'What about building 7'?

[JSanderO]

In relation to building 7, here is a simple statement based on everything I’ve learnt in the last 58 years :
Buildings cannot fall in or near free-fall acceleration except by controlled demolition. The simple explanation of this statement comes from Newtons 3rd law.
“For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction”.
When an object falls in free-fall acceleration, the only reaction is the planet being drawn towards the object with the same force as the object is being drawn towards the planet. (The object moves and the planet proportionately less due to a big difference in mass).
Because free-fall, by definition, requires zero resistance, this means there is no material getting in the way of the falling object. Nothing for it to interact with.
A building is held up by the material used to build it, so all this material has to be removed by some other force to allow free-fall. It can’t be the object falling that's clearing its own path down through the building material of the structure below it because, if it was, that would slow it down or stop it.
This means, if I understand Newtons 3rd law correctly, that Building 7 was a controlled demolition.
Simply put, the established and universally agreed 2.25 seconds of free-fall of Building 7 proves controlled demolition.
I am sorry if this statement hurts the feelings of some or contradicts the beliefs of others but that’s what this forum is for isn’t it? To have our beliefs challenged and to educate?
The fact of free-fall is confirmed by measurement which anyone can do and is admitted by NIST in their final report of November 2008; NIST NCSTAR 1A. Page 46, chapter 3, figure 3-15, “Downward velocity of north face roof-line as WTC began to collapse”.
I think we need a proper investigation into the destruction of building 7, recognizing these basic undeniable facts because we still don’t know who did it. We only know who has lied about it for 13 years and spent enormous amount of public funds on the ongoing effort to cover it up.
I wouldn’t think this will really meet the JREF definition of a CT because it’s just basic education and simple observation but I would like the seasoned critical thinkers of JREF to provide valid criticism on my understanding of Newtons 3rd law. People who can't spell truther and write twoofer or similar are beyond my comprehension. They are either more intelligent than me so I don't understand them or they are not able to confront the facts I am revealing and so they resort to name-calling to avoid intelligent debate.
Your comments and counter arguments please. Thank you.

Your conception of what took place is severely flawed. The tower did not collapse as integral block falling over the height of 8 stories... this did not happen.. this is an idiotic construct because PART of the building... the curtain wall DID collapse down at what was pretty much free fall... because the structure BENEATH the frame behind the curtain wall had collapsed... and it was 8 stories tall.

Had you studied the structure you would know that the entire north facade and frame just inside the curtain wall support it... was supported on the end of cantilevered beams at the 8th floor... no structure below that frame for 8 floors. The east and west had 8 stories of a braced frame (truss) with only 3 columns coupled to the foundations. The south side had a 5 story high lobby with no lateral bracing for the south columns for the 5 stories. The tower was built over a Con Ed sub station with 3 massive transfer structures to move the loads (forces) from the columns above floor 8 to the foundation.

As others have noted.. the collapse took longer than 6 or 7 seconds... the interior collapsed well before the facade which you and others seem to think is the entire building coming down. It was not. It was the shell... the interior had already collapsed.

If you refuse to see or cannot see what actually happened... you can't possible understand the physics or conclude anything about the REAL event. You are in the company of the truth movement who has made up their own reality - a fantasy... of what happened.

All of the points you raise have been refuted many times over.

 

[swright777]

