Free-fall speed proves progressive collapse.

[leftysergeant]

In case some of you have grown so tired of responding to Marokaan's posts that you over-looked my response to his demands for an explanation for the brief free-fall acceleration of the collapse of WTC7, I shall re-post here an insight that I had while respoding to him.

Controlled demolition requires that the various parts of a building be set into motion in such a way that one part will draw another along, in a predictable manner to its destruction. This must be done in such a way that the rate of acceleration for each section remains constant in order to avoid the risk of something's binding up and arresting the process. The collapse of WTC7 did not occur at a constant rate of acceleration. It is not even possible to determine the rate at which most of it fell apart, the action occurring, as it did, inside the building. Seismic evidence, as I see it, suggests that the process occurred over a period of some forty seconds. The first visible sign of collapse was the sinking of the penthouse into the interior of the building. This did not occur smoothly, if I am seeing it correctly in the video record.

Several seconds ellapsed between the time that the penthouse disappeared and the time that the shell of the building started to move.

In a normal demolition, the collapse of central structural elements would immediately start to pull on the outside of the structure to bring it inward. while explosive kicker charges knock the bottoms of supporting columns and walls in an appropriate direction to start the frame downward at free-fall acceleration.

What we see in WTC7 is a slow start to downward motion, followed by a spurt of acceleration, followed by a slowing of acceleration.

What seems obvious to me is that all of the internal supports were gone before the shell began to move. The shell could not support itself. Nothing stabilized the sides. It is to be expected that they might fold inward or outward to the point that the lower structure offered no support to the upper. Thus, the upper part would just drop until it met resistance again. It is called "buckling." It is not a mysterious occurrance, nor is the arresting of that free-fall acceleration once a stronger upper section met the pile of debris forming below it.

Chandler may think he has proven CD, but it is obvious to anyone who thinks it through that he has done just the oposite and proven progressive collapse.

 

[ergo]

Numerous errors in your analysis here. You haven't thought this through, lefty.

 

[leftysergeant]

Numerous errors in your analysis here. You haven't thought this through, lefty.

Back at you. Why does free-fall occur in the middle of collapse? Totally counter-intuitive, dude.

 

[The Platypus]

Numerous errors in your analysis here. You haven't thought this through, lefty.

So why didn't you point out these numerous errors and explain them? Haven't you thought it through?

 

[leftysergeant]

So why didn't you point out these numerous errors and explain them? Haven't you thought it through?

Obviously not. The theory of CD depends on "sudden onset of collapse." Sudden acceleration in the middle of collapse, which is somewhat arrested long before collapse is completed, blows a big hole in that arguement.

 

[Zowert]

Numerous errors in your analysis here. You haven't thought this through, lefty.

Explain?

 

[dafydd]

Explain?

Give him a chance to Google some crackpot websites. He'll be back.

 

[newton3376]

Give him a chance to Google some crackpot websites. He'll be back.

I often wonder how much longer this forum will be active before the majority of posters simply move on and stop bothering with insane truther theories....it seems to work for the majority of the rest of the world....

 

[BStrong]

Numerous errors in your analysis here. You haven't thought this through, lefty.

Proof?

I believe the good sergeant explained it quite well.

 

[jaydeehess]

So why didn't you point out these numerous errors and explain them? Haven't you thought it through?

That's what I was wondering.

Especially since these errors are so obvious that ergo saw them and managed to reply within 6 minutes of lefty posting.

 

[jaydeehess]

I often wonder how much longer this forum will be active before the majority of posters simply move on and stop bothering with insane truther theories....it seems to work for the majority of the rest of the world....

Like Apollo Hoax and JFK, two other 'conspiracies' that are no longer promoted and therefore not replied to by debunkers.

 

[Oz1976]

Ergo won't point out the errors because he has no clue what he's talking about. He lacks even a rudimentary understanding of physics and engineering and can only parrot what he's told. Seeing as there are no prefabricated responses to what Lefty has put forward, I don't expect to see Ergo listing anything anytime soon.

 

[jaydeehess]

Numerous errors in your analysis here. You haven't thought this through, lefty.

Fire caused the girder to come off its column seat resulting in the collapse of the floor onto the next floor down. Since this girder was the only lateral brace for the column at that location and since the column itself was also heated the column buckled drawing down the floors above and beginning a vertical progression of floor collapses. This continued to the roof top and the Penthouse machinery then fell unrestricted aboput 40 storeys collapsing lower floors(along with the mass of debris that preceeded it) onto the east core failing that part of the core. this began a horizontal failure of the core area resulting in the loss of load bearing structures for that end of the floors to the south and north of the core. The loss of core columns began the vertical failure of the central floors all the way to the roof. The south perimeter was already badly damaged and began to fail first moving south. the north side was constructed over the existing Con-ed building and the loss of the southern most columns under the cantilever trusses caused the tilting of those trusses to the south, pushing the columns at the north end toward the north at about the 8th floor level while the upper structure is falling to the south. The north side also begins moving downward exaggerating the tilt of the columns below the 8th floor. The columns being buckled at the 8th floor are no longer supplying any significant load bearing capacity and the south side has already buckled. The already moving upper portion now falls with essentially no support opposing it.


