Tower Collapse Questions for Critical Thinkers

[jaydeehess]

Yes, anything dropping on top of something is decelerated ... and if something doesn't fail at top, anything stops on top of something. If top on something fails, anyting may drop again on the next top of something ... and if something has 90 extra tops, anything must crush 90 top to destroy something.
So anything must be really solid to carry out this feat. If anything is weaker than something (which is the case of WTC 1), anything has no chance against something. Anything is destroyed in its bottom at impact to start with. Something is not destroyed ... just partially damaged.

Its heartening to see that you have decieded to reduce your nonsense to pure and unadulterated nonsense.

If the mass that falls fails the first floor it hits it will then continue to the next floor down. Its velocity at the next floor down will be that which it gained due the gravitational accelleration plus the velocity is still had after failing that first floor. If it had its velocity reduced to zero before the first floor failed then it will still impact the next floor down at the same velocity it had hit the first one at.


Given that it hits the next floor down with greater mass, from the addintion of the first floor mass, and at the same velocity as the first impact or greater, it will obviously fail this floor as well,,,,repeat for ~90 floors.

BTW, if 'Anything is destroyed' then by Einstein's equations we would have seen an explosion that would have leveled NY state, not just one building.


You are trying to say that the reduction in impact force due to the change into debris of the upper structure will allow the building to survive. However as it is being converted to debris it still retains its mass and we have a mass of ~15 to 20 storeys. It is ridiculous to expect that the lower floors could carry the mass of a significant percentage of 10 floors worth of the building let alone ANY added dynamic load.

In a post and beam construction such a failure can be arrested due to local differences such as one area failing first and then having mass from adjacent collapses end up going down that hole. This cannot occur as easily in the long span construction used in the towers.

You and Judy Woods(Fetzer, Jones, Reynolds) prove that having a degree does, in itself, not indicate an ability to reason.

[jaydeehess]

But Heiwa, what about Ronan Point? You know, the one that you don't understand?

What??? failure at the 18th storey of a 23 storey building and it causes all structure directly below the failure to fail??

Not possible!
Anything will be destroyed at its bottom and be incapable(non-viable?) of causing any further damage to something, and will slide harmlessly off to the side.

[jaydeehess]

.....if something doesn't fail at top, anything stops on top of something.

Until followed quickly by several more anythings moving at a faster velocity than the first anything.

this is covered in post 485 , point 2)
and in post 491

[TruthersLie]

So you suggest, I should not point out a detail in order to enhance the quality of a discussion. Do you mean the observation is not correct? If not, what is your problem.
If you think I take my position because of hatred of GWB, does it mean that you defend the official theory because you love GWB?


False choice fallacy.

1. There is no "official theory." Thre is a shared narrative of the tens of thousands of physical eyewitnesses in NYC, and the millions of witnesss from around the world.

2. I am not a political idealogue who's politics are leading me into accepting wild and outlandish conspiracy theories which are incredibly implausible if not outright impossible.

3. I detested GWB and fully believe he (and his idioticy) put back american diplomacy and interests DECADES. I believe the Iraq war was a mistake made on the idea of "getting even" or "finishing what daddy started." Yet there were VALID reasons to invade. I know he USED 9/11 to get the Iraq war started, but I do not let that make me believe in magic theories of "he did 9/11 to get into Iraq" which is BS.

4. I understand the KISS rule. Do you? I understand military planning and realize that the more moving parts, the larger the conspiracy the more likely it is to fail. Which is why 19 hijackers were able to slice peoples throats, get doors open kill the pilots and crash the planes. SIMPLE, EASY, EFFECTIVE.

yet you twoofs grab at any theory... the more convoluted the more you seem to like it. Hundreds of workers exposing steel columns and painting them with an incredibly unknown/undeveloped substance and wiring it up, or using fake planes, or using remote controlled planes, or putting in CD charges are all making it much more likely to fail or be discovered.

I love how you twoofs have them be the A team mixed with Rain man... I can come up with 5 plans much more horrific, with a higher death toll with many fewer moving parts which would have pointed DIRECTLY at iraq, or iran, or even peru/greenland... and if I can do it, I know for a fact any NWO organization could do MUCH BETTER.

Try reading for comprehension, not conflating different issues and you might just figure some of this stuff out.

p.s. the easiest answer is usually the right one.

[HeyLeroy]

momentum = mass x velocity.

force = mass x acceleration

The two are related, but not the same; mass doesn't doesn't gain force though momentum. (That really isn't quite true, but the increase is immeasurably small until coming very close to the speed of light, which isn't rightly relevant here.)


Not that I was not commenting on the towers there, but rather the conversation you responded to was about these these collapses (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NwFHEoiUZ7o).

http://cdn.vidilife.com/image/2006/10/10/946639/1747252L.jpg

Did you not even read my post, which, I might add, you quoted?

Note in the Vérinage video the collapse that starts about 3:16 (dang; can't find the website that lets me link to a timepoint in a Youtube vid!). They drop the upper three floors onto the lower section. By about 3:26, the upper portion is almost completely destroyed, and the lower portion has hardly started its collapse by then, yet the lower portion is also completely destroyed by what's left!

See what I mean? Relevant portion of video. (http://splicd.com/NwFHEoiUZ7o/200/207)


No, I'm suggesting that what was landing on the structures wasn't anywhere close to enough to bring it the towers down.

http://cdn.vidilife.com/image/2006/10/10/946639/1747254L.jpg

You do realize, don't you, that you're talking about dropping a one-acre multi-storey building at least twelve feet on to another building?

Furthermore, even if there had been enough, the collapse would have decelerated on the way down just like those seen here (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NwFHEoiUZ7o), or anywhere else one collection of mass crushes another under the force of gravity alone.

Evidence?

[TruthersLie]

he don't need no stinkin evidence.

of course he also will ignore the fact that the collapses too LONGER than freefall, which means that there was deceleration going on... and from one tower to the next it went from about a 15 second collapse to over 20 second collapse... I think that is PROOF that the collapses were decelerating

(of course I could be wrong... it is 1am and I am drunk)

[WildCat]

he don't need no stinkin evidence.

of course he also will ignore the fact that the collapses too LONGER than freefall, which means that there was deceleration going on... and from one tower to the next it went from about a 15 second collapse to over 20 second collapse... I think that is PROOF that the collapses were decelerating

(of course I could be wrong... it is 1am and I am drunk)
What does a drink cost you in the UAE? I know a Marine who was on assignment in Jordan on his birthday and decided he'd celebrate at the hotel bar with a few Jack and Cokes. When he got the bill he discovered they were $35 each!

[tsig]

The brick decelerates when it hits the egg and starts accelerating again from there. Surely you aren't suggesting the bottom portions of each tower was like a giant egg?

Yep. Once the top was broken the rest collapsed like an eggshell. The structure depended on all it's elements.

[funk de fino]

What does a drink cost you in the UAE? I know a Marine who was on assignment in Jordan on his birthday and decided he'd celebrate at the hotel bar with a few Jack and Cokes. When he got the bill he discovered they were $35 each!

I was about £6 for a cider last time I was in Dubai.

[tsig]

So you suggest, I should not point out a detail in order to enhance the quality of a discussion. Do you mean the observation is not correct? If not, what is your problem.
If you think I take my position because of hatred of GWB, does it mean that you defend the official theory because you love GWB?

Physics=/= politics.

[NutCracker]

Surely you mean the blinkered and the jaded?

No, I meant what I wrote.

That your are unable to convince the intelligent is solely due to the lack in evidence in support of your theories.

ETA: how is this research into this area of interest of yours going?

You see, the intelligent are able to make inferences from what part of a post you do and choose not to respond to. You are not the least interested in finding answers to the issues you raise. You put forward issues to make it sound something very suspicious is going on, all for the purpose of elevating your ignorant, incompetent ego to the level of an intelligent, free-thinking, critical and competent researcher.

[tsig]

Or alternatively, I am pointing out something that has and would like to hear opinions on it - but that would be a far less glamorous thing to rail against, wouldn't it, fool?

If it piqued your curiosity why didn't you try to find some facts before you posted here and assumed someone would do your work for you?

Hint:
If you ask questions you should at least read the answers.

[jaydeehess]

If it piqued your curiosity why didn't you try to find some facts before you posted here and assumed someone would do your work for you?

Hint:
If you ask questions you should at least read the answers.

No! He is JUST (as in "only", "solely", "exclusively") asking questions. The answers are irrellevent.:rolleyes:

[tsig]

Yes, anything dropping on top of something is decelerated ... and if something doesn't fail at top, anything stops on top of something. If top on something fails, anyting may drop again on the next top of something ... and if something has 90 extra tops, anything must crush 90 top to destroy something.
So anything must be really solid to carry out this feat. If anything is weaker than something (which is the case of WTC 1), anything has no chance against something. Anything is destroyed in its bottom at impact to start with. Something is not destroyed ... just partially damaged.

Ronan Point French demolition videos.

You are reduced to bullet point refutations.

[tsig]

No! He is JUST (as in "only", "solely", "exclusively") asking questions. The answers are irrellevent.:rolleyes:

Talking and thinking seems to be mutually exclusive.

[kylebisme]

Don't forget that the falling mass is increasing with every floor that gets crushed.
I'm not fogetting that theory, but rather am aware of the fact that such an accumulation of mass would have progressiivly broken though each floor quicker than the other, resulting in an incressing acceleration over the progression of the destruction rather than the the constant acceleration observable in the video evidence. Besides, had the mass mass accumulated on the way down as you suggest, It would have ended in a large mound of that mass at the footpirnt of the tower rather than with the vast majorty well outside of it.

Just checking: Is this 2009, or did I just dream the last three years...
It was only about thee years ago that I saw reason to doubt the official story. I had seen the towers come down that day and was at a loss to explain how it happened, but had no interest in ever seeing it again and figured others were better suited to explain it than I was. I had bought into the pancake theory then, not reasoning what a crackpot idea that was since I wasn't familiar with the evidence. It wasn't until I found out about the fall of building 7, and saw that achieved a period of freefall that I was compelled to look back at the towers. Put simply, in both cases the official explanations defy the laws of physics.
Dave Rogers explained this to you some pages ago. Tony Szamboti had it explained to him many times in the 'missing jolt' thread.
Except I never claimed there should have been any jolt that is missing, which is why I ingored that part of his reply, and will do the same with yours.

The collapse zones at WTC were tilted, eccentric.
Can you demonstrate any such tilt in the path of destruction as it progresses down the tower? I started this thread on the fact that the top was titled and hence if it crushed the rest down that path would reflect that tilt, and everyone denied anything of the sort. Now you are claiming tit, but can you provide evidence to support this claim?

It's an approximation to treat the collapse as a series of discrete shocks, but in the case of the Balzac-Vitry demolition it's not a bad one. This is not argued from a theoretical approximation, but from the actual data; the Balzac-Vitry demolition shows a decrease in downward acceleration at the initial impact, then a greater acceleration as it falls through the height of the supporting walls, then another decrease as it hits the next floor.
Again, I'd like to see the data you are referencing here. Can you present it?
Mass does not "gain force" through any means, as the two are dimensionally different. Mass increases close to the speed of light, but this is not "gain(ing) force".
So, does a given chuck of matter accelerating towards a velocity far less than the speed of light exert the same force as that same chuck of matter accelerating at that same rate while approaching a velocity very close to of the speed of light, or does the latter have more force? The answer to that question is what I was referring to in the comment you took issue with the semantics of.

Mass, however, exerts force through changes in its momentum; force may be defined as the rate of change of momentum with time, and therefore the momentum of a mass may be used as a measure of its ability to exert force.
Rather, not the momentum alone, but the the rate of change of momentum (AKA acceleration) can be used to measure the ability of a mass to exert force. This is the crucial distinction I have been referring to.

The lower blocks of the WTC towers needed to exert sufficient force to counteract the effects of gravity on the upper block - which they were capable of doing, of course - but at the same time they had to exert sufficient force to reduce the momentum of the upper block to zero before being compressed to the point of failure. This they were not capable of doing, even in their undamaged state - which they were very far from at thhe moment the collapses began.

I never suggested the should have been, and the comment you were replying to there was not even made in reference to the towers, as I had previously mentioned in the last line of the comment which you left out when you quoted me.
Because chaotic processes produce chaotic results.
Can you explain how such a chaotic process would produce such linear results in the orientation and rate at which the path of destruction traveled down the building?

NIST would have been unable to offer more than a general description of the collapse due to the complexity of modelling it, and this would have added precisely nothing to their understanding of why the collapse began.
Do you know if anyone has managed to produce a reasonable model to provide a general depiction of the rate and scale of the collapse?

...when NIST ... incorporated a collapse model into the WTC7 report. As might be expected, the model didn't match the detailed features of the collapse particularly accurately...
That is a gross understatement, as demonstrated in this video comparing NIST's model to video of the actual collapse (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FuyZJl9YleY) and note that NIST didn't even have enough faith in their model to release it, only videos of it. Had they released it someone could have made a reasonably accurate representation of reality with it, but not by way of the force of gravity alone. As I mentioned above, it is the collapse of building 7 which first clued me in to the fact that the official story just doesn't add up.
The acceleration of the brick decreases very slightly when it hits the egg, but is still downward. You will at no point see the downward velocity actually decrease (which is what is meant by the word "decelerate").
I do mean the velocity of the brick must decrease when acted upon by the outside force which is the egg. Can you provide a mathematical example to demonstrate your claim to the contary?

[Architect]

This is turning into a suspiciously familiar game of Truther Bingo.

[Mancman]

Besides, had the mass mass accumulated on the way down as you suggest, It would have ended in a large mound of that mass at the footpirnt of the tower rather than with the vast majorty well outside of it.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/102524a435b96eca71.jpg (http://i42.tinypic.com/21npjfb.jpg)

[HeyLeroy]

:words:

...and with two simple mouse-clicks you wink out of my Universe forever.

Bye.

[Hokulele]

I'm not fogetting that theory, but rather am aware of the fact that such an accumulation of mass would have progressiivly broken though each floor quicker than the other, resulting in an incressing acceleration over the progression of the destruction rather than the the constant acceleration observable in the video evidence. Besides, had the mass mass accumulated on the way down as you suggest, It would have ended in a large mound of that mass at the footpirnt of the tower rather than with the vast majorty well outside of it.


Aerial and LIDAR data:

http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/911/911-maps.html

More LIDAR data:

http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories/s781.htm

LIDAR data superimposed on aerial data:

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_150834851c2d4ec5d3.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=12532)

Close up LIDAR, aerial, and composited data:

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_1508348583677942a2.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=12626)

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_15083485836007546a.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=12625)

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_150834858386e037cb.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=12627)

[BasqueArch]

Yes, anything dropping on top of something is decelerated ... and if something doesn't fail at top, anything stops on top of something. If top on something fails, anyting may drop again on the next top of something ... and if something has 90 extra tops, anything must crush 90 top to destroy something.
So anything must be really solid to carry out this feat. If anything is weaker than something (which is the case of WTC 1), anything has no chance against something. Anything is destroyed in its bottom at impact to start with. Something is not destroyed ... just partially damaged.


This is what I used to sound like in college after a couple of joints.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You can lead a Falser to facts but you can't make him think.

[Mancman]

Can you demonstrate any such tilt in the path of destruction as it progresses down the tower? I started this thread on the fact that the top was titled and hence if it crushed the rest down that path would reflect that tilt, and everyone denied anything of the sort. Now you are claiming tit, but can you provide evidence to support this claim?


Looks like a tilt to me.
http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/102524ab2c82604351.jpg

[kylebisme]

http://i42.tinypic.com/21npjfb.jpg
Aerial and LIDAR data:

By "large" I was speaking relative to the total mass of the towers, which again in vast majority was spread far beyond as can be better seen in this high resolution photo (http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/wtc/images/wtc-photo.jpg).
Looks like a tilt to me.
http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/102524ab2c82604351.jpg
A tilt on the top portion, yes. However, I'll bet you can't find any evidence of any such tilt in the destruction of the lower portion, whch is exactly the basis on which I started this thread.

[Hokulele]

By "large" I was speaking relative to the total mass of the towers, which again in vast majority was spread far beyond as can be better seen in this high resolution photo (http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/wtc/images/wtc-photo.jpg).


Flat projections do not give you any perspective as to the volume of material at any location.


Please calculate the volume of the debris that should have resulted from the collapses of WTC 1 and 2, then calculate the volume of the debris shown in the LIDAR images I provided, taking into account the 6 sub-ground levels. Hint - this has been done several times on this forum, and when the math is done, there is relatively little discrepancy between the expected total and the actual total.

[Grizzly Bear]

It was only about thee years ago that I saw reason to doubt the official story. I had seen the towers come down that day and was at a loss to explain how it happened, but had no interest in ever seeing it again and figured others were better suited to explain it than I was. I had bought into the pancake theory then, not reasoning what a crackpot idea that was since I wasn't familiar with the evidence. It wasn't until I found out about the fall of building 7, and saw that achieved a period of freefall that I was compelled to look back at the towers. Put simply, in both cases the official explanations defy the laws of physics.

Oy vey... you can stop pretending now... the pancake theory specifically related to the collapse initiation mechanism. I've told this to innumerable boondoggles in the truth movement and numerous members here have had the pleasure of doing the same. And now you're the next one to bring this up. You like all the others who assert that there was no "pancake collapse" haven't even bothered to get beyond the FEMA report from 2002. While this can't be applied to the initiation mechanisms it is precisely the mechanism in the progression of the collapse.

As for WTC 7, you've made the same move as the TM's favourite punching bag for authority -- AE911truth. You latched onto a spurious resemblance and stayed there. You said you had some experience in a university architecture curriculum correct? Did you ever learn how to perform a building case study? And did you ever make it to structures I & II? Doesn't look like it.


Rather, not the momentum alone, but the the rate of change of momentum (AKA acceleration)
Acceleration is the rate of change in velocity (DeltaD/DeltaT). Momentum is defined as a function of mass and velocity (p = mv).

Not interested in wasting time reviewing the rest. Ciao...

[Mancman]

A tilt on the top portion, yes. However, I'll bet you can't find any evidence of any such tilt in the destruction of the lower portion, whch is exactly the basis on which I started this thread.

No, a tilt in the lower portion as well, look again. Look at the pattern of the visible perimeter columns. The pattern matches the tilt of the upper section, you are wrong.

[DGM]

Flat projections do not give you any perspective as to the volume of material at any location.


Please calculate the volume of the debris that should have resulted from the collapses of WTC 1 and 2, then calculate the volume of the debris shown in the LIDAR images I provided, taking into account the 6 sub-ground levels. Hint - this has been done several times on this forum, and when the math is done, there is relatively little discrepancy between the expected total and the actual total.
A better way would be for him to actually talk to people that were at the site cleaning it up. Asking them how long it took to clean up the surrounding area as opposed to the "foot print" would be quite revealing. If he really cared to know the truth.

[Hokulele]

A better way would be for him to actually talk to people that were at the site cleaning it up. Asking them how long it took to clean up the surrounding area as opposed to the "foot print" would be quite revealing. If he really cared to know the truth.


There's the problem.

[Audible Click]

Exactly.

[kylebisme]

I'm hoping the local physics experts can help me out with question. If someone was on a tower the height of building 7, and dropped a ball right as as the whole roof line begins to fall, about how much sooner would it pass the height were building goes out of view of the camera in this video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FuyZJl9YleY#t=0m48s)?

[LashL]

never mind

[TruthersLie]

What does a drink cost you in the UAE? I know a Marine who was on assignment in Jordan on his birthday and decided he'd celebrate at the hotel bar with a few Jack and Cokes. When he got the bill he discovered they were $35 each!

well going out to the local pub is a pit pricey... 12 AED per pint (about $3). But I can buy it from the local liquor store (owned by the Shiek of RAK) and get 12 oz cans for 2 aed each ($.50 a piece).

the local liquor store is better stocked than the one from my home town. I was shocked. :jaw-dropp

apparently that head shiek really likes hennessey, or he drinks jack and coke. Don't ask me... I just work and live here.

[alienentity]

So, why no intense bursts from any of the fires nearer to the collapse, genius? There was a pretty large fire blazing right in the centre of the building, and that didn't rear up with the sudden rush of oxygen, or we'd have noticed it as clearly as the one on the far side from the collapse point.
.

Here you go. You'll need to go into full denial mode now, 'cause there's your burst of fire...



http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/304704ab325437a790.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=17592)

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/304704ab32554adf07.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=17593)

[NutCracker]

[snip]

Rather than this pathetic game of arguing NIST/FEMA/your opponents are wrong-wrong-wrongy-WRONG (it really tells something about your psyche, ya know, all this wrong, wrong, wrong stuffy doing, BTW), why don't you finally start to argue why you are right?

C'mon, lay all the evidence, and I mean, all of it, including the evidence inconvenient for your position, and build your case. C'mon..