In relation to building 7, here is a simple statement based on everything I’ve learnt in the last 58 years :
Buildings cannot fall in or near free-fall acceleration except by controlled demolition. The simple explanation of this statement comes from Newtons 3rd law.
“For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction”.
When an object falls in free-fall acceleration, the only reaction is the planet being drawn towards the object with the same force as the object is being drawn towards the planet. (The object moves and the planet proportionately less due to a big difference in mass).
Because free-fall, by definition, requires zero resistance, this means there is no material getting in the way of the falling object. Nothing for it to interact with.
A building is held up by the material used to build it, so all this material has to be removed by some other force to allow free-fall. It can’t be the object falling that's clearing its own path down through the building material of the structure below it because, if it was, that would slow it down or stop it.
This means, if I understand Newtons 3rd law correctly, that Building 7 was a controlled demolition.
Simply put, the established and universally agreed 2.25 seconds of free-fall of Building 7 proves controlled demolition.
I am sorry if this statement hurts the feelings of some or contradicts the beliefs of others but that’s what this forum is for isn’t it? To have our beliefs challenged and to educate?
The fact of free-fall is confirmed by measurement which anyone can do and is admitted by NIST in their final report of November 2008; NIST NCSTAR 1A. Page 46, chapter 3, figure 3-15, “Downward velocity of north face roof-line as WTC began to collapse”.
I think we need a proper investigation into the destruction of building 7, recognizing these basic undeniable facts because we still don’t know who did it. We only know who has lied about it for 13 years and spent enormous amount of public funds on the ongoing effort to cover it up.
I wouldn’t think this will really meet the JREF definition of a CT because it’s just basic education and simple observation but I would like the seasoned critical thinkers of JREF to provide valid criticism on my understanding of Newtons 3rd law. People who can't spell truther and write twoofer or similar are beyond my comprehension. They are either more intelligent than me so I don't understand them or they are not able to confront the facts I am revealing and so they resort to name-calling to avoid intelligent debate.
Your comments and counter arguments please. Thank you.

You don't, and they are, respectively.

Try reading a couple dozen of the threads here regarding this. They are (usually) very educational.

 

[turingtest]

You don't, and they are, respectively.

Try reading a couple dozen of the threads here regarding this. They are (usually) very educational.

Oh, come on now- surely Rts's "basic education and simple observation" trumps NIST (who apparently weren't aware of, or simply didn't account for, Newton's 3rd Law)?

ETA- if there's one thing I've learned in my (almost) 58 years, it's to not think so highly of myself as the average CTist apparently does of himself.

 

[Miragememories]

In relation to building 7, here is a simple statement based on everything I’ve learnt in the last 58 years :

Buildings cannot fall in or near free-fall acceleration except by controlled demolition.

The simple explanation of this statement comes from Newtons 3rd law.
“For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction”.

When an object falls in free-fall acceleration, the only reaction is the planet being drawn towards the object with the same force as the object is being drawn towards the planet. (The object moves and the planet proportionately less due to a big difference in mass).

Because free-fall, by definition, requires zero resistance, this means there is no material getting in the way of the falling object. Nothing for it to interact with.

A building is held up by the material used to build it, so all this material has to be removed by some other force to allow free-fall.

It can’t be the object falling that's clearing its own path down through the building material of the structure below it because, if it was, that would slow it down or stop it.

This means, if I understand Newtons 3rd law correctly, that Building 7 was a controlled demolition.

Simply put, the established and universally agreed 2.25 seconds of free-fall of Building 7 proves controlled demolition.

I am sorry if this statement hurts the feelings of some or contradicts the beliefs of others but that’s what this forum is for isn’t it? To have our beliefs challenged and to educate?

The fact of free-fall is confirmed by measurement which anyone can do and is admitted by NIST in their final report of November 2008; NIST NCSTAR 1A. Page 46, chapter 3, figure 3-15, “Downward velocity of north face roof-line as WTC began to collapse”.

I think we need a proper investigation into the destruction of building 7, recognizing these basic undeniable facts because we still don’t know who did it.

We only know who has lied about it for 13 years and spent enormous amount of public funds on the ongoing effort to cover it up.

I wouldn’t think this will really meet the JREF definition of a CT because it’s just basic education and simple observation but I would like the seasoned critical thinkers of JREF to provide valid criticism on my understanding of Newtons 3rd law.

People who can't spell truther and write twoofer or similar are beyond my comprehension. They are either more intelligent than me so I don't understand them or they are not able to confront the facts I am revealing and so they resort to name-calling to avoid intelligent debate.

Your comments and counter arguments please. Thank you.

Thank you for submitting such a thoughtful well presented post Realtruthseeker.

As you can see those in denial of the basic truths you presented are quick to spring forward in an attempt to re-educate you to their way of thinking.

