David Chandler Part II

[WilliamSeger]

Originally Posted by OneRedEye

This has grown tiresome. Think whatever you want.

Maximum derived roofline acceleration figures, in m/s^2:

NIST interpolation function: 10.6
Chandler's analysis: 9.8
A value I currently accept: 9.3

The argument isn't about the numbers; it's about Chandler's unsubstantiated conclusions.

[beachnut]

Originally Posted by OneRedEye

This has grown tiresome. Think whatever you want.

Maximum derived roofline acceleration figures, in m/s^2:

NIST interpolation function: 10.6
Chandler's analysis: 9.8
A value I currently accept: 9.3

Now you proved CD, or that terrorists are still alive? Which fantasy do your numbers support?

Show the work? Source, anything?

So when is the Pulitzer Prize coming?


10.6 m/s is not 40 percent slower than G. So you just make up numbers? Neat, you and Chandler ignore the movement until you want to measure the movement. NIST did not come up with 10.6. You must of messed up.

Show your work, or it is fantasy. Hearsay. False. ? Hearsay!

[OneRedEye]

Originally Posted by WilliamSeger

The argument isn't about the numbers; it's about Chandler's unsubstantiated conclusions.

You mean your argument isn't about the numbers. I said my concern was data collection, I don't expect it to be yours. The only reason I stuck my head in here in the first place (a sorry-ass idea if there ever was one) is because some mud was being slung, and I felt it was getting too close.

Of course, I found out later that even though beachnut quoted Gregory Urich and looked like he was responding to him, he was actually responding to Chandler. I didn't figure that out at first, but when beachnut quoted me and typed words at me, he was actually talking to Balsamo. Now I get it! Makes perfect sense.

[beachnut]

Tangent. Good work, doubt you had sources.

Why does Chandler shave time? What does it mean? It means Chandler ignores the Penthouse falling into the WTC7 and leaving a facade well before the collapse modeled by him and NIST begins.

Sad/funny/ironic only 0.001 percent of all world engineers support Chandlers failed conclusions. He even thinks some terrorist are still alive; delusion. Add CD; delusions.

[WilliamSeger]

Originally Posted by OneRedEye

You mean your argument isn't about the numbers. I said my concern was data collection, I don't expect it to be yours.

But I haven't seen any argument about your concern. The only thing resembling argument that I've seen is about Chandler's conclusions -- which is not to say that I think you support them (I haven't seen that), but rather that, given the margin of error in any measurement -- yours or his -- I just don't think the argument over Chandler's conclusions will be resolved by debating the accuracy of his data.

[OneRedEye]

Someone that speaks humanese. Thank you! I thought I was ******* insane!

Originally Posted by WilliamSeger

But I haven't seen any argument about your concern.

No, you haven't. There was some discussion of numbers earlier in the thread, then beachnut added his salient comment, I went over the edge, and here we are.

Quote:

The only thing resembling argument that I've seen is about Chandler's conclusions -- which is not to say that I think you support them (I haven't seen that)...

I do not support his methodology OR conclusions. I did say that (the demons are nodding their heads vigorously) earlier. Then I got tarred for supporting his conclusions, naturally. Do you still think there is anything resembling a rational argument taking place here?

Quote:

...but rather that, given the margin of error in any measurement -- yours or his -- I just don't think the argument over Chandler's conclusions will be resolved by debating the accuracy of his data.

Well, he has some pretty wild conclusions. No measurements are going to close that gap, I'm afraid. And his latest video is just sad, so sad.

[rsalinger]

When I started this thread I was hoping to get a lively discussion going but it quickly degenerated into nonsense about sock puppets and who might be whom. If Rob B wants to post here, he should be able to, and just because someone doesn't like him or finds him a liar should be left out of a discussion about Chandler and his videos and what they might / might not show.

What I've learned is that the NIST used a different technique than Chandler used which seems to me to be more accurate than what he used. Furthermore, Chandler used a diffeerent piece of video which was much less detailed than what the NIST had to use. So, he misses the first 7 feet of the fall which is the fundamental difference between his numbers and the NIST numbers.
He totally ignores the fact that the entire center of the building has collapsed as proven by the penthouses. His argument seems to be entirely based on the idea that several floors couldn't collapse simultaneously which gets us into a discussion of physics which my level of understanding can't resolve with math.

Rgrds-Ross

[T.A.M.]

Rob B, if you are referring to Rob Basalmo, was banned from this site for using someone else's account to post here. He has NO RIGHT to post here for that violation.

