Merged Freefall is not evidence for Controlled Demolition

[pgimeno]

I've been away from the forum a few days. Did TSz ever get around to explaining the hush-a-boom? Did he regurgitate MM's 'windows will muffle the sound' nonsense?

Not TSz, but MM's spokesperson:

Certainly the sonic dissimilarity between Hollywood feature film sound and real-world recorded sound is obvious in that controlled demolition compilation video.

Even so, the compilation video of building demolitions you linked to reveals a number of important things.

The most significant revelation from those videos is that the loudest and clearest recordings of explosions came from building demolitions where the camera’s microphone is well positioned and faces an unobstructed view of the demolition. Additionally, all those building demolitions followed safety protocols that not only reduced the danger to the building’s surroundings, but also maximized sound projection.

There are significant differences between those engineered collapses and the engineered collapse suffered by WTC7;

WTC7 was prepped to be a surprise demolition and therefore in the interest of stealth, none of the usual building safety and engineering efficiency protocols could be followed.

WTC7 did not have all of its ‘sound suppressing’ windows and doors removed.

WTC7 did not have its ‘sound absorbing’ fixtures and loosely attached interior components removed.

The north side cameras that recorded the sounds from WTC7’s collapse, had obstructed views of WTC7.

The explosions behind the lower floor implosion in WTC7 were shielded from camera view by foreground buildings and the large amount of cordoned off space surrounding WTC7.

Anyone working in a modern office tower knows how well those sealed windows suppress the sound from outside. Likewise, people on the street cannot hear what is happening inside.
The majority of sealed windows on the north and west faces of WTC7 were not broken until the global collapse of WTC7.

Eye witnesses claimed they heard explosions.

 

[Criteria]

It is almost 15 years since 9/11, and leaving aside controlled demolition, not one of you has offered a plausible engineering explanation for what happened to WTC7.

You have put all of your energy into resisting the only plausible explanation.

In spite of arguments about truss relationships, over free-fall accelerations, gutted interiors, 3hr fire-proofing foam, WTC1 debris damage, etc., no one has described a non-CD chain of plausible events which could explain the corners of WTC7 dropping simultaneously for 8 stories of free fall acceleration.

In the NIST FAQ statement about "symmetrical fall" from a one column failure, the NIST agreed that the north side videos show WTC7 falling almost uniformly.

In that FAQ explanation the NIST never properly explain what created the observed "symmetry". The NIST claim, and many here support, that the outer shell of WTC7 remained standing until the weaker, inner framing collapsed. But, the NIST never attempt to explain how the shell lost 8 floors so quickly that rest of WTC7 above dropped through that height at such uniform free fall.

Even if you built an extremely crude miniature of WTC7, without implosion engineering, you could not make it collapse with that much external uniformity no matter how and where you lit your fires.

 

[NoahFence]

It is almost 15 years since 9/11, and leaving aside controlled demolition, not one of you has offered a plausible engineering explanation for what happened to WTC7.

It is plausible that your definition of plausible is lacking.

You have put all of your energy into resisting the only plausible explanation.

In spite of arguments about truss relationships, over free-fall accelerations, gutted interiors, 3hr fire-proofing foam, WTC1 debris damage, etc., no one has described a non-CD chain of plausible events which could explain the corners of WTC7 dropping simultaneously for 8 stories of free fall acceleration.

Sure we have. You've ignored them so that's why you don't remember.

Even if you built an extremely crude miniature of WTC7, without implosion engineering, you could not make it collapse with that much external uniformity no matter how and where you lit your fires.

And yet the building did fail from damage and fire. Strange, that.

Why is it you people don't try to explain HOW it was rigged? You know, plausibly.

 

[JSanderO]

It is almost 15 years since 9/11, and leaving aside controlled demolition, not one of you has offered a plausible engineering explanation for what happened to WTC7.
.

That's not true... While my "explanation" / theory may be incorrect... it's certainly conforms to the motion seen and it does not require any placed devices.

It is explain by a rapid progressive cascading series of east to west "failures" on floors 5-7 in the load transfer structures which were all interconnected.

Once one of those massive elements fails... it will take the whole lot of them with it and everything above them... and collapse the braced frames of the lower 7 floors leading to the moment frame having no support at 8 stories up.

The massive structures failed probably when the very normal standard size connection elements... bolts and welds holding those structures together failed. This was likely a heat related failure.