To see what you see terrifies them as it should anyone.

Some of us are willing to face the real problem presented by the artificial collapse of WTC7, while the vast majority here support the '3 monkeys'.

 

[Miragememories]

Your conception of what took place is severely flawed. The tower did not collapse as integral block falling over the height of 8 stories... this did not happen.. this is an idiotic construct because PART of the building... the curtain wall DID collapse down at what was pretty much free fall... because the structure BENEATH the frame behind the curtain wall had collapsed... and it was 8 stories tall.

Had you studied the structure you would know that the entire north facade and frame just inside the curtain wall support it... was supported on the end of cantilevered beams at the 8th floor... no structure below that frame for 8 floors. The east and west had 8 stories of a braced frame (truss) with only 3 columns coupled to the foundations. The south side had a 5 story high lobby with no lateral bracing for the south columns for the 5 stories. The tower was built over a Con Ed sub station with 3 massive transfer structures to move the loads (forces) from the columns above floor 8 to the foundation.

As others have noted.. the collapse took longer than 6 or 7 seconds... the interior collapsed well before the facade which you and others seem to think is the entire building coming down. It was not. It was the shell... the interior had already collapsed.

If you refuse to see or cannot see what actually happened... you can't possible understand the physics or conclude anything about the REAL event. You are in the company of the truth movement who has made up their own reality - a fantasy... of what happened.

All of the points you raise have been refuted many times over.

Newton, and those who understand his theory would have an extremely difficult time seeing the "serious flaws" in Realtruthseeker's reasoning.

It is particular galling when you state something as fact when in actuality it is only unsupported guesswork.

Even the NIST, with their vast resources and years of attempting to find a plausible non-artificial explanation for the WTC7 collapse, avoided your ridiculous hypothesis JSanderO.

Regardless of what happened, hours, or seconds before the 2.25 seconds of WTC7's acknowledged free-fall collapse acceleration, it is undeniable that for 8 storeys, vertical support vanished.

Your preposterous hypothesis would have us believe everything supporting 8 storeys D R O P P E D and virtually no time was required for the failure of all the internal and external columns.

 

[NoahFence]

Thank you for submitting such a thoughtful well presented post Realtruthseeker.

As you can see those in denial of the basic truths you presented are quick to spring forward in an attempt to re-educate you to their way of thinking.

To see what you see terrifies them as it should anyone.

Some of us are willing to face the real problem presented by the artificial collapse of WTC7, while the vast majority here support the '3 monkeys'.

Any chance of you presenting a working theory on the entire day's events?

Beuller?

Beuller?

The only way humanly possible for anyone to acknowledge the idiocy that you're selling is to provide that theory. You and your cadre of simpletons have yet to do so.

Do it and become relevant. Don't do it and suffer a lifetime of insignificance.

Your choice.

 

[pgimeno]

When an object falls in free-fall acceleration, the only reaction is the planet being drawn towards the object with the same force as the object is being drawn towards the planet. (The object moves and the planet proportionately less due to a big difference in mass).

This is false.

Assuming that by "free-fall acceleration" you mean the acceleration of gravity, when an object falls with the acceleration of gravity, it means that the total of the forces pointing down other than weight, plus the total of the forces pointing up equals zero. It does not mean both of them are zero, just that they cancel out.

It's true that if there's a relatively long period of sustained free fall, it would be extremely rare that the upward force and the downward force exactly cancel each other, and based on that improbability, you would have an argument to claim that the building fell unimpeded, i.e. fell in free-fall.

But a more accurate acceleration profile of WTC7, obtained after the NIST report was out, reveals that that is not the case. On the contrary, the acceleration EXCEEDS gravity for more than a second, and does not equal gravity except for a few extremely short instants of time.

Here's an accurate acceleration profile of the NW corner of WTC7 (smoothed to make it useful):
http://femr2.ucoz.com/_ph/7/350095033.png

Taking that information into account, the rest of your argument falls apart.