As well, anyone who decides to post for him via proxy, may very well be breeching the rules, so I suggest caution in this area.

As for others disliking him, etc... that is not relevant, as you have said. His lack of posting here, as nothing to do with dislike of him, or finding him to be a liar.


TAM

[Heiwa]

Originally Posted by rsalinger

When I started this thread I was hoping to get a lively discussion going but it quickly degenerated into nonsense about sock puppets and who might be whom. If Rob B wants to post here, he should be able to, and just because someone doesn't like him or finds him a liar should be left out of a discussion about Chandler and his videos and what they might / might not show.

What I've learned is that the NIST used a different technique than Chandler used which seems to me to be more accurate than what he used. Furthermore, Chandler used a diffeerent piece of video which was much less detailed than what the NIST had to use. So, he misses the first 7 feet of the fall which is the fundamental difference between his numbers and the NIST numbers.
He totally ignores the fact that the entire center of the building has collapsed as proven by the penthouses. His argument seems to be entirely based on the idea that several floors couldn't collapse simultaneously which gets us into a discussion of physics which my level of understanding can't resolve with math.

Rgrds-Ross

It does not matter when the roof line or pent house starts to drop. Just look what happens during the 2.25 seconds during the visible drop (no pent house) of the roof line! Chandler measures free fall (g = 9.82 m/s²) and our friends at NIST agree in their final 'final' report (g = 9.82 m/s² or 32.196 feet/s²). See fig. 3.15 in the NIST final 'final' WTC7 report http://wtc.nist.gov/NCSTAR1/PDF/NCSTAR%201A.pdf .

Any object falling at free fall cannot harm anything ... not even itself!

According NIST this is not so. An object like top part of WTC7 free falling at 32.196 feet/s² not only crushes the WTC7 below floor 16, no, the top part deforms itself as per very strange computer simulations and FE analysises.

Why cannot a free fall object harm anything or deform itself? Because it is in free fall.

Take Galilei. He dropped objects from a tower at Pisa around 1590. These objects did not destroy anything or deformed themselves when dropping. Reason is, still, that it was due to these objects were free falling.

It seems NIST uses some different techniques ... but you cannot beat the Italians.

If you think the pent house fell faster than free fall, pls elaborate.

[Bell]

Originally Posted by Heiwa

Take Galilei. He dropped objects from a tower at Pisa around 1590. These objects did not destroy anything or deformed themselves when dropping. Reason is, still, that it was due to these objects were free falling.

Galilei did not drop those balls, it was a theoretical experiment.

[tsig]

Originally Posted by Heiwa

It does not matter when the roof line or pent house starts to drop. Just look what happens during the 2.25 seconds during the visible drop (no pent house) of the roof line! Chandler measures free fall (g = 9.82 m/s²) and our friends at NIST agree in their final 'final' report (g = 9.82 m/s² or 32.196 feet/s²). See fig. 3.15 in the NIST final 'final' WTC7 report http://wtc.nist.gov/NCSTAR1/PDF/NCSTAR%201A.pdf .

Any object falling at free fall cannot harm anything ... not even itself!

According NIST this is not so. An object like top part of WTC7 free falling at 32.196 feet/s² not only crushes the WTC7 below floor 16, no, the top part deforms itself as per very strange computer simulations and FE analysises.

Why cannot a free fall object harm anything or deform itself? Because it is in free fall.

Take Galilei. He dropped objects from a tower at Pisa around 1590. These objects did not destroy anything or deformed themselves when dropping. Reason is, still, that it was due to these objects were free falling.

It seems NIST uses some different techniques ... but you cannot beat the Italians.

If you think the pent house fell faster than free fall, pls elaborate.

It's not the fall but the sudden stop that causes the damage.

[rsalinger]

If you actually read the report, the free fall part is shown to occur after the interior of the building has already collapsed. That's why it's possible. While in free fall or close to it the building can't destroy anything, of course, until it contacts an intact lower floor. The fundamental problem with Chandlers interpretation is that he's ignoring the sequence of events. He may think that the sequence is impossible - floors collapsing due to fires followed by key column (8 floors freestanding) followed by CORE COLUMN collapse, but the free fall part is after all this happens.

[Heiwa]

Originally Posted by rsalinger

If you actually read the report, the free fall part is shown to occur after the interior of the building has already collapsed. That's why it's possible. While in free fall or close to it the building can't destroy anything, of course, until it contacts an intact lower floor. The fundamental problem with Chandlers interpretation is that he's ignoring the sequence of events. He may think that the sequence is impossible - floors collapsing due to fires followed by key column (8 floors freestanding) followed by CORE COLUMN collapse, but the free fall part is after all this happens.

