NIST Denies Access to WTC7 Data

[Sword_Of_Truth]

ROFL You believe that free fall of a building can be attained without all supports being removed simultaneously and that no CDs fall into their own footprint.

ROFL, you believe that 16 seconds for a 600 foot building is free fall!

 

[W.D.Clinger]

ROFL There is no affirming the consequent (if P then Q; Q; therefore P). Dave wanted me to prove that CD could result in free fall (if P then Q).

Untrue. In your post, you quoted Dave's question:

Now, let's ignore your strawman argument and get back to what I was actually saying you have no evidence for: an explosive demolition of a building that produces an extended period of freefall. Do you have anything better than YouTube videos? Like, for instance, any actual measurements of the acceleration of a falling building?

That was a request for empirical evidence, not an invitation for you to speculate about "how could CD have done that?"

You responded with illogic, not empirical evidence. If you genuinely misunderstood Dave's request, then the responsibility for your misunderstanding rests with you.

 

[triforcharity]

Hey CMA,

How 'bout this.

You show us another CD of any kind that achieves a perior of FFA.

We'll wait........

 

[George 152]

A reminder to cmatrix.
Explosives explode.
They make a very big bang.
The sound on all the videos made on 911 do not have any big bang after the aircraft impacting the Towers.
The debris ejected from the collapsing Towers is about the only example of anything in freefall

 

[Dave Rogers]

I know that the building could only be in free fall if all supports were removed simultaneously.

Really? So, let's see: suppose all the supports are severed over a sixteen-storey height over a period of 2.25 seconds, during which time the building can at most fall through eight storeys. Are you arguing that a building with eight storeys of empty space under it is not in freefall because the supports that aren't there were not removed simultaneously?

Please take your time, and study the diagram carefully, before you answer.

Dave

 

[Reactor drone]

If, as Cmatrix suggests, the only way for a building to fall at free fall is to simultaneously remove all supports would that mean that every column in the building was cut with explosives? Also, if the building fell at approximately free fall for eight storeys that would imply that every column on at least eight floors was cut in order to avoid the resistance the building would encounter upon hitting the floor below.

This all implies a large number of charges which, in layman's terms, would be extremely *********** loud.

I'm very interested in learning how all this was surreptitiously muffled that day.

 

[Chorduroy]

I could be wrong, but I thought blasting mats were to contain shrapnel, not sound ...

Either way, I don't think blasting mats would have suppressed the audio of THAT many charges going off.

 

[Dave Rogers]

You're right that I'm confused by idiocy, just not my idiocy. You start with a straw man "you believe that the building could only be in freefall if the supports were blown up by explosives?". I don't believe that at all. I know that the building could only be in free fall if all supports were removed simultaneously. Explosives are the most reasonable culprit. You paraphrase that straw man then try to support it with a complete falsehood: "you don't believe that freefall implies simultaneous removal of supports".

Right, let's expand on the thought experiment I outlined earlier.

I think we can all agree from the above that cmatrix's claim is that "the building could only be in free fall if all supports were removed simultaneously"; I hope we can all agree that this implies the claim that, if the supports were not removed simultaneously, then the building could not have been in freefall. I'd like to examine that claim a little further.

Suppose we have a building supported by nine columns, each 100m high, and that each of these supports is rigged for demolition with three charges, at top, middle and bottom, such that the detonation of a set of three charges will completely remove the support of the column. Suppose, also, that each of these charges and its associated control mechanism is sufficiently robust that it will not be damaged should the support collapse that it's attached to. Now, let's blow each column in turn, at 0.25 second intervals; this is a sufficient spacing that the removal of the columns cannot be regarded as simultaneous.

After two seconds, whatever has happened in the meantime due to load transfer and progressive collapse, we may be certain that the building has no support whatsoever, because all nine sets of charges have fired and all supports must therefore have been severed. However, we may also be certain that it has fallen, at most, 20 metres from its initial height, as this is the furthest it could have fallen had it dropped at freefall from the moment the first column was destroyed. We therefore have a building 80 metres in the air, not supported in any way whatsoever. At what rate is this building accelerating downwards?

I think we all know it must be accelerating at 1g, neglecting air resistance. According to cmatrix, however, it cannot be accelerating at 1g, because the supports were not removed simultaneously, therefore the building cannot be in freefall.