It has been thoroughly discussed on this forum how that faster-than-g situation could happen. My own take on how it could have happened is drafted here:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8340060&postcount=5239

I wouldn’t think this will really meet the JREF definition of a CT because it’s just basic education and simple observation but I would like the seasoned critical thinkers of JREF to provide valid criticism on my understanding of Newtons 3rd law.

"This" is the usual one-sided argument that has not weighed in the other side of things properly, therefore it fully qualifies as a CT argument.

 

[Spanx]

Then there was Two.

 

[JayUtah]

Thank you for submitting such a thoughtful well presented post regurgitation of prior debunked claims Realtruthseeker.

As you can see those in denial of the basic truths beliefs based on lay understanding you presented are quick to spring forward in an attempt to re-educate you to their way of thinking point out its highly visible factual and logical errors.

To see what you see terrifies them as it should anyone requires an almost willful disregard for fact and expertise, as has been shown.

Some of us are willing to face the real problem presented by cling tenaciously to the fantasy of the artificial collapse of WTC7, while the vast majority here support the '3 monkeys' represent the vast majority, including the unanimity of relevant experts.

Your post, with its rhetorical nonsense corrected.

 

[JayUtah]

Newton, and those who understand his theory...

I don't recognize you as authoritative in speaking for Newton and "all who understand his theory." Begging the question.

It is particular galling when you state something as fact when in actuality it is only unsupported guesswork.

No. He presents a plausible structural analysis based on expertise I recognize as valid and a correct understanding of the building's construction. You may indeed take issue with it and present an alternative sequence, but you may not dismiss his learned judgment as merely "unsupported guesswork."

Since the controlled-demolition theory is entirely inference predicated upon a simplistic interpretation of the observations, I don't think you have much to stand on when you try to invoke rigor as an important consideration of whose hypothesis should receive more attention.

Even the NIST, with their vast resources and years of attempting to find a plausible non-artificial explanation...

Straw man. NIST has couched their conclusions in appropriate qualifications.

Your preposterous hypothesis...

...is by no means preposterous. Hyperbole.

 

[beachnut]

... This means, if I understand Newtons 3rd law correctly, that Building 7 was a controlled demolition.


Simply put, the established and universally agreed 2.25 seconds of free-fall of Building 7 proves controlled ...
Your comments and counter arguments please. Thank you.

No matter how much you wave your hands and celebrate you found a study of a single point of the facade of WTC 7 collapsing at g, while the system overall was less than g - then without evidence of CD, clam CD for a gravity Calliope caused by fire - your delusion of CD does not fly.

Is your fantasy CD, silent explosives, or no product thermite?

You bring no evidence, repeat silly claims from 911 truth, and run away. Next time take physics instead of repeating the party line for 911 truth, a movement of lies, hearsay, and failed opinions. If you wanted to mock the murder of thousands by 19 terrorists, you have found a way.

You base your CD fantasy on the study of one point. What was the rest of the building doing? You don't do physics.

You forgot in your 58 years to not trust liars like 911 truth.
You never took physics, or you would know what you are saying is BS.
58 years and you are fooled by a fake movement, and use Newton's third law to help you ignore the lack of evidence for explosives, and the 911 truth favorite fantasy, thermite.

Where is your evidence, you gave us a failed opinion and forgot you have no evidence. Did you make up the Newton's third law junk? Do you have the "law of least resistance" ready for the WTC tower's collapse?

Did you tell the FBI WTC 7 was a CD? ABC? CBS? Anyone? No, you have BS, and nobody will pay attention to your evidence free claim of CD.

With this big failure to understand WTC 7, what will you do to Flight 77 and Flight 93 to make the big inside job single integrated operations plan part of your failed fantasy. How will you mangle the rest of 911 events.

