. I hope that will at least give you pause and make you wonder if perhaps there is a better way to interact with your opponents. Adam Taylor and Richard Gage are examples of people who have stuck to the arguments and not felt it necessary to attack me personally.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

To say that NIST was very conservative in listing which floors were burning in Building 7 is not silly. I believe they counted only as floors which burned the ones where they could see flames coming out, and didn't count floors where smoke blocked the view or where the flames were further inside. That is debatable, but it doesn't merit putdowns and sarcasm and taunting.

Saying there were more than ten floors on fire in WTC 7 makes the argument that they were caused by the North Tower even more untenable than it already is. It is one giant hand wave by NIST to say fires on ten floors, that show up nearly two hours after the North Tower collapse, were caused by that collapse. They don't bother to explain the problems with it such as the two hour delay, the massive amounts of gypsum dust that would extinguish the flames in WTC 1 during the collapse, the fact that there were fires on just a few floors in WTC 1, the 350 foot distance between the buildings, and the fact that the Verizon and Post Office buildings had no fires. Your argument that there were even more fires in WTC 7 than NIST claims makes the case for arson even greater.

The >g argument, which I made from the NIST graph (do you understand that even this less accurate graph shows the possibility of >g collapse?) which was later confirmed by the much more accurate measurements of femr2, is a valid one. It IS >g, because there are more than just two forces (gravity and resistance) at play. A third force not mentioned by Richard Gage is in the equation to push the perimeter wall down at >g. There is nothing stupid or ignorant about my assertion.

The problem with your argument isn't about the >g component. It is that the symmetric free fall, or even >g fall, of the exterior of WTC 7 couldn't happen with the sequential exterior column collapse NIST argument that you support. The argument with the symmetry and sequential column failure involved together is not coherent.

The third force you are talking about would be the pull-in of the entire exterior by the falling core. The entire core had to be dropping at the same time to get the symmetric exterior collapse that we witnessed. The entire core is not dropping simultaneously with the NIST east interior collapse first and then east to west progressive interior collapse. That is why their model does not replicate the real event.

 

[NoahFence]

The fires in WTC 7 started immediately after the collapse of the north tower.

The reason for the 2 hour delay to notice it was because the side of the building closest to the north tower was facing people who were too busy being dead, or too busy looking for people who were too busy being dead.

Those that were alive and on that side of the building no doubt noticed the fire but didn't give a : because they weren't heartless jerks concerned with what a fringe group of kooks was going to require years after the fact. I'm sure if they had foresight to envision the perversion of your asinine "truth movement" - maybe one of them would have clicked a photo for you.

 

[WilliamSeger]

The problem with your argument isn't about the >g component. It is that the symmetric free fall, or even >g fall, of the exterior of WTC 7 couldn't happen with the sequential exterior column collapse NIST argument that you support. The argument with the symmetry and sequential column failure involved together is not coherent.

But the roofline kink and the ripple of broken windows across the north face show that the exterior collapse was sequential. If your argument is that the sequential collapse happened faster than you think it ought to have, then (1) you need to say so, and (2) you need to justify your opinion.

 

[chrismohr]

Saying there were more than ten floors on fire in WTC 7 makes the argument that they were caused by the North Tower even more untenable than it already is. It is one giant hand wave by NIST to say fires on ten floors, that show up nearly two hours after the North Tower collapse, were caused by that collapse. They don't bother to explain the problems with it such as the two hour delay, the massive amounts of gypsum dust that would extinguish the flames in WTC 1 during the collapse, the fact that there were fires on just a few floors in WTC 1, the 350 foot distance between the buildings, and the fact that the Verizon and Post Office buildings had no fires. Your argument that there were even more fires in WTC 7 than NIST claims makes the case for arson even greater.



The problem with your argument isn't about the >g component. It is that the symmetric free fall, or even >g fall, of the exterior of WTC 7 couldn't happen with the sequential exterior column collapse NIST argument that you support. The argument with the symmetry and sequential column failure involved together is not coherent.

The third force you are talking about would be the pull-in of the entire exterior by the falling core. The entire core had to be dropping at the same time to get the symmetric exterior collapse that we witnessed. The entire core is not dropping simultaneously with the NIST east interior collapse first and then east to west progressive interior collapse. That is why their model does not replicate the real event.

