If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong. Part II

[ozeco41]

What does a few second of free fall for one tracked point of the roof of 7 WTC mean in an over 18 second collapse which started with an internal failure in a building with fires not fought.

That is the key point. How can "free fall' at the END of a prolonged failure period - whether 10 - 18 or 58 seconds - how can it be consistent with CD?

The collapse process was a cascading sequence from early motion to final plunge.

How can anyone insert a explosive cutting process into a failure that is already under way?

AND - what does the explosive CD achieve - since the building is already on its way down?

 

[DaveThomasNMSR]

That's only because there is no official explanation given by NIST for freefall. This means they did not do their job.

Why would NIST need to explain things which require no explanation?

It has never been proven that "freefall" happens if and only if "controlled demolition." If you want to assert this as fact, please provide a reputable reference.

The point you are dodging is that physics (both theory and experiment) shows, rather clearly, that collapse at "freefall", or even "faster than g", can occur in a purely gravitational collapse.

No "controlled demolition" of any sort is required to explain the motion.

NIST no more needs to explain this 2.25-second period of freefall than they need to explain why the building fell down.

 

[DaveThomasNMSR]

That is the key point. How can "free fall' at the END of a prolonged failure period - whether 10 - 18 or 58 seconds - how can it be consistent with CD?

The collapse process was a cascading sequence from early motion to final plunge.

How can anyone insert a explosive cutting process into a failure that is already under way?

AND - what does the explosive CD achieve - since the building is already on its way down?

 

[KenRam]

First Hand Witness = Me.
Taken from my office window.
Took them about 6 months to prep the building.
One small blast about two months earlier as they took down the elevator shaft.
The building fell into it's own footprint with no damage to surrounding buildings.
I counted 3 seconds of "free fall" until gravity took over.
If you look closely, you will see the Ninja men running from the building as it was an insurance job.

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

 

[jaydeehess]

Whether NIST got it right or not is - as usual - a red herring. Reality is that the sort of failures under discussion cannot be "instantaneous" - they are all variants tof a cascading sequential process. Just some of them move faster and for pragmatic purposes may look near instantaneous. Easiest way to see why is to reverse the thinking - ask "How could multiple bits fail instantaneously/concurrently?" "What mechanism?"


Or possibly even more significant - how can motion near free fall coming so late in the process support explosive cutting CD. (The point that femr2 used to have so much fun with. )

Yes to all. If FF was unclear as to my questions to him you've outlined it very well.

Gotta note that I have asked several times now and received only the truther platitudes back.
FF please note that " I don't know." would be a perfectly valud response on your part.

 

[MileHighMadness]

But Richard Gage doesn't want a new investigation, so why should I or anyone else support one?

This is a new trick. Please explain.

Because Gage knows the truth will hurt him, his organization, and greatly reduce donations.

 

[ozeco41]

[qimg]http://www.nmsr.org/thumb-up-arnold.jpg[/qimg]

Thanks Dave.

These debates do tend to lose sight of the basics...

...chasing alligators teeth and forgetting "Drain the Swamp"

 

[DGM]

That is the key point. How can "free fall' at the END of a prolonged failure period - whether 10 - 18 or 58 seconds - how can it be consistent with CD?

The collapse process was a cascading sequence from early motion to final plunge.

How can anyone insert a explosive cutting process into a failure that is already under way?

AND - what does the explosive CD achieve - since the building is already on its way down?

Tony Sz does address this problem. He says the penthouse dropping/roof kink was a separate event, not connected to the global collapse.

 

[ozeco41]

Tony Sz does address this problem. He says the penthouse dropping/roof kink was a separate event, not connected to the global collapse.

Tony says a lot of things which aren't connected.

 

[Oystein]

...
How can anyone insert a explosive cutting process into a failure that is already under way?
...

Devil's Advocate nit-picking:

If I understand the Art of CD correctly, one major technique employed by CD masters is timing different sets of explosive charges such that the building falls in a certain pattern.