 

[MileHighMadness]

In relation to building 7, here is a simple statement based on everything I’ve learnt in the last 58 years :
Buildings cannot fall in or near free-fall acceleration except by controlled demolition. The simple explanation of this statement comes from Newtons 3rd law.
“For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction”.
When an object falls in free-fall acceleration, the only reaction is the planet being drawn towards the object with the same force as the object is being drawn towards the planet. (The object moves and the planet proportionately less due to a big difference in mass).
Because free-fall, by definition, requires zero resistance, this means there is no material getting in the way of the falling object. Nothing for it to interact with.
A building is held up by the material used to build it, so all this material has to be removed by some other force to allow free-fall. It can’t be the object falling that's clearing its own path down through the building material of the structure below it because, if it was, that would slow it down or stop it.
This means, if I understand Newtons 3rd law correctly, that Building 7 was a controlled demolition.
Simply put, the established and universally agreed 2.25 seconds of free-fall of Building 7 proves controlled demolition.
I am sorry if this statement hurts the feelings of some or contradicts the beliefs of others but that’s what this forum is for isn’t it? To have our beliefs challenged and to educate?
The fact of free-fall is confirmed by measurement which anyone can do and is admitted by NIST in their final report of November 2008; NIST NCSTAR 1A. Page 46, chapter 3, figure 3-15, “Downward velocity of north face roof-line as WTC began to collapse”.
I think we need a proper investigation into the destruction of building 7, recognizing these basic undeniable facts because we still don’t know who did it. We only know who has lied about it for 13 years and spent enormous amount of public funds on the ongoing effort to cover it up.
I wouldn’t think this will really meet the JREF definition of a CT because it’s just basic education and simple observation but I would like the seasoned critical thinkers of JREF to provide valid criticism on my understanding of Newtons 3rd law. People who can't spell truther and write twoofer or similar are beyond my comprehension. They are either more intelligent than me so I don't understand them or they are not able to confront the facts I am revealing and so they resort to name-calling to avoid intelligent debate.
Your comments and counter arguments please. Thank you.

Wow...did I just fall into the Hot Tub Time Machine, it seems like 2006.

Are you coming back, or is this a one thick pony (post)...and we never hear from you again.

 

[LSSBB]

Simply put, the established and universally agreed 2.25 seconds of free-fall of Building 7 proves controlled demolition.

This is not established and not universally agreed upon. In fact, it has no evidentiary support whatsoever.

To prove me wrong, show me an acceleration graph of the exterior of WTC7 with any significant period of constant free fall. You won't, because it doesn't exist. Accurate profiles, as pgimeno noted, show acceleration bouncing above and below g. It is not constant, so it is not constantly falling.

Newton allows for this, as long as the forces stack up correctly. If the interior of the building applies sufficient force to the exterior as the exterior falls, the exterior can accelerate at or above g. This is leverage, it is simple physics. Your claim fails.

We have another thread on this forum ( Freefall is not Evidence for Controlled Demolition ) where this has been discussed in great detail. Please also reference the link in the OP of that thread, which references the technical discussion of the acceleration profiles.

 

[DGM]

In relation to building 7, here is a simple statement based on everything I’ve learnt in the last 58 years :
Buildings cannot fall in or near free-fall acceleration except by controlled demolition. The simple explanation of this statement comes from Newtons 3rd law.
“For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction”.

When an object falls in free-fall acceleration, the only reaction is the planet being drawn towards the object with the same force as the object is being drawn towards the planet. (The object moves and the planet proportionately less due to a big difference in mass).

Because free-fall, by definition, requires zero resistance, this means there is no material getting in the way of the falling object. Nothing for it to interact with.

So your theory is these explosives took out everything for seven stories leaving absolutely nothing in between?

Perhaps you need to reevaluate your last 58 years.

 

[tsig]

Oh, come on now- surely Rts's "basic education and simple observation" trumps NIST (who apparently weren't aware of, or simply didn't account for, Newton's 3rd Law)?

ETA- if there's one thing I've learned in my (almost) 58 years, it's to not think so highly of myself as the average CTist apparently does of himself.

In 58 years I'd hope he learned more than one thing and that thing wrong.

 

[JayUtah]

Accurate profiles, as pgimeno noted, show acceleration bouncing above and below g. It is not constant, so it is not constantly falling.

