WTC7 and the NIST free fall failure

[alienentity]

"Which means exactly what?" It means core collapse.

I didn't direct the question to you; it was directed to Major_Tom.

However, your answer is not a technical argument, and includes no engineering analysis. 'Early antenna movement' - have you modeled it to show the behavior?

 

[beachnut]

Yes, so minor that Fiterman hall had to be demolished because it couldn't be repaired.
'The CUNY building plus the nearby Deutsche Bank structure suffered extensive collateral damage from the WTC attacks.'

And you purport to be even a tiny bit objective and accurate in your views on the WTC building collapses? Your credibility just went to zero.

Minor damage, that is standard 911 truth delusion talk as they try to blame other unknown people, for the work of the terrorists they apologize for. They think they see major errors with NIST, and then minor damage in buildings totaled on 911. 911 truth must have a handbook on misleading people, as they spew nonsense on put options (don't 911 truthers trade stocks; there is a record, they fine you, they charge you, they suspend you; if you traded stocks knowing about 911, you would be in jail!!! Talk to Martha, she lied, she went to jail, there is a trail; how stupid is 911 truth), disappearing gold and make up delusional CTs based on delusions.

Honey, the Civic has minor damage; we have to get a new car. Sure, a few scratches. Kinetic energy, not understood in 911 truth fantasy-land. But put options and more are.? lol

I was expecting differential equations to support the OP, but if the OP was based on real science, there would be no OP. Did I miss the differential equations? Math? Engineering?

 

[achimspok]

'The CUNY building plus the nearby Deutsche Bank structure suffered extensive collateral damage from the WTC attacks.'

And you purport to be even a tiny bit objective and accurate in your views on the WTC building collapses? Your credibility just went to zero.

[qimg]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/11/Fiterman_hall_damage.jpg/414px-Fiterman_hall_damage.jpg[/qimg]

Since your credibility rises with every statement about the credibility of others... Are you suggesting that the NE corner of WTC7 rotated north-west and damaged the CUNY building?

Wich part of WTC7 hit the Deutsche Bank building? Was it the WTC2 extension?

 

[twinstead]

publish or perish gentlemen. Some dudes on the interwebz who have a problem with the NIST report debating on an obscure forum impresses me not.

 

[George 152]

publish or perish gentlemen. Some dudes on the interwebz who have a problem with the NIST report debating on an obscure forum impresses me not.

Well, they know that if they attempted to do the same in any professional paper they would be laughed out of the room.

 

[twinstead]

Well, they know that if they attempted to do the same in any professional paper they would be laughed out of the room.

Indeed, but there's really nothing else to say in a debate with somebody who arrogantly thinks they have it "all figured out" and the experts are idiots. There certainly is no way to debate them.

 

[alienentity]

Since your credibility rises with every statement about the credibility of others... Are you suggesting that the NE corner of WTC7 rotated north-west and damaged the CUNY building?
[qimg]http://img508.imageshack.us/img508/8933/wtc7filterman.png[/qimg]

Wich part of WTC7 hit the Deutsche Bank building? Was it the WTC2 extension?

I never claimed to know which portion of WTC 7 hit Fiterman hall.

You incorrectly stated that it did only 'minor' damage to that building, which is easily refuted by various pictures of same shown in following posts.

That's why your credibility falls to zero. You are making a false or grossly misleading statement.

If you look at pictures of WTC 1's collapse into WTC 7 taken from the air, you'll notice that Fiterman Hall was not affected at that time. So it was in fact WTC 7 which did the damage, tearing away a significant portion of the building right up to the roofline, 15 stories high.

You don't need to support Ergo's insane ideas. I think your acceleration analysis is valuable and helpful in understanding how the building behaved. But this other denial? Why?

 

[achimspok]

You incorrectly stated that it did only 'minor' damage to that building...
If you look at pictures of WTC 1's collapse into WTC 7 taken from the air, you'll notice that Fiterman Hall was not affected at that time. So it was in fact WTC 7 which did the damage, tearing away a significant portion of the building right up to the roofline, 15 stories high.