Conceptually this is what happened to the Miamus Brighe collapse when one 1" Ø pin shear pin corroded and failed bring down the 3 lane span over the river. One failed pin caused the collapse... and that was from corrosion and lack of maintenance over several years.

 

[jaydeehess]

Not TSz, but MM's spokesperson:

Anyone working in a modern office tower knows how well those sealed windows suppress the sound from outside. Likewise, people on the street cannot hear what is happening inside.

Obvious false equivocation is obvious false equivocation.

Anyone who has worked in a high rise knows full well that despite the windows, if work on the street is jackhammers, they are readily audible.
TSz is correct normal street noise is muffled, not completely but mostly, and those on the street cannot hear conversations going on in the offices.

Equating traffic sounds and office noise to high explosive detonations is laughable at best, perhaps merely stupid, and utterly dishonest more likely, IMHO.

 

[JSanderO]

This is pure rubbish:


"Anyone working in a modern office tower knows how well those sealed windows suppress the sound from outside. Likewise, people on the street cannot hear what is happening inside."

I work and live in a masonry building with modern double glazed windows... I have heard several Con Ed pole mounted transformers explode. They sounded like bombs, my neighbors said as much... and they all went running out into the street. These transformers were located more than a block away.

To think that explosives would go off... hundreds at once and not be heard nor recorded is stupid statement.

 

[jaydeehess]

The north side cameras that recorded the sounds from WTC7’s collapse, had obstructed views of WTC7.

Lack of evidence is not evidence.

The explosions behind the lower floor implosion in WTC7 were shielded from camera view by foreground buildings and the large amount of cordoned off space surrounding WTC7.

Lack of evidence is not evidence.

In both the above we have NO evidence of explosions, no sound or video, and the fact that recording devices were obstructing from certain views of the lower floors does nothing whatsoever to increase the available evidence of said explosions.

 

[jaydeehess]

This is pure rubbish:


"Anyone working in a modern office tower knows how well those sealed windows suppress the sound from outside. Likewise, people on the street cannot hear what is happening inside."

I work and live in a masonry building with modern double glazed windows... I have heard several Con Ed pole mounted transformers explode. They sounded like bombs, my neighbors said as much... and they all went running out into the street. These transformers were located more than a block away.

To think that explosives would go off... hundreds at once and not be heard nor recorded is stupid statement.

At one time I lived on the 12th floor of a modern steel apartment building overlooking a busy intersection. While keeping our balcony door closed muffled the street sound, it was quite audible, and once a car backfired as it accelerated away from the light in February (in Ottawa one keeps windows shut in winter). THAT was very very noticeable and made me jump and go look out the window. ONE CAR, ONE BACKFIRE, not 192 high explosive charges detonating!

Last weekend at the cottage a neighbour's golf cart blew a tire (overinflated it). I heard it inside and so did the neighbours two cottages over who were inside and had a cottage between them and the cart as well as a section of shrubs and trees. A freakin' 10 inch tire!

 

[jaydeehess]

In the 1980s I worked on a road construction crew. In the Canadian Shield one often needs to blast granite to push a road through and since this was in a very remote area no covers were used on the blast sites. We would line up about a mile away and watch the blast if a line of sight was available. This happened several times during my summer working there.
The blasts (dynamite) were very loud, and very noticeable, to say the least. They threw rock hundreds of feet to the side.

 

[jaydeehess]

This is pure rubbish:


"Anyone working in a modern office tower knows how well those sealed windows suppress the sound from outside. Likewise, people on the street cannot hear what is happening inside."

I work and live in a masonry building with modern double glazed windows... I have heard several Con Ed pole mounted transformers explode. They sounded like bombs, my neighbors said as much... and they all went running out into the street. These transformers were located more than a block away.

To think that explosives would go off... hundreds at once and not be heard nor recorded is stupid statement.

'zactly, Criteria's statement is utterly stupid.

 

[jaydeehess]

It is almost 15 years since 9/11, and leaving aside controlled demolition, not one of you has offered a plausible engineering explanation for what happened to WTC7.
.

You on the other hand offer supposition and a paranoid world view and absolutely nothing in the way of real research to counter the NIST, and for that matter the Nordeneson, reports. THIS ISSUE has made its way into court and the conclusion was that fire, and structural design specific to WTC 7, were the cause of the collapse of WTC7

 

[jaydeehess]

You have put all of your energy into resisting the only plausible explanation.