Not according to the NIST WTC7 report; NIST reluctantly agreed that the complete visible upper part of WTC7 free falls at g = 9.82 m/s² for 2.25 seconds (in the first version 'final' report that was not the case) but, on the other hand, suggests that plenty of destruction takes place both below and inside the falling structure during this free fall. The latter is not possible as you rightly confirm.

Actually - free fall during 2.25 seconds of the visible part is not possible unless there is nothing to restrain it! So what happened to all structure below that was supposed to restrain it? Did it evaporate?

Complete upper parts of buildings never free fall under any normal circumstances as there is always something below to cushion the fall. Here there is nothing! Everything has disappeared. Quickly.

The rubble was also disposed of - disappeared - quickly. Luckily there are photos of many strange looking rubble parts of the lower structure and you wonder how they could ever come about.

In my view powerful CD of the lower part of WTC7 produced the visible free fall of the upper part. NIST should be asked to go back and review its report.

[Lennart Hyland]

Originally Posted by Heiwa

In my view powerful CD of the lower part of WTC7 produced the visible free fall of the upper part. NIST should be asked to go back and review its report.

But this powerful CD wasnt noticed by anyone.

[beachnut]

Originally Posted by Heiwa

It does not matter when the roof line or pent house starts to drop. Just look what happens during the 2.25 seconds during the visible drop (no pent house) of the roof line! Chandler measures free fall (g = 9.82 m/s²) and our friends at NIST agree in their final 'final' report (g = 9.82 m/s² or 32.196 feet/s²). See fig. 3.15 in the NIST final 'final' WTC7 report http://wtc.nist.gov/NCSTAR1/PDF/NCSTAR%201A.pdf .

Any object falling at free fall cannot harm anything ... not even itself!

According NIST this is not so. An object like top part of WTC7 free falling at 32.196 feet/s² not only crushes the WTC7 below floor 16, no, the top part deforms itself as per very strange computer simulations and FE analysises.

Why cannot a free fall object harm anything or deform itself? Because it is in free fall.

Take Galilei. He dropped objects from a tower at Pisa around 1590. These objects did not destroy anything or deformed themselves when dropping. Reason is, still, that it was due to these objects were free falling.

It seems NIST uses some different techniques ... but you cannot beat the Italians.

If you think the pent house fell faster than free fall, pls elaborate.

Your failure to understand reality is your downfall.

Show me the work for NIST freefall, darn the 28.9-32.0 feet/s² picked off the fig 3.15 is not G at 32.2, but less than G (you failed to read and understand NIST). But then you were never a person to use reality to mess up your delusion of who knows what conclusion you make, it is too hard to read your paper of pure crap to find your delusional conclusion. Do you even try to match your words with the reference you give that refute your failed ideas?

Failure happens, and you have perfected it.

All I have to do to foil your pathetic rant is post what NIST said. What is your pathetic terrorist apologist point? Your rant is pure anti-intellectual political claptrap only your kids and grandkids will understand if they harbor the same delusional ideas on this topic as you do.


Your CD is pure delusional, maybe in your country idiots go around blowing up buildings with silent explosives, but in our country our idiots use big giant bombs that go boom. Your delusion is complete, your CD claptrap is proof you have zero abilities in research. Good job, your kids will be proud of your failure and apologizing for terrorists. Thanks so much for making up lies about 911, we needed your terrorist apologies to feel better.

[twinstead]

Originally Posted by Heiwa

In my view powerful CD of the lower part of WTC7 produced the visible free fall of the upper part. NIST should be asked to go back and review its report.

And in my view you are TOTALLY unqualified to make this statement. Frankly, it might as well be my hair stylist making the observation.

[Seymour Butz]

Disgusting.

Over at ATS, I've got Griff, an actual SE, feigning outrage at the fact that structural codes haven't changed as a direct result of the findings in the 7 report. Specifically, since the *new* rec from NIST that's in 7's report that singles out long span floor beams isn't included.

The fact that the findings from the tower report are just now being adopted by ICC, and the 7 report was released just 3 months ago means nothing to him.

The fact that the ICC HAS adopted recs from the tower report means nothing to him.

Instead he is taking the intelluctually bankrupt position that this proves that NIST is incompetent and that they really are not trained and/or knowledgeable to be making reccommendations in the first place.

