Freefall and Building 7 on 9/11[W:371, 640]

[Sadling]

Your abilty to misinterpret a statement of fact as if it was a "theory" makes any attempt at rational discussion with you a waste of time.

This is good. You are admitting that you have no explanation as to how a steel beam is thrown horizontally at such a speed from a collapsing building.

 

[Fledermaus]

This is good. You are admitting that you have no explanation as to how a steel beam is thrown horizontally at such a speed from a collapsing building.

Man up. Come up with a viable explanation.

 

[Sadling]

This is good. You are admitting that you have no explanation as to how a steel beam is thrown horizontally at such a speed from a collapsing building.

Man up. Come up with a viable explanation.

Whoa there! Let's first go through the process of elimination. To begin with, we know that the steel beam seen flying out of the building on a horizontal trajectory for the distance seen in the video I provided is not the result of a gravity induced collapse. Right?

 

[Fledermaus]

Whoa there! Let's first go through the process of elimination. To begin with, we know that the steel beam seen flying out of the building on a horizontal trajectory for the distance seen in the video I provided is not the result of a gravity induced collapse. Right?

Why?

WHY can it not be a result of TONS upon TONS of debris crashing down?

 

[Sadling]

Why?

WHY can it not be a result of TONS upon TONS of debris crashing down?

Because crashing down is not crashing out.

 

[Fledermaus]

Because crashing down is not crashing out.

Wow.

So ALL of the material coming down is under some magic spell, and is incapable of displacing any material below it.

Can you explain this magic?

 

[Thoreau72]

From what I understand, steel structures weighing 50-70 tons were ejected horizontally at speeds measured at around 70 MPH. Some of these imbedded into adjacent buildings, some causing damage to WTC7 located about a football field distant from the disintegrating tower. Biological fragments were found on the roof of adjacent buildings. Gravity cannot cause any of this.

On another site, I saw the calculations of a real physicist. He approximated the mass of the piece impaled at the Amex Building, approximated the distance from the center of the tower to the point of contact, and calculated the force required to move that piece on a lowboy trailer for that distance. It was a considerable number. Measured in joules? Can't remember, but as you say, gravity CANNOT have done that. Some horizontal vector is necessary to make it happen, and it is a considerable force because it was a considerable mass.

 

[Thoreau72]

Because crashing down is not crashing out.

Wow.

So ALL of the material coming down is under some magic spell, and is incapable of displacing any material below it.

Can you explain this magic?

It's called "gravity", dude.

Did you not learn about that in physics class?

 

[Fledermaus]

It's called "gravity", dude.

Did you not learn about that in physics class?

You mean the gravity you REJECT as the reason for the building collapsing through it's core?

That gravity?

 

[Thoreau72]

It's called "gravity", dude.

Did you not learn about that in physics class?

You mean the gravity you REJECT as the reason for the building collapsing through it's core?

That gravity?

The only gravity there is Maus. Here on Planet Earth it is always present and always working.

And it works in only ONE direction my man--towards the center of the planet.

 

[Fledermaus]

The only gravity there is Maus. Here on Planet Earth it is always present and always working.

And it works in only ONE direction my man--towards the center of the planet.

Then why do so many "truthers" argue it CAN'T be the reason the collapses drop straight down.

 

[ozeco41]

This is good. You are admitting that you have no explanation as to how a steel beam is thrown horizontally at such a speed from a collapsing building.

Man up. Come up with a viable explanation.

Nothing new here Sadling, Bob0627 and Henry David have in recent posts engaged in a manic bout of denials and untruths over my simple offer to explain the ejections. I have offered to start with the one which stuck in the Amex Building.

However my "Rules of Engagement" are simple - I will not waste time chasing down rabbit burrows of dishonesty and debating tricks. The recent posts have included untrue statements by all three. Misrepresentation of what I have said. Experience tells me that none of the three have been prepared to engage in reasoned discussion.

However my objective remains the same - I am prepared to explain the engineering aspects for any members who are genuinely interested and prepared to join in honest reasoned discussion.

So let's post an outline sample of the explanation for one example of the type of event in Bob's recent false and unsupported claim as quoted by you. I will index the relevant parts of the statement and comment on them before posting the outline explanation.

From what I understand[SUP]1[/SUP], steel structures weighing 50-70 tons were ejected[SUP]2[/SUP] horizontally[SUP]3[/SUP] at speeds measured at around 70 MPH[SUP]4[/SUP]. Some of these imbedded into adjacent buildings[SUP]5[/SUP], some causing damage to WTC7[SUP]6[/SUP] located about a football field distant from the disintegrating tower[SUP]7[/SUP]. Biological fragments were found on the roof of adjacent buildings[SUP]8. Gravity cannot cause any of this.[SUP]9[/SUP]

Interest CLAIM.