(Often, they fire some preliminary charged to weaken the structure without starting the collapse yet. I am not talking about those.)

Once the first set of charged has been exploded and it cut a first set of supports, the building collapses.
Thus, technically, the second, third, fourth... set of explosives is "insert[ed] ... into a failure that is already under way"

 

[beachnut]

Devil's Advocate nit-picking:

If I understand the Art of CD correctly, one major technique employed by CD masters is timing different sets of explosive charges such that the building falls in a certain pattern.

(Often, they fire some preliminary charged to weaken the structure without starting the collapse yet. I am not talking about those.)

Once the first set of charged has been exploded and it cut a first set of supports, the building collapses.
Thus, technically, the second, third, fourth... set of explosives is "insert[ed] ... into a failure that is already under way"

This works if they do it right.

Compared to releasing E=mgh, explosives used in CD are tiny. The energy used to destroy the building is stored in the building. E=mgh, released.

 

[jaydeehess]

Devil's Advocate nit-picking:

If I understand the Art of CD correctly, one major technique employed by CD masters is timing different sets of explosive charges such that the building falls in a certain pattern.

(Often, they fire some preliminary charged to weaken the structure without starting the collapse yet. I am not talking about those.)

Once the first set of charged has been exploded and it cut a first set of supports, the building collapses.
Thus, technically, the second, third, fourth... set of explosives is "insert[ed] ... into a failure that is already under way"

Yes they can 'steer' the structure. However trying to do that when 80% of the structure is already moving would be nigh on impossible. Supposedly free fall is indicative of the removal by CD of all columns meaning that these explosives do their work a fraction of a second prior to FF onset. At that time the entire upper 80% or so of the structure was already moving. Removing the lowest portion of the columns at that point would affect NOTHING in any significant wat. The supposed meme for destruction of WTC was to ensure it complete destruction yet setting off explosives for the purpose of attaining FF would not have changed the fact that the building was coming down completely already. Another meme is that explosives were used to ensure less collateral damge. On the fact of it this is ridiculous. The supposed peeps just managed to kill thousands of people, utterly destroy all other 6 WTC structures, a church and sundry other nearby buildings (anyone who disputes that the other WTC structures were utterly destroyed can point to which ones were repairable and/or still exist), yet were deeply concerned about collateral damage.
Another not-well-thought-out platitude is to point out little damage to the Post Office and Verizon buildings. Yes, imagine that, WTC fell to the South and North rather than along the line of its long E-W axis. My grandchild knows that if he places his wooden rectangular block on the ground with short side long axis on the ground it's going to topple along the short axis ( though if asked he would simply point to which watyou it would go. He doesn't know the word 'axis')

 

[Oystein]

This works if they do it right.

Compared to releasing E=mgh, explosives used in CD are tiny. The energy used to destroy the building is stored in the building. E=mgh, released.

Yes, I know.

From memory:
The Landmark Tower in Fort Worth was 30 stories high - make that 115 m. It may have been half as wide - say 30x30 m.
Volume = 115*30*30 m³ ~= 100,000 ³Density of modern highrises is probably in the vicinity of 1/6 to 1/5 tons/m³, so:
m ~= 1/5 of 100,000 tons = 20,000,000 kg
Center of mass would be a bit below half the height - say 55 m.
So

GPE = m*h*g ~= 20,000,000 kg * 55 m * 9,8 m/s² ~= 12 GJ.

They demolished it with only 365 kg of high explosives, which have an energy density near 5 MJ/kg
So

ChE ~= 365*5 MJ ~= 1.8 GJ
That's 15% of GPE.

The energy of the explosives is not "tiny" compared to the potential energy of the building's mass, but it surely is often less, by some factor.

 

[ozeco41]

Devil's Advocate nit-picking:

If I understand the Art of CD correctly, one major technique employed by CD masters is timing different sets of explosive charges such that the building falls in a certain pattern.

Sure.