I swear, this is exactly the sort of junk that is so maddening about the TM. A guy like Griff could actually educate the losers that are drawn to the TM, but he doesn't. Instead, he picks and chooses where he posts, only when he has an angle that he can attack with innuendo and half-truths.

And he totally avoids threads that he can't use these tactics, like the one that was started about the latest video that attempts to debunk Bazant. Presumably because he knows that a structure with a FOS of 3 can't supply a 31g "jolt" to the descending upper block. And what's maddening about THAT is that he's admitted that there is enough PE for the structure to collapse to the ground, but thinks that there's something wrong with what happened. So instead of joining a thread like this, where it could be discussed, he sits it out.

A true troll........

[JSSTyger]

I'm getting tired of reading how Mr. Chandler is such a "cheat" or a "hack". Well he must be a very very good one because NIST bought into it.

And good lord...all the nitpicky things you people point out.

"The middle of the roofline fell 7 feet first though!!"

Whoop-Dee-Dooo!! In the grand scheme of things what does a measly 7 feet mean? 7 feet out of 571 feet. You guys can't be serious. And incase you guys didn't notice...The NW corner fell just as fast as the rest of the roofline did so the accelerations would be nearly identical...negligibly different.

"2.25 seconds is way different than Chandler's 2.5 seconds...11% off"

Free fall is free fall. Do you want a cookie for pointing out this meaningless "flaw" ? Creating a best fit line is in itself creating errors because the data fluctuates...as it should. In order to model real world data we need best fit curves and best fit lines for interpolation or extrapolation purposes to predict information between datapoints or outside the data range. "Best fit" means "errors minimized"...but there will always be error.

Lastly, I have my own bit I would like somebody to attempt to debunk.

There are closeup videos of the top SW corner showing "squibs" running bottom to top. Is it caused by

A) Pancaking?....No...pancaking slabs would cause a top/down effect
B) Glass breaking/Overpressures?...In an upward progression?
C) Column buckling?....Ahhh...sounds like a good answer right? WRONG. We must assume that the SW corner columns are under negligible compression. Why? Well...the bottom corner is gouged out...right???? When the bottom corner got gouged, all of the load it was carrying was shifted throughout the rest of the structural steel system. Sure these corner columns are held up by the frictional resistance of their connections to the horizontal structural members, but that resistance is only equal to the weight of the column(s). It is impossible for a structural steel column to buckle under its own weight...let alone buckle twice and then three and four and five and six times on successive floors.
D) Demolition? This would explain the observed phenomena. Minus sound, this is a textbook standard controlled demolition. Sound, however, to me, seems like a very minor issue considering everything else. Now...I am not an expert in demolition materials (which their could be zillions of)...but I would venture to guess "quiet" explosive materials do exist.

I understand that "Thermal Expansion" is the overall culprit to NIST's cataclysmic failure theory...so I would like to see a response to my observations that incorporates this theory.

[Grizzly Bear]

Originally Posted by JSSTyger

There are closeup videos of the top SW corner showing "squibs" running bottom to top. Is it caused by...<snip>

What squibs? This? The top corner damage that Jones or what's his face got all over trying to pass on as "squibs"?

[JSSTyger]

[quote=beachnut;4374109]Your failure to understand reality is your downfall.

Show me the work for NIST freefall, darn the 28.9-32.0 feet/s² picked off the fig 3.15 is not G at 32.2, but less than G (you failed to read and understand NIST). But then you were never a person to use reality to mess up your delusion of who knows what conclusion you make, it is too hard to read your paper of pure crap to find your delusional conclusion. Do you even try to match your words with the reference you give that refute your failed ideas?


This person (beach nut) does not understand the concept of free fall in a VACUUM.

"G" is like infinity...it can't be reached when an object falls through air.

...and air does provide quite a resistance at high speeds...it halts a skydivers acceleration (yes HALTS...as in ZERO) at a speed of 176 feet per second. Air resistance can be a powerful force...and will always act as a decelerator

You, claiming 28.9 to 32.0ft/s^2 as not representative of free fall, should be ashamed of yourself. NIST admits it. You should too.

[JSSTyger]

Originally Posted by Grizzly Bear

What squibs? The top corner damage that Jones or what's his face got all over trying to pass on as "squibs"?

Cool I already got a response. Now can you refute my observations from the other post?

[Grizzly Bear]

Originally Posted by JSSTyger

A) Pancaking?....No...pancaking slabs would cause a top/down effect

Not applicable... the collapse initiation involved a different mechanism than for the twin towers...

