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

[MaggieD]

so you made a gif that starts in the middle of the collapse and has a red herring for text. I guess you don't have anything of value.

It doesn't look like it starts in the middle of the collapse. Looks like the real deal. What am I missing?

 

[Bob0627]

Just stating facts.

Opinions are not FACT, they're just opinions. You have no standing to claim "Chandler's conclusions are fundamentally wrong". Your explanation as to how and why is not valid.

Please provide your evidence of a "cover-up" of this information and also explain how including this bit of irrelevant minutia changed the conclusions of the report in any way?

Go back and read the first post in this thread. I don't need to re-hash for you, it was explained quite clearly but you chose to determine Chandler is "fundamentally wrong" with your only reasoning being your invalid and irrelevant opinion of "Chandler's complete failure to win over people with relevant expertise in these areas".

How do you feel about faster than free-fall then?

Any object that falls faster than free fall requires a force other than gravity.

How specifically were any laws of physics violated that day?

They weren't, they can't be at any time. Government's explanations as to the destruction of the 3 towers do not coincide with basic laws of physics.

 

[Sababa]

It doesn't look like it starts in the middle of the collapse. Looks like the real deal. What am I missing?

from the vantage point of the video the collapse started with the penthouse on the left side. You could see it collapse into the building and you could see the results through some of the windows...there was a couple seconds after that that the video starts in the GIF

 

[Bob0627]

You could see it collapse into the building and you could see the results through some of the windows...there was a couple seconds after that that the video starts in the GIF

"NIST claims that the collapse of their one key column led to a progressive collapse of the entire interior of the building leaving only a hollow shell. The collapse of the building, seen in numerous videos, is described by NIST as the collapse of the "facade," the hollow shell. They have no evidence for this scenario, however, and a great deal of evidence contradicts it. After the collapse of the east penthouse there is no visible distortion of the walls and only a few windows are broken at this time. Had the failure of interior columns propagated throughout the interior of the building, as asserted by NIST, it would surely have propagated to the much closer exterior walls and distorted or collapsed them. (Major crumpling of the exterior walls, by the way, is exactly what is shown in the animations produced by NIST's computer simulation of the collapse.) But the actual videos of the building show that the exterior remained rigid during this early period. At the onset of collapse you can see in the videos that the building suddenly goes limp, like a dying person giving up the ghost. The limpness of the freefalling structure highlights by contrast the earlier rigidity."

.....................

"...why did the west penthouse remain to fall with the visible exterior of the building? Its supporting structure clearly remained to the very end and was "taken out" along with the rest of the building support all at once." - David Chandler

 

[Fledermaus]

It doesn't look like it starts in the middle of the collapse. Looks like the real deal. What am I missing?

Technically the death of WTC7 began LONG before the final collapse.....

Firefighters near the structure noticed bulging and/or leaning, a "moaning" sound and other indicators the structure was unsafe.....

"Be that as it may, FDNY chief officers surveyed 7 WTC and determined that it was in danger of collapse. Chief Frank Cruthers, now the incident commander, and Chief Frank Fellini, the operations commander, both agreed that a collapse zone had to be established. That meant firefighters in the area of the North Tower had to be evacuated. This took some time to accomplish because of terrain, communications, and the fierce determination with which the firefighters were searching. At 5:30 p.m., about 20 minutes after the last firefighters evacuated the collapse zone, 7 WTC collapsed."
- Fire Engineering Magazine

That was over an hour before the final collapse.

Add to the the East Penthouse collapsed sometime before the outer walls, signaling the lost of integrity in the internal structure.

Finally the structurally insignificant exterior (curtain) wall.

TRUTHERS concentrate on the structurally insignificant exterior while ignoring the structure that held it up.

 

[Sababa]

"NIST claims that the collapse of their one key column led to a progressive collapse of the entire interior of the building leaving only a hollow shell. The collapse of the building, seen in numerous videos, is described by NIST as the collapse of the "facade," the hollow shell. They have no evidence for this scenario, however, and a great deal of evidence contradicts it. After the collapse of the east penthouse there is no visible distortion of the walls and only a few windows are broken at this time. Had the failure of interior columns propagated throughout the interior of the building, as asserted by NIST, it would surely have propagated to the much closer exterior walls and distorted or collapsed them. (Major crumpling of the exterior walls, by the way, is exactly what is shown in the animations produced by NIST's computer simulation of the collapse.) But the actual videos of the building show that the exterior remained rigid during this early period. At the onset of collapse you can see in the videos that the building suddenly goes limp, like a dying person giving up the ghost. The limpness of the freefalling structure highlights by contrast the earlier rigidity."