Got anything to back it up?

Got any idea WHAT would do this?

1 I'll take his word that such is his understanding.
2 Bits of steel structure were "ejected" and a lot fell way. Some bits that "fell away" were well over the 50-70 tons. None of that weight were "ejected" BUT the claim is irrelevant to the explanation which follows.
3 The implication that bits weighting 50-70 tons were ejected - i.e. propelled at speed - and horizontally is false. However it is also irrelevant to the explanation which follows.
4 I doubt that any were measured. Possible estimated post the event. But the aspect is irrelevant - we need to explain how the bits ended where they did.
5 True
6 True
7 Good enough - not relevant for the explanation which follows
8 Irrelevant
9 Untrue. False and unsupported assertion.

The Outline Explanation. (For the "steel section" which ended up embedded in the Amex building adjacent to the Wintergarden.)

The global collapse of both Twin Towers involved the combination of three mechanisms.
1) The leading one was a runaway pancaking cascade of material falling down the open office space. It sheared off all the floors in sequence leaving the outer perimeter columns unbraced in the "radial" direction;
2) Those outer perimeters fell away at a short and variable interval after the collapse wave down the office space had passed. The perimeters "peeled" off and fell in four swathes of debris radiating outwards from the original faces of the towers.
3) The third mechanism - not needed for this explanation - was that the core of the lower tower had its beams and braces stripped off - details not needed.

I have explained this set of three mechanisms in more detail in the OP of this thread.

This is how the material landed - showing the ""swathes" of debris and the eight "outflier" bits of perimeter columns.


The largest identified "sheet" of perimeter columns was the one which fell towards Wintergarden. It was (from memory - can check) over 300 feet high - 1/3 tower height and fell away rotating to lay extending towards the Wintergarden with some sections mostly intact . Here is what it looked like.



For a more detailed view try this

The curved downwards "slash" from the falling sheet of columns is clearly seen on the side of the building together with the beam section which was impaled in the building and left behind.

So the mechanism obvious to visual inspection. More like "bowling" than "throwing".

No need for the explosives induced ejection some are suggesting it needed. The ball is still in their court to demonstrate that such explosive ejection is even plausible in the setting of WTC 9/11 collapses.

Legitimate questions welcomed.

 

[Fledermaus]

I wish there was a 10X like.

You can, in one post, pack far more information than I can in twenty.

 

[ozeco41]

I wish there was a 10X like.

You can, in one post, pack far more information than I can in twenty.

Thank you.

There's not much call for reasoned explanation these days - but this was one opportunity given the spate of nonsense posts.



EDIT
PS If you are interested in the "What fell where" details the best research I am aware of is on the 9/11Forum in this thread. And the irony is that it is a truther friendly (and careful to remain neutral) forum.

 

[Fledermaus]

There's not much call for reasoned explanation these days - but this was one opportunity given the spate of nonsense posts.

I used to expend much energy. But a stoke and simple disgust robbed me of some of that fervor.

 

[ozeco41]

...I used to expend much energy. But a stoke and simple disgust robbed me of some of that fervor.

My "energy burst" was 2007-8-9-10 - on the Richard Dawkins forum which closed in 2010. I was a senior moderator and lead poster on the 9/11 topic. The only engineer posting from the debunker side. We had two obnoxious characters - one engineer one a physicist - on the truther side. So professionally a bit lonely and exposed - being the Dawkins site it was dominated by pure scientists mostly from biological science. I was also one of the few lawyers posting there - my main interest in the "Gay Rights and Gay Marriage" stuff (No - before you ask but I'm into equity of treatment) and the US constitutional law aspects. I'm AU trained - not trained in US law so a bit of a learning experience..

No trolls of the snide personal attack school in those days.
The trolls we had were mostly clever and used word twisting fun rather than narky insults to get their effects. A large proportion of the truthers were genuine, honest and courteous thro' 2006-7-8 maybe 9. (And it was before the words "truther" or "debunker" became popular or were bastardised.) Most of the genuine truthers have long since seen the light so we are left with the scene dominated by the hard liners. And the inevitable self reinforcing behaviours of the cannot/will not/do not read or think brigade..


Meanwhile back on the central focus of the topic.

Isn't it abut time we showed yet again why:
1) Free-fall MUST and ONLY means CD is FALSE;
2) Free-fall is a consequence of the collapse mechanism - not what initiated the mechanism;
3) CD is merely another initiator;
4) THEREFORE Free-fall cannot distinguish CD initiation from any other including so-called "natural initiation" by unfought fires.