[Dave Rogers]

Yes, anything dropping on top of something is decelerated ...

BZZZTTT!!!! Wrong.

Anything dropping on anything experiences an upward reaction force. If that force is less than mg, where m is the weight of the falling object, then the resultant force on the falling object is downwards, and it continues to accelerate, though at a reduced acceleration. At no point does it decelerate.

You need to learn the difference between second and third differentials.

Dave

[Dave Rogers]

I'm not fogetting that theory, but rather am aware of the fact that such an accumulation of mass would have progressiivly broken though each floor quicker than the other, resulting in an incressing acceleration over the progression of the destruction rather than the the constant acceleration observable in the video evidence.

This is a good example of the unevaluated inequality fallacy. You're drawing conclusions without data. Ask yourself these questions:

How much should the acceleration have varied in the course of the collapse?
What is the accuracy of the observed acceleration data?
What is, therefore, the minimum increase in acceleration that could have been detected?
Is the first of these numbers bigger or smaller than the last?

When you have answers to all of those questions, then you have the beginnings of an argument. At the moment, you're simply speculating.

Except I never claimed there should have been any jolt that is missing, which is why I ingored that part of his reply, and will do the same with yours.

If you would actually present your arguments, rather than vaguely hinting at them with a series of deliberately loaded questions, it would make it a little easier to provide the right answers. At the moment you're asking us to guess, then complaining when we guess wrong. Grow up.

Can you demonstrate any such tilt in the path of destruction as it progresses down the tower? I started this thread on the fact that the top was titled and hence if it crushed the rest down that path would reflect that tilt, and everyone denied anything of the sort. Now you are claiming tit, but can you provide evidence to support this claim?

The above reasoning doesn't make sense. You're asking me to provide evidence of something that's obvious in the videos of the collapse, that is quantified in the NIST report, and that you yourself have pointed out. Both top blocks tilted as they fell, and only bill smith denies it.

Now, to the path of collapse. We know that the top blocks rotated, and it appears that the centres of mass moved sideways to some extent. We also know that the debris fields from the two collapses had different distributions from the damage done to surrounding buildings. Again, you need to ask some questions:

How much should the collapse path have deviated from vertical?
What would have been the effect of this on the final state of the collapse?
How well does the final state of the collapse match this prediction?

Again, until you have some answers to these questions, you have no argument, only uninformed speculation.

Again, I'd like to see the data you are referencing here. Can you present it?

It was posted on The 9/11 Forum. I can't be bothered to go there any more. Since you've already said you'll ignore anything relating to Szamboti's missing jolt, I can't be bothered to look it up so you can ignore it.

I've snipped some bits about arguning semantics, which is rather a waste of time.

Can you explain how such a chaotic process would produce such linear results in the orientation and rate at which the path of destruction traveled down the building?

The driving force is gravity, so there is a tendency for objects to travel linearly downwards. Again, unevaluated inequality fallacy: how linear should it have been, how linear was it, and was there a difference?

Do you know if anyone has managed to produce a reasonable model to provide a general depiction of the rate and scale of the collapse?

The rate of collapse has been worked out many times. When the physical assumptions are reasonable, the collapse time comes out within the limits of measurement of the actual collapse times - Frank Greening's calculations at http://www.911myths.com/html/other_contributions.html are the original work on this, but many others have repeated them. When the starting assumptions violate the laws of physics, it's possible to make the collapse time come out longer, as one or two truthers have shown.

That is a gross understatement, as demonstrated in this video comparing NIST's model to video of the actual collapse (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FuyZJl9YleY) and note that NIST didn't even have enough faith in their model to release it, only videos of it.

Which proves my point; modelling such a chaotic process in detail is a waste of time. NIST should never have bothered.

I do mean the velocity of the brick must decrease when acted upon by the outside force which is the egg. Can you provide a mathematical example to demonstrate your claim to the contary?

Then you're wrong, and for the same reason as Heiwa; you're confusing your second and third differentials.

Let's define downwards as positive. Suppose the brick has a mass of 1kg, and a force of 5N is needed to break the egg. There will be some elastic deformation of the eggshell on impact, so the force produced on the egg by the brick (and, by Newton's Third Law, by the egg on the brick) will increase linearly (according to Hooke's Law) from zero to 5N, and will then fall to a very low value. The force due to gravity on the brick is 9.8N. Since the force of the egg on the brick is directed upwards, we may assign a negative sign to it. Adding the forces, we find that the minimum force on the brick is +4.8N, immediately before the point of fracture of the eggshell. Therefore, the minimum acceleration of the brick is +4.8ms-2.

At all times, the brick experiences a positive acceleration. At no time does its velocity decrease. This is such basic physics that anyone to whom it isn't obvious has no place even trying to discuss the physics of the WTC collapses. As I said before, you need to go back to school and do some very basic learning.

Dave

[Dave Rogers]

I'm hoping the local physics experts can help me out with question. If someone was on a tower the height of building 7, and dropped a ball right as as the whole roof line begins to fall, about how much sooner would it pass the height were building goes out of view of the camera in this video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FuyZJl9YleY#t=0m48s)?

There are about 19 floors visible out of 47. The height of WTC7 was about 186m, so the distance is about 75m. That gives a time of 3.9 seconds for the ball to pass out of sight. That looks to me about a second faster than the building collapses, but I haven't bothered to try to measure it too carefully. The average acceleration of the WTC7 facade collapse has been measured at about 9.1 metres per second squared, or about 93% of gravitational acceleration. It varies about that value, and parts of the collapse have been measured at close to freefall. Again, the idea that such an observation is in any way surprising is purely an invention of the truth movement.

Dave

[TruthersLie]

By "large" I was speaking relative to the total mass of the towers, which again in vast majority was spread far beyond as can be better seen in this high resolution photo (http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/wtc/images/wtc-photo.jpg).

Didn't you try that whole "fell into own footprint" cannard when you first arrived? Now you are trying to go to the exact opposite position? Wow... I love how it doesn't really matter what the position is, you just adopt it into your delusions and now it supports you...

First "fell into own footprint," then the gravity driven collapses in the verinage techniques... what next? Oh we have silent ceiling tiles exploding but they are quite... amazing.

[TruthersLie]

I'm hoping the local physics experts can help me out with question. If someone was on a tower the height of building 7, and dropped a ball right as as the whole roof line begins to fall, about how much sooner would it pass the height were building goes out of view of the camera in this video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FuyZJl9YleY#t=0m48s)?

ROFLMAO.

Yes.. the twoof version.. which doesn't have the eastern mechanical penthouse in it. It is absolutely amazing that someone with any type of architecture or engineering background would IGNORE the START of the collapse.

So time it from when the global collapse started. Then the collapse time of wtc 7 took over 16 seconds. how long would freefall be to the ground from the top? about 7 seconds... oops... there goes the "Freefall" bs... yet again.

Of course if you bothered to do ANY REAL RESEARCH you would find Alien Entitites excellent analysis of wtc7 which destroys David Chandler...

[jaydeehess]

I'm not fogetting that theory, but rather am aware of the fact that such an accumulation of mass would have progressiivly broken though each floor quicker than the other, resulting in an incressing acceleration over the progression of the destruction rather than the the constant acceleration observable in the video evidence.

An increasing accelleration? Using what physics?

The max accelleration it could approach would be 'g'. We assume a consistent resistive force (due to the transfer of momentum of the falling mass to the lower, stationary, mass) The resistive force is not due to the increasingly larger columns but rather to the ability of floor trusses to absorb some of that momentum.
So a constant downward force and a fairly constant upwards, resistive force. Where in that does an increasing accelleration come from?

Yes, velocity will increase(that is the defintion of accelleration) but there will be little change in the accelleration of the collapse front throughout the 12 to 18 seconds of collapse.

Finally of course, as pointed out by Dave, you have not even shown that the basis for your contention to be true!


Besides, had the mass mass accumulated on the way down as you suggest, It would have ended in a large mound of that mass at the footpirnt of the tower rather than with the vast majorty well outside of it.

Well, as pointed out it did create a pile several storeys high. You must also take into account the fact that when the debris hit the ground much of it was moving at 60 MPH. That momentum does not magically disappear. Much of it is transferred to the ground causing the earth to shake and heating things up but a significant amount would simply bounce.

Take your famous bucket of gravel and pour it out from a height of 10 feet and tell me whether or not it all remains in a neat pile on the ground.

It was only about thee years ago that I saw reason to doubt the official story. I had seen the towers come down that day and was at a loss to explain how it happened, but had no interest in ever seeing it again and figured others were better suited to explain it than I was. I had bought into the pancake theory then, not reasoning what a crackpot idea that was since I wasn't familiar with the evidence. It wasn't until I found out about the fall of building 7, and saw that achieved a period of freefall that I was compelled to look back at the towers. Put simply, in both cases the official explanations defy the laws of physics

So because you did not understand how the north face of WTC 7 could have been essentially in free fall for about 2.5 seconds you also decieded that the failure of the floors of the towers(the floors that supplied lateral support to the column systems) could not occur, or that it would not have led to the collapse of the structure?


Can you demonstrate any such tilt in the path of destruction as it progresses down the tower? I started this thread on the fact that the top was titled and hence if it crushed the rest down that path would reflect that tilt, and everyone denied anything of the sort. Now you are claiming tit, but can you provide evidence to support this claim?


You have been asked time and again to quantify just how much the tilt of the top block should have affected the distribution of the debris. You have utterly failed to do so.
We do know that the debris feild was not uniform, you claim it was not non-uniform enough. Stop handwaving and be a little more specific.

As for the path of destruction, the upper block was being torn apart as it fell onto the lower block so any rotational energy was being transfered quickly into the lower block. However the greater force by far was the gravitational force on the falling mass. That force was directed straight down and it supplied energy that was acting to deform and deconstruct the tower elements in that direction, down.

Can you explain how such a chaotic process would produce such linear results in the orientation and rate at which the path of destruction traveled down the building?

Gravity acts in one direction on everything.
Review my post 485 and tell me how it would be wrong, because from what I can see it explains how the destruction occured. How would the tilt of the upper block have affected the sequence as I have described it?

Do you know if anyone has managed to produce a reasonable model to provide a general depiction of the rate and scale of the collapse?

This could only be done in a general sense after the first few seconds. Bazant did a good approximation of the first impact after initial collapse. If you wish a more detailed approximation then go for it. By Bazant's calculations the first floor experienced at least 30 times more force than it was designed to withstand. In order to refute him you will have to show that his approximation is off by a factor of 10 at least.
As Dave pointed out , Greening went further and found a collapse time consistent with what was observed.

That is a gross understatement, as demonstrated in this video comparing NIST's model to video of the actual collapse (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FuyZJl9YleY) and note that NIST didn't even have enough faith in their model to release it, only videos of it. Had they released it someone could have made a reasonably accurate representation of reality with it, but not by way of the force of gravity alone. As I mentioned above, it is the collapse of building 7 which first clued me in to the fact that the official story just doesn't add up.

Given the wide range of variables that were in play I find the NIST animation to reflect the observed collapse quite well. The biggest difference that I can see is that NIST did not have the esatern third of the building falling to the NE where it impacted 30 West Broadway and caused enough damage to that structure that it had to be torn down afterwards.

I do mean the velocity of the brick must decrease when acted upon by the outside force which is the egg. Can you provide a mathematical example to demonstrate your claim to the contary?

Why do you keep stating that a reduced accelleration (which you call a deccelleration) requires a reduction in velocity?
Dave's explanation of the forces involved is spot on. I suggest you go and ask your physics prof for remedial help.

[jaydeehess]

Didn't you try that whole "fell into own footprint" cannard when you first arrived? Now you are trying to go to the exact opposite position? Wow... I love how it doesn't really matter what the position is, you just adopt it into your delusions and now it supports you...
.

It has been a point that has fascinated me greatly for these 8 years, that 911 conspiracy speculators can on the one hand cliam that it is suspicious that the towers and WTC 7 fell into their own footprint and claim that it is suspicious that debris was flung far afeild from the footprint of the structures.


On another board I have even seen these used in the same sentence as in " The towers fell into their own footprints so what could have caused perimeter column sections to fly 600 feet to WTC 7?"

It takes some severe mental distortions to hold two mutually opposed opinions to be true.

[alienentity]

It has been a point that has fascinated me greatly for these 8 years, that 911 conspiracy speculators can on the one hand cliam that it is suspicious that the towers and WTC 7 fell into their own footprint and claim that it is suspicious that debris was flung far afeild from the footprint of the structures.


On another board I have even seen these used in the same sentence as in " The towers fell into their own footprints so what could have caused perimeter column sections to fly 600 feet to WTC 7?"

It takes some severe mental distortions to hold two mutually opposed opinions to be true.

And in a related case of mental contortion, how a thinly painted layer of nanothermite could silently fling debris hundreds of feet and pulverize concrete.
No truther, let alone a physicist/chemist has yet come up with a logical explanation as to why BOTH thermite, thermate and nanothermite would have been used. Based on their poor reasoning and analysis, the shower of hot material (was it even molten metal? I can't tell) and the hot fires require thermite to have occurred, so they are unable to let go of that theory.

I guess they cannot let go of any one fantasy, as the whole CD theory would crumble. So they just keep the whole shebang and hope nobody notices the contradictions.

[jaydeehess]

The 'thin layer' contention floored me when, who was it, Gage, mentioned that in the Nat Geo production.

They had just shown him a large quantity of thermite in a container designed to keep it from flowing away could not do significant damage to the column but a 'thin layer' of super thermite could?

This is another fav of the 911 speculators. If there is no present tech that could do what you require it to do for a pet contention, then just invent it out of thin air.

Judy Woods and her unspecified super dustification energy beam, is another prime example.

It is what I refer to as invoking magic and its beauty, as far as the 911 speculators are concerned, is that no one can refute magic using science because it stands 'above' known science and technology and the common retort to anyone who tries is, " You don't know what they have developed".

[SpitfireIX]

Rather than this pathetic game of arguing NIST/FEMA/your opponents are wrong-wrong-wrongy-WRONG (it really tells something about your psyche, ya know, all this wrong, wrong, wrong stuffy doing, BTW), why don't you finally start to argue why you are right?

C'mon, lay all the evidence, and I mean, all of it, including the evidence inconvenient for your position, and build your case. C'mon..


For many conspiracists . . . it's not about them being right; it's about you being wrong. It's not about making a case; it's about trashing yours. It's not about the conspiracy theory being right; it's about NASA being wrong -- specifically, about NASA being evil. [italics original]


(Source (http://www.bautforum.com/conspiracy-theories/56198-jarrah-w-responds-lunar-legacy.html#post955908))

[twinstead]

Good old Jay. He knows his conspiracists.

[Architect]

Jay Utah. The man is a genius. BAUT Forum forever!

[jaydeehess]

Physics 101

an object of mass 'm' drops under the influence of gravity

the force on the mass due to gravity is Fg=mg

along the way another force acts in the opposite direction so it is a negative vector here.
call it the resistive force -Fr

The total force on the object is
Ft=Fg+(-Fr)
Ft=Fg-Fr

The resultant acceleration is given by
Ft=ma
Fg-Fr=ma

If the total force is equal to zero then the object will have no increase in velocity BUT , of course that means that if it started with a velocity then it will still have that same velocity. In order for it to slow down the resistive force would have to be larger than the force due to gravity. That is the only way to have the velocity change negatively (the acceleration due to total force being a negative, ie. upwards) to reduce the initial velocity to zero.
If the resistive force Fr is less than Fg then there will be an acceleration of the object, the velocity will increase.

[kylebisme]

This is a good example of the unevaluated inequality fallacy. You're drawing conclusions without data.
I was responding to generalized statements with generalizes statements, with my point being it quite simply doesn't look anything close to what is being described. That said, I'll just leave the discussion of the larger towers to the side and talk about building 47, as I hadn't seen the video of it I presented earlier until just then. I do thank you for setting me straight on the brick and the egg thing, and jaydeehess as well for showing the math.
There are about 19 floors visible out of 47. The height of WTC7 was about 186m, so the distance is about 75m. That gives a time of 3.9 seconds for the ball to pass out of sight. That looks to me about a second faster than the building collapses, but I haven't bothered to try to measure it too carefully.
I get the impression you haven't seen the video I wanted you to. I wasn't directing you to the video NIST looked at, but rather one from another angle which pans out to a wider view. I roughed out a composite here:
http://img43.imageshack.us/img43/3736/b7composite.th.jpg (http://img43.imageshack.us/i/b7composite.jpg/)
So, we aren't just talking about 19 floors here, but rather around 37, please watch the video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FuyZJl9YleY#t=0m48s) to see for yourself. Even if we just called that distance 125m to err on the side of caution, falling though nothing but air would have taken more than 5 seconds, while the building drops out of view in just over 6. There is a rational explanation for that, but it looks more like this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fJLm5-be4LM) than anything NIST showed.

[WildCat]

I was responding
And you still haven't produced any evidence for inside jobby-job, no evidence for therm*te, explosives, space beams, or anything else.

It's obvious you have nothing except the old "it doesn't look right to me" argument from incredulity.

Let me know when you have something tangible, so far you've produced nothing.

[alienentity]

I was responding to generalized statements with generalizes statements, with my point being it quite simply doesn't look anything close to what is being described. That said, I'll just leave the discussion of the larger towers to the side and talk about building 47, as I hadn't seen the video of it I presented earlier until just then. I do thank you for setting me straight on the brick and the egg thing, and jaydeehess as well for showing the math.

I get the impression you haven't seen the video I wanted you to. I wasn't directing you to the video NIST looked at, but rather one from another angle which pans out to a wider view. I roughed out a composite here:
http://img43.imageshack.us/img43/3736/b7composite.th.jpg (http://img43.imageshack.us/i/b7composite.jpg/)
So, we aren't just talking about 19 floors here, but rather around 37, please watch the video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FuyZJl9YleY#t=0m48s) to see for yourself. Even if we just called that distance 125m to err on the side of caution, falling though nothing but air would have taken more than 5 seconds, while the building drops out of view in just over 6. There is a rational explanation for that, but it looks more like this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fJLm5-be4LM) than anything NIST showed.

Part of the issue is correctly determining when the screenwall and the parapet wall fall. Unless you're very, very careful, you can miss the small deformations in the building. If you look at my WTC7 videos you'll see exactly what I mean.

To do a really accurate job you should import the video into an editing program, zoom in, and get an accurate frame to start with. Makes a big difference. You will discover that it took 5.4 seconds to fall the first 19 stories, but I don't know how much longer for the rest. You can time it if you want.
Or link me to the video and I'll check it on my system for you.

1rhY9c_iemA

60A86cg16KQ

[alienentity]

I was also just browsing to try to find the video you are referencing, with no luck. Correction - just found it.
However, I did notice something I think is important: If you look at the video used by NIST, you can see the whole building widen out slightly as it starts to collapse down. Just around that time, the West PH collapses into the building.

Now take a moment to consider the implications - if the facade is moving downwards, and the PH is disappearing (falling) into it still, that means the facade is moving more slowly.
I can't be in freefall in that case, at that time. There's no other way to interpret the behavior at that point. And it does strike me as very odd that truthers keep ignoring the PH, because the only way it could 'fall' into the building is if structure has collapsed beneath already, out of view.

It doesn't seem like most truthers are very observant in that regard. That's a problem.

[alienentity]

I was responding to generalized statements with generalizes statements, with my point being it quite simply doesn't look anything close to what is being described. That said, I'll just leave the discussion of the larger towers to the side and talk about building 47, as I hadn't seen the video of it I presented earlier until just then. I do thank you for setting me straight on the brick and the egg thing, and jaydeehess as well for showing the math.

I get the impression you haven't seen the video I wanted you to. I wasn't directing you to the video NIST looked at, but rather one from another angle which pans out to a wider view. I roughed out a composite here:
http://img43.imageshack.us/img43/3736/b7composite.th.jpg (http://img43.imageshack.us/i/b7composite.jpg/)
So, we aren't just talking about 19 floors here, but rather around 37, please watch the video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FuyZJl9YleY#t=0m48s) to see for yourself. Even if we just called that distance 125m to err on the side of caution, falling though nothing but air would have taken more than 5 seconds, while the building drops out of view in just over 6. There is a rational explanation for that, but it looks more like this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fJLm5-be4LM) than anything NIST showed.

OK, I've looked at it carefully in a video editing suite. There are several problems with the video in terms of getting accuracy.
1) The resolution is rather poor, so it's quite difficult to see when the top disappears
2) The start of collapse is not really visible, because the video is zoomed in on broken window sections, then zooms out as the building is already falling.

Using other footage to compare, I was able to identify the little puff of dust which comes up on the E. Side as the W PH collapses in. Based on my previous research, that's the point when the whole building starts to widen out - in other words, global collapse is underway. By the time the camera zooms out, the white puff is already visible.