.....................

"...why did the west penthouse remain to fall with the visible exterior of the building? Its supporting structure clearly remained to the very end and was "taken out" along with the rest of the building support all at once." - David Chandler

I understand you are trying to throw things and see what sticks but that changes nothing to the point I made that the GIF starts in the middle of the collapse which is a fact.

 

[Fledermaus]

Any object that falls faster than free fall requires a force other than gravity.


OK.... Does this occur in REAL CDs?

Since REAL CDs rely on GRAVITY.

 

[Bob0627]

I understand you are trying to throw things and see what sticks but that changes nothing to the point I made that the GIF starts in the middle of the collapse which is a fact.

A false assertion followed by a false claim. I tried but it's obvious you want to stick to your silly claims and illusions. Nothing more here to talk about.

 

[Sadling]

Did or did not the building fall on building 7?

Think of it this way, drop a glass on the counter....it shatters and spreads....some stays on the counter and some falls over and hits the floor. Would it be accurate to say the glass fell on the floor?

Think of it like this: You're at a garage where they have a car up on the lift. The lift malfunctions and the car comes down. The car's bumper falls off, and because you are standing in the vacinity, the bumper strikes you in the side and breaks one of your ribs. Now, do you honestly think that any news reporter worth his/her salt is going to title the news article: "Car Falls On Man"?

A reporter would do such a thing only to sell more newspapers. Of course, after such a dishonest embellishment as that, no one would ever take that reporter seriously again . . . you know?

 

[Bob0627]

Any object that falls faster than free fall requires a force other than gravity.


OK.... Does this occur in REAL CDs?

Since REAL CDs rely on GRAVITY.

I haven't seen every CD and checked out if anything fell faster than free fall but there is video evidence that this happened with the twin towers.

 

[Sababa]

A false assertion followed by a false claim. I tried but it's obvious you want to stick to your silly claims and illusions. Nothing more here to talk about.

Sorry you are now just spreading lies and calling me a liar. It sucks to be a truther when smart people are around

 

[Fledermaus]

A false assertion followed by a false claim. I tried but it's obvious you want to stick to your silly claims and illusions. Nothing more here to talk about.

Is the GIF or is it not the FINAL SECONDS of a collapse that began well before the beginning?

EVIDENCE shows it to be misleading as the Penthouse collapsed well before the OUTER WALL. And the building showed signs of impending collapse LONG before it happened.

 

[Sababa]

Think of it like this: You're at a garage where they have a car up on the lift. The lift malfunctions and the car comes down. The car's bumper falls off, and because you are standing in the vacinity, the bumper strikes you in the side and breaks one of your ribs. Now, do you honestly think that any news reporter worth his/her salt is going to title the news article: "Car Falls On Man"?

A reporter would do such a thing only to sell more newspapers. Of course, after such a dishonest embellishment as that, no one would ever take that reporter seriously again . . . you know?

That is quite a tortured way of making your point. The fact is that when the North Tower collapsed it caused tons of damage to building 7 and people who say "no plane struck it" are purposely trying to muddy the waters because they don't have a real argument.......

 

[Fledermaus]

I haven't seen every CD and checked out if anything fell faster than free fall but there is video evidence that this happened with the twin towers.

What does that mean in English?

Your statement:

Any object that falls faster than free fall requires a force other than gravity.

My question:

OK.... Does this occur in REAL CDs?

Since REAL CDs rely on GRAVITY.

I did not ask if you have watched "every CD". Did I.

Stop the STRAWMAN tactics.

Does "faster than free fall" appear in normal CDs?

Yes or no?

Does "faster than free fall" necessarily indicate CD?

I know the answer....... Can you figure it out?

 

[Fledermaus]

I haven't seen every CD and checked out if anything fell faster than free fall but there is video evidence that this happened with the twin towers

REALLY????????????