I doubt it is possible to write arguments which are both persuasively readable and nit pick proof.

I usually aim for para-legal pedantry on those occasions when I am presenting arguments in opposition to fairly well reasoned opposing arguments - therefore the not unusual situation where the opponent is a debunker who is a bit wrong. (Remember the base rules "There are two groups of members in this game - (1) Those who agree with me and (2) Those who are wrong" ) (Truthers rarely even attempt reasoned argument - more often unsupported bare assertions.)

Such pedantry usually takes many more words. So I drop the pedantry when the aim is to present a simple point clearly. On such occasions I will also use words like "impossible" and "prove" without the disclaiming cop outs towards scientific method.

I'm well aware of the place of sequencing in explosive demolition. But to make the point I did would take many more words if stated with pedantic precision and it would lose all the impact.

And the underlying point is valid for the scenario in which I applied it.

 

[ozeco41]

Yes, I know.

From memory:
The Landmark Tower in Fort Worth was 30 stories high - make that 115 m. It may have been half as wide - say 30x30 m.
Volume = 115*30*30 m³ ~= 100,000 ³Density of modern highrises is probably in the vicinity of 1/6 to 1/5 tons/m³, so:
m ~= 1/5 of 100,000 tons = 20,000,000 kg
Center of mass would be a bit below half the height - say 55 m.
So

GPE = m*h*g ~= 20,000,000 kg * 55 m * 9,8 m/s² ~= 12 GJ.

They demolished it with only 365 kg of high explosives, which have an energy density near 5 MJ/kg
So

ChE ~= 365*5 MJ ~= 1.8 GJ
That's 15% of GPE.

The energy of the explosives is not "tiny" compared to the potential energy of the building's mass, but it surely is often less, by some factor.

Plus there are two other risks we commonly see exampled;

A) Going to quantified detail can also obscure the simple point; AND
B) Often facilitates drifting into discussions of abstract pure physics when the objective was explanation or rebuttal of a simple specific and real event related claim.

AKA false claims about a simple straight forward false assertion about WTC collapse "in another place"

Your turn.



PS Oooops - crossed in posting.

I see jaydeehess has also given me another example of the process risks of derailment into details obscuring a simple point.

I know I'll rarely win a big picture point when the temptation to go to details is ever present.... references to "In wrong forest" OR "alligators/swamps" are totally infective.

 

[FalseFlag]

Deleted. No need to wait for someone else to do it.

 

[WilliamSeger]

That's only because there is no official explanation given by NIST for freefall. This means they did not do their job.

Following the vertical collapse under the penthouse, the NIST model showed column failures propagating horizontally across 8 floors before the entire building began to fall. After that report was published, Chandler found that the building's exterior shell experienced approximate free-fall for a distance of about 8 floors. NIST then updated the report to acknowledge that detail and attributed it to column buckling, which is an "official" acknowledgement of an explanation that was already fairly obvious. NIST cannot force you to understand that explanation, so that cannot be their job description.

On the other hand, Chander's explanation -- 8 floors blown away by magical silent explosives after the building was already falling -- is perfectly idiotic and woefully incomplete. Chandler, Cole, Szamboti and the entire AE911truth crew haven't done their job of giving any rational reason to think another investigation would produce a different result.

 

[NoahFence]

Do you have any facts to support your conclusion?

Uh, yea.
Reality. When is he going to forward this petition?

 

[DGM]

Do you have any facts to support your conclusion?

I do. Gage has been running this "petition" for over 10 years. What good is it really? Why has he not submitted it?

You're a believer, ask him that question. Report on what he says.

 

[tfk]

Why do you continue to ignore freefall and what the implications are?

I can explain to you exactly why NEAR freefall occurred, why it started when it did, and why it ended when it did.
The reason is clearly apparent in NIST's simulation.

Now, please explain to me why, after all of your specious game-playing, I should bother giving you the time of day, much less an explanation that you're going to dismiss & ignore.