I don't expect cmatrix to understand this - or, indeed, anything. But it's a classic example of how clinging to irrational conspiracist dogma based on a total misunderstanding of the most basic laws of physics will lead to a propensity for making utterly absurd claims.

Dave

 

[Grizzly Bear]

If the remaining building supports were not removed simultaneously there would be no free fall. There was free fall. That means the remaining supports were removed simultaneous not progressively.

Or an alternative is that a sufficient amount of the interior support structure had progressively failed to the point where an entire section was to weak to continue supporting itself. When the columns buckled, their integrity as structural load bearing pieces was completely gone. That happens when this failure mode occurs.

How can evidence be recovered when access to it is disallowed? Explosions can be muted with Romex blasting mats. Audio can be edited just like the recently released videos from NIST were clearly edited.

All these "cans, cans, and more cans" but nothing concrete to offer?

From a scientific standpoint the CD theory is the only non-crackpot kook theory to explain WTC 7. On these grounds a true skeptic would reject the official theory and prefer the CD one.

From a scientific standpoint you have yet to produce a single technical analysis that would pass a freshmen university level architecture class.

Do tell, why do think a building collapse due to fire is extraordinary? I expect you to provide examples and then explain point by point why your example is an analogue to the WTC. I expect you to do a full building case study using the WTC and a comparable example of your choice, educate this graduate student with all of your study. I assume if you have a good analysis ready this should be no problem for you.

 

[cmatrix]

Untrue. In your post, you quoted Dave's question:

That was a request for empirical evidence, not an invitation for you to speculate about "how could CD have done that?"

You responded with illogic, not empirical evidence. If you genuinely misunderstood Dave's request, then the responsibility for your misunderstanding rests with you.

I said: "There is no affirming the consequent (if P then Q; Q; therefore P). Dave wanted me to prove that CD could result in free fall (if P then Q)." You said "Untrue" presumably to both. You do not refer to my analysis that completely demolishes your ridiculous claim that I was affirming the consequent. Yet you continue claim that my statement is "illogical". Making completely unsupported pronouncements contradicted by simple reasoning as you did is highly illogical.

Dave asked for evidence CD could result in free fall. You claim that is also untrue stating he was asking for empirical evidence. I provided evidence using logic. The only things untrue are the things you are stating.

Note that no one here has ever ever provided any scientific evidence that WTC 7 came down due to fire. All that has been provided is pseudo-science, diversions, unsupported pronouncements, attacks and other illogic.

 

[Dave Rogers]

Dave asked for evidence CD could result in free fall. You claim that is also untrue stating he was asking for empirical evidence.

Liar.

Now, let's ignore your strawman argument and get back to what I was actually saying you have no evidence for: an explosive demolition of a building that produces an extended period of freefall. Do you have anything better than YouTube videos? Like, for instance, any actual measurements of the acceleration of a falling building?

Very clearly a request for empirical evidence, except to someone who defines "available" as "not available".

Dave

 

[cmatrix]

Really? So, let's see: suppose all the supports are severed over a sixteen-storey height over a period of 2.25 seconds, during which time the building can at most fall through eight storeys. Are you arguing that a building with eight storeys of empty space under it is not in freefall because the supports that aren't there were not removed simultaneously?

Please take your time, and study the diagram carefully, before you answer.

Dave

Nice try Dave but I see right through your pathetic diversions. I said "I know that the building could only be in free fall if all supports were removed simultaneously." By "the building" of course I am referring to WTC 7. A building whose remaining supports were not removed simultaneously would not fall straight down during free fall as WTC 7 did. Instead, the building would start to lean wherever support was lost. Or are you saying the building would magically resist gravity where support was lost?

 

[ElMondoHummus]

And yet I'll just bet you can't provide a detailed technical critique of the NIST findings beyond "free fall" and "simultaneous", eh?

Pfff... what makes you think he's read any part of it?

 

[Dave Rogers]

Nice try Dave but I see right through your pathetic diversions. I said "I know that the building could only be in free fall if all supports were removed simultaneously." By "the building" of course I am referring to WTC 7. A building whose remaining supports were not removed simultaneously would not fall straight down during free fall as WTC 7 did. Instead, the building would start to lean wherever support was lost. Or are you saying the building would magically resist gravity where support was lost?

You need to go back and look at the diagram. You just switched back to your original argument, that it was the lack of lean that proves simultaneous destruction of the supports, not the freefall. You're getting very confused here.