I get a time between 6 seconds 22 frames and almost 7 seconds 05 frames. [edited: think my first start time was too late.] I don't know how much longer the building fell past the point where it disappears, so one has to guess. I believe the acceleration rate was slower toward the end, but I don't remember what it was.

A rough guesstimate would give you about 7 seconds for that part of the collapse. It could've been even longer (by about 1/2 second), but not any shorter. I can estimate the time it took for the last ten floors to fall out of view at about 1 second (from about 5.5 seconds). If the rate was about the same, adding 1/2 a second to the observed time is pretty safe. It probably wasn't much longer than that, because it didn't collapse all the way to the ground, but into it's own rubble.

Split the difference and call it something over 7 seconds. But that's only an estimate at best. You just can't tell exactly from the videos IMHO.

[Heiwa]

From the NIST WTC 7 report:

http://heiwaco.tripod.com/NISTWTC7.jpg

The report includes also figures 3.10-13 showing the collapse below floor 16 at 0.5, 2.5 (shown above), 4.5 and 6.5 seconds. Apparently everything above Column 79 drops down due to vertical failures' progression - there are free-flying parts! But the remainder of the structure below floor 16 is just locally damaged during 6.5 seconds. Nothing drops down from below = there is no free debris there. The horizontal failure's progression has not started ... and is not shown by NIST.
So the NIST computer simulation of the destruction does not reflect what is seen on the videos.

[alienentity]

Note: I just used another clip (the same one Chandler used) which shows the roof really well. I get 6 seconds, 20 frames before the top disappears in that clip, but I don't know how many floors aren't visible.
I'm beginning to think that it must've taken closer to 7.5 seconds, based on my latest analysis. I'd never bothered to take the videos that far, because I don't really care all that much what the exact number is. It doesn't change anything material IMHO.

HOpe that helps.

New calcs! I decided to calculate the average acceleration based on 7 sec and 7.5 sec. I got:

a) a=7.59m/s2, or 77% the time of freefall for 186m
b) a=6.6133m/s2 or 67% the value of freefall.

So my latest analysis puts the overall time of the facade collapse at something like 70% of freefall overall, not including the earlier parts of the collapse. Add all those together you get something like 15 to 16 seconds just for the visible part. That fits extremely well with the seismic data at around 18 seconds.

[Reactor drone]

From the NIST WTC 7 report:

http://heiwaco.tripod.com/NISTWTC7.jpg

The report includes also figures 3.10-13 showing the collapse below floor 16 at 0.5, 2.5 (shown above), 4.5 and 6.5 seconds. Apparently everything above Column 79 drops down due to vertical failures' progression - there are free-flying parts! But the remainder of the structure below floor 16 is just locally damaged during 6.5 seconds. Nothing drops down from below = there is no free debris there. The horizontal failure's progression has not started ... and is not shown by NIST.
So the NIST computer simulation of the destruction does not reflect what is seen on the videos.

You do realise that the times are from the start of the collapse,not the start of the outer walls descending don't you?You may also notice that there's a lot of red in that picture,do you know what the red indicates?

[kylebisme]

Alienentity and Reactor drone, I don't doubt you both mean well, but haggling over the moment the roof line first trembles is overlooking the issue at hand. Even NIST admits 2.25 seconds of free fall, which is equivalent to two floors of nothing but air. Were there anything resembling a building in the way, even weakening by massive office fires all the way across, it quite simply couldn't have come down like that. To put it another way, nitpicking the bends in the roof is like driving 90Mph down the highway and then arguing you didn't speed because you took the on ramp slow. Granted, the the molten steel at the base explains part of what happened, as does watching the NIST guy dance around like a puppet when being asked about it:

8YaFGSPErKU

If you watch to the end, you'll see a NASA shot showing the base of all three buildings, with building 7 being the hottest. That is the work of some fancy incendiary used as a corrosive, and I wouldn't be surprised if hydraulics were what brought down the center first. Also, on a hunch I googled a phrase, and found an excellent video suggesting who might have done it:

AUmyW1NHOM4

Seems like the right team for the job, eh?

[tsig]

It just doesn't look right. The basis for all the truther claims. Problem is they can't say how it should look.

[kylebisme]

It just doesn't look right. The basis for all the truther claims. Problem is they can't say how it should look.
Of course I can say; it should have looked like a standing building with some structural damage and heavy office fires, despite all the falser claims to the contrary.

[Reactor drone]

Of course I can say; it should have looked like a standing building with some structural damage and heavy office fires, despite all the falser claims to the contrary.

So you don't believe that fire was able to cause enough damage to eventually cause the buckling of column 79 and the subsequent global collapse?

Do you believe that removal of that column would cause a global failure or does your corrosive incendiary/explosive need to be widely placed throughout the building?The fourth run that NIST did of their LS-Dyna model had no damage other than removal of column 79 and the building still collapsed,what does your model show?

[NutCracker]

Of course I can say; it should have looked like a standing building with some structural damage and heavy office fires, despite all the falser claims to the contrary.


allegation: you are using arguments from personal belief.

you: No! Because I can say <an argument from personal belief>


You are a genius.

[GlennB]

If you watch to the end, you'll see a NASA shot showing the base of all three buildings, with building 7 being the hottest. That is the work of some fancy incendiary used as a corrosive, and I wouldn't be surprised if hydraulics were what brought down the center first.

We'd be interested to know why, kyle.

It was chance that saw WTC7 hit by debris from WTC1 and fires started there. The large debris could have missed (it nearly did) .... little damage, no fires.
Then what? WTC7 spontaneously collapses hours later for absolutely no reason? They go in and remove the 'fancy indendiaries' and 'hydraulics' because they're no longer needed?

As narratives go, the whole WTC7 demolition business doesn't have one.

(prediction - very shortly we'll be pointing out that shredders are a much more reliable and discreet way of destroying incriminating evidence than blowing up buildings).

[TruthersLie]

Of course I can say; it should have looked like a standing building with some structural damage and heavy office fires, despite all the falser claims to the contrary.

REally? Your structural engineering degree came from where? Where did you do your internship and understudy?

No these really are valid questions. You are claiming that hundreds of fully qualified structural engineers who worked on the NIST report are wrong. So asking to know your credentials is rather important.

so again, where did you finish structural enginering?

If your contention is correct (it is not btw), then you should easily be able to find OUTRAGED letters and papers saying that NIST is full of crap. I mean if it is so apparent to you, then people with relevant qualifications should be up in arms. You should be able to find dozens of (if not HUNDREDS) letters to the editors of major engineering publications. You should be able to point me to ANY peer reviewed engineering articles... Provide one.

[twinstead]

It's interesting the contempt and mistrust of academia that many truthers have.

[Ragnarok]

We'd be interested to know why, kyle.

It was chance that saw WTC7 hit by debris from WTC1 and fires started there. The large debris could have missed (it nearly did) .... little damage, no fires.
Then what? WTC7 spontaneously collapses hours later for absolutely no reason? They go in and remove the 'fancy indendiaries' and 'hydraulics' because they're no longer needed?

As narratives go, the whole WTC7 demolition business doesn't have one.

(prediction - very shortly we'll be pointing out that shredders are a much more reliable and discreet way of destroying incriminating evidence than blowing up buildings).

You mean, a secret organisation that had the influence to capitalise on a planned terrorist plot, couldn't have guessed that some of the tallest towers in NY, were going to fall on WTC7? Are you serious?

For all we know there might have been a truck full of explosives parked nearby ready to ram the end where column 79 was, just in case they sustained no feasible damage. Just because you can't think of it, doesn't mean it couldn't have happened.

[Ragnarok]

It's interesting the contempt and mistrust of academia that many truthers have.

It's interesting the adulation and trust of academia that many derbunkers have.

[Justin39640]

It's interesting the adulation and trust of academia that many derbunkers have.

id say that about sums things up

[Edx]

You mean, a secret organisation that had the influence to capitalise on a planned terrorist plot, couldn't have guessed that some of the tallest towers in NY, were going to fall on WTC7? Are you serious?

For all we know there might have been a truck full of explosives parked nearby ready to ram the end where column 79 was, just in case they sustained no feasible damage. Just because you can't think of it, doesn't mean it couldn't have happened.

"Heres a better idea George, how about we just use a paper shredder?"

[twinstead]

It's interesting the adulation and trust of academia that many derbunkers have.


When it comes to science? Yes, I'd say I'd trust somebody who has the knowledge and experience over just some irrational guy on the internet. I'll bet you go to your plumber for medical advice, too.

[Ragnarok]

Here we go with the ad homs.

In fact that is you derbunker's new name, "The Ad homs Family".

I'm going to keep careful note of all the insults, veiled threats and general slurs in this thread, and name and shame any miscreants.

[Ragnarok]

"Heres a better idea George, how about we just use a paper shredder?"

Not quite the same spectacle though, is it? I'm not sure that would have got the public banging their drums behind Dubya!

[dtugg]

I'm going to keep careful note of all the insults, veiled threats and general slurs in this thread, and name and shame any miscreants.

Oh noes! The twoofer is going to shame us!!! Whatever shall we do?

[Ragnarok]

Oh noes! The twoofer is going to shame us!!! Whatever shall we do?

here's one.

[dtugg]

Uh oh, looks like I am going be shamed by a twoofer!!!!! How will I be able to show my face here again!?!?!?!?!?!?

[rwguinn]

Uh oh, looks like I am going be shamed by a twoofer!!!!! How will I be able to show my face here again!?!?!?!?!?!?
IT ain't your face I worry about.
It's the whole damned avatar...

[Grizzly Bear]

REally? Your structural engineering degree came from where? Where did you do your internship and understudy?
Unfinished due to financial circumstances... [sic]
I've asked him if he got as far as the structures related courses; no answer, and his posts indicate he/she either never got to that point or didn't take in the material he/she learned. Regardless of which is the case, it's not impressing anyone in this thread.


It's interesting the adulation and trust of academia that many derbunkers have.
Actually yes, particularly when what they have to say pretty well matches up with the content of what I study. College actually pays off as a bonus ;)

[sylvan8798]

It's interesting the contempt and mistrust of academia that many truthers have.

That coin has 2 sides. Truthers seem to think the engineers could have modeled where every beam, column, and joint went during the collapse with all the forces, etc. the whole way down, but at the same time they believe the engineers were too stupid to see what they claim is blatantly obvious to anyone with a high school education.

[Ragnarok]

That coin has 2 sides. Truthers seem to think the engineers could have modeled where every beam, column, and joint went during the collapse with all the forces, etc. the whole way down, but at the same time they believe the engineers were too stupid to see what they claim is blatantly obvious to anyone with a high school education.


It's not the engineers that would have been doing the modelling; they just set the parameters. If a computer couldn't do it, it's because they likely didn't apply enough computer to the task. Or didn't even attempt to, which is curious seeing how inquisitive scientists are meant to be!

Do you really believe that the best computer in the world couldn't have mapped or modelled what happened after collapse initiation?

[dtugg]

It's not the engineers that would have been doing the modelling; they just set the parameters. If a computer couldn't do it, it's because they likely didn't apply enough computer to the task. Or didn't even attempt to, which is curious seeing how inquisitive scientists are meant to be!

Do you really believe that the best computer in the world couldn't have mapped or modelled what happened after collapse initiation?

A sufficiently powerful computer probably could have modelled the collapses of the twin towers although it would have taken a very long time. But it is entirely obvious to everybody except twoofer morons that after collapse initiation global collapse was inevitable so this would have been a waste of resources. And twoofer morons would have just ignored the simulations anyway like they do for WTC7.

[BigAl]

Originally Posted by Ragnarok
Do you really believe that the best computer in the world couldn't have mapped or modelled what happened after collapse initiation?


Modelled, yes. "Mapped", whatever that means to you, no.

It's futile to explain to you what the differences is.

[Ragnarok]

A sufficiently powerful computer probably could have modelled the collapses of the twin towers although it would have taken a very long time. But it is entirely obvious to everybody except twoofer morons that after collapse initiation global collapse was inevitable so this would have been a waste of resources. And twoofer morons would have just ignored the simulations anyway like they do for WTC7.

And so, NIST, the brightest and the best, charged to investigate the towers for use in improving future building's safety standards, hasn't even a cursory interest in how the building behaved all the way down? No thoughts at all for how they might save anyone in a similar situation in the future who might make it two thirds of the way down and then have a building collapse on them. And you don't find that surprising?

[CHF]

Do you really believe that the best computer in the world couldn't have mapped or modelled what happened after collapse initiation?

Why do you think air crash investigators find out why a plane crashed but don't bother with detailed analysis into what happened to it after it hit the ground?

[Myriad]

It's not the engineers that would have been doing the modelling; they just set the parameters. If a computer couldn't do it, it's because they likely didn't apply enough computer to the task. Or didn't even attempt to, which is curious seeing how inquisitive scientists are meant to be!

Do you really believe that the best computer in the world couldn't have mapped or modelled what happened after collapse initiation?


In order to model the exact dynamics of a building collapse, at the level of predicting where each beam goes, the engineers would have to include among the "parameters":

- The precise weight distribution on every floor such as where each tenant placed banks of filing cabinets and how full they were.

- The dimensions and placement of any material that could locally stiffen a bit of the framework -- this might include the layout of aluminum-framed drywall partitions on each floor, where each elevator was in its shaft when the collapse began, even whether individual doors were open or closed.

- Any local variations in the precise quality and dimensions of the steel members, including surface flaws, internal cracks, and tiny amounts out of spec and out of true that even though within contracted tolerances could still affect the outcome.

- The exact materials, routing, and attachment of all cable and plumbing runs. (For instance, at some point in the event that could make the difference between a large broken-off floor panel immediately falling through a void below, or dangling for half a second from several 200-conductor telephone trunk cables before falling -- which changes the whole subsequent sequence of events.)

Where do you suppose your hypothetical investigating engineers mere data-entry technicians get this information?

Do you really claim that academia has either the ability to obtain all of this information that no longer exists once the building has collapsed, or the even more remarkable ability to model a chaotic event in precise detail without precise details of the initial conditions? All while lacking the basic competence to make judgments such as whether a given building would/would not collapse under the general known conditions, that are supposedly obvious to a high school student?

Respectfully,
Myriad

[Newtons Bit]

It's not the engineers that would have been doing the modelling; they just set the parameters. If a computer couldn't do it, it's because they likely didn't apply enough computer to the task. Or didn't even attempt to, which is curious seeing how inquisitive scientists are meant to be!

Do you really believe that the best computer in the world couldn't have mapped or modelled what happened after collapse initiation?

Or the software didn't exist. Computers can't solve problems until engineers write the software.

[dtugg]

And so, NIST, the brightest and the best, charged to investigate the towers for use in improving future building's safety standards, hasn't even a cursory interest in how the building behaved all the way down? No thoughts at all for how they might save anyone in a similar situation in the future who might make it two thirds of the way down and then have a building collapse on them. And you don't find that surprising?

They were tasked with finding out how the towers collapsed and that's what they did. The exact details of what happened after initiation is irrelevent beside the fact that global collapse insues. And even if they did model the collapses, the exact details wouldn't have been the same as happened in real life as the events were highly chaotic with many, many variables.

[CHF]

And so, NIST, the brightest and the best, charged to investigate the towers for use in improving future building's safety standards, hasn't even a cursory interest in how the building behaved all the way down? No thoughts at all for how they might save anyone in a similar situation in the future who might make it two thirds of the way down and then have a building collapse on them. And you don't find that surprising?

No, because sensible people realize that skyscrapers without a concrete core have no hope of arresting a top-down collapse like the WTC towers.

There is nothing that one could place on, say, the 50th floor that would somehow stop a gravity-driven sledgehammer of 50,000 or 120,000 tons.

The best way to prevent such a problem from even arising in the first place would be to construct skyscrapers with concrete cores (as most are), which would lesson the likelihood of such a structural failure - as it did in the Madrid fire of 2005.

The potential flaws in the WTC design were recognized long before 9/11.

Although if you want to read an impressive paper on the collapses themselves I'd recommended Frank Greening's work

[Ragnarok]

The potential flaws in the WTC design were recognized long before 9/11.


Now that's interesting! How well recognised?

[CHF]

Now that's interesting! How well recognised?

Well enough that no one else replicated it.

[Ragnarok]

Well enough that no one else replicated it.

Why, do you think if it had been a great design, everybody would have been copying it?

[Hokulele]

Or the software didn't exist. Computers can't solve problems until engineers write the software.


And let's not forget Moore's law.

[CHF]

Why, do you think if it had been a great design, everybody would have been copying it?

It was a great design when it came to expanding floor space.

Not so great when it came to dealing with airliner impacts and fires, sadly.

If I recall correctly, it was also much more expensive than most.

[Corsair 115]

Now that's interesting! How well recognised?


Well, considering these 'flaws' were really only of relevance when nearly fully loaded, large passenger jets were rammed into them at 500+ miles per hour, I think it's safe to say these 'flaws' were well outside the normally expected range of operations for the buildings.

[Ragnarok]

It was a great design when it came to expanding floor space.

Not so great when it came to dealing with airliner impacts and fires, sadly.



Well, from what I recall, they seemed to do alright for a hour each approximately. If only they hadn't had all that flammable crap lying around their offices, eh? Health And Safety should have been more on the ball there.

[dtugg]

Well, from what I recall, they seemed to do alright for a hour each approximately. If only they hadn't had all that flammable crap lying around their offices, eh? Health And Safety should have been more on the ball there.

Stop trying to be funny. You're not.

[alienentity]

'haggling over the moment the roof line first trembles is overlooking the issue at hand.' Facepalm and groan in response. If you're going to trivialize the main issues to that degree, you're not prepared to have a serious discussion Kyle.
That's a gross misrepresentation of what actually happens at that point in the collapse. I guess you weren't able to comprehend that the whole facade 'breaths' or deforms, if you look at the close up videos. If that is not the point of global collapse, then I'm Ronald Reagan.
'it quite simply couldn't have come down like that' You haven't offered a coherent, intelligent analysis to support that statement.

Instead what you did was to immediately deflect away from the issue to an irrelevant analogy, and to fictitious molten steel.

You 'conveniently' avoid the careful analysis I did to determine the minimum time for those events, which gives us an overall time some 70% of that produced by freefall.
You focus instead on the event, which happened roughly halfway thru the progressive collapse, and lasted about 15% of the entire collapse.

In other words, you're ignoring most of the information relevant to the collapse - about 85% of it, by my count. And you don't even pause to consider that your approach is terminally flawed.

If you are brave enough to discuss the actual collapse, from start to finish, without resorting to empty analogies and deflecting to anomalies, but using mathematics and engineering, as well as accurate video analysis, that will be a big change in your approach.

I won't hold my breath.

[Ragnarok]

Stop trying to be funny. You're not.

If you are noticing the attempts, it must have tickled you in some way.

[alienentity]

And let's not forget Moore's law.

You mean that the amount of irrelevant nonsense in the 9/11 truth movement doubles every 18 months?

[dtugg]

If you are noticing the attempts, it must have tickled you in some way.

Nope.

[Ragnarok]

Nope.

Ok, don't let the door bang you on the way out.

[Hokulele]

You mean that the amount of irrelevant nonsense in the 9/11 truth movement doubles every 18 months?


Or every 200 hours. ;)

[kallsop]

A huge plane with, what, 10,000 gallons of jet fuel, crashes into a tall building and starts a large fire. The tall building relies on steel pillars for strength, and those pillars weaken in the heat, buckle, cannot support the mass above, and precipitate a collapse.

The building does not collapse like a brick on top of wet sand. Instead, the huge upper mass gets accelerated more or less vertically by gravity. The huge force necessary to redirect the direction of the massive collapse could possibly indicate foul play if it were observed. Efforts to misdirect the argument and suggest that the lack of this mystery force is evidence of foul play suggest an inferior intellect has too much time on their hands.

Accordingly, the thesis is rejected, stamped with "EPIC FAIL" and inserted into the shredder. Nothing to see here, move along.

[dafydd]

It's interesting the adulation and trust of academia that many derbunkers have.

I trust the guys who actually know what they're talking about.List your engineering qualifications here please.

[Heiwa]

A huge plane with, what, 10,000 gallons of jet fuel, crashes into a tall building and starts a large fire. The tall building relies on steel pillars for strength, and those pillars weaken in the heat, buckle, cannot support the mass above, and precipitate a collapse.

The building does not collapse like a brick on top of wet sand. Instead, the huge upper mass gets accelerated more or less vertically by gravity. The huge force necessary to redirect the direction of the massive collapse could possibly indicate foul play if it were observed. Efforts to misdirect the argument and suggest that the lack of this mystery force is evidence of foul play suggest an inferior intellect has too much time on their hands.

Accordingly, the thesis is rejected, stamped with "EPIC FAIL" and inserted into the shredder. Nothing to see here, move along.