What, where? You mean the off the cuff unsupported allegations of explosives?

In spite of arguments about truss relationships, over free-fall accelerations, gutted interiors, 3hr fire-proofing foam, WTC1 debris damage, etc., no one has described a non-CD chain of plausible events which could explain the corners of WTC7 dropping simultaneously for 8 stories of free fall acceleration.

In fact two reports do investigate the collapse progression. Detailing why a short specific period of the collapse that occurs well after the entire structure begins moving is of little forensic interest or import.

In the NIST FAQ statement about "symmetrical fall" from a one column failure, the NIST agreed that the north side videos show WTC7 falling almost uniformly.

I note the modifier word that you equate with the unmodified "uniformly".

In that FAQ explanation the NIST never properly explain what created the observed "symmetry".

So? Is this important in deducing the cause of the collapse? NO, go read NIST's tasking again.

The NIST claim, and many here support, that the outer shell of WTC7 remained standing until the weaker, inner framing collapsed. But, the NIST never attempt to explain how the shell lost 8 floors so quickly that rest of WTC7 above dropped through that height at such uniform free fall.

So? Is this important in deducing the cause of the collapse? NO, go read NIST's tasking again. Note also that it was a far from "uniform free fall acceleration.

Even if you built an extremely crude miniature of WTC7, without implosion engineering, you could not make it collapse with that much external uniformity no matter how and where you lit your fires.

You know this because...... no , you haven't done ANY research into this, only making a bald assumption and putting it out there as fact. Just because you say it doesn't mean anyone has to believe it unless you back it up with research that properly adjusts for scaling issues..

How come even after 15 years of disputing the NIST reports with sound and fury ( a little reference for those who appreciate the Bard), AE911T has not managed to fund and produce any research of equal or greater caliber than the NIST reports?

 

[Andy_Ross]

Reconcile this.
A claim that glass windows somehow suppressed the sound of explosives but people heard explosions.

Which was it?

(Ignore the fact that glass windows wouldn't be intact if high explosive charges had gone off in the building.)

 

[GlennB]

130db - Military jet aircraft take-off from aircraft carrier with afterburner at 50 ft.

120db - Thunderclap, chain saw. Oxygen torch (121 dB). Painful
110db - Steel mill, auto horn at 1 meter. Turbo-fan aircraft at takeoff power at 200 ft (118 dB). Riveting machine (110 dB); live rock music (108 - 114 dB).

100db -Jet take-off (at 305 meters)

NIST estimated 130-140db at a distance of 1km for a single column cut using shaped charges. Szamboti claims column destruction x 192 in the space of one second for single, low-tech and inefficient, explosive charges.

What a monumental joke (even if you don't really appreciate the decibel scale )

 

[beachnut]

It is almost 15 years since 9/11, and leaving aside controlled demolition, not one of you has offered a plausible engineering explanation for what happened to WTC7. ...

Yes, leaving aside your fantasy version of 9/11, and the fact you can't read NIST, or other work, and understand other explanations you failed to find - you remain believing in the dumbest explanation, silent explosives. You bring woo.

You have put all of your energy into resisting the only plausible explanation. ...

While you did not have to waste anytime in research, you googled 9/11 truth failed CD claims and have a fantasy born in BS. Where do you find the silent explosives?

In spite of arguments about truss relationships, over free-fall accelerations, gutted interiors, 3hr fire-proofing foam, WTC1 debris damage, etc., no one has described a non-CD chain of plausible events which could explain the corners of WTC7 dropping simultaneously for 8 stories of free fall acceleration. ...

The collapse took over 18 seconds. You repeat the tag-line of woo, 8 stories of free-fall acceleration, and fail to show how it happened; you can't do physics, and you think idiot Balsamo is an aviation authority. Is MM your source for this delusional CD stuff?

In the NIST FAQ statement about "symmetrical fall" from a one column failure, the NIST agreed that the north side videos show WTC7 falling almost uniformly. ...

The symmetrical fall is funny, as it is not symmetrical. It makes your CD claim nonsensical.

In that FAQ explanation the NIST never properly explain what created the observed "symmetry". The NIST claim, and many here support, that the outer shell of WTC7 remained standing until the weaker, inner framing collapsed. But, the NIST never attempt to explain how the shell lost 8 floors so quickly that rest of WTC7 above dropped through that height at such uniform free fall. ...