SHOW ME THE EVIDENCE.

You have "video evidence that this (faster than free fall) happened with the twin towers"?

I have GOT to see this.

(Disclaimer: This may be another example of a poster misstating a point and actually meaning WTC7. If so let's see if the poster corrects himself or doubles down on the statement. BTW - I think this falls under Bob's definition of FRAUD)

 

[mike2810]

How did the impact of the aircraft and resulting fires avoided distrupting the CD?

Why would the perps of 9/11 risk the crash/fires from distrupting the CD?

What are odds that both buildings being hit by an aircraft and resulting fires avoided distrupting the CD?

The CD supporters need to start providing the details of how the CD was done. Only fair, since they object to the details of a fire induced collapse.

 

[Bob0627]

I haven't seen every CD and checked out if anything fell faster than free fall but there is video evidence that this happened with the twin towers

REALLY????????????

SHOW ME THE EVIDENCE.

You have "video evidence that this (faster than free fall) happened with the twin towers"?

I have GOT to see this.

(Disclaimer: This may be another example of a poster misstating a point and actually meaning WTC7. If so let's see if the poster corrects himself or doubles down on the statement. BTW - I think this falls under Bob's definition of FRAUD)

I don't remember which video I personally saw that shows a piece of material falling faster than free fall so if it makes you feel better, forget I said it. If I come across it again, I will post it.

 

[Bob0627]

How did the impact of the aircraft and resulting fires avoided distrupting the CD?

The THEORY has already been posted: How It Was Done: 9/11 and the Science of Building Demolition

Why would the perps of 9/11 risk the crash/fires from distrupting the CD?

What are odds that both buildings being hit by an aircraft and resulting fires avoided distrupting the CD?

Speculatory, you're inviting theory (read the article).

The CD supporters need to start providing the details of how the CD was done. Only fair, since they object to the details of a fire induced collapse.

This is whole cloth nonsense. Been there, done that but since you missed it. The fire induced natural collapse theory of the 3 towers is incompatible with the laws of physics. Therefore, only 2 possibilities remain, CD or miracle/magic. Assuming no miracle/magic, only CD is left. No one needs to provide details of how it was done when it's the only possible alternative left. Again, that's like saying a dead body is found with bullet hole in its head. Just because no one knows the details how it was done and who did it does not mean the murder did not happen. At the same time, one can rule out a natural death (although a forensic autopsy is still required) with 99% certainty (the 1% being reserve in case the guy actually died from a natural cause before he was shot in the head).

 

[Fledermaus]

I don't remember which video I personally saw that shows a piece of material falling faster than free fall so if it makes you feel better, forget I said it. If I come across it again, I will post it.

A piece of debris IS NOT the building.

Debris can be expected to fall at free fall acceleration.

Your claim: "I haven't seen every CD and checked out if anything fell faster than free fall but there is video evidence that this happened with the twin towers"

And, What would cause the DEBRIS to fall faster than Free Fall? (Not that it happened. I am curious how your mind works)

Did the EVIL POWERS THAT BE strap rockets to the DEBRIS?

Why would the EVIL POWERS THAT BE do that?

 

[Mark F]

How did the impact of the aircraft and resulting fires avoided distrupting the CD?

Why would the perps of 9/11 risk the crash/fires from distrupting the CD?

What are odds that both buildings being hit by an aircraft and resulting fires avoided distrupting the CD?

The CD supporters need to start providing the details of how the CD was done. Only fair, since they object to the details of a fire induced collapse.

Nail hit on the head. I have been saying for years that one can not believe in CD unless they are a no-planer. CD and planes just can't work.

Since no CT will ever commit to the level of detail required to explain how CD could have been done I would be thrilled if any of them could explain WHY there would have been CD. The whole CD thing was invented by Truthers to:

A. Reinforce their distrust of authority
B. Explain anomalies they can not grasp (like 2.25 seconds of "free-fall" - which is easily explained if they could ever stop thinking in one-dimensional terms about a 3D event)

In other words, the CD meme was created to satisfy ideological needs and limited technical understanding of the collapse events (usually not even related to collapse initiation). None of them has ever stopped to ask WHY a CD needed to be done to any building, WHY it was necessary for whomever the plotters were to completely blow up any building in order to advance whatever cause it is they supposedly did this for. CD adds tremendous cost, complication and risk while providing zero obvious benefit.