Do me a favour, i.e. do the model experiment at http://heiwaco.tripod.com/nist1.htm#6 and report if you can observe that the huge upper mass gets accelerated more or less vertically by gravity, etc, etc.

[kylebisme]

allegation: you are using arguments from personal belief.
Personal beliefs are really all any of us have to argue from here. Yes, it is my personal belief that localized impact damage and fire didn't make two floors of a building vanish into thin air, just like I argue David Copperfield didn't make the Statue of Liberty vanish into thin air. Of course you all are free to believe otherwise in either case, but you can't expect me to take your word for it, as that is just not how I roll.

[dtugg]

Yes, it is my personal belief that localized impact damage and fire didn't make two floors of a building vanish into thin air

Seeing as how nobody says that happened, what the hell is your point, twoofer?

[kylebisme]

Seeing as how nobody says that happened, what the hell is your point, twoofer?
The building fell just as quick as if it did, falser.

[alienentity]

Exactly. Nobody but truthers are saying that the floors vanished into thin air. That is an unscientific and inaccurate description of the collapse.

Smart engineers have studied it, and published a very well documented report. Argue the points in the report, and you have the grounds for intelligent debate.

Truther talking points avoid such things and instead focus on anomalies. (molten steel anecdotes, freefall, Larry Silverstein 'pull it' statements and the like)

[dtugg]

The building fell just as quick as if it did, falser.

Let's see your math proving that this happened and shouldn't have happened. Go.

[alienentity]

The building fell just as quick as if it did, falser.

With the collapse already well underway (for minimum 8 seconds) inside and out of view, how fast do you expect unsupported columns would fail?

When a column reaches it's failure point, how long does the actual buckling take? Any idea?

If you look at a verinage demolition (no explosives) where the lower structure is not weakened by fire (so is stronger by definition than some of WTC7's structure) the failures are quite rapid. Truthers used to argue that such top-down collapses couldn't happen. They have been spectacularly wrong many, many times - the track record is rather abysmal.

Poor understanding of engineering cannot be compensated for.

[TruthersLie]

Personal beliefs are really all any of us have to argue from here.


Sorry that is wrong. The indepth investigatinos provided answers. If you feel they are wrong, then provide the evidence to support it. Otherwise it is just you pissing in the wind.


Yes, it is my personal belief that localized impact damage and fire didn't make two floors of a building vanish into thin air,


Two floors didn't "vanish into thin air" any more than the towers collapsed into their "own footprint."

Prove it.


Of course you all are free to believe otherwise in either case, but you can't expect me to take your word for it, as that is just not how I roll.

I don't want you to take MY (trutherslie) word for it. I am not a structural engineer, and I didn't examine all the data. But unless you have PROOF that NIST is wrong, then you are just pissing in the wind.

Your "intuition" has shown to be full of crap and is based on lies and misinformation.

[BigAl]

Originally Posted by kylebisme
Personal beliefs are really all any of us have to argue from here.


Sorry, lots of us saw some aspect of 9/11 and know that Twoofer claims for what we saw are silly. I'm one of those people.

Lots of us have university and professional educations that show that Twoofer claims are silly. I'm one of those people.

[Architect]

Personal beliefs are really all any of us have to argue from here.

No; those of us who do this for a living have many years of university level training in fields such as structural and fire engineering.

[dafydd]

Let's see your math proving that this happened and shouldn't have happened. Go.

And answer came there none.

[dafydd]

The building fell just as quick as if it did, falser.

List your engineering qualifications here please.

[kallsop]

Do me a favour, i.e. do the model experiment at http://heiwaco.tripod.com/nist1.htm#6 and report if you can observe that the huge upper mass gets accelerated more or less vertically by gravity, etc, etc.

I have nothing to prove. If you want to build a 110 story full scale model and fly a plane into it, knock yourself out. Nobody can guarantee it will behave the same as the first two "experiments" though, so what's the point? You can crash a similar car two different times. If you want to know what happened in the two crashes, analyze those and not a third fake crash with a scale model LOL. This is pretty basic stuff, are you keeping up there?

What will convince you that there is not a conspiracy? Specifics, please.

[teachers hint - it can not be disproven....]

[NutCracker]

Personal beliefs are really all any of us have to argue from here. Yes, it is my personal belief that localized impact damage and fire didn't make two floors of a building vanish into thin air, just like I argue David Copperfield didn't make the Statue of Liberty vanish into thin air. Of course you all are free to believe otherwise in either case, but you can't expect me to take your word for it, as that is just not how I roll.

That's a variation of "Evolution is just a theory as well": the Fallacy of False Equivalence.

You are wrong. It is YOU, know-nothing, comprehend-nothing, Truthers that have basically nothing but arguments from personal disbelief to work with. Your opponents have real-world facts and a body of knowledge acquired over the centuries based on these real-world facts by a process known as the scientific method on their side. So this is not a personal beliefs vs. other personal beliefs match. This is personal beliefs vs. science.

[Heiwa]

What will convince you that there is not a conspiracy? Specifics, please.



See The Heiwa Challenge thread! Very popular! Just produce a structure, where a hugh top structure/mass C will, after drop, crush down a bigger bottom structure/mass A by gravity.

[ElMondoHummus]

See The Heiwa Challenge thread! Very popular! Just produce a structure, where a hugh top structure/mass C will, after drop, crush down a bigger bottom structure/mass A by gravity.

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=150847

[twinstead]

See The Heiwa Challenge thread! Very popular! Just produce a structure, where a hugh top structure/mass C will, after drop, crush down a bigger bottom structure/mass A by gravity.

but so many people actually did, I lost track of the excuses you used to discount them.

[sylvan8798]

In order to model the exact dynamics of a building collapse, at the level of predicting where each beam goes, the engineers would have to include among the "parameters":

- The precise weight distribution on every floor such as where each tenant placed banks of filing cabinets and how full they were.

- The dimensions and placement of any material that could locally stiffen a bit of the framework -- this might include the layout of aluminum-framed drywall partitions on each floor, where each elevator was in its shaft when the collapse began, even whether individual doors were open or closed.

- Any local variations in the precise quality and dimensions of the steel members, including surface flaws, internal cracks, and tiny amounts out of spec and out of true that even though within contracted tolerances could still affect the outcome.

- The exact materials, routing, and attachment of all cable and plumbing runs. (For instance, at some point in the event that could make the difference between a large broken-off floor panel immediately falling through a void below, or dangling for half a second from several 200-conductor telephone trunk cables before falling -- which changes the whole subsequent sequence of events.)

Where do you suppose your hypothetical investigating engineers mere data-entry technicians get this information?

Do you really claim that academia has either the ability to obtain all of this information that no longer exists once the building has collapsed, or the even more remarkable ability to model a chaotic event in precise detail without precise details of the initial conditions? All while lacking the basic competence to make judgments such as whether a given building would/would not collapse under the general known conditions, that are supposedly obvious to a high school student?

Respectfully,
Myriad
Not only that, but once the collapse starts, things are banging into each other at unknown angles, bending, twisting, changing direction, being ejected, being crushed, etc.

Even if you were to begin with some kind of fine scale finite element approach, there is way too much data and too much unknown data to make even one time-step practical. And your timesteps would have to be on the order of milliseconds. No amount of computing power could begin to do more than a simplified conceptual approach, similar to what was probably done with Building 7. What the point would be is certainly not clear.

Why did ragnarok get suspended?

[rwguinn]

It's not the engineers that would have been doing the modelling; they just set the parameters. If a computer couldn't do it, it's because they likely didn't apply enough computer to the task. Or didn't even attempt to, which is curious seeing how inquisitive scientists are meant to be!

Do you really believe that the best computer in the world couldn't have mapped or modelled what happened after collapse initiation?
You don't have a *********** clue, do you.
Computers only do what you tell them to do.
Engineers do the modeling, computers simply crunch numbers.
You'd have to write the program, too.
welcome to ignore.

ETA: To whomever contemplated the education never got to structures--Ragnarok never got to Statics, much less Dynamics... and Strength of Materials--never.

[Slayhamlet]

Not quite the same spectacle though, is it? I'm not sure that would have got the public banging their drums behind Dubya!

Yeah, the Bush Admin sure capitalized on the horrid spectacle of a subsidiary building collapsing more than 8 hours after the attacks, with no one inside them and no fatalities, which few people saw and even fewer (i.e. mostly Truthers) seem to give much of a damn about. Thousands of Americans already dead, but no way would the American people have allowed their nefarious government to go after the alleged perpetrators (wink wink) if it weren't for that final straw of WTC7's collapse which broke the camel's back!

Why not try thinking before you type?

[sylvan8798]

Why not try thinking before you type?

Before? During? After? At all?

[twinstead]

Kill 3000 innocents, yea, not a problem; you're just acting out. Collapse the WTC7? You FIENDS! We will hunt you down and KILL YOU.

REMEMBER WTC7!

[Matthew Cline]

And so, NIST, the brightest and the best, charged to investigate the towers for use in improving future building's safety standards, hasn't even a cursory interest in how the building behaved all the way down? No thoughts at all for how they might save anyone in a similar situation in the future who might make it two thirds of the way down and then have a building collapse on them. And you don't find that surprising?

I'm not an architect or structural engineer, but I don't find that surprising. Even an infinitely detailed simulation could only tell you where survivable pockets would form in the stairwells. Working your way backwards from that to try to figure out how to ensure more and/or larger pockets would be impossible for such a chaotic event, and repeatedly running the simulation with variations in the building design to see which left the most/largest pockets would be effort better spent figuring out how to reduce the likelihood of a collapse happening in the first place.

[bill smith]

There is just no way to explain how all four widely-seperated corners of WC7 fell at the same tme due to a progressive collapse from asymmetrical damage.

Only a controlled demolition can have caused this. It couldn't happen naturally and spontaneously from wildly uneven and localised damage to it's 40,000 ton steel frame..

[bill smith]

Here's a mental exercise. Imagine only the four corners of WTC7 standing alone with no structure between. Then suddenly they all fall down together like morror images of each other. This is completely impossibe you say ? Can't possibly happen.

Okay then. Now mentally add some structure between the four corners that will cause all four corners to fall down simultaneously like mirror images of each other.

Tough, ain't it ?

[Grizzly Bear]

There is just no way to explain how all four widely-seperated corners of WC7 fell at the same tme due to a progressive collapse from asymmetrical damage.
Exhibit A: A fascinating dive into the allegorical imagination of a "controlled demolitioner." Whereby through a lack of critical thinking skills asserts that the only structural components are the corner walls. Next week kids we'll explore what bill smith was missing in his latest episode.

[triforcharity]

Now, don't forget the obvious structural integrity that just about every firefighter commented on to the media outlets and people on the stret.

I saw the flipping bulge. It was very noticeable. Not just a few windows, huge spans of many floors.

[Grizzly Bear]

Now, don't forget the obvious structural integrity that just about every firefighter commented on to the media outlets and people on the stret.

I saw the flipping bulge. It was very noticeable. Not just a few windows, huge spans of many floors.

In bill smi--- well, any twoofers world... what you can't see behind the smoke an exterior walls just isn't there. Apparently the idea has expanded to what he thinks was holding up the building too.

[tsig]

Of course I can say; it should have looked like a standing building with some structural damage and heavy office fires, despite all the falser claims to the contrary.

You can say anything you want. Physics says otherwise.

[bill smith]

Exhibit A: A fascinating dive into the allegorical imagination of a "controlled demolitioner." Whereby through a lack of critical thinking skills asserts that the only structural components are the corner walls. Next week kids we'll explore what bill smith was missing in his latest episode.

Why did you even bother Grizzly ? It's totally meaningless.

[dafydd]

See The Heiwa Challenge thread! Very popular! Just produce a structure, where a hugh top structure/mass C will, after drop, crush down a bigger bottom structure/mass A by gravity.

Ignore THE HEIWA CHALLENGEthread,it's bs,a total waste of time.

[bill smith]

In bill smi--- well, any twoofers world... what you can't see behind the smoke an exterior walls just isn't there. Apparently the idea has expanded to what he thinks was holding up the building too.

Not at all .The building was held up by a 40,000 ton structural steel frame so strong that 'It was one of the most structurally redundant buildings ever built in the history of steel structures.'

''We built in enough redundancy to allow entire portions of floors to be removed without affecting the building's structural integrity..."--Lucky Silverstein

[Sword_Of_Truth]

''We built in enough redundancy to allow entire portions of floors to be removed without affecting the building's structural integrity..."--Lucky Silverstein

Bolded the word you missed.

Now read it again and see what it says.

[TruthersLie]

Kill 3000 innocents, yea, not a problem; you're just acting out. Collapse the WTC7? You FIENDS! We will hunt you down and KILL YOU.

REMEMBER WTC7!

bYzIbOYaSy8

Truth point #6.

[Brattus]

There is just no way to explain how all four widely-seperated corners of WC7 fell at the same tme due to a progressive collapse from asymmetrical damage.

Only a controlled demolition can have caused this. It couldn't happen naturally and spontaneously from wildly uneven and localised damage to it's 40,000 ton steel frame..

So..uh..the entire events of 9/11 were orchestrated by the government so they could covertly demolish WTC7?
You did it! You did what no one else could! You cracked the whole thing wide open!
You can go now!

[WildCat]

Ignore THE HEIWA CHALLENGEthread,it's bs,a total waste of time.
I think it might be an interesting read for students of psychology, or anyone with an interest in mental illness.

[triforcharity]

Of course I can say; it should have looked like a standing building with some structural damage and heavy office fires, despite all the falser claims to the contrary.

Huh?? I'm confused. Are we talking about 7, because that is EXACTLY what it looked like up untill it fell. I mean, other than the huge multi-storey bulge, and the leaning, and the huge, unfought fires. Yeah, that is exactly what it looked like. Maybe I am confused.

[triforcharity]

Alienentity and Reactor drone, I don't doubt you both mean well, but haggling over the moment the roof line first trembles is overlooking the issue at hand. Even NIST admits 2.25 seconds of free fall, which is equivalent to two floors of nothing but air. Were there anything resembling a building in the way, even weakening by massive office fires all the way across, it quite simply couldn't have come down like that. To put it another way, nitpicking the bends in the roof is like driving 90Mph down the highway and then arguing you didn't speed because you took the on ramp slow. Granted, the the molten steel at the base explains part of what happened, as does watching the NIST guy dance around like a puppet when being asked about it:

8YaFGSPErKU

If you watch to the end, you'll see a NASA shot showing the base of all three buildings, with building 7 being the hottest. That is the work of some fancy incendiary used as a corrosive, and I wouldn't be surprised if hydraulics were what brought down the center first. Also, on a hunch I googled a phrase, and found an excellent video suggesting who might have done it:

AUmyW1NHOM4

Seems like the right team for the job, eh?

Yeah, except for the fact that they are actors, and couldn't actually do that in real life.

Comapring someone robbing a casino, and wiring a building for demo is idiotic at best.

Oh, and that video is sick, and you're still ignorant on things like structrual engineering.

[triforcharity]

And so, NIST, the brightest and the best, charged to investigate the towers for use in improving future building's safety standards, hasn't even a cursory interest in how the building behaved all the way down? No thoughts at all for how they might save anyone in a similar situation in the future who might make it two thirds of the way down and then have a building collapse on them. And you don't find that surprising?


Ragnarok,

Why would someone STAY in a building that has been on fire for many hours, that are NOT firefighters??

[WildCat]

Huh?? I'm confused. Are we talking about 7, because that is EXACTLY what it looked like up untill it fell. I mean, other than the huge multi-storey bulge, and the leaning, and the huge, unfought fires. Yeah, that is exactly what it looked like. Maybe I am confused.
You were there, but kyle has seen fuzzy low-res videos on youtube.

I think we all know that low-res youtube videos trumps all eyewitness accounts in Trutherland. Just like uneducated lay opinions trump the studies of some of the finest engineers in the world.

I don't know what color the sky is in Trutherland.

[Justin39640]

i would imagine its hot pink with neon green stripes
(think Dr Tim Leary)

[Furcifer]

My apologies to kyle and the OP but I have a slightly off topic question. I'm on a stupid phone and doing a search would yeild little and take forever on the forum. Could someone give me a quick comparison of the fires on 9/11 and the 3rd? or 4th floor fire from the late 80's early 90's? I seem to remember it was a small fire that was under control both by the fire supression system and the fire department. A friend recently cited this as proof of CD and I couldn't remember the actual facts aside from it being dramatically different from 9/11. Thanks.

[Sam.I.Am]

Here's something from the Idiots guide of everything you want to know (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Trade_Center#February_13.2C_1975_fire). Everything else is on loony truther sites.

[Furcifer]

Here's a mental exercise. Imagine only the four corners of WTC7 standing alone with no structure between. Then suddenly they all fall down together like morror images of each other. This is completely impossibe you say ? Can't possibly happen.

Okay then. Now mentally add some structure between the four corners that will cause all four corners to fall down simultaneously like mirror images of each other.

Tough, ain't it ?

Imagine instead of a table, a building. And instead of a table 2 buildins. Now imgaine 2 jet liners travelling at 400 mph smashing into the buildings with enough jet fuel and momentum to shake the buildings to their cores. Now imagine the fires burning uncontrolled for hours. Imagine a heat so hot people dared to take a 110 story pluge to escape the fires. Imagine... Oh wait, you don't have to imagine there's hundreds of vidoes for you to watch and analyze.
Imagine a group of scientists spent years going over these videos and doing a detailed report on what they saw.
Now imagine a couple of fools on the internet told you to imagine a table or a stack of pizza boxes to understand what they think might have happened.
Imagine how stupid that would be?
Oh wait...we don't have to imagine that either.
Thanks BS.

[BigAl]

My apologies to kyle and the OP but I have a slightly off topic question. I'm on a stupid phone and doing a search would yeild little and take forever on the forum. Could someone give me a quick comparison of the fires on 9/11 and the 3rd? or 4th floor fire from the late 80's early 90's? I seem to remember it was a small fire that was under control both by the fire supression system and the fire department. A friend recently cited this as proof of CD and I couldn't remember the actual facts aside from it being dramatically different from 9/11. Thanks.

The only fire I'm aware was in 1975 and is described in
102 Minutes by Dwyer & Flynn (p.67. Steel spans buckled)

The source may be NIST Interim Report May 2003, P.20)

[Furcifer]

Here's something from the Idiots guide of everything you want to know (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Trade_Center#February_13.2C_1975_fire). Everything else is on loony truther sites.

Thanks Sam. I suppose I could have Wiki'd it but did not even consider doing so. So it was a 3 story from the 11th to 14th floor in the mid 70's. Almost irrelevant as I suspected, and yet my friend presented it as a tower inferno. Go figure.

[Furcifer]

The only fire I'm aware was in 1975 and is described in
102 Minutes by Dwyer & Flynn (p.67. Steel spans buckled)

The source may be NIST Interim Report May 2003, P.20)

You too AL, thanks. I thought there was a more significant fire in the late 80's I was overlooking. The way he presented it I thought there may have been more to it than I had remembered. Another CT victim over exaggerating... :rolleyesandpuke

[Sam.I.Am]

Thanks Sam. I suppose I could have Wiki'd it but did not even consider doing so. So it was a 3 story from the 11th to 14th floor in the mid 70's. Almost irrelevant as I suspected, and yet my friend presented it as a tower inferno. Go figure.

It was also mostly in the core area where it was hard to reach inside the plenums and wire chases. The fires in the office areas were knocked down rather quickly. As far as the windows being broken goes firefighters do that routinely to let the heat and soot escape. I don't see why this situation would be any different.

[triforcharity]

Thanks Sam. I suppose I could have Wiki'd it but did not even consider doing so. So it was a 3 story from the 11th to 14th floor in the mid 70's. Almost irrelevant as I suspected, and yet my friend presented it as a tower inferno. Go figure.

No, there was no towering inferno. As Sam also pointed out, the initial fire was contained within minutes. Fire in highrises will sometimes travel up the conduit and in chases for electrical and communications wires. Not so much anymore, as IIRC, they are required to have fire-blocks in the openings. But, that doesn't mean that it won't smolder.

A 3-alarm fire in NYC might SOUND huge, but its really not. Sometimes the third alarm is just for some extra eyes to help find the source, or for high-rise confined space specialists.

Plus, not to mention specialized equipment that is used in high-rises and electrical fires. Not every truck is equiped to handle this. Well, in NYC they are equipped for high rises, but some have different equipment.

Oh, and there wasn't millions of dollars of damage, and thousands of gallons of jet fuel, or huge acre-sized fires, or jets that crashed into them.

[LashL]

The May 2003 interim NIST report does discuss the fire, which occurred in February 1975 in 1WTC, and says that most of the damage was on the 11th floor, affecting some 9000 square feet. It also says that the fire caused some damage to the bar joists on floors 12 and 13; that it did not damage any of the main bar joists; and that it caused buckling of some top chord members, bridging bar joists and deck support angles.