Better ergo?
If not why not?

 

[sheeplesnshills]

Numerous errors in your analysis here. You haven't thought this through, lefty.

Perhaps there are but I note you are unable to tell us what any of them are.......so this is just a handwave.

 

[sheeplesnshills]

I often wonder how much longer this forum will be active before the majority of posters simply move on and stop bothering with insane truther theories....it seems to work for the majority of the rest of the world....

The rest of the world don't ignore twoofers, they don't even know they exist. I only stumbled into them from a link on a delphi forum where Balsamo was touting CITs excrement.
The puzzle of how they had distorted/ignored witnesses got me hooked on debunking. But for that I wouldn't have known they were anything more than the religious nuts that rant at people in the street.

 

[ozeco41]

I often wonder how much longer this forum will be active before the majority of posters simply move on and stop bothering with insane truther theories....it seems to work for the majority of the rest of the world....

This (sub) forum has a legitimate purpose or two and could continue for some time. However it should be on a reduced scale - if it doesn't scale down waste of bandwidth activities I can see the powers that be forcing closure.

The two legitimate purposes are:
1) Stop 9/11 rubbish from cluttering other parts of JREF. The original objective for having the 9/11 sub-forum. That should be a diminishing concern - see my later comments.
2) Provide a venue for genuine discussion of 9/11 related matters. Also a diminishing source.

As I see it the main problems currently affecting the forum are trolling and troll feeding. IMO these practices could hasten the downfall of a forced closure if they are not addressed.

The bulk of current postings are the result of "bi-directional trolling". Most of those posting who we refer to as "truthers" are not likely to be truthers at all. They are trolls first and foremost. Apply a simple test or two:

• Is this person attempting to progress positive discussion about some aspect of 9/11 events? Yes response means could be truther. No response means this is trolling.
• Is it obvious that this person is merely trolling? Yes response means "troll".
• Is {name your own troll} trying to seriously discuss a 9/11 issue OR putting forward a legitimate claim for discussion?
• Add your own tests here........

But note I said "bi-directional trolling". Members are responding to posts which are merely designed to elicit responses. What value is that?

The truism is "stop feeding the trolls and they will die away." The corollary is "If you keep feeding them they will keep coming for more."

I don't think we can achieve it BUT what is to stop the growth of this trivial activity?

 

[000063]

Ergo won't point out the errors because he has no clue what he's talking about. He lacks even a rudimentary understanding of physics and engineering and can only parrot what he's told. Seeing as there are no prefabricated responses to what Lefty has put forward, I don't expect to see Ergo listing anything anytime soon.

Technically, 'you're wrong but I'm not going to prove it' is about as automatic as truthers usually get.

 

[newton3376]

The rest of the world don't ignore twoofers, they don't even know they exist. I only stumbled into them from a link on a delphi forum where Balsamo was touting CITs excrement.
The puzzle of how they had distorted/ignored witnesses got me hooked on debunking. But for that I wouldn't have known they were anything more than the religious nuts that rant at people in the street.

I ended up here via Mark Roberts site myself....I knew they existed from other internet discussions.....only met a few in real life though.

 

[newton3376]

This (sub) forum has a legitimate purpose or two and could continue for some time. However it should be on a reduced scale - if it doesn't scale down waste of bandwidth activities I can see the powers that be forcing closure.

The two legitimate purposes are:
1) Stop 9/11 rubbish from cluttering other parts of JREF. The original objective for having the 9/11 sub-forum. That should be a diminishing concern - see my later comments.
2) Provide a venue for genuine discussion of 9/11 related matters. Also a diminishing source.

As I see it the main problems currently affecting the forum are trolling and troll feeding. IMO these practices could hasten the downfall of a forced closure if they are not addressed.

The bulk of current postings are the result of "bi-directional trolling". Most of those posting who we refer to as "truthers" are not likely to be truthers at all. They are trolls first and foremost. Apply a simple test or two:

• Is this person attempting to progress positive discussion about some aspect of 9/11 events? Yes response means could be truther. No response means this is trolling.
• Is it obvious that this person is merely trolling? Yes response means "troll".
• Is {name your own troll} trying to seriously discuss a 9/11 issue OR putting forward a legitimate claim for discussion?
• Add your own tests here........