 

[Fledermaus]

To believe the official conspiracy theory regarding the destruction of the three World Trade Center high-rise buildings requires an Olympian leap of faith. It asks us to accept impossible coincidences, to assume the laws of physics don't always apply, and to ignore common sense. Being one of 9/11's least likely hypotheses, it requires that we emotionally moor ourselves to its tenets, because an intellectual examination or inquiry would quickly reveal dots that don't connect. Fortunately, a much more cogent theory exists. It suggests that controlled demolition, not fire, was the cause of the collapse of WTC Buildings 1,2, and 7.

But this theory, although supported by overwhelming scientific forensic evidence, eyewitness testimony, and visual documentation, is nevertheless rejected by official conspiracy theorists. On the grounds that it presumes impossibly high logistical hurdles for the perpetrators, the official conspiracy theorists argue that a plan of such magnitude would have been impossible to carry out. How was security breached? How were necessary cables and other equipment moved into the buildings unseen, and how did a demolition team gain access to structural members? To investigators and degreed professionals who have studied the evidence, these questions are elementary. What follows is a simple, yet compelling, visual and scientific narrative, which explains how the controlled destruction of World Trade Center Towers 1,2, and 7 was accomplished.

Daily Paul - How it Was Done: 9/11 and the Science of Building Demolition

As public awareness grows about the truth about 9/11, it serves to point out that many features of the towers' destruction fit perfectly with standard patterns of demolition. Evidence which at first seems puzzling is in fact consistent with known demolition techniques.

WTC 7 differed from Towers One and Two in that WTC7 was a traditional "bottom-up" implosion. The Twin Towers, on the other hand, exhibited the more unfamiliar pattern of a "banana peel" demolition, which starts at the middle or the top of a building and progresses downward. The below demolition in China shows the pattern of streamers of arcing debris that we see coming from the Twin Towers, as the cutting of supports begins high above ground level and works its way down.


Except the "demolition" in the towers occurs where the airliner impacts were.

Where there was massive destruction by impact and resultant fires.

Banana peel demolitions are used for taller, narrower buildings, where there is danger of the building tipping over should the bottom be cut and the rest of the sequence not execute perfectly.

But first, just how does a demolition work? Students of the truth about 9/11 will not be surprised to learn that it essentially is the art and science of causing to happen what cannot happen without careful planning and engineering: all key structural supports in a building must be cut at essentially the same time, so that all pieces are falling at free-fall acceleration through thin air. In the below images we see the principle support columns in the "core," an extensively cross-braced steel assembly which served as the backbone of the towers, and held 70% of the weight.

Underlined is an inaccuracy. Not ALL structural supports need to fail for a COLLAPSE. The author clearly does not understand the concept of Progressive Collapse.


And "t free-fall acceleration through thin air" is TRUTHER nonsense.....

One standard technique is the use of "cutter' and "kicker" charges, in which the first set of charges, the cutters, cut the steel beam supports at precisely timed intervals, and the kicker charge "kicks" the cut piece outward. In all the film evidence of the Towers' destruction, straight, cleanly cut pieces of steel beam can be seen spinning outward from the Towers at explosive speeds, across an area at least three times as long as the Towers are wide.

Except NO EVIDENCE of any of these "cutter' and "kicker" charges" exists. Not on shred.

And, amazingly the "straight, cleanly cut pieces of steel beam" CLAIMED appear to be the exact length of the component parts assembled at construction. In other words if a building is made of 18' sections on would expect 18' sections in a collapse, CD or NON-CD.

Using this technique, the pattern of debris one would expect to see lying on the ground after the destruction would be cleanly-cut, straight steel pieces, rather than twisted, heat deformed pretzels of steel as implied by the official "steel got soft and buckled" story. Exactly as predicted, an aerial photo of the debris field shows a thick carpet of arrow-straight, cleanly-cut lengths of steel beam, flung hither and yon.

Ignorance, part II..... And the "twisted, heat deformed pretzels of steel" are but a fraction of the towers... CLUE: The fires raged across relatively few floors of the massive structure.... Why would the vast majority of the steel pieces be "twisted, heat deformed pretzels of steel".