As far as I can recall from reading about this elsewhere, the fire started on the 11th floor in an office area, spread around the 11th floor, and then spread up several floors via a utility shaft, so the fire on floors other than 11 was mostly contained within the core where that shaft was located.

Hope that helps, as well.

[triforcharity]

LashL,

Not only are you the Goddess of Legaltainment™, but you are also very smart when it comes to research. I am looking at a news report from then, and that is basically what it says.

http://www.nytimes.com/1975/02/14/nyregion/14WTC.html

And 9,000 Sq. Feet might seem like ALOT, but when you compare the fact that the floors had 40,000 sq. feet EACH, that could be just one buisness office, or a few meeting rooms. I mean, that place was HUGE!!

[Grizzly Bear]

And 9,000 Sq. Feet might seem like ALOT, but when you compare the fact that the floors had 40,000 sq. feet EACH, that could be just one buisness office, or a few meeting rooms. I mean, that place was HUGE!!
[semi-derail]My Grad 1 project site has a ground level area of about 6,000 square feet and we have to fit about 26,000 sq ft into that footprint. I've traveled to the site a couple of times to document it. A standard fire covering that floor area would still be pretty large, but nothing compared to those in the impact regions.

[triforcharity]

Sure, but a 9,000 Sq Ft fire in NYC is not all that uncommon, neither is a 3-banger.

But, in the much smaller place that I live now, a 3-alarm covering 9,000 Sq. Ft. of office space would be HUGE!!

But, in comparison to 3 COMPLETE FLOORS on fire at the SAME TIME, that is GINORMOUS!!!

[Furcifer]

The May 2003 interim NIST report does discuss the fire, which occurred in February 1975 in 1WTC, and says that most of the damage was on the 11th floor, affecting some 9000 square feet. It also says that the fire caused some damage to the bar joists on floors 12 and 13; that it did not damage any of the main bar joists; and that it caused buckling of some top chord members, bridging bar joists and deck support angles.

As far as I can recall from reading about this elsewhere, the fire started on the 11th floor in an office area, spread around the 11th floor, and then spread up several floors via a utility shaft, so the fire on floors other than 11 was mostly contained within the core where that shaft was located.

Hope that helps, as well.

Thanks LashL.. Hope things find you well. I didn't think this fire thing was anything big but my friend was convinced this was another nail in the proverbial coffin. I don't understand how this stuff gets put out there like gospel even to this day.

[kylebisme]

Even NIST admits 2.25 seconds of free fall, which is equivalent to two floors of nothing but air.
My bad, it was late when I made this comment and being tired I completely miconceptulised the height of the floors. Falling 2.25 seconds in free fall from a state of rest is 24.8m, which which is would be over six floors of nothing but air. Granted, the period of free fall didn't start from rest, but there was already some downward velocity at the time, and as NIST reports (http://wtc.nist.gov/NCSTAR1/PDF/NCSTAR%201-9%20Vol%202.pdf):
This free fall drop continued for approximately 8 stories or 32.0 m (105 ft), the distance traveled between times t = 1.75 s and t = 4.0 s.
So, there we have about 8 floors of the building providing no observable resisting force.
Let's see your math proving that this happened and shouldn't have happened.
Sure, Jaydeehess was kind enough to provide the relevant equations:

an object of mass 'm' drops under the influence of gravity

the force on the mass due to gravity is Fg=mg

along the way another force acts in the opposite direction so it is a negative vector here.
call it the resistive force -Fr

The total force on the object is
Ft=Fg+(-Fr)
Ft=Fg-Fr

The resultant acceleration is given by
Ft=ma
Fg-Fr=ma

As Jaydeehess first noted, Fg=mg. So in the last equation he presented we can substitute mg for Fg to get:

mg-Fr=ma

As NIST noted in what I quoted above, the distance traveled for a period of 2.25 seconds was not distinguishable from free fall. As free fall is a situation where the resistive force of air leaves a≈g, we can substitute g for a to rewrite the above equation as:

mg-Fr≈mg

Now we can solve for Fr with simple algebra:

-Fr≈mg-mg

Fr≈0

This means that for every moment of the fall in time over the couse of that 2.25 seconds mentioned above, we have a 32.0 m (105 ft) section of the building providing a resistive force indistinguishable from that of thin air. So again, while it seems many here willingly believe impact damage and office fires caused WTC7 to fall as it did, I have to doubt such a claim just as much as I doubt the claim that Copperfield made the Statue of Liberty vanish into thin air, as both quite simply defy consistently demonstatable laws of physics.
...those of us who do this for a living have many years of university level training in fields such as structural and fire engineering.
I was not disregarding any such credentials, but I can't take them as a rational reason to accept the conclusion you are defending either. If you could design a structure which fire will cause to collapse with a period acceleration indistinguishable from free fall, and consistently demonstrate the ability of your design do so, then I would happily take your conclusion to be a matter of fact. However, since such design would undermine long accepted understandings of the laws of physics, I'm left to disregard your argument here as founded in irrational belief. Please don't take that as an insult though, as knowing we all lack omniscience, I can't rightly expect any of us to be free of irrational beliefs. Given some looking around, I'd bet I could find some structural engineers who believe Copperfield actually did vanish the Statue of Liberty into thin air too, but I'm guessing you'd agree with me that it would be wrong to take their word for it.

[Dave Rogers]

I get the impression you haven't seen the video I wanted you to. I wasn't directing you to the video NIST looked at, but rather one from another angle which pans out to a wider view. I roughed out a composite here:
http://img43.imageshack.us/img43/3736/b7composite.th.jpg (http://img43.imageshack.us/i/b7composite.jpg/)
So, we aren't just talking about 19 floors here, but rather around 37, please watch the video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FuyZJl9YleY#t=0m48s) to see for yourself. Even if we just called that distance 125m to err on the side of caution, falling though nothing but air would have taken more than 5 seconds, while the building drops out of view in just over 6. There is a rational explanation for that, but it looks more like this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fJLm5-be4LM) than anything NIST showed.

No, it doesn't look even remotely similar to the Tour Broca verinage. I can't imagine how anyone could think it did. The collapse doesn't start more than half way up, and if you actually watch the WTC7 collapse you can see the building rotate as it falls. I was quite disgusted that the WTC7 video then repeats the blatant lie that the collapse is symmetrical. Look at it yourself, watch the rotation of the building in the last stages of the collapse, then ask yourself: Why is the person who made this video lying to me?

Dave

[Dave Rogers]

Even NIST admits 2.25 seconds of free fall, which is equivalent to two floors of nothing but air. Were there anything resembling a building in the way, even weakening by massive office fires all the way across, it quite simply couldn't have come down like that.

Since the mechanical penthouse had already fallen into the building, I suspect that what was left at that point didn't, in fact, resemble a building very much at all.

Dave

[Dave Rogers]

This means that for every moment of the fall in time over the couse of that 2.25 seconds mentioned above, we have a 32.0 m (105 ft) section of the building providing a resistive force indistinguishable from that of thin air.

Suppose, at some point in the collapse, two levels in the structure proved to be weaker, relative to the forces applied to them, than the rest. Would there be some tendency for the structure to collapse at those two levels preferentially? And, were the section between those two levels to be misaligned from the structure above and below by lateral movements caused by the collapse, so that the columns in the middle section failed to fill the gap between the upper and lower columns, how fast would the top section fall over the height of that section?

Alternatively, suppose that a large mass were falling inside the building - as we are wll aware was happening. Suppose that mass encountered a less seriously damaged section of the internal structure as the main collapse began, and was slowed relative to it. Would the momentum of the falling mass then be transferred to the main structure, hence accelerating the latter structure downwards?

Or, for a third possibility, suppose that, as the main collapse began, the acceleration of the falling penthouse relative to the remainder of the building suddenly reduced (which it would, of course), hence allowing the main structure to arrest the fall of the penthouse relative to it. Again, would this cause a downward acceleration of the main structure in excess of that caused by the resultant of gravitational and resistive force?

Those are just three specific and plausible scenarios in which the acceleration of the building could be close to, or even very slightly greater than, gravitational acceleration for a short part of the collapse. I have yet to see any specific, plausible scenarios as to why the conspirators would want or need to destroy several storeys of the structure, at a specific instant, after the collapse had already begun and its completion was assured; because, once a building that big starts to collapse, it doesn't stop.

So again, while it seems many here willingly believe impact damage and office fires caused WTC7 to fall as it did, I have to doubt such a claim just as much as I doubt the claim that Copperfield made the Statue of Liberty vanish into thin air, as both quite simply defy consistently demonstatable laws of physics.

That is simply not true of WTC7, however desperately you may want it to be.

Dave

[TruthersLie]

My bad, it was late when I made this comment and being tired I completely miconceptulised the height of the floors.


Yes it was. Have you noticed a trend? You make BS statements, get your head handed to you and then you have to say
My bad

Why is that?


<snip>
This means that for every moment of the fall in time over the couse of that 2.25 seconds mentioned above, we have a 32.0 m (105 ft) section of the building providing a resistive force indistinguishable from that of thin air.


You are missing an important issue. That is the collapse of the outer walls. It does not take into account the interior collapses, or how the inside completely is GONE. Read the relevant NIST report sections.


So again, while it seems many here willingly believe impact damage and office fires caused WTC7 to fall as it did,


Willingly? Sure. When there is a 10,000 page document put out by leading EXPERTS in forensic engineering, structural engineering and it is peer reviewed by the world and there is NO outcry, NO rebuttals saying they are wrong... Yup. I do accept it.

I have to doubt such a claim just as much as I doubt the claim that Copperfield made the Statue of Liberty vanish into thin air, as both quite simply defy consistently demonstatable laws of physics.

strawman and complete bs.
1. comparing the NIST investigation and findings to david copperfield illusion shows a lack of understanding of BOTH forensic engineering and illusions.
2. GREAT that you doubt such a claim. please provide your scientific/engineering formulas and the math to back it up.
OR
3. Find any one of the dozens of (if not hundreds) peer reviewed scientific journals from ANYWHERE IN THE WORLD, in ANY LANGUAGE which state that NIST is full of crap and wrong.
I'm willing to accept arabic, north korean, russian, iranian and even venezuelan peer reviewed structural engineering journals too... find one. I'll wait.


I was not disregarding any such credentials, but I can't take them as a rational reason to accept the conclusion you are defending either. If you could design a structure which fire will cause to collapse with a period acceleration indistinguishable from free fall, and consistently demonstrate the ability of your design do so, then I would happily take your conclusion to be a matter of fact. However, since such design would undermine long accepted understandings of the laws of physics, I'm left to disregard your argument here as founded in irrational belief.

blah blah blah twoof bleating about not being able to accept experts.


Please don't take that as an insult though, as knowing we all lack omniscience, I can't rightly expect any of us to be free of irrational beliefs.


Ah yes... the appeal to MAGIC fallacy... boring.


Given some looking around, I'd bet I could find some structural engineers who believe Copperfield actually did vanish the Statue of Liberty into thin air too, but I'm guessing you'd agree with me that it would be wrong to take their word for it.

I love ignorant twoofs. Please provide your PROOF and get off the strawman bs... it is boring.

[triforcharity]

Wow, where do I start with Kyle's idiotic statements.

I will take the one that I find somewhata intersting.

You are not willing to take expert opinions on a subject, because

A: You don't understand it (my guess)

2: You don't WANT to believe it, because you haave been taken for a ride by the idiots thata are in the forefront of the Twoof Movement,

But, yet you will take the few idiots lies that they spew as fact, even though hundreds of engineers, and architects, and people in other related fields tell you are wrong.
Hell, I am not an engineer, and I don't ever claim to be, but when it comes to fire, I do understand that, and am very well versed in it. They wouldn't let me teach if I didn't.
BUT, of course, you don't believe a word that I have said.

Makes complete sense. :boggled: :rolleyes:

[dtugg]

My bad, it was late when I made this comment and being tired I completely miconceptulised the height of the floors. Falling 2.25 seconds in free fall from a state of rest is 24.8m, which which is would be over six floors of nothing but air. Granted, the period of free fall didn't start from rest, but there was already some downward velocity at the time, and as NIST reports (http://wtc.nist.gov/NCSTAR1/PDF/NCSTAR%201-9%20Vol%202.pdf):

So, there we have about 8 floors of the building providing no observable resisting force.

Sure, Jaydeehess was kind enough to provide the relevant equations:

As Jaydeehess first noted, Fg=mg. So in the last equation he presented we can substitute mg for Fg to get:

mg-Fr=ma

As NIST noted in what I quoted above, the distance traveled for a period of 2.25 seconds was not distinguishable from free fall. As free fall is a situation where the resistive force of air leaves a≈g, we can substitute g for a to rewrite the above equation as:

mg-Fr≈mg

Now we can solve for Fr with simple algebra:

-Fr≈mg-mg

Fr≈0

This means that for every moment of the fall in time over the couse of that 2.25 seconds mentioned above, we have a 32.0 m (105 ft) section of the building providing a resistive force indistinguishable from that of thin air. So again, while it seems many here willingly believe impact damage and office fires caused WTC7 to fall as it did, I have to doubt such a claim just as much as I doubt the claim that Copperfield made the Statue of Liberty vanish into thin air, as both quite simply defy consistently demonstatable laws of physics..

Oh, you were talking about WTC7, I thought you were talking about the towers since that was subject of the thread.

You are aware, twoofer, that interior of the building collapsed before the fascade, correct?

[Furcifer]

Given some looking around, I'd bet I could find some structural engineers who believe Copperfield actually did vanish the Statue of Liberty into thin air too, but I'm guessing you'd agree with me that it would be wrong to take their word for it.

Bet? As in wager? As in if you don't find "some" structural engineers who believe Copperfield actually vanished the statue of liberty, vanished meaning some sort of temporary demolecularization or similar state so as not to appear visible, after looking around you'd give me money?

I'd take that bet. I'd take that bet and give you odds if I could include the contingency that any structural engineer you might be able to find must remain practising for at least a year after publically admitting his belief in Copperfields supernatural powers.

I don't actually think you were intending to make a stupid wager. What I think you were doing was trying to make a point. The point being you can find just about anyone in a small enough percentile that will publically deny even the most widely accepted truths. And not only truths, but scientific fact as well.

Which is exactly what we (or rather many many experts in their fields of practice) are telling you about the collapse and the NIST report that describes them.

I don't understand how you can use this Copperfield analogy without seeing how it applies to the CT at large. Or more importantly how it applies to you. You're "some" strucural engineer that thinks Copperfield vanished the statue of liberty.

[sylvan8798]

Thanks LashL.. Hope things find you well. I didn't think this fire thing was anything big but my friend was convinced this was another nail in the proverbial coffin. I don't understand how this stuff gets put out there like gospel even to this day.

This is another one of those "all similar things have exactly the same consequences if it works for us" rationales. Like the small plane that accidently hit the Empire State Building in the 40's in the fog and the building didn't collapse, proves that a plane cannot cause a building to collapse. :boggled:

[sylvan8798]

This means that for every moment of the fall in time over the couse of that 2.25 seconds mentioned above, we have a 32.0 m (105 ft) section of the building providing a resistive force indistinguishable from that of thin air. So again, while it seems many here willingly believe impact damage and office fires caused WTC7 to fall as it did, I have to doubt such a claim just as much as I doubt the claim that Copperfield made the Statue of Liberty vanish into thin air, as both quite simply defy consistently demonstatable laws of physics.

I was not disregarding any such credentials, but I can't take them as a rational reason to accept the conclusion you are defending either. If you could design a structure which fire will cause to collapse with a period acceleration indistinguishable from free fall, and consistently demonstrate the ability of your design do so, then I would happily take your conclusion to be a matter of fact. However, since such design would undermine long accepted understandings of the laws of physics, I'm left to disregard your argument here as founded in irrational belief.

Um, no, it wouldn't. Your attempt at an exposition has not demonstrated that such "resistance" must exist or what it would be. According to you, since most engineers and physicists ALREADY believe a structure or portions of a structure can collapse at near free fall acceleration (since we believe the NIST reports), the presence of the belief alone undermines our long accepted understandings of the laws of physics, and we should all be returning to the drawing boards in an attempt to rectify our misbegotten understanding of physics.

Has this happened, to your knowledge? Maybe you should bring it up to the Physics Department at your local U.

[Newtons Bit]

My bad, it was late when I made this comment and being tired I completely miconceptulised the height of the floors. Falling 2.25 seconds in free fall from a state of rest is 24.8m, which which is would be over six floors of nothing but air. Granted, the period of free fall didn't start from rest, but there was already some downward velocity at the time, and as NIST reports (http://wtc.nist.gov/NCSTAR1/PDF/NCSTAR%201-9%20Vol%202.pdf):

So, there we have about 8 floors of the building providing no observable resisting force.

Sure, Jaydeehess was kind enough to provide the relevant equations:

As Jaydeehess first noted, Fg=mg. So in the last equation he presented we can substitute mg for Fg to get:

mg-Fr=ma

As NIST noted in what I quoted above, the distance traveled for a period of 2.25 seconds was not distinguishable from free fall. As free fall is a situation where the resistive force of air leaves a≈g, we can substitute g for a to rewrite the above equation as:

mg-Fr≈mg

Now we can solve for Fr with simple algebra:

-Fr≈mg-mg

Fr≈0

This means that for every moment of the fall in time over the couse of that 2.25 seconds mentioned above, we have a 32.0 m (105 ft) section of the building providing a resistive force indistinguishable from that of thin air. So again, while it seems many here willingly believe impact damage and office fires caused WTC7 to fall as it did, I have to doubt such a claim just as much as I doubt the claim that Copperfield made the Statue of Liberty vanish into thin air, as both quite simply defy consistently demonstatable laws of physics.

8 floors of columns failed almost simultaneously. It should be no surprise to anyone that these 8 floors of columns provided no resistance to the building above.

[Grizzly Bear]

I was not disregarding any such credentials, but I can't take them as a rational reason to accept the conclusion you are defending either. If you could design a structure which fire will cause to collapse with a period acceleration indistinguishable from free fall, and consistently demonstrate the ability of your design do so, then I would happily take your conclusion to be a matter of fact. However, since such design would undermine long accepted understandings of the laws of physics, I'm left to disregard your argument here as founded in irrational belief. Please don't take that as an insult though, as knowing we all lack omniscience, I can't rightly expect any of us to be free of irrational beliefs. Given some looking around, I'd bet I could find some structural engineers who believe Copperfield actually did vanish the Statue of Liberty into thin air too, but I'm guessing you'd agree with me that it would be wrong to take their word for it.
This is my dirty secret...




















http://img38.imageshack.us/img38/6154/booksr.th.jpg (http://img38.imageshack.us/i/booksr.jpg/)

http://img38.imageshack.us/img38/6154/booksr.jpg

What's that look for? Where you expecting Pr0n linkz!?

[alienentity]

Kylebisme wrote comparing the collapse of WTC7 to a David Copperfield stunt..'as both quite simply defy consistently demonstatable laws of physics'

Which laws of physics does WTC7 defy?

[dafydd]

I'm still waiting to hear what kylebisme's engineering qualifications are.

[Furcifer]

This is another one of those "all similar things have exactly the same consequences if it works for us" rationales. Like the small plane that accidently hit the Empire State Building in the 40's in the fog and the building didn't collapse, proves that a plane cannot cause a building to collapse. :boggled:

This jump in logic must be from a website or LC (I can't remember much from LC anymore). As soon I mentioned the damage and fire he mentioned this. The jump in logic here is that there is some additive property to accident analysis. Fire in 1975 + crop duster flying into the ESB = controlled demolition at WTC.

[BadBoy]

And so, NIST, the brightest and the best, charged to investigate the towers for use in improving future building's safety standards, hasn't even a cursory interest in how the building behaved all the way down? No thoughts at all for how they might save anyone in a similar situation in the future who might make it two thirds of the way down and then have a building collapse on them. And you don't find that surprising?
Hay bud, the only person being shamed here is you. I dont post much but you are showing yourself to be a complete idiot. Its the "Dunning Kruger" effect all over again. You cant make something come true by shouting louder or by putting you fingers in your ears and holding your breath. (you can do it duffy moon, you can do it duffy moon....)

I would guess that modelling the collapse would have been far too expensive and probably impossible to do in any timeframe that would give you the detail you seem to be asking for. Way too many variables.

You remind me of an Evolution denier. It dont matter how much evidence you put in the way its just ignored point blank until they get ill tempered.

What a plonker

[WildCat]

I'm still waiting to hear what kylebisme's engineering qualifications are.
He's a certified expert in watching low-res truther videos on youtube.

[BadBoy]

I was not disregarding any such credentials, but I can't take them as a rational reason to accept the conclusion you are defending either.

It not "their credentials" you are disregarding, its the work of the engineers and scientists with those credentials you are disregarding.