Twice with the symmetry, is double fail for the CD fantasy. NIST did show, you failed to pay attention. You also failed to realize no rational engineers support your CD claims. You have less than 0.1 percent of all engineers on your CD fantasy.
Where is you CD model? lol, you don't realize CD is a gravity collapse started with tiny amounts of explosives - 9/11 used fire. You don't know physics.

Even if you built an extremely crude miniature of WTC7, without implosion engineering, you could not make it collapse with that much external uniformity no matter how and where you lit your fires.

It was not uniform. How do you ignore the internal failure? Do you have to fail to gain knowledge; how do you do that?


15 years with 9/11 truth fantasy CD believer unable to provide one study to prove it was CD by silent explosives. Where do they get the silent explosives? No damage to any WTC steel by explosives, or thermite.

Zero evidence remains for the CD fantasy born in paranoia and ignorance by 9/11 truth liars.

Where is your study? Got one yet?

 

[Axxman300]

It is almost 15 years since 9/11, and leaving aside controlled demolition, not one of you has offered a plausible engineering explanation for what happened to WTC7.

Not true, there is at least one active thread where the collapse is being intelligently debated, and there are a good many more on this board.

They just don't appeal to you because:

1. There's a lot of technical discussion.
2. Nobody dodges questions or changes the subject.
3. These are actual debates where often the participants change their minds, or at the very least double check their (actual) calculations.

And believe it or not, there are a lot of engineering types who would like to get to the bottom of 7 because they design buildings. The good thing about the NIST report is their recommendations for changes. The answers to many of your questions are politely resolved in that section.

 

[Criteria]

”It is almost 15 years since 9/11, and leaving aside controlled demolition, not one of you has offered a plausible engineering explanation for what happened to WTC7…”

”Not true, there is at least one active thread where the collapse is being intelligently debated, and there are a good many more on this board.”

Axxman300, if what you say is true, I look forward to hearing what plausible explanation your cohorts have come up with to explain “how its outer shell lost 8 floors so quickly that the rest of WTC7 above immediately dropped at such uniform free fall.

”They just don't appeal to you because:

1. There's a lot of technical discussion.

I am always looking for quality technical discussion about how WTC7 collapsed.

At some point in non-CD explanations the reader is always asked to assume something amazing.

That a mysterious ‘something’ wiped out an 8 story periphery wall surrounding the area roughly that of a football field.

”2. Nobody dodges questions or changes the subject.”

What wisdom advises responding to every inane question that is placed?

Like most members, I write and respond to what interests me.

”3. These are actual debates where often the participants change their minds, or at the very least double check their (actual) calculations.”

I have changed my mind about many details relating to 9/11. The nice thing about pursuing concerns about what happened to WTC7, is that if those concerns are proven wrong, it will come as a great relief.

On the other hand, if I was an ardent believer in the Official Story, I would find it extremely difficult to accept the ramifications of a WTC7 controlled demolition finding.

”And believe it or not, there are a lot of engineering types who would like to get to the bottom of 7 because they design buildings.”

Yes. The bravest ones openly belong to AE911T.

”The good thing about the NIST report is their recommendations for changes. The answers to many of your questions are politely resolved in that section.”

If that is so, the answers to my questions are very well hidden.

 

[NoahFence]

​

Axxman300, if what you say is true, I look forward to hearing what plausible explanation your cohorts have come up with to explain “how its outer shell lost 8 floors so quickly that the rest of WTC7 above immediately dropped at such uniform free fall.

Sharpshooter gibberish. It was damage and fire. There's not a shred of evidence in the real, physical world for anything other than that. We know there were fires in there, we know they were started by the North Tower striking it and we know they weren't fought. None of that is in any way debatable in our universe.

I am always looking for quality technical discussion about how WTC7 collapsed.

Uh huh.

At some point in non-CD explanations the reader is always asked to assume something amazing.

More or less amazing than explosives that don't make noise, or perpetrators that can rig a building (or 3) for demolition while people work in them, with nobody noticing? In buildings whose security was top of the line, given the events in 1993? More or less amazing than ninja's starting fires in WTC 7 AFTER the collapses of the Twin Towers?

Answer please. More or less amazing than that?