Originally Posted by JSSTyger

B) Glass breaking/Overpressures?...In an upward progression?

And? Window breakage during collapse should surprise because...?

Originally Posted by JSSTyger

C) Column buckling?....Ahhh...sounds like a good answer right? WRONG. We must assume that the SW corner columns are under negligible compression. Why? Well...the bottom corner is gouged out...right???? When the bottom corner got gouged, all of the load it was carrying was shifted throughout the rest of the structural steel system. Sure these corner columns are held up by the frictional resistance of their connections to the horizontal structural members, but that resistance is only equal to the weight of the column(s). It is impossible for a structural steel column to buckle under its own weight...let alone buckle twice and then three and four and five and six times on successive floors.

Except the collapse initiation did not take place at the corner of the building. It initiated in the interior after a critical column was left with no lateral bracing for several floors. The design of the building influenced the remainder of how the collapse progressed... I believe your premise here is misplaced...

Originally Posted by JSSTyger

D) Demolition? This would explain the observed phenomena. Minus sound, this is a textbook standard controlled demolition.

Forgive if I do not see what you refer to as "text book standard." I saw a building which was on fire, after having another, much larger building collapse on top of it. I saw a building exposed to circumstances which have not been confronted by any prior precedent and constructed in a different fashion than other precedents. I would recommend that you search around the forum as this has been extensively discussed in the past. Odds are, if you find nothing compelling concerning the faults in your argument, then you probably won't agree with any input I offer. I don't feel like wasting time trying to convince you other wise if you aren't genuinely interested in getting a good understanding of otherwise.

Originally Posted by JSSTyger

Sound, however, to me, seems like a very minor issue considering everything else. Now...I am not an expert in demolition materials (which their could be zillions of)...but I would venture to guess "quiet" explosive materials do exist.

Then of course you probably would want to avoid the contention that it was in any way "textbook standard," as your argument here is deviating from it. Regardless of which... the hush-a-boom idea is rather cliche...

Originally Posted by JSSTyger

I understand that "Thermal Expansion" is the overall culprit to NIST's cataclysmic failure theory...so I would like to see a response to my observations that incorporates this theory.

The design had a lot to do with this condition and the severity to which it had been manifest. One-Meridian Plaza can be used to an extent to demonstrate how much damage just the thermal expansion and contraction from the heat can deal. This of course bears in mind that the influence on the structural integrity is different since it's framing system is not representative of WTC 7. Therefore, the example I'm using is demonstrating a principal, not a direct comparison.

LINK

Quote:

Structural Conditions Observed
Prior to deciding to evacuate the building, firefighters noticed significant structural displacement occurring in the stair enclosures. A command officer indicated that cracks large enough to place a man’s fist through developed at one point. One of the granite exterior wall panels on the east stair enclosure was dislodged by the thermal expansion of the steel framing behind it.

If you're planning to focus on purely collapse based points however, it may be best to continue this in a more relevant thread.

[Gravy]

Originally Posted by JSSTyger

There are closeup videos of the top SW corner showing "squibs" running bottom to top.

No, there aren't. Next.

[JSSTyger]

I often wonder why you people don't use your analytic abilities to analyze NIST's theory. Is this not the official theory? Back it up!! I'll admit...its got to be quite hard now that NIST has abandoned the fuel oil tanks and long span floor truss theories. We told you that stuff was BS all along but you guys follow NIST wherever it takes you. NIST coulda told you that the building did jumping jacks before it fell, create a visual model of it, and then you would applaud them for their "breakthrough" in engineering excellence.

[JSSTyger]

Originally Posted by Grizzly Bear

Not applicable... the collapse initiation involved a different mechanism than for the twin towers...


And? Window breakage during collapse should surprise because...?


Except the collapse initiation did not take place at the corner of the building. It initiated in the interior after a critical column was left with no lateral bracing for several floors. The design of the building influenced the remainder of how the collapse progressed... I believe your premise here is misplaced...



Forgive if I do not see what you refer to as "text book standard." I saw a building which was on fire, after having another, much larger building collapse on top of it. I saw a building exposed to circumstances which have not been confronted by any prior precedent and constructed in a different fashion than other precedents. I would recommend that you search around the forum as this has been extensively discussed in the past. Odds are, if you find nothing compelling concerning the faults in your argument, then you probably won't agree with any input I offer. I don't feel like wasting time trying to convince you other wise if you aren't genuinely interested in getting a good understanding of otherwise.