If you could design a structure which fire and distruction from 500 mph airliner collisionwill cause to collapse with a period acceleration indistinguishable from free fall, and consistently demonstrate the ability of your design do so, then I would happily take your conclusion to be a matter of fact. However, since such design would undermine long accepted understandings of the laws of physics, I'm left to disregard your argument here as founded in irrational belief.

I added the bit you missed there.

I'm left to disregard your argument here as founded in irrational belief.

I love this. He's calling you guys irrational. excellent. Pot/kettle/black. Your sliding down a slipery irrational slope I feel. Pulling out weeds as you go, trying to gain some purchase.

I can't rightly expect any of us to be free of irrational beliefs.
Talk for youself, not me.

Given some looking around, I'd bet I could find some structural engineers who believe Copperfield actually did vanish the Statue of Liberty into thin air too

ya, right. Actually, I wonder if Heiwa has a take on the Copperfield incident.

[kylebisme]

No, it doesn't look even remotely similar to the Tour Broca verinage. I can't imagine how anyone could think it did.

You don't have to imagine anything to understand, all you'd have to do is recognize the fact that both Tour Broca verinage and Building 7 collapsed with a period of free fall acceleration, both accouting for about 15% of the distance of the fall.


I was quite disgusted that the WTC7 video then repeats the blatant lie that the collapse is symmetrical. Look at it yourself, watch the rotation of the building in the last stages of the collapse, then ask yourself: Why is the person who made this video lying to me?
The roof line is stays fairly symmetrical for a considerable distance of the fall, and to say it feel symmetrically is to speak pf that fact in general terms. To deny that fact in refusal to accept it's implications is a case of straining at a gnat while swallow a camel.

Since the mechanical penthouse had already fallen into the building, I suspect that what was left at that point didn't, in fact, resemble a building very much at all.
It obviously didn't resemble a building very much at, all as evidenced by the free fall acceleration though it. However, the penthouses coming down first does not explain that complete lack of resistive force, and neither does any amount of fire. This is why NIST couldn't show anything of the sort, and neither can anyone else.
Suppose, at some point in the collapse, two levels in the structure proved to be weaker, relative to the forces applied to them, than the rest. Would there be some tendency for the structure to collapse at those two levels preferentially? And, were the section between those two levels to be misaligned from the structure above and below by lateral movements caused by the collapse, so that the columns in the middle section failed to fill the gap between the upper and lower columns, how fast would the top section fall over the height of that section?
They'll bend over and possibly snap in parts, rubbing across other columns and coming down on to beams, all of that is resistive force which would have kept the building from ever archiving free fall acceleration, let alone over 100 feet of it. The throwing a hotdog down a hall scenario you propose isn't rightly applicable here, and again not even NIST could simulate anything of the sort.

Alternatively, suppose that a large mass were falling inside the building - as we are wll aware was happening. Suppose that mass encountered a less seriously damaged section of the internal structure as the main collapse began, and was slowed relative to it. Would the momentum of the falling mass then be transferred to the main structure, hence accelerating the latter structure downwards?

Or, for a third possibility, suppose that, as the main collapse began, the acceleration of the falling penthouse relative to the remainder of the building suddenly reduced (which it would, of course), hence allowing the main structure to arrest the fall of the penthouse relative to it. Again, would this cause a downward acceleration of the main structure in excess of that caused by the resultant of gravitational and resistive force?
In both cases the falling mass will accelerate the part it hits downwards, leaving less force to pull down whatever it might still be attached to above.

Those are just three specific and plausible scenarios in which the acceleration of the building could be close to, or even very slightly greater than, gravitational acceleration for a short part of the collapse.
To achieve downward acceleration in excess of the gravitational and resistive forces involved you'd need something along the line of winches pulling the mass down, or rocket thrusters pushing it that way.
I have yet to see any specific, plausible scenarios as to why the conspirators would want or need to destroy several storeys of the structure, at a specific instant, after the collapse had already begun and its completion was assured; because, once a building that big starts to collapse, it doesn't stop.

I'd ask you to find a building outside of 9/11 which collapsed with a period of free fall acceleration without without destroy several stories of the structure at a specific instant, but knowing it isn't physically possible I wouldn't suggest you waste your time. Put simply, you aren't going to see why this needed to be done until you let go of the false premise by which you dismiss the explanation.

[ElMondoHummus]

Dave Rogers can easily handle his own arguments, so I won't respond to the entirety of your post. I'll limit myself to one element that jumps out at me:

However, the penthouses coming down first does not explain that complete lack of resistive force, and neither does any amount of fire. This is why NIST couldn't show anything of the sort, and neither can anyone else.

That is an utterly, completely flawed conclusion. The fact that the penthouses came down first clearly demonstrate that the interior structure was fatally compromised. If the interior was not, how could the penthouses have collapsed to begin with?

You can't argue that the collapse of the penthouses has nothing to do with the severe compromise of interior structural integrity. Their very collapse actually argues the opposite.

[kylebisme]

Bet? As in wager? As in if you don't find "some" structural engineers who believe Copperfield actually vanished the statue of liberty, vanished meaning some sort of temporary demolecularization or similar state so as not to appear visible, after looking around you'd give me money?

As in, considering nearly 80 percent of Americans believe in miracles (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/story/2008/06/23/ST2008062300818.html), I'm quite confident that I could find some structural engineers who think Copperfield can produce them. If you want to make it a monetary wager, I'm down as long as it is in accordance with the laws. I'm not interested in your amendment giving you a year to get them fired though.

[Myriad]

The throwing a hotdog down a hall scenario you propose...


I don't think the bolded phrase means what you think it means.

At least, given the context, I hope it doesn't.

(Google is your friend!)

To achieve downward acceleration in excess of the gravitational and resistive forces involved you'd need something along the line of winches pulling the mass down, or rocket thrusters pushing it that way.


Instead of winches, how about other structural framework members, that started falling earlier (which some did, as we know from the penthouse collapse), pulling the mass down?

Respectfully,
Myriad

[Furcifer]

As in, considering nearly
80 percent of Americans believe in miracles (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/story/2008/06/23/ST2008062300818.html), I'm quite confident that I could find some structural engineers who think Copperfield can produce them. If you want to make it a monetary wager, I'm down as long as it is in accordance with the laws. I'm not interested in your amendment giving you a year to get them fired though.

It' apparent your engaging in faith based observations. I don't think anyone here finds that surprising. That being said I'm in for $50 that says you can't find a structural engineer that will attest to Copperfields mystical powers. I'll email a money order to a neutral party of your choosing from here in the forum. I'd prefer a moderator if willing. A time frame has to be set, I can't have all my assets tied up in this thing. If you win the money is yours, if I win your $50 gets donated to the forum in your name.

You've got until Halloween. No one from your home town or the University you may have attended counts (for obvious reasons. I can get a buddy to swear her saw Nessy). You game or what?

[GlennB]

Put simply, you aren't going to see why this needed to be done until you let go of the false premise by which you dismiss the explanation.

Why do you think 'it needed to be done', kyle?

I asked you this before but it's understandable that you missed that post in such a busy thread.

[bill smith]

Dave Rogers can easily handle his own arguments, so I won't respond to the entirety of your post. I'll limit myself to one element that jumps out at me:



That is an utterly, completely flawed conclusion. The fact that the penthouses came down first clearly demonstrate that the interior structure was fatally compromised. If the interior was not, how could the penthouses have collapsed to begin with?

You can't argue that the collapse of the penthouses has nothing to do with the severe compromise of interior structural integrity. Their very collapse actually argues the opposite.

But how did this 300-350 ton column 79 cause the rest pf the 40,000 ton steel frame to collapse in such a way that all four corners collapsed st exactly the same time ? They were after all seperated from each other by the entire length and breadth of the building and still all four went down at the same time like mirror images of each other ?

[Justin39640]

I don't think the bolded phrase means what you think it means.

At least, given the context, I hope it doesn't.

(Google is your friend!)




Instead of winches, how about other structural framework members, that started falling earlier (which some did, as we know from the penthouse collapse), pulling the mass down?

Respectfully,
Myriad

i LOL'd at that one too
i couldnt figure out a way to bring it up without a breach of the MA lol

[sylvan8798]

But how did this 300-350 ton column 79 cause the rest pf the 40,000 ton steel frame to collapse in such a way that all four corners collapsed st exactly the same time ? They were after all seperated from each other by the entire length and breadth of the building and still all four went down at the same time like mirror images of each other ?

The wind frames were in the exterior walls - at least the north-south frames, which were in the east and west walls. The moment frames are VERY solidly connected together. They would not be the weak points, so the sides would be pulled inward towards the center like an envelope.

[DGM]

But how did this 300-350 ton column 79 cause the rest pf the 40,000 ton steel frame to collapse in such a way that all four corners collapsed st exactly the same time ? They were after all seperated from each other by the entire length and breadth of the building and still all four went down at the same time like mirror images of each other ?
Why don't you read the report? Maybe you should have someone read it to you. It's all in there.

[kylebisme]

You can't argue that the collapse of the penthouses has nothing to do with the severe compromise of interior structural integrity.
That isn't my argument at all, but rather that the severe compromise of structural integrity you refer to doesn't account for sheer absence of structural resistance demonstrated by the period of free fall acceleration.
I don't think the bolded phrase means what you think it means.
It is a metaphor referring to a sheer absence of resistive force, usually used in a sexual sense but applicable to other situations too, such as the one Dave Rogers was proposing.

Instead of winches, how about other structural framework members, that started falling earlier (which some did, as we know from the penthouse collapse), pulling the mass down?
That will only the fall to accelerate at the rate gravity minus the the resistance of the remaining structure, not the straight up acceleration at the rate gravity seen in the collapse. Achieving the latter though a resistive force requires force beyond that of gravity alone, such as a winch.

It' apparent your engaging in faith based observations. I don't think anyone here finds that surprising. That being said I'm in for $50 that says you can't find a structural engineer that will attest to Copperfields mystical powers. I'll email a money order to a neutral party of your choosing from here in the forum. I'd prefer a moderator if willing. A time frame has to be set, I can't have all my assets tied up in this thing. If you win the money is yours, if I win your $50 gets donated to the forum in your name.

You've got until Halloween. No one from your home town or the University you may have attended counts (for obvious reasons. I can get a buddy to swear her saw Nessy). You game or what?
To make a bet with someone I don't rightly know I'd require a mediating party who has vested interest in remaining neutral. I would be willing to split the costs of hiring such an individual, a established lawyer would be an obvious choice. I'd also require a little more time to accomplish the task, perhaps until the end of the year. If you are comfortable with such terms, feel free to PM me so we can start working out all the details, and then we can post the finalized agreement here.
Why do you think 'it needed to be done', kyle?
For the same reasons demolition teams do destroy several stories of a structure when bringing a large one down; because that is what it takes achieve the force needed to turn such a building into a pile of rubble.

[Hokulele]

It is a metaphor referring to a sheer absence of resistive force, usually used in a sexual sense but applicable to other salutations too, such as the one Dave Rogers was proposing.


This word doesn't mean what you think it means, either.

[ElMondoHummus]

That isn't my argument at all, but rather that the severe compromise of structural integrity you refer to doesn't account for sheer absence of structural resistance demonstrated by the period of free fall acceleration.


That's a qualitative argument. And you aren't providing numbers to demonstrate this. I posit that whatever resistence that might have been present was too minute to be discernable on a video.


... That will only the fall to accelerate at the rate gravity minus the the resistance of the remaining structure, not the straight up acceleration at the rate gravity seen in the collapse. Achieving the latter though a resistive force requires force beyond that of gravity alone, such as a winch.


See above. You're presuming that the difference is discernable on 24 frames per second video. It would not be.

Ps., you attributed a quote regarding winches to me by mistake. Myriad made that statement.

[A W Smith]

It's not the engineers that would have been doing the modelling; they just set the parameters. If a computer couldn't do it, it's because they likely didn't apply enough computer to the task. Or didn't even attempt to, which is curious seeing how inquisitive scientists are meant to be!

Do you really believe that the best computer in the world couldn't have mapped or modelled what happened after collapse initiation?

you mean like the computers that accurately predict the weather so that simon bar sinister can control the world?

or like the computer that can accurately predict which lottery ping pong balls will fall into order so that greedy mcreedy can win billions?

or like the computer that can predict market futures so that the sheik can take over a country's economy?

Are you that stupid?

[kylebisme]

This word doesn't mean what you think it means, either.
I meant situations. Spellchecking often leaves me with such weird grammatical errors due to my dyslexia, though I probably would have caught that one if I hadn't been distracted by a friend dropping by.
I posit that whatever resistence that might have been present was too minute to be discernable on a video.
It most obviously was. However, unlike you, I'm offering a rational explanation of how that sheer lack of resistance can be achieved. Besides, your posit isn't even supported by NIST's model, which shows large sections of the structure bending under force. This is why NIST couldn't show their model archiving free fall acceleration, as the conditions they simulated simply can't explain those observable results.

You're presuming that the difference is discernable on 24 frames per second video. It would not be.
On the contrary, all you need is three frames and the time between them to calculate acceleration, as it is simply the change in velocity over time. This is why NIST was unable to deny the period of free fall. On a side note, the videos referenced are 29.97 frames per second, it is film which generally uses 24.

[Grizzly Bear]

EDIT: never mind.... teaching ignorants is infeasible.

[Arus808]

18 pages of a troll who was answered on page 1.. could you guys stop feeding apparent trolls?

[Furcifer]

To make a bet with someone I don't rightly know I'd require a mediating party who has vested interest in remaining neutral. I would be willing to split the costs of hiring such an individual, a established lawyer would be an obvious choice. I'd also require a little more time to accomplish the task, perhaps until the end of the year. If you are comfortable with such terms, feel free to PM me so we can start working out all the details, and then we can post the finalized agreement here.

I'm not sure why you'd need a lawyer. Any reputable 3rd party should suffice. We're talking about $50, not a million. I'd give you the money if you could get two professionals you don't know, to publically admit they believe Copperfield actually vanished the statue of liberty just to see you learn something. Even if they were kidding it would be worth the $50 to see someone like yourself actually talk to real professionals and see how seriously they take their work.
And that's the point really. I've seen too many "truthers" laugh off some very accomplished scientists and professionals because they have no respect for how seriously they take their responsibilities. Most truthers, if any, have never accomplished anything in their lives so they have no idea what's really involved here. We're not talking about a bunch of goof balls working a deep fryer at Taco Bell. We're talking about people who have the responsibility to get things right because lives are potentially at risk.
As far as I'm concerned the $50 would be well spent if you found a couple of structural engineers to admit they believed Coppefield vanished the statue of Liberty. Better to find them now and have their licences revoked, than to let them continue to practice and see them vanish an overpass or bridge.

[Dave Rogers]

You don't have to imagine anything to understand, all you'd have to do is recognize the fact that both Tour Broca verinage and Building 7 collapsed with a period of free fall acceleration, both accouting for about 15% of the distance of the fall.

Ah, the old bait-and-switch approach. "A looks exactly like B, so they're exactly the same." "But they don't look remotely similar." "No, but they're alike in one subtle detail, so they're exactly the same."

Show me your measurements of the accelerations of WTC7 and Tour Broca, and demonstrate that they show similar accelerations over similar parts of the collapse. Then advance a fully realised explanation of why this proves some similarity in mechanisms. When you've done that, I may pay attention to it. At the moment, as usual, you're making things up, because I don't for one moment believe you've actually measured the Tour Broca acceleration. And when you have got some results, you'll have proved that the collapse of a multi-floor segment of a falling building results in a period of freefall acceleration, without any reference to how that collapse was initiated. Different mechanisms can produce similar results.

The roof line is stays fairly symmetrical for a considerable distance of the fall, and to say it feel symmetrically is to speak pf that fact in general terms. To deny that fact in refusal to accept it's implications is a case of straining at a gnat while swallow a camel.

Rubbish. Utter, utter rubbish. WTC7 can be seen in this video to fall in a clearly different way to any building implosion I've ever seen. The abuse of the word "symmetrical" is a piece of wilful dishonesty. It's a Big Lie, that tries to represent the collapse as something it wasn't in order to argue a case that has no merit. To say the collapse was symmetrical "in general terms" is as much of a lie as to say it violated the second law of thermodynamics; it simply was not, by any rational definition, symmetrical.

It obviously didn't resemble a building very much at, all as evidenced by the free fall acceleration though it. However, the penthouses coming down first does not explain that complete lack of resistive force, and neither does any amount of fire. This is why NIST couldn't show anything of the sort, and neither can anyone else.

Uninformed speculation. All that's needed to explain the freefall period is a multistorey collapse at some point in the collapse of a multistorey building. There's no mystery to it. Your determination to create one is classic denialism; you don't want to increase our understanding of events, but to erode it, in order (again) to argue a case that has no merit.

They'll bend over and possibly snap in parts, rubbing across other columns and coming down on to beams, all of that is resistive force which would have kept the building from ever archiving free fall acceleration, let alone over 100 feet of it. The throwing a hotdog down a hall scenario you propose isn't rightly applicable here, and again not even NIST could simulate anything of the sort.

Without numbers your comments are meaningless. How much resistance are you talking about? Enough to reduce the acceleration by how much? What's the error margin on the measured acceleration, and does the actual acceleration fall within that margin? You have no idea, so stop pretending that you know.

In both cases the falling mass will accelerate the part it hits downwards, leaving less force to pull down whatever it might still be attached to above.

This is close to scientific illiteracy. If there is a falling mass that precedes the main collapse, it isn't attached to anything above. It will simply accelerate the part it hits downwards.

To achieve downward acceleration in excess of the gravitational and resistive forces involved you'd need something along the line of winches pulling the mass down, or rocket thrusters pushing it that way.

Globally, yes. But consider the 50th floor of WTC1. It hit the ground in far less than the time required to freefall from its original height. It did so because a significant mass struck it from above at high speed. There was a significant mass of WTC7 fallin in advance of the main collapse. It's trivial to visualise how that mass could have collided with other elements of the structure to produce an increased downward acceleration.

I'd ask you to find a building outside of 9/11 which collapsed with a period of free fall acceleration without without destroy several stories of the structure at a specific instant, but knowing it isn't physically possible I wouldn't suggest you waste your time. Put simply, you aren't going to see why this needed to be done until you let go of the false premise by which you dismiss the explanation.

Most likely the period of freefall was caused by the simultaneous destruction of several storeys. It's purely your invention that there is anything surprising about this; when the whole building is collapsing, it's expected behaviour that a large section can collapse in a single impact, leaving the remainder of the structure to fall through the height of that section. Your arbitrary decision that such a section can't be as big as a hundred feet is pulled out of thin air (to be polite), and your entire argument rests on it. Show me data or a reasoned explanation, or you have nothing to say.

Dave

[Dave Rogers]

That will only the fall to accelerate at the rate gravity minus the the resistance of the remaining structure, not the straight up acceleration at the rate gravity seen in the collapse. Achieving the latter though a resistive force requires force beyond that of gravity alone, such as a winch.

At this point, you simply don't know what you're talking about. If an object is already falling, it has momentum. Collision with another object will exert a force on that object, thus transferring the momentum. The resultant force on the second object will be gravity minus the structural resistance plus the momentum transfer force. As I've pointed out using WTC1 floor 50 as an example, that can easily lead to a downward acceleration well in excess of 1G, for a limited period. Now, what was it we saw in WTC7 again? Oh yes, an acceleration close to 1G for a limited period.

The force of the collision is a force beyond that of gravity. As long as you can't understand that, you can't refute it, and you continue to advance untenable arguments.

Dave

[kylebisme]

I'm not sure why you'd need a lawyer. Any reputable 3rd party should suffice. We're talking about $50, not a million.
Again, I'd need a mediating party who has vested interest in remaining neutral. It's not a matter of the size of the pot, but rather one of principle. We're talking scouting down people to meet the qualifications proposed, which would cost me considerably, and doing so would be foolish without being reasonably assured that the wager would be honored. If you would be interested in upping the pot to that beyond which would cover your side of the expresses, or better yet cover mine, I'd be down with that.

Regardless, my "I'd bet" comment was originally only intended rhetorically in the context of disputing the idea that qualifications in a given field absolve people from holding irrational beliefs related to it. I've seen plenty of examples to demonstrate the opposite, and just last night stumbled upon Stephen Colbert interviewing a man discussing one I had researched previously; our military's efforts to develop paranormal powers for use in warfare (http://www.hulu.com/watch/96401/the-colbert-report-thu-sep-17-2009#s-p1-so-i0) (the introduction to the topic starting at about 1:45). Considering examples such as that one, I've little doubt that structural engineers who believe Copperfield made the Statue of Liberty disappear exist, and I would be happy to hire a PI to track such individuals down if I can be reasonably sure the evidence aquired will not simply be ignored.