That a mysterious ‘something’ wiped out an 8 story periphery wall surrounding the area roughly that of a football field.

Fire is a mystery to you?

What wisdom advises responding to every inane question that is placed?

Like most members, I write and respond to what interests me.

Yes, and if you can't shoehorn something in to an asinine, physically impossible scenario, you ignore it. Like you're about to ignore what I wrote above.

I have changed my mind about many details relating to 9/11. The nice thing about pursuing concerns about what happened to WTC7, is that if those concerns are proven wrong, it will come as a great relief.

Yea, changed your mind from one impossible scenario to the next.

On the other hand, if I was an ardent believer in the Official Story, I would find it extremely difficult to accept the ramifications of a WTC7 controlled demolition finding.

Ever notice there's only 1 "official story" while there are innumerable alternate theories? Work on that. Figure that out.

Yes. The bravest ones openly belong to AE911T.

You know... morons.

 

[Axxman300]

Axxman300, if what you say is true, I look forward to hearing what plausible explanation your cohorts have come up with to explain “how its outer shell lost 8 floors so quickly that the rest of WTC7 above immediately dropped at such uniform free fall.

Hint: Fire & structural damage.

I am always looking for quality technical discussion about how WTC7 collapsed.

There are several on this board.

At some point in non-CD explanations the reader is always asked to assume something amazing.

9-11, so far, was a one-time event. In layman's terms, that means that nothing like it has ever happened before, so there is nothing to compare it to to draw baseline data.

To understand this you need to be able to count to one.

To understand the collapses you have to apply hundreds of known factors involving fire and structural damage related to massive, high-speed impacts, and plane crashes. This is because Al Qaeda hasn't flown jets into other central core highrises, so we lack baseline data.

That a mysterious ‘something’ wiped out an 8 story periphery wall surrounding the area roughly that of a football field.

A lot of damage was done initially by WTC1, and then 8 hours of free-range fires took their toll.

What wisdom advises responding to every inane question that is placed?

Like most members, I write and respond to what interests me.

First, in those grown-up table threads, there are no inane questions.
Second, they are debate/discussions where points are made and countered.

Not answering on this board means one of a few things:

You made a claim that you're wrong about and can't admit it.
You made a claim you know is a lie and you're just trolling.
You made a claim that cannot be backed up in any way.

I've been called out a few times, and I acknowledge it and move on.

I have changed my mind about many details relating to 9/11. The nice thing about pursuing concerns about what happened to WTC7, is that if those concerns are proven wrong, it will come as a great relief.

WTC7 is an engineering side show, not proof of conspiracy.

On the other hand, if I was an ardent believer in the Official Story, I would find it extremely difficult to accept the ramifications of a WTC7 controlled demolition finding.

Let's explore that.

What would have happened had the NYPD bomb squad found evidence of CD in the rubble? If the goal of the conspirators was an erosion of civil liberties then evidence of CD would have handed the US government a golden ticket to abuse the 4th Amendment like it was Christmas. Every tall building in the US would have been searched by the end of October without warrants, without permission (face it, everyone would have given permission). Laws would have been passed giving law enforcement new search powers in the event of a suspected terrorist threat.

So how does hiding CD benefit the conspirators?

If it was CD, then why not use explosives that could be traced back to Iraq/Iran/Libya or whichever nation you want to squeeze?

Evidence of CD on 9-12-2001 would have given Bush the kind of justification to bring a Trident submarine to launch depth, and a areas of the Middle East would be molten glass today...and nobody would have said a thing.

So why hide CD? Why don't Truthers ever think it out this far?

Yes. The bravest ones openly belong to AE911T.

Please.

If that is so, the answers to my questions are very well hidden.

You're not looking for answers. You're a cynic.

The answer is that Al Qaeda hijacked 4 commercial jetliners, two flew into the Twin Towers, which later collapsed, and destroyed almost the entire WTC complex including WTC7.

 

[jaydeehess]

I am always looking for quality technical discussion about how WTC7 collapsed.

At some point in non-CD explanations the reader is always asked to assume something amazing.

That a mysterious ‘something’ wiped out an 8 story periphery wall surrounding the area roughly that of a football field.

Well, according to both the NIST scenario, and Tony Szamboti's scenario (as sparsely outlined as the later is) the core columns failed which overloaded the perimeter columns (or "periphery wall" as you put it) and they buckled.