Dave

 

[cmatrix]

Right, let's expand on the thought experiment I outlined earlier.

I think we can all agree from the above that cmatrix's claim is that "the building could only be in free fall if all supports were removed simultaneously"; I hope we can all agree that this implies the claim that, if the supports were not removed simultaneously, then the building could not have been in freefall. I'd like to examine that claim a little further.

Suppose we have a building supported by nine columns, each 100m high, and that each of these supports is rigged for demolition with three charges, at top, middle and bottom, such that the detonation of a set of three charges will completely remove the support of the column. Suppose, also, that each of these charges and its associated control mechanism is sufficiently robust that it will not be damaged should the support collapse that it's attached to. Now, let's blow each column in turn, at 0.25 second intervals; this is a sufficient spacing that the removal of the columns cannot be regarded as simultaneous.

After two seconds, whatever has happened in the meantime due to load transfer and progressive collapse, we may be certain that the building has no support whatsoever, because all nine sets of charges have fired and all supports must therefore have been severed. However, we may also be certain that it has fallen, at most, 20 metres from its initial height, as this is the furthest it could have fallen had it dropped at freefall from the moment the first column was destroyed. We therefore have a building 80 metres in the air, not supported in any way whatsoever. At what rate is this building accelerating downwards?

I think we all know it must be accelerating at 1g, neglecting air resistance. According to cmatrix, however, it cannot be accelerating at 1g, because the supports were not removed simultaneously, therefore the building cannot be in freefall.

I don't expect cmatrix to understand this - or, indeed, anything. But it's a classic example of how clinging to irrational conspiracist dogma based on a total misunderstanding of the most basic laws of physics will lead to a propensity for making utterly absurd claims.

Dave

No your building will not be in free fall. It won't have support but it will be encountering resistance from hitting the massive pieces of unbroken structure. Try again using WTC 7 which is being discussed here and actual methods of explosive controlled demolition.

I don't expect you to understand this - or, indeed, anything. But it's a classic example of how clinging to irrational conspiracist dogma based on a total misunderstanding of the most basic laws of physics will lead to a propensity for making utterly absurd claims.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

No your building will not be in free fall. It won't have support but it will be encountering resistance from hitting the massive pieces of unbroken structure.

Your logic fails here. Instead of winging it I would suggest getting a book which talks about load paths. You especially need to take a lesson on eccentric loading. For all that is sane actually study what you're talking about!!!!

 

[Dave Rogers]

No your building will not be in free fall. It won't have support but it will be encountering resistance from hitting the massive pieces of unbroken structure.

No, it's specified in the description that the building in the thought experiment has had its columns sufficiently fragmented to remove all support, and there are no "massive pieces of unbroken structure". The building is at least 80 feet in the air and has no support, but according to you it cannot be accelerating at 1g because the supports were not removed simultaneously. Describe what is providing the retarding force.

Dave

 

[W.D.Clinger]

Dave asked for evidence CD could result in free fall. You claim that is also untrue stating he was asking for empirical evidence. I provided evidence using logic. The only things untrue are the things you are stating.

You are arguing about Dave's intent. Although you may believe yourself to be the ultimate authority on all matters, Dave Rogers is a more trustworthy authority on what he meant by his request. Dave's clarified his intent, in a message addressed to you, as follows:

Liar.



Very clearly a request for empirical evidence, except to someone who defines "available" as "not available".

 

[beachnut]

There is no lie and no straw man. No math is needed for simple logic. I guess simple logic is too difficult for you so I'll just tell you how to do it. Shaped charges are used to simultaneously remove support columns of a building. If all supports of a building were removed simultaneously with shaped charges there would be no resistance to gravity (free fall).

Math is simple logic; WTC 7 had no shaped charges, zero noise, no noise of explosive. Simple logic; no charges.

The interior began collapsing 8 seconds prior to the facade falling. Use some of your simple logic

 

[fess]

Nice try Dave but I see right through your pathetic diversions. I said "I know that the building could only be in free fall if all supports were removed simultaneously." By "the building" of course I am referring to WTC 7. A building whose remaining supports were not removed simultaneously would not fall straight down during free fall as WTC 7 did. Instead, the building would start to lean wherever support was lost. Or are you saying the building would magically resist gravity where support was lost?

WTC7 did not fall straight down as you well know by now... I would hope.