But note I said "bi-directional trolling". Members are responding to posts which are merely designed to elicit responses. What value is that?

The truism is "stop feeding the trolls and they will die away." The corollary is "If you keep feeding them they will keep coming for more."

I don't think we can achieve it BUT what is to stop the growth of this trivial activity?

I will likely stop posting here in the near future....I only really post when I am not "busy" with stuff in real life.

I am currently in a situation that affords me time to do things like post on JREF.....but that will change in the near future....I'm usually too busy to post much.

That's why my posting usually occurs in "spurts".

Nevertheless....this forum is a good source for research into pretty much every 9/11 truther claim.

This forum, Roberts page, and 9/11 myths pretty much have the majority of stuff covered. Combine those three sources with the various reports and journal articles and you can answer (in some depth) every single truther talking point.

As a resource this forum is very valuable.

 

[Marokkaan]

In case some of you have grown so tired of responding to Marokaan's posts that you over-looked my response to his demands for an explanation for the brief free-fall acceleration of the collapse of WTC7, I shall re-post here an insight that I had while respoding to him.

The arrogance and the ignorance....

Controlled demolition requires that the various parts of a building be set into motion in such a way that one part will draw another along, in a predictable manner to its destruction. This must be done in such a way that the rate of acceleration for each section remains constant in order to avoid the risk of something's binding up and arresting the process. The collapse of WTC7 did not occur at a constant rate of acceleration. It is not even possible to determine the rate at which most of it fell apart, the action occurring, as it did, inside the building. Seismic evidence, as I see it, suggests that the process occurred over a period of some forty seconds. The first visible sign of collapse was the sinking of the penthouse into the interior of the building. This did not occur smoothly, if I am seeing it correctly in the video record.

Too many errors in one piece of text, i just take one of the errors,

Your seismic evidence...., tell me more about it. Do you know rousseau?

http://911blogger.com/news/2010-06-08/seismic-signals-reveal-explosives-were-used-wtc-911-0

Several seconds ellapsed between the time that the penthouse disappeared and the time that the shell of the building started to move.

Mechanical engineer Tony Szamboti agrees with this analysis, and adds:

"The WTC 7 East penthouse had columns on its perimeter and none in its interior. On three sides these columns mounted near the edge of the roof of WTC 7. It is unlikely that a collapse of any core columns of the main building could have pulled them completely down without the roof beams breaking completely loose from the exterior columns and moving down completely also."

In other words, had the initial collapse of the penthouse been caused by a collapse of the core of the main building, then the rest of the roof would have collapsed at the same time as the penthouse. Because it didn't, this is strong evidence that the collapse of the penthouse and the collapse of the main building were wholly separate events. "

http://911blogger.com/node/17563

In a normal demolition, the collapse of central structural elements would immediately start to pull on the outside of the structure to bring it inward. while explosive kicker charges knock the bottoms of supporting columns and walls in an appropriate direction to start the frame downward at free-fall acceleration

What we see in WTC7 is a slow start to downward motion, followed by a spurt of acceleration, followed by a slowing of acceleration.

What seems obvious to me is that all of the internal supports were gone before the shell began to move. The shell could not support itself. Nothing stabilized the sides. It is to be expected that they might fold inward or outward to the point that the lower structure offered no support to the upper. Thus, the upper part would just drop until it met resistance again. It is called "buckling." It is not a mysterious occurrance, nor is the arresting of that free-fall acceleration once a stronger upper section met the pile of debris forming below it.

Chandler may think he has proven CD, but it is obvious to anyone who thinks it through that he has done just the oposite and proven progressive collapse.

Its impossible with freefall.Why you dont understand it?

You are just are speculating, without knowing that you contradict the laws of newton.


David chandler:

“Free fall can only be achieved if there is zero resistance to the motion.”57 In other words, the upper portion of Building 7 could have come down in free fall only if something had suddenly removed all the steel and concrete in the lower part of the building, which would have otherwise provided resistance (to make a considerable understatement). If everything had not been removed and the upper floors had come down in free fall anyway, even if for only a fraction of a second, this would have been a miracle – meaning a violation of physical principles. Explaining one of the physical principles involved, Chandler said:

“Anything at an elevated height has gravitational potential energy. If it falls, and none of the energy is used for other things along the way, all of that energy is converted into kinetic energy – the energy of motion, and we call it ‘free fall.’ If any of the energy is used for other purposes, there will be less kinetic energy, so the fall will be slower. In the case of a falling building, the only way it can go into free fall is if an external force removes the supporting structure. None of the gravitational potential energy of the building is available for this purpose, or it would slow the fall of the building.”

http://darkpolitics.wordpress.com/2...-consistent-with-basic-principles-of-physics/