That's correct. Given the kinetic energy - nevertheless - just a small part of WTC7 hit the Filterman hall. That part was small enough that it hardly can be found in your image.

You don't need to support Ergo's insane ideas.

I don't know Ergo's ideas.

I think your acceleration analysis is valuable and helpful in understanding how the building behaved.

Thanks.

But this other denial? Why?

... However, your answer is not a technical argument, and includes no engineering analysis. 'Early antenna movement' - have you modeled it to show the behavior?

Because of a fundamental principle: The reality shows the behavior. Therefore the very first choice is observation not modeling.

In simple terms: If you observe a ball in midair then - in earthly reality - it falls down. There is no problem to model it somehow static or rising or shrinking or color changing or ...

Little example:

The modeled 1000°C obviously came one hour too late and then was caught due to the more durable ceiling, wasn't it?

One hour later the entire west half was engulfed in a modeled 1000°C inferno. Well, above the durable ceiling the heat distribution looks a little bit like the reality but compared to 4pm that fire should have burnt one hour earlier.

So neither with nor without durable ceiling is the model similar to reality.

This of course brings up the question: What did the fire during the 2.5 hours in the well ventilated south between 10:28am and 1:00pm? Waiting and growing while - in the words of Pitts (NIST):

So what's the fundamental difference between the floors 19,22,29,30 and 7,8,9, - ,11,12,13? Do the model answer that?

According to the model that 1pm fire consumed in 4 hours
- 5 worstations to the west
- 33 workstations to the east - north - and all the way back to west
BUT it passed 2 workstations next to column 79 just to consume it a little later at 5pm and invisible in reality, of course.
The model did it at floor 11,12 and 13 because NIST decided to copy and paste the well defined conditions and just varied the time in steps of 30 min.
How beautiful to see that a fire model somewhat different to the reality nevertheless exactly meets the necessary conditions in time as predefined some years earlier:

Different fire, right time, right column, right temperature, right unbraced length.

Back to your question about the denial. I would say it is some "reality driven" scepticism that the report really is what it says it is. That's all.

 

[uke2se]

OMG uke2se, I answered. I answered that question about ten times right in this very thread because that's the only question you guys have about that issue.

Let me answer in detail. It wasn't my intention to publish it because I never thought that it is such a big thing.
You wan't me to do it. OK. You run around like crazy since I used the word free fall. OK.
Seems important. Will publish. Don't know when. Lot of other work to do. Will use 2-3 days off - without family - for a nice form.
Is it good for you? Are you in a hurry after 9 years of failure? What is it?
Don't be annoying! Help to clear up possible failures (if you can) before published. Otherwise we jump out of the frying pan into the fire, right?

I feel that it is important that NIST gets a chance to respond to your criticism. You do understand that criticism of NIST on the internet is used by twoofers to support their case and lie to a lot of people, don't you? If you publish it, NIST will get a chance to respond, and if you are correct, make your theory the standard accepted theory. It will bring you a lot of good attention and could make your career, so you should take the time.

 

[twinstead]

Career? I would suspect a Nobel Peace Prize for anybody who manages to convince the scientific and engineering community that the collapses of the WTC were suspicious.

Eventually "getting around" to publishing something of this magnitude because one has "lots of other work to do" is ludicrous.

 

[achimspok]

Indeed, but there's really nothing else to say in a debate with somebody who arrogantly thinks they have it "all figured out" and the experts are idiots. There certainly is no way to debate them.

Au contraire, they where able to build a model that exactly fits the hypothesis but misinterpreted the reality in certain ways. ...wrong prediction right result. That's a curiosity even if theoretically possible.

 

[GlennB]

Since your credibility rises with every statement about the credibility of others... Are you suggesting that the NE corner of WTC7 rotated north-west and damaged the CUNY building?
http://img508.imageshack.us/img508/8933/wtc7filterman.png

That certainly seems to be the case, yes.

In the NW is slower to drop and is heading W at the very least. Given the known damage to 30 W.Broadway this is the likely reason.

But I suspect you know this already, so what point are you making?