Show me your measurements of the accelerations of WTC7 and Tour Broca, and demonstrate that they show similar accelerations over similar parts of the collapse.
Tour Broca was a 15 story structure in which 2 stories being pushed out resulted in a period of free fall for about about 13% of its hight.

WTC7 was a 47 story structure which expeanced a free fall equvanlt to 8 stories, which comes out to about 17% of its hight.

Which part of that are you attempting to deny?

WTC7 can be seen in this video to fall in a clearly different way to any building implosion I've ever seen.
Can you exemplify the clear differences you allege?

How much resistance are you talking about? Enough to reduce the acceleration by how much? What's the error margin on the measured acceleration, and does the actual acceleration fall within that margin?
I know the structure of the building had provided over 100% of the resistive force necessary to hold up the roof before it started to fall, and falling with free fall acceleration can only be acomplished when the restive force is approximately 0% of that.

If there is a falling mass that precedes the main collapse, it isn't attached to anything above. It will simply accelerate the part it hits downwards.
Rather, there is an instant of transfer of momentum, but that doesn't explain the whole roofline coming down with free fall acceleration over a period of seconds, which is the issue I was discussing in the quote you responded to.

Most likely the period of freefall was caused by the simultaneous destruction of several storeys.
Rather, there is no other way it could have happened, which has been my argument all along. Your "most likely" makes me curious to know what less likely possibilities you are imagining.

[beachnut]

Go straight to the source.

1) "Tilt of approximately 3 to 4 degrees to the south and 7 to 8 degrees to the east occurred before bulding section fell." NIST NCSTAR1-6D, Table E-1.

2) A graphical representation of the stress at the moment of collapse initiation (predicted) is given in NCSTAR1-6D, figures 4-120.

3) Not directly, no. The columns above can only transmit a force through them equal to their individual buckling strength, which does not account for the magnitude or complexity of impacts at the interface. Force and destruction are also not directly related quantities in any event.
Great answer.
http://img16.imageshack.us/img16/3619/startlight.jpg

Here is a video for reference sake (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-736262871641918799&ei=k0</p><p> </p><p>KsSpX2Mab0qgKTxZWtAw&q#), if someone knows of a better one, please share it and I will add it to this post.

For ease of responding, I'll number the questions below:

1) What is the orientation of the upper portion mass?

2) How does this orientation relate to the force exerted on the lower portion of mass?

3) Is that distribution of force reflected in the destruction of the lower portion of mass?
1) see photo
2) Looks like a chaotic gravity collapse.
3) Looks like a chaotic gravity collapse, RUN!

I would like the conclusion all wrapped up and delivered so you can stop whining about engineering facts you are messing up. What is your big picture conclusion? Are you too afraid to yell it out? Why do you ask these questions? What is your motive besides exposing your inability to express your conspiracy theory up front and truthful like?

State your overall thesis and present your piles of overwhelming evidence. Bet the questions are indicative or part of your evidence. Did you sign the 911 truth petition?

... Rather, there is no other way it could have happened, which has been my argument all along. Your "most likely" makes me curious to know what less likely possibilities you are imagining.
What does it mean then? What is your final conclusion? Just questions, or do you have a point to make? The penthouse structure fell through the entire building before the facade starts to fall, and you can't figure out why the building fell? Or you are arguing the free fall close to the acceleration of gravity can only happen due to what? Gee, after tons of building fall through the center of the building, then the facade begins to fall why cant a section of WTC7 be close to the speed it should be falling? Falling with g could be near g, since we fall due to g. Gee

Are you studying the gravity collapse or are you trying to make a moronic conclusion of controlled demolition?

From the towers in the OP to the WTC7 out of control fires not fought and collapse. No professional engineers who can build buildings as big as the WTC towers or WTC7 are surprised by the failures in fires of these buildings. This leaves those who fail to understand fire science and building collapse in the fringe world of anti-intellectual poppycock and failure. The dissenting views on 911 about structural engineering are owned by the paranoid conspiracy theorists with no basis in engineering, just pure fantasy. What was your stand? Gravity collapse or some moronic conspiracy theory you can't define or defend with evidence?

[NutCracker]

[snipped loads of bullocks]

Cut the nonsense arguments please. It's boring and it makes you look like a delusional moron. Build your case, please. C'mon, 8 years..

Lay all the evidence all the table and show us how it leads you to your conclusion.

And no, equating (part time) "free-fall" to CD, doesn't cut it: that's associative-thinking moron nonsense.

[CORed]

The part he won't get is this "more weight" that he's talking about is the center of gravity that he says should move because of the weight. Anyone else (everyone) see this confusion?:o

It seems to me he has it exactly backwards. If explosives, ther*te (yeah right) or space beams were blowing the lower part out from under the upper part, the upper part would continue rotating, and remain fairly intact until it hit the ground. If the upper part initially rotated because one side failed first, then broke loose and fell straight down, the lower side of the upper part hitting the lower part first would tend to stop or slow the rotation. In any case, once the upper part is free, it is going to fall nearly straight down, not topple off the top of the tower. It seems like the truthers are expecting the upper part to behave like a cut tree, but a tree has a completely different height to diameter ratio and mass distribution than the top portion of the tower.

[rwguinn]

It seems to me he has it exactly backwards. If explosives, ther*te (yeah right) or space beams were blowing the lower part out from under the upper part, the upper part would continue rotating, and remain fairly intact until it hit the ground. If the upper part initially rotated because one side failed first, then broke loose and fell straight down, the lower side of the upper part hitting the lower part first would tend to stop or slow the rotation. In any case, once the upper part is free, it is going to fall nearly straight down, not topple off the top of the tower. It seems like the truthers are expecting the upper part to behave like a cut tree, but a tree has a completely different height to diameter ratio and mass distribution than the top portion of the tower.
See Judy "Keebler Elves" Wood's dissertation on this.
You got it almost exactly right!:D

[CORed]

that term never really made sense to me when i thought about it in a complex way
i hated using it when i was trying to teach people at my old job (believe it or not, i was the head tech and trainer before i left lol) as i felt it could confuse them (which wasnt hard to do and hence my omega comment earlier) but you have to start somewhere lol

im a field tech (and owner now) and i work on a lot of 100% electric vehicles (forklifts, jacks, cushmans etc)
even though i cant engineer a circuit (well at least a very complex one)
understanding how it works is crucial to successful troubleshooting (and the downfall of many techs in my field)

i was tempted to post earlier:
"if that was a law of electricity your computer would never work"
but to most here thats pretty obvious lol

If "path of least resistance" were actually how electricity worked, every time your refrigerator kicked on, the lights (or actually light, since only the one with the least resistance would actually be working), would go off.

[WildCat]

If "path of least resistance" were actually how electricity worked, every time your refrigerator kicked on, the lights (or actually light, since only the one with the least resistance would actually be working), would go off.
Sounds like my old apartment...

[Justin39640]

If "path of least resistance" were actually how electricity worked, every time your refrigerator kicked on, the lights (or actually light, since only the one with the least resistance would actually be working), would go off.

if the one light was left on you'd spoil all the meat in the fridge lol

[Grizzly Bear]

I know the structure of the building had provided over 100% of the resistive force necessary to hold up the roof before it started to fall, and falling with free fall acceleration can only be acomplished when the restive force is approximately 0% of that.

Rather, there is an instant of transfer of momentum, but that doesn't explain the whole roofline coming down with free fall acceleration over a period of seconds, which is the issue I was discussing in the quote you responded to.
Study (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buckling)

[Furcifer]

(snip)I've seen plenty of examples to demonstrate the opposite, and just last night stumbled upon Stephen Colbert interviewing a man discussing one I had researched previously; our military's efforts to develop paranormal powers for use in warfare (http://www.hulu.com/watch/96401/the-colbert-report-thu-sep-17-2009#s-p1-so-i0) (the introduction to the topic starting at about 1:45). Considering examples such as that one, I've little doubt that structural engineers who believe Copperfield made the Statue of Liberty disappear exist, and I would be happy to hire a PI to track such individuals down if I can be reasonably sure the evidence aquired will not simply be ignored.


Lol, from my perspective its harder finding someone neutral. Everyones got an opinion. :) LashL is a lawyer and might consider being the keeper of the cheese. I can assure you she is an honest person, well respected here, and harbours no particular shine towards me or you. Then again she is a professional and lending herself to administrating bets on an internet forum isn't exactly in her job description. We might be able to convince her to referee this is we consider an even bet. $50 gets donated to the forum in LashL's name or person of her choice. Winner gets even money, loser gets the satisfaction of having indirectly donated to a worthy foundation. Just a thought.

As for the quoted statement, I think you've taken it too far once again. I think that was part of project Alpha, but I'm not sure. In any event there's a big jump for the Government looking into people with uncanny perception and believing in magic powers. There's a show on TV with Tim Roth (Resevoir Dogs) He plays an independent agent who can tell if a person is lying. It's called lie to me. His character is trained in reading people's faces for deception. I know what you are thinking - "Conspiracy!" Tim Roth was in Resevoir Dogs, directed by Tarrantino, who also directed True Romance, in which Christopher Walken plays a gangster who ties up Christian Slater's dad, played by that guy from the knock off from the novel Hearts of Darkness, who plays a gangster who can read faces to see if they are lying! I know, I know, too many coincidences. Anyways...most of what Tim Roth character does is based in science. He looks for little tells in people that indicate people are not being honest. These are natural things people do when they lie. They make weird faces, they touch their nose, they look to the left. All of the things he looks for are fairly well documented actions people do when they lie. Now he's been trained in this, but what if there are people simply gifted in this. What if there are people who can redily tell when a person is lying or hiding something as redily as a person can play the piano without lessons, or calculate pie to a hundred decimal points? Wouldn't they make great soldiers? Can't you see the asset they would bring to the team? I'm not saying there are or aren't sevant face readers. I'm just saying that if there are, maybe the government should find them. I don't need a guy that can bend spoons at the negotiating table, but a guy that can say "He's lying!" might be an asset. Get it?

[triforcharity]

Great answer.

1) see photo
2) Looks like a chaotic gravity collapse.
3) Looks like a chaotic gravity collapse, RUN!

...Snipped

More like

1:Wtf is that RUN MO-FO RUN!!!!!!!!! GOD ****** RUN!! EVERYONE RUN!!! ITS COMING DOWN!!!!

I think that is almost exactly what I said, but I get your point. One guy I grabbed and pushed to get going was just standing there like a deer in the headlights.

[Sam.I.Am]

More like

1:Wtf is that RUN MO-FO RUN!!!!!!!!! GOD ****** RUN!! EVERYONE RUN!!! ITS COMING DOWN!!!!

I think that is almost exactly what I said, but I get your point. One guy I grabbed and pushed to get going was just standing there like a deer in the headlights.

Tri, I have a question, you don't have to answer it if you don't want to and I'll understand completely if you don't. Where were you in relation to the first tower that came down? If you stayed where you were would you have made it? I saw the footage from the cameraman that didn't make it out and it didn't look to me like he and the firemen around him were all that close (obviously they were).

[triforcharity]

Sam, check your PMs.

I forgot to tell you, if I had stayed where I was for either one, I wouldn't be here today.

Pull up a google map of that area, and you will understand.

[kylebisme]

Gee, after tons of building fall through the center of the building, then the facade begins to fall why cant a section of WTC7 be close to the speed it should be falling? Falling with g could be near g, since we fall due to g.
We fall less than g when there is stuff in the way, and even if the lower portion of the remaining structure was only able to provide a constant 1/10 of the force needed to hold the up the roofline, it would have fallen about 2/3s of a story less during the 2.25 seconds it was in free fall. Besides, even if we were to make the leap to accepting that was the case, the idea that the fires and falling center of the structure weakened the outside evenly to allow the symmetrical descent of the roofline durring free fall is still absurd, as is the acceleration which the penthouses came down.

No professional engineers who can build buildings as big as the WTC towers or WTC7 are surprised by the failures in fires of these buildings.
Or so you claim anyway, but they can't rightly make a reasonable simulation of how they came down though impact damage and fire either, as the physics simply don't work with gravity alone.

I think that was part of project Alpha, but I'm not sure. In any event there's a big jump for the Government looking into people with uncanny perception and believing in magic powers.
It started prior to Project Alpha, and included trying to bend spoons, and trying stop hearts with one's mind being another notable example. I highly recommend watching the video and checking up on it more, as I'm guessing you'd be as disappointed as I am as to what nonsense mysticism our government chased with our tax dollars.

These are natural things people do when they lie. They make weird faces, they touch their nose, they look to the left. All of the things he looks for are fairly well documented actions people do when they lie.
Right, like this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V0GHVEKrhng#t=2m40s), and this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V0GHVEKrhng#t=7m20).

[funk de fino]

Or so you claim anyway, but they can't rightly make a reasonable simulation of how they came down though impact damage and fire either, as the physics simply don't work with gravity alone.

as beachnut would say "dirt dumb"

[Justin39640]

as beachnut would say "dirt dumb"

i see the problem
the man has no respect for gravity

[Dave Rogers]

Tour Broca was a 15 story structure in which 2 stories being pushed out resulted in a period of free fall for about about 13% of its hight.

Based on measurements, or are you simply guessing?

WTC7 was a 47 story structure which expeanced a free fall equvanlt to 8 stories, which comes out to about 17% of its hight.

Which part of that are you attempting to deny?

Which 13%, and which 17%? I assume you're claiming that the Tour Broca fell at freefall for the first 13% of its height, then at a lower acceleration for the remaining 87%. Why you're claiming that, I'm not certain; have you measured the rate of collapse and determined the variation of acceleration with time, or are you just making assumptions? If the latter, then your reasoning is based on an absence of premise. In any case, that's a different collapse dynamic to WTC7, in which the acceleration was initially below 1G, increased to close to 1G, then decreased. Shouldn't it be obvious that such a radical difference in the collapse dynamics points to a different collapse mechanism? It is to me.

Can you exemplify the clear differences you allege?

The building rotated to the south as a relatively solid block as it fell, as is clearly visible in the video. Deliberate building implosions are designed to make the building fall vertically into its own footprint. In other words, a central claim about WTC7 is quite simply untrue; it did not fall neatly into its own footprint like a CD. The rotation of the structure, in fact, indicates the same thing that the rotation of the upper blocks of both WTC1 and WTC2 - that the support columns did not fail simultaneously, but rather than an initial failure at a point of maximum stress propagated through the structure and imparted angular momentum to it in doing so. The argument of the truth movement has always been that the lack of any rotation in WTC7 is evidence of a carefully timed event. Since the rotation is observed, this argument is refuted.

I know the structure of the building had provided over 100% of the resistive force necessary to hold up the roof before it started to fall, and falling with free fall acceleration can only be acomplished when the restive force is approximately 0% of that.

Please calculate the resistive force of an eight-storey section of building which has suffered a buckling failure and is now disconnected at both upper and lower ends as well as a third buckle point somewhere in the middle. You'll find that it's approximately 0% of the static strength, thus satisfying the above requirement.

Rather, there is an instant of transfer of momentum, but that doesn't explain the whole roofline coming down with free fall acceleration over a period of seconds, which is the issue I was discussing in the quote you responded to.

The transfer of momentum doesn't have to be instant. Inelastic collisions proceed by plastic deformation and fracture of the colliding bodies, which can be an extended process. As for "the whole roofline", there wasn't even a well-defined roofline; it had a pronounced and visible kink in the centre. The observation is that the average acceleration over a period is close to 1G within measurement errors, which are significant.

But I don't expect you to understand the concept of measurement errors. I have yet to encounter a truther who does.

Rather, there is no other way it could have happened, which has been my argument all along. Your "most likely" makes me curious to know what less likely possibilities you are imagining.

Since I've described them in posts that you've responded to, and you have indeed responded to them specifically in this post, I'm curious to know how you can claim not to know what they are. I can understand you failing to follow my arguments, but here you're failing to follow your own.

Dave

[Dave Rogers]

Or so you claim anyway, but they can't rightly make a reasonable simulation of how they came down though impact damage and fire either, as the physics simply don't work with gravity alone.

It's not physics that's the problem, it's complexity. And I have yet to see an explanation for the freefall period based on something other than gravity that doesn't posit an utterly pointless and stupid process that would have complicated the planning and execution by orders of magnitude, had no effect on the final result of the collapse, and produced blast effects that would have been clearly observable and were not in fact observed.

It started prior to Project Alpha, and included trying to bend spoons, and trying stop hearts with one's mind being another notable example. I highly recommend watching the video and checking up on it more, as I'm guessing you'd be as disappointed as I am as to what nonsense mysticism our government chased with our tax dollars.

Not my government or my tax dollars, but apart from that I agree with you wholeheartedly on this one.

Dave

[TruthersLie]

We fall less than g when there is stuff in the way, and even if the lower portion of the remaining structure was only able to provide a constant 1/10 of the force needed to hold the up the roofline, it would have fallen about 2/3s of a story less during the 2.25 seconds it was in free fall. Besides, even if we were to make the leap to accepting that was the case, the idea that the fires and falling center of the structure weakened the outside evenly to allow the symmetrical descent of the roofline durring free fall is still absurd, as is the acceleration which the penthouses came down.


Why is it that you keep using words that are NOT true?

symmetrical, again? really? How does a building fall symmetrically when the Northern Mechanical Penthouse falls 8 seconds before the rest of the building collapses? That isn't symetrical.

When the building collapses and there is a noticable kink in the center, that is not symmetrical.

when the building collapses so it hits buildings on opposite sides of it (the verizion building and fitterman hall) that is not symetrical.

Please stop using words that do not mean what you think they do.

any more than any of the towers fell into their own footprints. It is amazing that you keep on spewing that crap.


Or so you claim anyway, but they can't rightly make a reasonable simulation of how they came down though impact damage and fire either, as the physics simply don't work with gravity alone.


Oh now it is the "they can't simulate it" crap. After all we know that you can simulate any event with a great deal of accuracy... I mean we all knwo they can tell you the weather with 100% accuracy from their simulations... do you want ot keep on with that BS line of reasoning?

Please feel free to show me (or anyone) the dozens of (if not hundreds of) peer reviewed journals saying NIST is full of crap, or that their simulations/findings are wrong. I'll wait.

YOu say the physics don't work.. great. PROVE IT. It should be simple. I mean there are only dozens of videos and hundreds of papers which support the common narrative. Feel free to write the peer reviewed physics paper which says it is impossible. (once you do that, you will never have to worry about work again, you will be hired by Harvard, Columbia, or any IVY league school... come on and PROVE IT.)



It started prior to Project Alpha, and included trying to bend spoons, and trying stop hearts with one's mind being another notable example. I highly recommend watching the video and checking up on it more, as I'm guessing you'd be as disappointed as I am as to what nonsense mysticism our government chased with our tax dollars.


Yup... Major general stubblebine (sp) was one of the biggest proponents.. of course now he is a twoof... but he thinks he can walk through walls, and kill you with his thoughts.

[Furcifer]

It started prior to Project Alpha, and included trying to bend spoons, and trying stop hearts with one's mind being another notable example. I highly recommend watching the video and checking up on it more, as I'm guessing you'd be as disappointed as I am as to what nonsense mysticism our government chased with our tax dollars.

Right, like this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V0GHVEKrhng#t=2m40s), and this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V0GHVEKrhng#t=7m20).

I'd be more interested in who conducted the experiments and what they really thought about them. I doubt you will find any scientists that believed in the experiments you mentioned. In the comic books the ones that do are usually quite mad. :)

As for those links I didn't check them out but I think they are the NIST press releases. If it's what I'm thinking it's apparent that Dr. ? is confused.

[sylvan8798]

Oh now it is the "they can't simulate it" crap. After all we know that you can simulate any event with a great deal of accuracy... I mean we all knwo they can tell you the weather with 100% accuracy from their simulations... do you want ot keep on with that BS line of reasoning?



Twoofers don't seem to realize that if we had the programs and the hardware to do such a simulation, we could input whatever parameters we wanted - so we could make g "fit the observations" if necessary. The computers and the programs don't give jack about physics. They just do what you tell them to.

[BigAl]

Originally Posted by kylebisme
It started prior to Project Alpha, and included trying to bend spoons, and trying stop hearts with one's mind being another notable example. I highly recommend watching the video and checking up on it more, as I'm guessing you'd be as disappointed as I am as to what nonsense mysticism our government chased with our tax dollars.

And just to remind people, one of those leaders was Albert Stubblebine who is now one of the leading dim bulbs of the Truth Movement.

http://world911truth.org/tag/major-general-albert-n-stubblebine/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Stubblebine

[Furcifer]

And just to remind people, one of those leaders was Albert Stubblebine who is now one of the leading dim bulbs of the Truth Movement.

http://world911truth.org/tag/major-general-albert-n-stubblebine/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Stubblebine


Is the World that small after all?