5) And the handful of other false "Truther memes' which flow from those.

 

[Fledermaus]

I know what you mean. I posted on othr forums and have seen the same shift.

 

[ozeco41]

 

[Bob0627]

The global collapse of both Twin Towers involved the combination of three mechanisms.

1) The leading one was a runaway pancaking cascade of material falling down the open office space. It sheared off all the floors in sequence leaving the outer perimeter columns unbraced in the "radial" direction;

Ah the "pancake collapse" theory that was originally proposed by FEMA (minus the syrup), then contradicted by NIST, who changed it to a "progressive gravitational collapse".

"Lies change all the time, the truth never changes." - (author unknown)

2) Those outer perimeters fell away at a short and variable interval after the collapse wave down the office space had passed. The perimeters "peeled" off and fell in four swathes of debris radiating outwards from the original faces of the towers.

That's an awful lot of peeling off using enough gravitational energy to embed steel into adjacent buildings and damage one building a football field away. I guess gravity did all that peeling and the building's undamaged 80% offered only enough resistance to slow the disintegration, I mean peeling to about 2/3 free fall acceleration, give or take.

3) The third mechanism - not needed for this explanation - was that the core of the lower tower had its beams and braces stripped off - details not needed.

Of course not, gravity alone can strip the undamaged core, it's "self-evident", Newton was clueless, better to use Ozeco's Laws of Physics, it's much more accurate and requires no explanation.

PS - But I do like the theory, it is creative.

 

[Fledermaus]

Ah the "pancake collapse" theory that was originally proposed by FEMA (minus the syrup), then contradicted by NIST, who changed it to a "progressive gravitational collapse".

"Lies change all the time, the truth never changes." - (author unknown)

The pancaking was rejected as the CAUSE of the collapse. Do keep up.

That's an awful lot of peeling off using enough gravitational energy to embed steel into adjacent buildings and damage one building a football field away. I guess gravity did all that peeling and the building's undamaged 80% offered only enough resistance to slow the disintegration, I mean peeling to about 2/3 free fall acceleration, give or take.

And? Oh, that is right. Argument from incredulity is all you have.

Of course not, gravity alone can strip the undamaged core, it's "self-evident", Newton was clueless, better to use Ozeco's Laws of Physics, it's much more accurate and requires no explanation.

TRANLATION: Incable of coming up with an intelligent counter-theory, the average "Truther" (and you are average at best) thrashes out at those who make more sense and have better understanding of both the fundamentals and the details having to do with 9/11

PS - But I do like the theory, it is creative.

Oh, and is the FBI lying?

 

[ozeco41]

Bob0627 - I was explicit on my "Rules of engagement":

However my "Rules of Engagement" are simple - I will not waste time chasing down rabbit burrows of dishonesty and debating tricks.

If you ever decide to get serious let me know.

Any members with genuine questions either about what I posted or Bob's evasions - post them.

 

[Bob0627]

Bob0627 - I was explicit on my "Rules of engagement":

I'm quite alright with your "rules". I didn't expect a reasonable response anyway given your theory.

 

[Fledermaus]

I'm quite alright with your "rules". I didn't expect a reasonable response anyway given your theory.

TRANSLATION: Can't come up with anything intelligent in response so resorts to insults.

 

[Sadling]

The ball is still in their court to demonstrate that such explosive ejection is even plausible in the setting of WTC 9/11 collapses.

While you're quite a wordy kind of guy, you really do have a short memory.

DEBUNK THIS! NEW 2014 WTC DEMOLITION EVIDENCE, RARE FOOTAGE AND INTERVIEWS - YouTube

So, go ahead and give a plausible explanation as to how the gravity-induced collapse explosively ejected the piece of steel as seen at 10:08 in the above video. Keep in mind that there was no toronado that morning.

 

[Sadling]

Oh, and is the FBI lying?

Polly wanna FBI report?

Well, let's see where we are here. You cannot produce any evidence or cite anything at all that would show that the FBI tested for explosives residue or the methods they used for said testing or the results of said testing. And now you are asking me to just believe like you do. Sorry, but I happen to view that kind of childish faith in the unseen as a very poor substitute for proof.

What I see here is you trying to turn your failure to produce evidence to back up one of your claims into others' failure. But that only works in your mind. You might want to think about writing the FBI and asking them for something to get you out of this unfortunate bind you've gotten yourself into. After all, they're the ones who technically got you into it due to your unquestioning faith in them.