Merged Freefall is not evidence for Controlled Demolition

[jaydeehess]

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

Which makes examination of the 2.25 second period, that followed the period of 1.75 seconds after the entire structure was on the move, a side show within a side show, within a side show.

 

[tfk]

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.

Nonsense.
You simply won’t put in the slightest effort to try to understand what we’re telling you.
To structural engineers, the NIST explanation is completely plausible for explaining the near symmetry of the final collapse.

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

There is zero plausibility to CD.
For several specific reasons, chief being:

1. no sounds of explosions
2. no “CD cut” columns, beams or girders in the debris pile.

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.

Nonsense.

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 global collapse was not from a “one column failure”.
Just before the global collapse began, there had been an 18-column failure in the core. All except columns 67 thru 72 in the core.
And about 5 columns on the south wall.

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.

There are 2 factors that explain the “near symmetry”.

1. The last remaining columns were the central ones (C67 - C72, near the center of the building).
2. The widely dispersed array of outer columns.

All widely dispersed arrays of columns fall NEARLY straight down.
You can get a little rotation, as seen in WTC2.

And THIS is what you're not getting:
It does NOT fall nearly straight down because all the columns buckle simultaneously.
All the columns buckle simultaneously because it starts to rotate, as it begins to fall.
The rotation is what causes all remaining columns to buckle.

But there was a 2nd effect that caused WTC7 to fall very nearly straight down. When the last remaining support for the core is centrally located, and that central group’s failure generates a global failure of the outer columns, then the result is a VERY NEARLY straight down collapse.

There is no mystery here.

 

[tfk]

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.

The 8 story collapse across the bottom of the building did NOT have to happen quickly at all.

Although it didn't, it could easily have taken a full minute to collapse, if the central 6 columns & outer columns could have withstood the collapse of the remaining columns for that length of time. (It turns out that they could not do so.)

The only thing necessary was that the central group of columns buckle last.
__

And here is the other part that you're not getting:
The 8 story collapse did not have to complete before the global collapse began. It does not have to happen simultaneously. It only had to begin before the global collapse began.

This is like a bunch of cars accelerating off of a starting line.

If the cars all have exactly the same acceleration, whichever car starts first will NEVER get caught by any of the cars that start later. Precisely because they have the same acceleration.

All objects free fall at the same acceleration.
As long as the internal collapse started before the external walls, then the external walls would never have caught up to the internal collapse.

In reality, the central group of columns (C67 - 72) hung in for just couple of seconds or so. This was long enough for the rest of the internal collapse to get far enough into its fall, that the outer columns could not catch it.

The core collapse did NOT have to happen, and didn't happen, "all at once".

However, the outer columns were not capable of supporting the entire remaining building without any core columns.

When the last central columns buckled, the outer columns also buckled promptly.

Again, no mystery.

 

[JSanderO]

​

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.

The first 7 floors up to floor 8 of the perimeter was a different structure from them 40 floors which had a moment frame. Although there was a braced frame midway up as well.

The "shell" / moment frame of the upper 4 stories came down when the braced frames at the east and west sides were pulled in with the collapse of the transfer structures on floors 5-7. Most of the north side of the moment frame was atop the end of cantilever girders which had there south side supported on an east west girder which was tying the cantilevers and the east and west transfer trusses together.

Sequence:
east side transfers fail
east west girder loses support on est side and plunges down at the east side first pulling the cantilever girders with it and finally the west transfer truss.
transfer trusses pull both braced frames inward.
south side was on unbraced 5 story tall columns in the lobby.

 

[beachnut]

symmetrical collapse was made up to fool the fringe few

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.

Every-time you say symmetry, you prove you are full of nonsense.

Did you tell the FBI it was a crime? lol

You can't refute NIST, you have to ignore NIST; you can't refute fire did it, you have to lie about 9/11. Drop the symmetry, it makes CD look dumber.

 

[skyeagle409]

Not TSz, but MM's spokesperson:

Windows do not surpress the sound of explosions. That was evident in Iraq where internal bomb explosions blew out windows and walls.

 

[skyeagle409]

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.

In regards to WTC 7, fire, in conjunction with impact damage, had caused the collapse of WTC 7. Falling debris from WTC 1 had scooped out a huge hole on the south wall of WTC 7 that spanned several stories. Just before WTC 7 collapsed, witnesses heard sounds of failing structural steel as raging fires weakened its structure. That explains why in the final seconds of its collapse, WTC 7 had tilted toward the south. The upper penthouse collapsed moments before the rest of WTC 7 collapsed, which is firm evidence that its structural was slowly failing due to the effects of fire and impact damage. There were no demolition explosions heard at ground zero nor on video. I didn't hear demolition explosions either and I have heard many explosions in war to know what explosions sound like. Additionally, seismic monitors in the general area did not detect demolition explosions. Experts in the area later confirmed that they did not hear demolition explosions as WTC 7 collapsed.
------------------------------------------------------------

9/11 Seismic Recordings

Brent Blanchard devotes section 4 of his paper to the issue of seismic recordings on 9/11. Blanchard is Senior Editor of ImplosionWorld, a website which posts details of explosive demolitions, and also Director of Field Operations at Protec Documentation Services, Inc. Protec works in the field of vibration monitoring and structure inspection, a key service to both the construction and demolition industries.