 

[achimspok]

I feel that it is important that NIST gets a chance to respond to your criticism. ...

Yes, that's why I will end it here and think about 'how to arrange that'.

 

[achimspok]

That certainly seems to be the case, yes.

In the NW is slower to drop and is heading W at the very least. Given the known damage to 30 W.Broadway this is the likely reason.

But I suspect you know this already, so what point are you making?

The damage to the Filterman Hall just confirms the interpretation of the movement of the building I suggested. That's the whole point. Nevertheless, that damage doesn't look like an entire building fell on Filterman hall.
Therefore the initial "no footprint" discussion is somewhat ridiculous because even professional CD (and I think that's what the discussion is all about) leave a bigger pile than the footprint, I would guess, simply due to the volume you have to pile up and some Gaussian distribution.

 

[GlennB]

The damage to the Filterman Hall just confirms the interpretation of the movement of the building I suggested. That's the whole point. Nevertheless, that damage doesn't look like an entire building fell on Filterman hall.

Nobody has ever suggested 'an entire building' did.

Therefore the initial "no footprint" discussion is somewhat ridiculous because even professional CD (and I think that's what the discussion is all about) leave a bigger pile than the footprint, I would guess, simply due to the volume you have to pile up and some Gaussian distribution.

Agreed. So what? The whole "it fell into its footprint" line of argument was one started by thruthers, and it was ridiculous from the outset. Even if one of those building had been CD'd in the most systematic manner possible nobody in their right minds would expect the debris to remain in the architectural footprint. They were just too tall. A sports stadium or some other very wide and low building? Maybe.

 

[alienentity]

That's correct. Given the kinetic energy - nevertheless - just a small part of WTC7 hit the Filterman hall. That part was small enough that it hardly can be found in your image.

achimspok, I had responded to your statement 'Btw, WTC7 did some minor damage to I think 3 other buildings several meters away.'

You were not talking about which part, or how much of WTC 7 impacted Fiterman, 'minor' referred to the damage done (an incorrect statement) to the '3 other buildings'.

You seem to either misunderstand your own statement, my point, or both, by referring to the 'minor' portion as that of WTC 7 itself.

This does not help your argument. In other words your statements are apparently meaningless in the context of the discussion. Oh well, I tried.

Is this a language/translation issue again?

 

[alienentity]

The damage to the Filterman Hall just confirms the interpretation of the movement of the building I suggested. That's the whole point. Nevertheless, that damage doesn't look like an entire building fell on Filterman hall.
Therefore the initial "no footprint" discussion is somewhat ridiculous because even professional CD (and I think that's what the discussion is all about) leave a bigger pile than the footprint, I would guess, simply due to the volume you have to pile up and some Gaussian distribution.

So you agree with us that the Truther claims are without merit: in fact they are 'ridiculous' as even a professional CD 'leave a bigger pile than the footprint'. Your words. I agree 100%.

But equally ridiculous is your statement that the $1.5 billion dollars of damage to the Verizon building, and the major damage to Fiterman, are somehow 'minor damage'.

 

[Major_Tom]

The fold-in trajectory of the NE corner is captured by femr here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8YdI1v1mWJQ

It does not follow the path of the rest of the building. It has it's own motion and seems to swing northward separately than the rest of the building.

 

[tsig]

Career? I would suspect a Nobel Peace Prize for anybody who manages to convince the scientific and engineering community that the collapses of the WTC were suspicious.

Eventually "getting around" to publishing something of this magnitude because one has "lots of other work to do" is ludicrous.

Imagine how busy one must be to have "overturn the commonly accepted paradigm" at #3 on the "to do" list.

 

[tsig]

The damage to the Filterman Hall just confirms the interpretation of the movement of the building I suggested. That's the whole point. Nevertheless, that damage doesn't look like an entire building fell on Filterman hall.
Therefore the initial "no footprint" discussion is somewhat ridiculous because even professional CD (and I think that's what the discussion is all about) leave a bigger pile than the footprint, I would guess, simply due to the volume you have to pile up and some Gaussian distribution.

Nice touch.