What's really hilarious about the vague, handwaving references to Newton is that if one reads the actual words that Newton wrote, the spirit of which is preserved in modern texts on mechanics, Newton refers to the behavior of, and effects upon, particles. Newtonian mechanics is careful to define "particle" as a singular body having mass and location, and within which no calculable interactivity occurs. The venerable laws of motion apply to particles acting and being acted upon. The realization is that real-world objects are composed of many such particles and that Newton's basic laws only loosely describe the behavior of these aggregations of particles.

The facade of a buidling is by no means a "particle" in the Newtonian sense. It is absolutely wrong to attempt to consider the entire structure of, or even a sizable fraction of, a building as a Newtonian particle to which Newton's most elementary laws can apply. The Truthers cannot even begin to display a working understanding of actual Newtonian mechanics -- i.e., the way Newton wrote them and the way they're taught to engineers today. This is why I find their ignorant handwaving to "Newton's laws" to be so comically inept.

 

[jaydeehess]

Thank you for submitting such a thoughtful well presented outline of an erroneous, simplistic, one dimensional version of what occurred, Realtruthseeker.

As you can see those in denial with understanding of the basic truths you presented apparently cannot envision, are quick to spring forward in an attempt to re-educate you to their way of thinking.

To see what you see terrifies them, as it should anyone concerned about the state of science application and logical reasoning in our society.

Some of us are willing to face the real problem presented by the artificial concept of collapse of WTC7, promoted by those of like mind as you, while the vast majority here cannot support the '3 monkeys bad movie science.

FTFY MMemories.

 

[Miragememories]

Simply put, the established and universally agreed 2.25 seconds of free-fall of Building 7 proves controlled demolition.

This is not established and not universally agreed upon. In fact, it has no evidentiary support whatsoever.

From the NIST is summary in Section 3.6 of the final summary report, NCSTAR 1A (released Nov. 20, 2008; available at http://wtc.nist.gov/NCSTAR1/PDF/NCSTAR 1A.pdf) and detailed in Section 12.5.3 of NIST NCSTAR 1-9 (available at http://wtc.nist.gov/NCSTAR1/PDF/NCST... Vol 2.pdf).

* Stage 2 (1.75 to 4.0 seconds): gravitational acceleration (free fall)

From the Aug.26, 2008 NIST Technical Briefing;

"...a free fall time would be an object that has no...uh... structural components below it..."

Like I said;

 

[LSSBB]

From the NIST is summary in Section 3.6 of the final summary report, NCSTAR 1A (released Nov. 20, 2008; available at{snip}

From the Aug.26, 2008 NIST Technical Briefing;
{Snip}

What you say is wrong. Do you accept everything NIST says? Their own GRAPH does not show the period of constant free fall. Fail.

Show a graph with the period, or bow out. Stop hiding behind quotes, this is about science and engineering, not literature.

 

[jaydeehess]

What's really hilarious about the vague, handwaving references to Newton is that if one reads the actual words that Newton wrote, .........

The facade of a buidling is by no means a "particle" in the Newtonian sense. It is absolutely wrong to attempt to consider the entire structure of, or even a sizable fraction of, a building as a Newtonian particle to which Newton's most elementary laws can apply. The Truthers cannot even begin to display a working understanding of actual Newtonian mechanics -- i.e., the way Newton wrote them and the way they're taught to engineers today. This is why I find their ignorant handwaving to "Newton's laws" to be so comically inept.

The seeming utter inability to recognize a structure such as a building is a system of connected parts each relying on other parts and connections to one degree or a another, is truly galling. Yes, Bazant uses models that treat various assemblages as solid units but is careful to note it as a simplification, best or limit case approximation..

Yet we have Gage talking about a tree not being able to fall through itself, or Cole and his butter stick as if structures must behave as single solid objects.

Given this, I suppose its not surprising that they have such a simplistic view of the application of Newton's laws.

There are several faster than free fall demonstrations available on YouTube. While the mechanisms by which relatively simple, falling systems have parts moving at greater than 'g' in these videos may not be directly applicable to WTC7, it should tweak a neuron firing that results in understanding that in greatly complex situations, Newton's particle physics is often bypassed by the dynamic interactions of all those parts and connections.