This video will show you the observed events & analysis.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pVqNouxDcfY
Except it clearly does not show what was observed.
The graphics show an upper section that is rotating AND sliding sideways. The upper section never slid sideways. It pivoted along a line approximatly through the center of the structure as it leaned. When collapse initiated that rotational momentm would now be about the center of mass of the upper section and the section would also start falling stright down. That is to say it never had any horizontal motion (as depicted in the video) at all. Given that the bulk of the upper section was never beyond the footprint of the structure and given that gravity is the only force working on this falling mass the bulk(90%+) of the upper section mass is headed for the lower part of the building and not to one side of the structure.
Furthermore, given that the columns are obviously bent( the upper section is leaning significantly) when the columns do fail they will either bend further or snap. Now if the tower's roof line was 20 beyond the side of the lower section as it leaned this , as I said, means that the great bulk of the mass of the upper section is still over the lower section BUT the force on that mass is not being transmitted through the centeral axis of any column and when the column fails that force will simply not impinge on the lower section of that failed column. In other words, when collapse initiates the columns are no longer in line. What route then does the force and energy available then take? It impinges upon the floor pans obviously. A floorspace is constructed such that it will transfer its force due to its mass to the trusses and from truss to truss seats and thus to the columns. These members are designed to handle the forces generated by ONE basically static floorspace but we now have a very dynamic force with the mass of 10 or so floors and their associated column sections being applied to the trusses and truss seats and just as a cardboard box succumbs with little resistance to the weight of a person jumping on it, so too does the truss and seats. Now one has the mass of this newly demolished floor to add to that of the upper section)minus the relatively small amount of debris that heads off to the sides.
In fact the very fact that debris is moving outward(nothing ever goes up despite the characterisations by the TM) illustrates that the building is not in free fall. So too does the fact that the debris ejected from upper levels reachs the ground before the collapse zone.
In fact in order for the building to have been in free fall all columns on every floor would have to have failed at the same time, and in true CD's little or no debris is ejected despite hundreds or even thousands of pounds of high explosives being loaded into them.
Again on the 2.25 seconds he writes;
When a body is FREEfalling, 100% of the energy held in the body as gravitational potential energy is being converted into kinetic energy (the energy of motion). There is literally zero energy left over to do any work (the work required to bend/buckle/snap the 1000s of tones of structural steel).
You cannot have it both ways. You cannot have FREEfall AND have the building bend/buckle/snap everything in its path. Again, not incredulous, just pure scientifically impossible.
This is IF there is any structure being bend, buckled, or snapped
during that time, by the part of the structure that is visible to observers at that time. He assumes that this is so. He assumes that all there is to what is occuring is what is observable in the videos.
2.25 seconds of free fall of WTC 7; Seismic data illustrates that the building was collapsing internally and externally for a total of approx 18 seconds. IIRC NIST states that during that 2.25 seconds the north wall is seen to be in
essentially free fall. That is to say that as far as it is measurable that the material was falling at an acelleration of 1 g. Given that by this time there was no internal structure left and that the internal damage would have spread at ground level, as internal debris hit the ground, it would not be suprising to have had the lower portions of the exterior columns knocked out at ground level which would put the north wall into a free fall situation.
Notice the column thats been sprayed with white foam it is crisp, clean & undamaged except for maybe a crack near the top................
.........What you see in this picture is a crisp, undamaged column that does not appear to have suffered the steel-slicing force of an aluminium wing. To my eye, it looks like a crisp undamaged column with sharp, undamaged edges (with a box around it saying Hole made by right wing.)
What he is showing is a picture of a column in which the camera is far enough away to obscure details and which is covered in FF'ing foam so his comment that it is crisp and undamaged is patently ridiculous. Due to the foam and the camera placement we cannot ascertain from this photo whether or not a chunk is missing from this column, or if it is cracked along its length, or leaning away from the camera. It is also near the far end of where the starboard wing impacted and one notices that the column to the left is quite substantially damaged(where the wing is heavier. Furthermore the aircraft impact banked slightly to port putting the outer portion of the starboard wing higher on the column than the portion of the wing more inboard of that. He actually mentions that the column he is qquestioning has a crack along the top, where the wing section would have been.
Next we notice that the entire front wall for approx 90 to 100 feet is missing. The bricks and concrete for this wall is not seen on the area in front o the Pentagon so it must be inside. This illustrates that whatever force did this deed it acted on the outside of the wall, not from inside towards the outside. This means it was not a bomb inside the Pentagon nor was it a missile that penetrated the wall then blew up inside. This is also obvious in that there are no exterior walls between the 100 foot wide entrance damage and the 10 foot wide exit damage and so any large explosive going off inside that space should have affected the rear wall and the front wall very similarly and it did not. The debris of the much smaller exit hole is all lieing there outside the structure. This again illustrates that it was a force that acted along a line and in a direction from, front wall to back wall.
There was a large generator on site. It was damaged, banged by something that caused the entire generator to move in a direction towards the building. Again illustrating that there was not a force acted from inside the front wall to the outside.
Where are these apartments and bridges? I really need to know in order to plan to never be in/on them. Its possible that he builds well but it does not bode well for him , his complete mischaracterization of events.