Good, debatable points Tony.
My belief that more than ten floors were probably on fire is based on videos and photos of smoke actively pum[ping out of some 30 floors later in the afternoon. To initiate a fire, I would hypothesize (and I may be wrong) that one hot ember anywhere that made it through the very big gashes could initiate the fires. My photo of the debris smashing into the whole side of Building 7, top to bottom, left to right, has not been commented on by you. You talk about the 350 foot distance, but my photo clearly demonstrates that a LOT of debris from the Tower hit Building 7. The very large gashes show the physical aftermath of that collision. My hypothesis is that somewhere in that vast pile of debris was an ember that triggered the Building 7 fire, which was then unfought all afternoon. Hypothesis #2 (possibly incorrect): for something like a half hour, all of Building 7 was obscured by dust and one news media outlet actually incorrectly reported (from some firefighters' accounts) that Building 7 had come down because no one could see it at all. Hypothesis #3: the fire started several feet into the building and was not visible for two hours. Then it spread, unfought.
The sequential column collapseyou talkj abaout... well at first I thought the columns shifted their loads at almost the speed of sound. You said something about how this doesn't happen with ductile steel. Well, this is a question out of ignorance so maybe you can help answer it. If a column fails, how fast DOES it shift its load to other columns? It seems to me that it has to be very, very fast. Otherwise, the support previously provided by the failed column would be... nowhere? It has to go SOMEWHERE, and fast, I would think, regardless of hardness or flexibility or ductility or whatever. Otherwise, my instinct tells me it is like Wiley Coyote running off the edge of a cliff and just hanging there, looking around, gulping three times, and THEN falling. If column failure doesn't lead to extremely fast shifting of loads, what holds the load up in thin air until it is shifted more slowly?
Another question: why did the entire core have to be dropping at the same time to get the symmetric exterior collapse that we witnessed? If the entire perimeter wall is tightly interconnected, why can't it hold together more or less as a unit even as the interior collapse asymmetrically? In other words, why does a progressive interior collapse require a progressive perimeter wall collapse that reflects it perfectly?
Finally, there is a logical flaw in your NIST argument. You say the NIST fire analysis is flawed. Just for argument, let's say it is flawed. Your next argument: therefore day-of arson, doesn't follow. There may be other explanations even if the NIST Report is flawed. No evidence for arson.

 

[JayUtah]

What I suspect may be going on here, Jay, is not an attempt to personalise the debate, but more an attempt to portray the opposition as monolithic and dishonest.
<snip>
The only possible explanation - that the truthers are, in fact, wrong - is too terrible to contemplate, but they can't come up with a better explanation; so they attack us for not behaving the way they expect.

I can't argue with any of that. I think you hit the nail on the head.

 

[GlennB]

Saying there were more than ten floors on fire in WTC 7 makes the argument that they were caused by the North Tower even more untenable than it already is.

Bare assertion.

It is one giant hand wave by NIST to say fires on ten floors, that show up nearly two hours after the North Tower collapse, were caused by that collapse. They don't bother to explain the problems with it such as the two hour delay,

Explained ad nauseam already. Nobody was caring / able to look.

the massive amounts of gypsum dust that would extinguish the flames in WTC 1 during the collapse,

Flames? Conceivably, though we see flames gushing from the N side at collapse initiation. Significantly cool the hot debris? No chance. Heavy debris such as we see hitting WTC7 might cool a few degrees in 10 seconds.

the fact that there were fires on just a few floors in WTC 1,

Blatant lie

the 350 foot distance between the buildings,

Your burning thermite and/or molten steel made the jump, according to you. Why not red-hot metal? Cake and eat it? You've evaded this question many times.

and the fact that the Verizon and Post Office buildings had no fires.

Different buildings, different construction and differently hit (as the endlessly posted photos demonstrate)

Your argument that there were even more fires in WTC 7 than NIST claims makes the case for arson even greater.

Bare assertion, unevidenced. Worse, your 'arsonists' would have to climb stairs for scores of storeys to set fires in totally insignificant parts of the building, such as half way up the SW corner where there's clear evidence of fire.

Do over, TS! You're 0 for 7 here.

 

[DGM]

Odd Barry Jennings doesn't report seeing any arsonist running around. He was there the whole time they would have been working.