[Newtons Bit]

Twoofers don't seem to realize that if we had the programs and the hardware to do such a simulation, we could input whatever parameters we wanted - so we could make g "fit the observations" if necessary. The computers and the programs don't give jack about physics. They just do what you tell them to.

Ironically, this is the very point that some truthers use to discount the NIST pre-collapse modelling of WTC1&2 and to completely discount the pre and post-collapse modelling of WTC7.

[sylvan8798]

Ironically, this is the very point that some truthers use to discount the NIST pre-collapse modelling of WTC1&2 and to completely discount the pre and post-collapse modelling of WTC7.

In other words, damned if you do, and damned if you don't. Just like all the other phantom goalposts.

[jaydeehess]

It just doesn't look right. The basis for all the truther claims. Problem is they can't give specific reasoning why must look different.

Fixed that for you.
Kyle has said that yes he can "say" it should look different. I can "say" that WTC 7 was brought down by aliens from planet X, but that does not make it likely.
Now if I could show evidence that aliens, and specifically aliens from planet X were in the vicinity,and had the technology to cause the collapse witnessed, then perhaps I would have a case.

Now if Kyle can show specific reasons why a collapse;
a) could not occur as NIST hypothesized
and
b) would have looked significantly different that what was seen,
then he may have a case.

So far no 911 conspiracy speculator has managed either of the above let alone both.

[Newtons Bit]

Tour Broca was a 15 story structure in which 2 stories being pushed out resulted in a period of free fall for about about 13% of its hight.

WTC7 was a 47 story structure which expeanced a free fall equvanlt to 8 stories, which comes out to about 17% of its hight.

Which part of that are you attempting to deny?

And eight floors of columns failed during the collapse initiation. Read the NIST report on WTC7. Read it for understanding, not just for quote mining.

[jaydeehess]

Tour Broca was a 15 story structure in which 2 stories being pushed out resulted in a period of free fall for about about 13% of its hight.

WTC7 was a 47 story structure which expeanced a free fall equvanlt to 8 stories, which comes out to about 17% of its hight.

.

So all you require is to be shown that there was a period of time, 2.5 seconds IIRC, during which there was a coincident destruction of up to 8 lower floors?

OK, the core area of the structure failed first. This is patently evident in the video as we see the top floor center of the structure begin to fall several seconds before the north facade begins its descent.

If you look at the construction of WTC 7 you will see that the 60-70% of width of the north facade above the 7th floor is being held up by 7 or 8 cantilever trusses that extend to the centeral core of the building. Take out the core columns that are supporting those cantilever trusses and the entire north facade has no support whatsoever. This is what can be expected to occur before the north facade comes down completely since it begins it descent well after the core.

Mystery solved?

It can also be noted that perhaps not coincidentally, much of the portion of the structure to the east of those cantilever trusses fell not to the south, but instead, to the northeast. It impacted 30 West Broadway so severly that it also had to be torn down.
the 'kink' in the building occurs just east of the eastern most cantilever truss and the roof structure descent progresses westward from that kink (ie. towards the support of those trusses)

[TruthersLie]

I have always LOVED how twoofs ignore Fitterman Hall when discussing the collapse of wtc7. Amazing that.

Of course if I were arguing that a building fell into its own footprint (which it didn't), and that it was a symetrical collapse (which it wasn't), i would definately IGNORE Fitterman hall which had damage and collapses FROM THE ROOF where it was struck by WTC7.

And of course the damage to the Verizion building next door on the opposite side was also ignored... I love it.

<twoof mode>
lets ignore it. it obviously isn't important.
</twoof mode>

[Justin39640]

I have always LOVED how twoofs ignore Fitterman Hall when discussing the collapse of wtc7. Amazing that.

Of course if I were arguing that a building fell into its own footprint (which it didn't), and that it was a symetrical collapse (which it wasn't), i would definately IGNORE Fitterman hall which had damage and collapses FROM THE ROOF where it was struck by WTC7.

And of course the damage to the Verizion building next door on the opposite side was also ignored... I love it.

<twoof mode>
lets ignore it. it obviously isn't important.
</twoof mode>

fiterman hall was heavily damaged on its south face (another obvious sign that WTC7 did not come straight down)
but from what i understand the damage was repairable
apparently mold and dust did it in
http://www.lowermanhattan.info/construction/project_updates/fiterman_hall_39764.aspx

[TruthersLie]

This was the damage to the roof of fitterman hall
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/11/Fiterman_hall_damage.jpg/414px-Fiterman_hall_damage.jpg

The problem is that it was left to sit, and had massive mold growing inside the seriously damaged building. Couple that with the exposed asbestos in the building and it is needing to be brought down.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Borough_of_Manhattan_Community_College#Fiterman_Ha ll_and_the_September_11_attacks

But again, how does a building that "collapses into own footprint" and "collapses symetrically" do this damage to the ROOF of a buidling across the street?

ETA: From the Fema building report [url]http://911research.com/mirrors/guardian2/wtc/WTC_ch7.htm[url]
30 w. Broadway (fiterman Hall)
is listed as Blue with Major damage.

Actually I like this image better
http://www.sharpprintinginc.com/911/images/photoalbum/11/911_HighQualityPhotos7784.jpg

[WildCat]

And just to remind people, one of those leaders was Albert Stubblebine who is now one of the leading dim bulbs of the Truth Movement.
http://world911truth.org/tag/major-general-albert-n-stubblebine/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Stubblebine

:dl:

[WildCat]

This was the damage to the roof of fitterman hall
That's terrible! Why did the Port Authority allow them to build Fitterman Hall in the footprint of WTC7?

[TruthersLie]

That's terrible! Why did the Port Authority allow them to build Fitterman Hall in the footprint of WTC7?

It is the new way to do engineering.. it is like double booking at airlines and hotels.

Call it double footprinting, just in case another building isn't going up right there.

[Ragnarok]

Is it really beyond absolutely all possibility that the planes were just covers for a non-conventional, yet still controlled demolition, or do most of you just refuse to dwell on the idea, content as you are to argue "the official position"?

Don't argue the "why's" and "what fors", but try and imagine the "what ifs"!

[ElMondoHummus]

Is it really beyond absolutely all possibility that the planes were just covers for a non-conventional, yet still controlled demolition...

Yes.

[Newtons Bit]

Is it really beyond absolutely all possibility that the planes were just covers for a non-conventional, yet still controlled demolition, or do most of you just refuse to dwell on the idea, content as you are to argue "the official position"?

Don't argue the "why's" and "what fors", but try and imagine the "what ifs"!

There's a million "what if's". However, through a concise and accurate engineering analysis we have an "is definitely". Please, read about it. (http://wtc.nist.gov)

Truthers still have not come up with a mathematical explanation for why the towers collapsed or cannot collapse that can stand up to reason. Without that proof, the rest of your beliefs regarding your entire religion is rendered moot.

[TruthersLie]

Is it really beyond absolutely all possibility that the planes were just covers for a non-conventional, yet still controlled demolition, or do most of you just refuse to dwell on the idea, content as you are to argue "the official position"?

Don't argue the "why's" and "what fors", but try and imagine the "what ifs"!

Ah.. but you see here is the problem with your idea.

if the "what if" is not physically possible, then it is just as likely that Mothra did it.

you have Cd with silent explosives which leave no trace. amazing. I'd bet the military and any construction company in the world would LOVE to have it.

You have BS science trying to pass off as "real." Yet you can't get a single peer reviewed scientific journal ANYWHERE in the world to touch your papers, so you have to resort to vanity publishing...

It really is rather amazing.

[Justin39640]

Is it really beyond absolutely all possibility that the planes were just covers for a non-conventional, yet still controlled demolition, or do most of you just refuse to dwell on the idea, content as you are to argue "the official position"?

Don't argue the "why's" and "what fors", but try and imagine the "what ifs"!

"what if" means you have no evidence

[ElMondoHummus]

There's a million "what if's". However, through a concise and accurate engineering analysis we have an "is definitely". Please, read about it. (http://wtc.nist.gov)

Truthers still have not come up with a mathematical explanation for why the towers collapse that can stand up to any reason. Without that proof, the rest of your beliefs regarding your entire religion is rendered moot.

Newtons Bit is right. Also: The failure modes of the recovered steel in NCSTAR 1-3C specifically rules out demolitions.

[R.Mackey]

Is it really beyond absolutely all possibility that the planes were just covers for a non-conventional, yet still controlled demolition, or do most of you just refuse to dwell on the idea, content as you are to argue "the official position"?

Don't argue the "why's" and "what fors", but try and imagine the "what ifs"!

Please tell me you didn't somehow manage to get unbanned (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=154576) just to say that!

[Mr.D]

Don't argue the "why's" and "what fors", but try and imagine the "what ifs"!

You first.

"What if" the "Official Position" is correct?

[GlennB]

Please tell me you didn't somehow manage to get unbanned (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=154576) just to say that!

Spooky. And the 'o' in the name is a real 'o', not a '0'.

[A W Smith]

Spooky. And the 'o' in the name is a real 'o', not a '0'.
all fixed. He is banned again. They forgot to reset the ban circuit breaker.

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=5138902&postcount=2

[jaydeehess]

Is it really beyond absolutely all possibility that the planes were just covers for a non-conventional, yet still controlled demolition, or do most of you just refuse to dwell on the idea, content as you are to argue "the official position"?

Don't argue the "why's" and "what fors", but try and imagine the "what ifs"!

Beyond all possibility no. Well beyond the realm of probability, yes. That is to say that if you are in essence saying that some sort of technological magic (which I would define as invoking technology that is as yet shown to be available), then yes it could be considered. However it is akin to saying that the "Matrix" movies just might be docuementaries.

ETA: I see there will be no further discussion from Ragnarok

[jaydeehess]

Indeed I have yet to see a 911 conspiracy speculator comment on 30 West Broadway(Fitterman Hall) and the fact that it lay in the opposite direction that most of WTC went.

70% of WTC 7 falls to the south, the rest falls to the north and they claim that it fell into its own footprint. - ignored

The ample reasoning for the 2.5 seconds of essentially free fall acceleration of the north facade during the 17 second collapse of WTC 7 (6.5 seconds of north facade descent being only the last portion of the collapse) is ignored.

ETA: I could have sworn that this thread was dealing with the tower collapses. I see that I must be incorrect as it is obviously now a thread concerning WTC 7's collapse

[sylvan8798]

Actually I like this image better
http://www.sharpprintinginc.com/911/images/photoalbum/11/911_HighQualityPhotos7784.jpg

Here is another good one:

http://911guide.googlepages.com/debris.jpg/debris-full;init:.jpg

Remember how we've been told time and again that the collapses could not happen in such a symmetrical manner unless the resistance of every column was removed at the same time for each floor? Notice the INTACT frames in both of these pictures?

Time to goalpost move...T-10, 9, 8...

[jaydeehess]

Here is another good one:

http://911guide.googlepages.com/debris.jpg/debris-full;init:.jpg

Remember how we've been told time and again that the collapses could not happen in such a symmetrical manner unless the resistance of every column was removed at the same time for each floor? Notice the INTACT frames in both of these pictures?

Time to goalpost move...T-10, 9, 8...

Gee, it almost looks like one wall of WTC 7 fell intact towards 30 W.Broadway only breaking apart as it hit that structure. Though we cannot be sure its part of the north wall or part of the east wall can we?

[sylvan8798]

Gee, it almost looks like one wall of WTC 7 fell intact towards 30 W.Broadway only breaking apart as it hit that structure. Though we cannot be sure its part of the north wall or part of the east wall can we?

The east and west walls had horizontal and vertical strips of facing between the windows, and the north and south walls had only horizontal strips. To the extent that the exterior is intact, you can tell which is which.

ETA: Evidently they built building 7 IN Barclay street, since here it lies, in its footprint:

http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/photos/docs/wtc7_tall1.jpg&imgrefurl=http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/photos/wtc7assort.html&usg=__oNmjDJTbMMrLlKd3_9sBXkXp1Fo=&h=563&w=299&sz=34&hl=en&start=9&um=1&tbnid=cd8W1M1QWZTyzM:&tbnh=133&tbnw=71&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dwtc%2Bbuilding%2B7%26hl%3Den%26client %3Dsafari%26rls%3Den%26sa%3DN%26um%3D1
Not sure why that didn't come up with the right page, but can follow it back around to building 7's rubble pile pics.

[LashL]

Lol, from my perspective its harder finding someone neutral. Everyones got an opinion. :) LashL is a lawyer and might consider being the keeper of the cheese. I can assure you she is an honest person, well respected here, and harbours no particular shine towards me or you. Then again she is a professional and lending herself to administrating bets on an internet forum isn't exactly in her job description. We might be able to convince her to referee this is we consider an even bet. $50 gets donated to the forum in LashL's name or person of her choice. Winner gets even money, loser gets the satisfaction of having indirectly donated to a worthy foundation. Just a thought.


I would be amenable to administering an even bet if the two of you can come to agreement on the parameters of it, but I would suggest that any donation to the JREF forum should be made in the name of either the winner or the loser of the bet (user name will suffice) or, alternatively, it could be submitted as an anonymous donation (i.e., forwarded by me with instructions that it be designated as coming from an anonymous donor, because I would not want there to be any suggestion that I would derive any personal benefit from administering the bet). I would be amenable to facilitating it, though, as long as it's an even bet and does not, therefore, [ETA: amount to] gambling for profit, which would violate the MA.

[Furcifer]

I would be amenable to administering an even bet if the two of you can come to agreement on the parameters of it, but I would suggest that any donation to the JREF forum should be made in the name of either the winner or the loser of the bet (user name will suffice) or, alternatively, it could be submitted as an anonymous donation (i.e., forwarded by me with instructions that it be designated as coming from an anonymous donor, because I would not want there to be any suggestion that I would derive any personal benefit from administering the bet). I would be amenable to facilitating it, though, as long as it's an even bet and does not, therefore, gambling for profit, which would violate the MA.

I think this should be agreeable. Two money orders for $25 each (as the Canadian and US dollar are almost at par I don't see the need to specify a currency) one made out to cash and the other made out to JREF, and a SASE could be sent to an address of LashL's choosing. (I'll include a $0.98 stamp for mailing the donation to JREF)

The rest is up to kyle. You've got until December 31st at midnight to get 2 engineers to admit Copperfield vanished (or dematerialized) the Statue of Liberty then rematerialized it. I'm not really sure how you are going to do it. I think it would be a great idea if you used video to document your search. I'm not saying this has to be a stipulation of the bet. But it's probably the easiest way of documenting the claim. It might also help prevent someone from disclosing their belief and then retracting later. It would be a shame for you to actually find someone who believes in magic or teleportation technology, then later retracts their statement.

Let me know what you have in mind. Good Luck.

[ElMondoHummus]

Beyond all possibility no. Well beyond the realm of probability, yes. That is to say that if you are in essence saying that some sort of technological magic (which I would define as invoking technology that is as yet shown to be available), then yes it could be considered. However it is akin to saying that the "Matrix" movies just might be docuementaries.

ETA: I see there will be no further discussion from Ragnarok

I know Ragnarok is gone again, but for the benefit of other readers, I have a small, pedantic nitpick here: Ragnarok was presumably limiting his question to the September 11th events. Due to that, it is indeed beyond the realm of possibility because the evidence contradicts his proposal; once again, I point to the types of damage inflicted on the recovered steel components as one such piece of evidence eliminating explosives from consideration. As we both know, there are tons and tons of other pieces of evidence doing the same thing. So hopefully without giving offense here, I feel obliged to say that I must respectfully disagree with you. I feel that it indeed is beyond all possibility, since the case is self limiting to 9/11, and therefore includes all the known facts of that event, facts which work to eliminate many proposals.

Yeah, I'm being technical and nitpicky, I know. And I fully realize that you weren't trying to give his question any credence, but were instead including fantastically ridiculous possibilities. So I'm sorry to take aim here, but I figured that saying this would at least be of benefit to other readers, especially new folks who might be cruising here.

[jaydeehess]

The east and west walls had horizontal and vertical strips of facing between the windows, and the north and south walls had only horizontal strips. To the extent that the exterior is intact, you can tell which is which.

ETA: Evidently they built building 7 IN Barclay street, since here it lies, in its footprint:

http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/photos/docs/wtc7_tall1.jpg&imgrefurl=http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/photos/wtc7assort.html&usg=__oNmjDJTbMMrLlKd3_9sBXkXp1Fo=&h=563&w=299&sz=34&hl=en&start=9&um=1&tbnid=cd8W1M1QWZTyzM:&tbnh=133&tbnw=71&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dwtc%2Bbuilding%2B7%26hl%3Den%26client %3Dsafari%26rls%3Den%26sa%3DN%26um%3D1
Not sure why that didn't come up with the right page, but can follow it back around to building 7's rubble pile pics.

I can see the difference you refer to, between the facing on the sides, in those pics. I also like the way they illustrate the roof top set back on the south side.

[jaydeehess]

I know Ragnarok is gone again, but for the benefit of other readers, I have a small, pedantic nitpick here: Ragnarok was presumably limiting his question to the September 11th events. Due to that, it is indeed beyond the realm of possibility because the evidence contradicts his proposal; once again, I point to the types of damage inflicted on the recovered steel components as one such piece of evidence eliminating explosives from consideration. As we both know, there are tons and tons of other pieces of evidence doing the same thing. So hopefully without giving offense here, I feel obliged to say that I must respectfully disagree with you. I feel that it indeed is beyond all possibility, since the case is self limiting to 9/11, and therefore includes all the known facts of that event, facts which work to eliminate many proposals.

Yeah, I'm being technical and nitpicky, I know. And I fully realize that you weren't trying to give his question any credence, but were instead including fantastically ridiculous possibilities. So I'm sorry to take aim here, but I figured that saying this would at least be of benefit to other readers, especially new folks who might be cruising here.

I fully understand your point but of course if one is essentially invoking the possibility of magic (any technology sufficiently advanced as to be indistiquishable from the supernatural) then all evidence of a impact damage and fire damage initiated, gravity driven collapse is irrellevent since the arguer can simply state that it was all made to look that way.

A prime example of such invocation would be the possibility of a virgin human birth. Although it is extremely unlikely to have been possible 2030 years ago there is one report in history of such an occurance, not to mention that with today's tech it would be possible. Therefore although the probability approaches zero so closely it cannot be said to be absolutely zero.

So in invoking magic the 911 Conspiracy Speculators can indeed say that it is not "really beyond absolutely all possibility".
Thus we get faked videos of planes hitting the WTC towers, unspecified beam weapons, super-nano-therm?te, mini-nukes, pyroclastic clouds, and thermobaric bombs to 'explain' how the destruction occured.

[alienentity]

This was the damage to the roof of fitterman hall
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/11/Fiterman_hall_damage.jpg/414px-Fiterman_hall_damage.jpg

The problem is that it was left to sit, and had massive mold growing inside the seriously damaged building. Couple that with the exposed asbestos in the building and it is needing to be brought down.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Borough_of_Manhattan_Community_College#Fiterman_Ha ll_and_the_September_11_attacks

But again, how does a building that "collapses into own footprint" and "collapses symetrically" do this damage to the ROOF of a buidling across the street?

ETA: From the Fema building report [url]http://911research.com/mirrors/guardian2/wtc/WTC_ch7.htm[url]
30 w. Broadway (fiterman Hall)
is listed as Blue with Major damage.

Actually I like this image better
http://www.sharpprintinginc.com/911/images/photoalbum/11/911_HighQualityPhotos7784.jpg

Thanks for posting those; they definitively bust the 'footprint' myths. Funny how the accumulated evidence keeps refuting truther talking points....

[jaydeehess]

So all you require is to be shown that there was a period of time, 2.5 seconds IIRC, during which there was a coincident destruction of up to 8 lower floors?

OK, the core area of the structure failed first. This is patently evident in the video as we see the top floor center of the structure begin to fall several seconds before the north facade begins its descent.

If you look at the construction of WTC 7 you will see that the 60-70% of width of the north facade above the 7th floor is being held up by 7 or 8 cantilever trusses that extend to the centeral core of the building. Take out the core columns that are supporting those cantilever trusses and the entire north facade has no support whatsoever. This is what can be expected to occur before the north facade comes down completely since it begins it descent well after the core.

Mystery solved?

It can also be noted that perhaps not coincidentally, much of the portion of the structure to the east of those cantilever trusses fell not to the south, but instead, to the northeast. It impacted 30 West Broadway so severly that it also had to be torn down.
the 'kink' in the building occurs just east of the eastern most cantilever truss and the roof structure descent progresses westward from that kink (ie. towards the support of those trusses)

Bump for Kyle?

Did I and others solve the supposed mystery of the 2.5 sec of near free fall acceleration of the north facade/wind frame of WTC 7 for you?

Your silence would suggest so but on an internet forum one never knows unless confirmed by the person who originated the inquiry.

[Furcifer]

Bump for Kyle?
.
He's out getting money orders. I doubt we will hear from him until then.