FRAUD enough? No?

In its famous attack on skeptics of the official 9/11 story, Popular Mechanics held that the melting agent thermite had never been used in a demolition before. Ironically it had, on the Chicago Sky Ride in 1935. It was reported in Popular Mechanics.

Thermite works by melting through steel like a hot knife through butter, illustrated in the video below.

Wait... Wasn't it " the use of "cutter' and "kicker" charges that did this?

Thermite is now "cutter' and "kicker" charges?

Thermite is an EXOTHERMIC REACTION... It DOES NOT EXPLODE.

FRAUD ENOUGH YET, BOB?

The rest is a mish mash of accusations lacking facts, lies, innuendo, etc.

It is an OP-ED PIECE Bob.

A badly written OP-ED piece.

A FRAUD, Bob.

 

[Bob0627]

A piece of debris IS NOT the building.

I never said it was.

Debris can be expected to fall at free fall acceleration.

Agreed, assuming there's nothing to slow it down.

What would cause the DEBRIS to fall faster than Free Fall?

An additional force besides gravity.

I am curious how your mind works

No you're not. You're interested in doing what you can to support every aspect of the official conspiracy theory and to denigrate/ridicule anyone who disagrees. That's more than obvious.

Did the EVIL POWERS THAT BE strap rockets to the DEBRIS?

Why would the EVIL POWERS THAT BE do that?

Silly irrelevant juvenile nonsense (see above).

 

[mike2810]

The THEORY has already been posted: How It Was Done: 9/11 and the Science of Building Demolition



Speculatory, you're inviting theory (read the article).



This is whole cloth nonsense. Been there, done that but since you missed it. The fire induced natural collapse theory of the 3 towers is incompatible with the laws of physics. Therefore, only 2 possibilities remain, CD or miracle/magic. Assuming no miracle/magic, only CD is left. No one needs to provide details of how it was done when it's the only possible alternative left. Again, that's like saying a dead body is found with bullet hole in its head. Just because no one knows the details how it was done and who did it does not mean the murder did not happen. At the same time, one can rule out a natural death (although a forensic autopsy is still required) with 99% certainty (the 1% being reserve in case the guy actually died from a natural cause before he was shot in the head).

in all you post, if you believe one explanation is wrong , does not make the other correct.

We will disagree on the rejection of the fire induced collapse.

So your support is linking to a "CT" site. Got it.

 

[Bob0627]

But first, just how does a demolition work? Students of the truth about 9/11 will not be surprised to learn that it essentially is the art and science of causing to happen what cannot happen without careful planning and engineering: all key structural supports in a building must be cut at essentially the same time, so that all pieces are falling at free-fall acceleration through thin air. In the below images we see the principle support columns in the "core," an extensively cross-braced steel assembly which served as the backbone of the towers, and held 70% of the weight.

Underlined is an inaccuracy. Not ALL structural supports need to fail for a COLLAPSE. The author clearly does not understand the concept of Progressive Collapse.

No it's you who didn't understand what he wrote. He wasn't talking about a progressive collapse, he was talking about a FREE FALL collapse.

The rest is a mish mash of accusations lacking facts, lies, innuendo, etc.

You mean like your above distorted claim?

It is an OP-ED PIECE Bob.

A badly written OP-ED piece.

A FRAUD, Bob.

So skip it. Are you trying to convince me or yourself?

 

[Fledermaus]

I never said it was.

I haven't seen every CD and checked out if anything fell faster than free fall but there is video evidence that this happened with the twin towers

Agreed, assuming there's nothing to slow it down.

And....

An additional force besides gravity.

WHAT ADDITIONAL FORCE?



No you're not. You're interested in doing what you can to support every aspect of the official conspiracy theory and to denigrate/ridicule anyone who disagrees. That's more than obvious.

TRANSLATION: Anyone that disagree with the UNSUPPORTED ALLEGATIONS and ILLOGICAL CLAIMS is in full support of "the official conspiracy theory".

Silly irrelevant juvenile nonsense (see above).

YOU claimed "An additional force besides gravity" was needed....

WHAT WAS IT?