Then of course you probably would want to avoid the contention that it was in any way "textbook standard," as your argument here is deviating from it. Regardless of which... the hush-a-boom idea is rather cliche...


The design had a lot to do with this condition and the severity to which it had been manifest. One-Meridian Plaza can be used to an extent to demonstrate how much damage just the thermal expansion and contraction from the heat can deal. This of course bears in mind that the influence on the structural integrity is different since it's framing system is not representative of WTC 7. Therefore, the example I'm using is demonstrating a principal, not a direct comparison.

If you're planning to focus on purely collapse based points however, it may be best to continue this in a more relevant thread.

1) I was explaining away the different possible theories
2) Demolition was the only explanation that stood up
3) I was right in saying it could not have been pancaking slabs
4) Glass breaking/Overpressures....Glass breaking doesn't cause "smoke" and zero overpressures anyways if the lower floors are going down before the upper floors
5) Collapse initiation has not one thing to do with the observed phenomenon. I don't care if the mechanical room fell five years before the rest of the building.
6) How does a building being structurally damaged and having fires refute demolition????

I submit that you did not disprove anything I said. You are rather off topic. What I wanted is an explanation of those bottom to top bursts. I might add also that similar vertical bursts are easily visible on the north face. The verticality implies failing columns. Well...I trashed the buckling theory too.

[JSSTyger]

Why would the column(s) that were gouged out at the bottom buckle floor after floor? After each "break" the stresses are relieved and you have a smaller and smaller column! The shorter the column, the less likely it is to buckle (scientific fact)! Forget the fact the axial forces on it are pretty much zero. And bending?...From what I observe, that collapse is darn near perpendicular to the ground for the first 2.25 seconds. Bending? Ehhh no. Weak forces causing columns to buckle on successive floors is ridiculous. I'm sorry...but it is.

[T.A.M.]

Originally Posted by JSSTyger

I often wonder why you people don't use your analytic abilities to analyze NIST's theory. Is this not the official theory? Back it up!! I'll admit...its got to be quite hard now that NIST has abandoned the fuel oil tanks and long span floor truss theories. We told you that stuff was BS all along but you guys follow NIST wherever it takes you. NIST coulda told you that the building did jumping jacks before it fell, create a visual model of it, and then you would applaud them for their "breakthrough" in engineering excellence.

read it first, before you comment on it, or shut the **** up.

TAM

[Grizzly Bear]

Originally Posted by JSSTyger

1) I was explaining away the different possible theories
3) I was right in saying it could not have been pancaking slabs

Neither were applicable in the first place to WTC 7... I'm not sure what compelled you to believe such points were significant enough to concern yourself with here... And nobody that I am aware of has ever argued for such, it's a strawman.

Originally Posted by JSSTyger

2) Demolition was the only explanation that stood up

For broken windows? Overpressure, or by virtue of the wall deforming around the frame. Glass isn't intended to be used as a load bearing structural member, and they certainly aren't designed for the sort of shear from being knocked off kilter as the structure fails. A rather moot point since this kind of conflict isn't exclusive to demolition; Look up the John Hancock tower for a reference, in that case design flaws led to similar failures of glass paneling.

Originally Posted by JSSTyger

4) Glass breaking/Overpressures....Glass breaking doesn't cause "smoke" and zero overpressures anyways if the lower floors are going down before the upper floors

In other words... something along the lines of "too much dust" for it to be a "natural collapse" eh? Not sure what else you would expect from a building that was structurally unstable and collapsing. Oh... and lest not forget burning.

Originally Posted by JSSTyger

5) Collapse initiation has not one thing to do with the observed phenomenon. I don't care if the mechanical room fell five years before the rest of the building.

Then that indicates to me that your questions regarding the collapse aren't as genuine as you imply. Thank you for informing me that I'll not have to waste further time trying to "convince" you otherwise. It's clear it'll be a waste of time.

Originally Posted by JSSTyger

6) How does a building being structurally damaged and having fires refute demolition????

Because you're looking for controlled demolition when the building just burned for several hours uninhibited and had design specifications that were rather unique. The basis of "first time in history" or "looks like a CD" are generally irrelevant as it's clear you have not taken any interest in the design factors or circumstances which played a role. Good day, have fun

Originally Posted by JSSTyger

I submit that you did not disprove anything I said.

Well when dealing with a strawman argument I would suspect that there wouldn't be much to disprove

[JSSTyger]

Originally Posted by T.A.M.

read it first, before you comment on it, or shut the **** up.

