"Freefall"

[Kent1]

I think they're extrapolating from there, figuring what the time would be, based on the accelaration of the top. Supposedly Steve Jones did this with his class and they came up with 6.6 seconds. To me, the big question is why they start the clock when they do, ignoring the fall of the east mechanical penthouse, which is a structure that covers an area the size of four apartment buildings on my block.

I've debated a few "scholars" on this. Few of them had read the WTC7 NIST report nor did they understand at all how or why the penthouse fell. They had no idea that it was caused by an internal collapse from the bottom that progressed upward. They seemed to think it was a separate small implosion that had no effect on the overall internal building structure.
Legge certainly made this mistake, so did Kuttler.

 

[tsig]

Cuddels, they topple buildings. Experts like Brent Blanchard and also Jowenko can tell you that, I will not post movies from it because you can find it if you want.

Huntsman, I rechecked and another expert Loizeaux, he says in fact:
The explosives are used as the catalyst and gravity is the engine.

Once it goes it goes, the tremendous amount of kinetic energy will break extremely strong structures. I was more referring to the initial moment, potential energy doesn't break the complete structure, it is the kinetic energy/momentum etc. Strictly speaking I was wrong that I said that the potential energy is only used to get the building down because once it is transformed to kinetic energy that is also used to break some other stuff.
And energy is energy isn't it. Let me correct that.

And in fact Greening already shows that once you only need a fraction of the kinetic energy (ok you are right: comes from the potential energy) to break the structure. The collapse time in the TT case differs only a little bit.

Let me end this posting by noting that for wtc7 both a controlled demolition and a structural failure are consistent with the laws of physics.
However if you know how difficult the technique is (there are only about 20 CD companies) to end with a pile of rubble then I'm more thinking about the first one.

I copy paste something from howstuffworks:

Blasters might also overestimate the amount of explosive power needed to break up the structure, and so produce a more powerful blast than is necessary. If they underestimate what explosive power is needed, or some of the explosives fail to ignite, the structure may not be completely demolished. In this case, the demolition crew brings in excavators and wrecking balls to finish the job. All of these mishaps are extremely rare in the demolition industry. Safety is a blaster's number-one concern, and, for the most part, they can predict very well what will happen in an implosion.

Planes hit the towers, 1/3 of the support beams were destroyed by the impact.
The load from gravity had to go to the remaining columns. Now the beams, already loaded beyond their design were heated and the heat reduced their ability to take the stress, when the force exceeded the design limit of one of the beams the others had to take the load since they were already at their limit the result was what you see.

 

[tsig]

So all those buildings that have been demolished over the years by collapsing them vertically so they don't damage anything nearby are in fact hoaxes on the part of the conspirators to make us believe that the twin towers could collapse the same way? Or are you just talking out of the wrong hole?

Planes hit the towers, 1/3 of the support beams were destroyed by the impact.
The load from gravity had to go to the remaining columns. Now the beams, already loaded beyond their design were heated and the heat reduced their ability to take the stress, when the force exceeded the design limit of one of the beams the others had to take the load since they were already at their limit the result was what you see.

 

[tsig]

Cuddels, they topple buildings. Experts like Brent Blanchard and also Jowenko can tell you that, I will not post movies from it because you can find it if you want.

Huntsman, I rechecked and another expert Loizeaux, he says in fact:
The explosives are used as the catalyst and gravity is the engine.

Once it goes it goes, the tremendous amount of kinetic energy will break extremely strong structures. I was more referring to the initial moment, potential energy doesn't break the complete structure, it is the kinetic energy/momentum etc. Strictly speaking I was wrong that I said that the potential energy is only used to get the building down because once it is transformed to kinetic energy that is also used to break some other stuff.
And energy is energy isn't it. Let me correct that.

And in fact Greening already shows that once you only need a fraction of the kinetic energy (ok you are right: comes from the potential energy) to break the structure. The collapse time in the TT case differs only a little bit.

Let me end this posting by noting that for wtc7 both a controlled demolition and a structural failure are consistent with the laws of physics.
However if you know how difficult the technique is (there are only about 20 CD companies) to end with a pile of rubble then I'm more thinking about the first one.

I copy paste something from howstuffworks:

Blasters might also overestimate the amount of explosive power needed to break up the structure, and so produce a more powerful blast than is necessary. If they underestimate what explosive power is needed, or some of the explosives fail to ignite, the structure may not be completely demolished. In this case, the demolition crew brings in excavators and wrecking balls to finish the job. All of these mishaps are extremely rare in the demolition industry. Safety is a blaster's number-one concern, and, for the most part, they can predict very well what will happen in an implosion.

Planes hit the towers, 1/3 of the support beams were destroyed by the impact.
The load from gravity had to go to the remaining columns. Now the beams, already loaded beyond their design were heated and the heat reduced their ability to take the stress, when the force exceeded the design limit of one of the beams the others had to take the load since they were already at their limit the result was what you see.

 

[tsig]

Really that simple

The free-fallers always seem to make the mistake of figuring if gravitational potential energy is used to accelerate something (conversion to kinetic energy), then there is no energy left for destroying it. It seems to me that, at least in the case of WTC7, they're overlooking the fact that all that kinetic energy, when it hits the ground, is spent breaking things up. So you can have both near free-fall speeds and energy to destroy the materials, just at different times.

Einsteen, since theinetic energy of the falling mass came to an end when it hit the ground, that energy gets used to destroy stuff. It's that simple in the case of WTC7.

Gravity provides all the energy needed.