Vibration monitoring performed by independent experts has long been considered crucial for companies carrying out explosive demolition, because owners of nearby buildings are keen to sue if any cracks or other structural damage appears.

The field seismographs used by Protec and others provide the key scientific evidence for disturbances that may have caused damage, and there were a number of such seismographs operated by Protec on 9/11 in the vicinity of Ground Zero, for monitoring construction sites. Blanchard tells us that data from these machines, and seismographs operated elsewhere, all confirm single vibration events recording the collapse. None of them record the tell-tale 'spikes' that would indicate explosive detonations prior to collapse.

This evidence makes a compelling argument against explosive demolition. The laws of physics dictate that any detonation powerful enough to defeat steel columns would have transferred excess energy through those same columns into the ground, and would certainly have been detected by at least one of the monitors that were sensitive enough to record the structural collapses.

However, a detailed analysis of all available data reveals no presence of any unusual or abnormal vibration events.

 

[skyeagle409]

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.

First of all, there were no demolition explosions anywhere near the WTC buildings. Secondly, there was no way anyone could have planted explosives in a way that could have brought down WTC 1, WTC 2, and WTC 7. Explosives alone cannot bring down a steel frame building. Case in point, I can place a ton of explosives on each floor of the WTC Towers and detonate the explosives at the same time. The end result would blow out windows and walls, yet leave the steel columns standing as was the case with a huge bomb was detonated beneath WTC 1 in 1993, which left its steel columns standing within the huge bomb crater.

In order to bring down a steel frame building with explosives, the first thing you have to do is to weaken the steel columns, then weaken the firewalls and staircases, which is a very noisy and dirty process that would have taken many months. It is also a process that would not have been tolerated in an occupied building.

The pre-weakening process must be completed before explosives are firmly placed on each steel columns, which requires the destruction of walls in order to gain access to the steel columns, which would not have gone unnoticed by those trying to work in peace in those buildings. So, many months of weakening has gone by and the next step is to begin placing cutter charges, which will cut the steel columns. Afterward, explosives such as dynamite are placed firmly on the steel columns in order to push the steel columns into a certain direction in order for the buildings to fall as plan after the cutter charges have done their work and the job has to be properly prepared or the building will remain standing.

By my own estimate, it would take about a year to complete such a process for the WTC Towers. After all, it took about 6 months just to prepare a bridge in Corpus Christi, Texas for demolition, which was a much easier process than it would have taken to prepare WTC 1, WTC 2, and WTC 7 for demolition. In other words, it would have been impossible for anyone to properly prepare each WTC building for demolition and not attract a lot of attention of those working within those buildings. Understand that this is not Hollywood.

 

[skyeagle409]

Evidence of CD = Loud explosions:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eem7d58gjno

Nothing like this on 9-11.

That's right, no explosions heard on video as WTC 1, WTC 2, and WTC 7 collapsed, which is further confirmed by the fact that all seismic machines in the area did not detect demolition explosions, which was confirmed by those who were operating seismic machines at the time of the collapses.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

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.

This highlights the crux of the problem with your argument. You always think a failure sequence in a structural system is tied to what mechanism caused the failure, when the failure sequence is actually tied to the order of failure AND the system's ability to redistribute loads at that point.

You are not thinking about how a structural system functions before hopping to the cause of collapse. Fatal mistake for your premise.

 

[skyeagle409]

​

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.



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.



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

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



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.



Yes. The bravest ones openly belong to AE911T.



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

WTC 7 had suffered massive impact damage on its south wall from WTC 1 and I have to say that WTC 7 did not totally collapse at free fall speed. To further add, fire was responsible for the collapse of WTC 7, not explosives. There was no way that an operation to properly prepare WTC 7 for explosive demolition could have been carried out in secret. You cannot detonate explosives inside steel frame building and expect the building to collapse without pre-weakening its structure. Terrorist tried to bring down WTC 1 in 1993 with a vehicle bomb, yet WTC 1 remained standing. In fact, the steel structure of WTC 1 remained standing within the huge bomb crater.

WTC 1 Bomb Crater

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/10/WTC_1993_ATF_Commons.jpg

As WTC 7 collapsed there was no sound of demolition explosions, which also undeniably proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that no explosives were used to bring down WTC 1, WTC 2 and WTC 7. That fact has been confirmed by demolition experts and seismic monitors which did not detect demolition explosions as the WTC buildings collapsed.

 

[BadBoy]

Freefall acceleration is evidence of zero resistance to the force of gravity.

CD creates the necessary conditions for freefall acceleration to occur.

Disagree,

cutting columns in CD does not remove the columns completely. Further resistance is inevitable since the structure still exists albeit weakened. CD still relies then on the force created by descending upper structures hitting the lower structures. CD != Free Fall and from what I have learned CD rarely shows free fall acceleration from start to finish.

The whole argument is bunk and stupid.

As everyone who really understands knows, the approach is all wrong. Even if it was conceded (which it isn't) the way the WTC7 collapsed could be shown to be similar to a CD, it would be dismissed very quickly because of all the other evidence (or lack of)... you know like no sound of explosives, no evidence of explosives, no real explanation of how the whole building could be wired up for explosives that also survives the fires, etc etc etc. It's like saying the Paluxy Dinosaur/"Man Track" controversy undermines evolution, so god must exist.