TAM

such strong words. Do you always jump to such quick stupid conclusions? Why swear?

[HyJinX]

Yes, we always jump on such quick stupid conclusions.

ETA: People tend to swear when they are confronted with shear idiocy. It's natures way. Can you deal? The best way to avoid it, is to be less stupid. Deal?

[ElMondoHummus]

Originally Posted by JSSTyger

such strong words. Do you always jump to such quick stupid conclusions? Why swear?

JSSTyger, TAM's point is that your posts demonstrate you have studied misrepresentations of NIST descriptions rather than what the reports themselves actually conclude. That's what he was pointing out, and by the way, his advice is solid; I need to follow it through to completion myself when I have the time. So anyway, instead of responding to a complaint about how truthers continually approach the subject, why don't you tackle the substantial question Grizzly Bear posted? Namely: What squibs? When you answer that, then you can address the rest of his points, which all bring question to your understanding of the collapse events and NIST's descriptions of them.

The substance is there. Failing to address them is dodging the issue.

[JSSTyger]

Originally Posted by Grizzly Bear

Neither were applicable in the first place to WTC 7... I'm not sure what compelled you to believe such points were significant enough to concern yourself with here... And nobody that I am aware of has ever argued for such, it's a strawman.

As I said before. I am just eliminating possible failure mechanisms


For broken windows? Overpressure, or by virtue of the wall deforming around the frame. Glass isn't intended to be used as a load bearing structural member, and they certainly aren't designed for the sort of shear from being knocked off kilter as the structure fails. A rather moot point since this kind of conflict isn't exclusive to demolition; Look up the John Hancock tower for a reference, in that case design flaws led to similar failures of glass paneling.

I should never have mentioned the glass breaking. It matters not. I just didn't want people telling me the puffs were because of glass.


In other words... something along the lines of "too much dust" for it to be a "natural collapse" eh? Not sure what else you would expect from a building that was structurally unstable and collapsing. Oh... and lest not forget burning.

Hmmm...kind of a strange vertical "zip" the fire induced smoke did there. It was pretty darn fast. Come on man. We really are taking NIST at its word as far as the intensity and distributions of the fire goes. You got billowing smoke on the south side and raging fires only on certain levels at certain times. How do we know none of that damage was actually caused by explosives? I mean Barry Jennings is one key witness who specifically says an explosion took out the landing beneath him before any of the towers fell. That and there are vids of an entire column (number 20)missing. Good God debris can knock an entire column out? I don't see the damage as being fire damage and I don't see the fire intensity's being what NIST says.


Then that indicates to me that your questions regarding the collapse aren't as genuine as you imply. Thank you for informing me that I'll not have to waste further time trying to "convince" you otherwise. It's clear it'll be a waste of time.


Because you're looking for controlled demolition when the building just burned for several hours uninhibited and had design specifications that were rather unique. The basis of "first time in history" or "looks like a CD" are generally irrelevant as it's clear you have not taken any interest in the design factors or circumstances which played a role. Good day, have fun

Over-design factors you mean...most likely heavily over-designed. Its a government facility. But NIST would have you believe one failure can cause a global failure...


Well when dealing with a strawman argument I would suspect that there wouldn't be much to disprove

There is no "strawman" about the demolition of WTC 7. I've challenged many people many times to give an example of a solid object collapsing in on itself under its own weight straight down and I've never gotten a legitimate answer. Structural mechanics just doesn't work that way. You just can't have a building thats supposedly gouged on one side fall straight down.

[JSSTyger]

Originally Posted by ElMondoHummus

JSSTyger, TAM's point is that your posts demonstrate you have studied misrepresentations of NIST descriptions rather than what the reports themselves actually conclude. That's what he was pointing out, and by the way, his advice is solid; I need to follow it through to completion myself when I have the time. So anyway, instead of responding to a complaint about how truthers continually approach the subject, why don't you tackle the substantial question Grizzly Bear posted? Namely: What squibs? When you answer that, then you can address the rest of his points, which all bring question to your understanding of the collapse events and NIST's descriptions of them.

The substance is there. Failing to address them is dodging the issue.

grizzly also posted the video I was talking about so I saw no need to post it again.

[JSSTyger]

And furthermore they failed to address the issue I brought up by answering questions that weren't asked.

[ElMondoHummus]

Originally Posted by JSSTyger

There is no "strawman" about the demolition of WTC 7. I've challenged many people many times to give an example of a solid object collapsing in on itself under its own weight straight down and I've never gotten a legitimate answer. Structural mechanics just doesn't work that way. You just can't have a building thats supposedly gouged on one side fall straight down.

First of all, WTC7 is not a solid object. Any conclusions drawn from presuming it should act like a tree, a rock, or any other "solid" object instead of the heterogenous, interconnected structure it really is is flawed from the start. Second of all, it did not merely collapse "under it's own weight", but also did so due to the structural damage and fire weakening of the structure. So there is more than one issue at play here. Third of all, your complaint about not getting a "legitimate" answer is because your framing demonstrates your lack of knowledge on the subject. Query the forum poster named "Architect" about how a structure is supposed to react when compromised. He'll not only clear up your misunderstandings about how to treat WTC 7 as a system, he'll also remind you that collapses are expected to happen when a structure is fatally compromised, and that the exact manifestation of the collapse is highly dependent on a variety of factors. So setting a false premise of other buildings collapsing "under it's own weight" straight down is poisoning the well; the principles behind collapse are very well known, and the manner in which WTC 7 collapsed in no way disproves NIST's proposed mechanism, and certainly doesn't open the door for alternate explanations involving explosives or incendiaries.

Originally Posted by JSSTyger

grizzly also posted the video I was talking about so I saw no need to post it again.

There are no squibs exploding in that video. The mere fact you use the term "squibs" shows that you do not understand explosives demolition, but instead take your cues from conspiracy peddling sources.

[ElMondoHummus]

Originally Posted by JSSTyger

And furthermore they failed to address the issue I brought up by answering questions that weren't asked.

Grizzly answered "questions that weren't asked"? Whatever; posts 102 and 108 demonstrate otherwise. Your best bet is to stick to points about the collapse from here on out.

[A W Smith]

Originally Posted by JSSTyger

There is no "strawman" about the demolition of WTC 7. I've challenged many people many times to give an example of a solid object collapsing in on itself under its own weight straight down and I've never gotten a legitimate answer. Structural mechanics just doesn't work that way. You just can't have a building thats supposedly gouged on one side fall straight down.

But it DID fall in the direction it was gouged out.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s77v8iJueSw

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the JREF. The JREF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

[JSSTyger]

All I was doing in my original post here was eliminating "plausible" theories...not all of them NIST theories...but any possible theory you all could come up with. I know what NIST says about ohhh thermal expansion and column 79 blowing out on level 13 and somehow the internal structure just ripped itself away from the facade and lead the collapse while the facade was standing for a few seconds. Yes I know the NIST fairy tale. I have seen the model where the frame just twists and wilts. And the whole north and west faces of the facade shows no signs, no cracks, no buckled columns or beams punching through them...minimal broken windows. I mean...not to be offensive but this is all just common sense.

You can call me a loon..if that makes you feel better. But this not a blind belief. And I do have credentials that,in the very least, lend me partial credibility.

[JSSTyger]

Originally Posted by A W Smith

But it DID fall in the direction it was gouged out.

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the JREF. The JREF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

No...the first 2.25 seconds was very near perpendicular to the ground....see GldBr's veoh video

[JSSTyger]

Originally Posted by ElMondoHummus

First of all, WTC7 is not a solid object. Any conclusions drawn from presuming it should act like a tree, a rock, or any other "solid" object instead of the heterogenous, interconnected structure it really is is flawed from the start. Second of all, it did not merely collapse "under it's own weight", but also did so due to the structural damage and fire weakening of the structure. So there is more than one issue at play here. Third of all, your complaint about not getting a "legitimate" answer is because your framing demonstrates your lack of knowledge on the subject. Query the forum poster named "Architect" about how a structure is supposed to react when compromised. He'll not only clear up your misunderstandings about how to treat WTC 7 as a system, he'll also remind you that collapses are expected to happen when a structure is fatally compromised, and that the exact manifestation of the collapse is highly dependent on a variety of factors. So setting a false premise of other buildings collapsing "under it's own weight" straight down is poisoning the well; the principles behind collapse are very well known, and the manner in which WTC 7 collapsed in no way disproves NIST's proposed mechanism, and certainly doesn't open the door for alternate explanations involving explosives or incendiaries.



There are no squibs exploding in that video. The mere fact you use the term "squibs" shows that you do not understand explosives demolition, but instead take your cues from conspiracy peddling sources.

Whether you like it or not...the building fell under its own weight. And it a solid object meaning its not a liquid...I didn't mean solid like a block of concrete.