What brought down WTC7

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: Number1

The buildings did withstand the planes impacts and only collapsed after the fires weakened the steel. What's your point?

I was asking a question in that post as you can see? I couldn't get to the numbers that are referenced there and assumed I had used an incorrect formula. Someone pointed out that this guy did something incorrect.
I was using a simple F=MA to try to see, if I could, what the structure was designed to do. They'd have assumed all the criteria of a 707 hitting and the fuel and all that. So IF the building was designed to take a hit of a 707 and IF a 767 was not all that much more 'forceful' did they not design it to meet that criteria etc...

I've put that aside cuz I'm trying to figure out WTC7 but it is easier to use the Towers to do what I'm doing.
What I'm on to atm is trying to determine the total potential energy of the tower as it stands there in the sky... (the gravity energy) then try and see if the energy expended to do stuff like pulverize cement and shoot bits of stuff 600 feet like the framing and stuff would leave enough energy to finish the job... Simple stuff like that. But, in my opinion, that ought to be the first step! IS there enough energy to do it all... Not sure how many KWH the building had nor the amount expended but I'll get there.


It is easy to say X,Y,Z happened and that's that... I think I'd rather trust AND verify. I'm simply drinking coffee atm so it is not a waste of my time and I'm rather intrigued by it all.

 

[kylebisme]

Originally posted by: Number1

Originally posted by: kylebisme

Originally posted by: alchemize
Here's the math, that Pulsar already linked to in the PFI section:

http://www.debunking911.com/freefall.htm

That argument is based in an absurdly false dichotomy; suggesting that the towers had to be brought down by either the force of gravity or that of explosives, as if the use of explosives would suspend the effects of gravity.

How do you reach this conclusion from the article?

It requires comprehending the article. If you can reiterate the argument it presents in your own words to demonstrate that you do comprehend the article, I will be happy to elaborate on the fallacy it's based in.

 

[Number1]

Originally posted by: kylebisme

Originally posted by: Number1

Originally posted by: kylebisme

Originally posted by: alchemize
Here's the math, that Pulsar already linked to in the PFI section:

http://www.debunking911.com/freefall.htm

That argument is based in an absurdly false dichotomy; suggesting that the towers had to be brought down by either the force of gravity or that of explosives, as if the use of explosives would suspend the effects of gravity.

How do you reach this conclusion from the article?

It requires comprehending the article. If you can reiterate the argument it presents in your own words to demonstrate that you do comprehend the article, I will be happy to elaborate on the fallacy it based in.

It's just a bunch of calculation demonstrating how the building did no fall at or close to free fall speed.
They also calculated that the energy released by the collapse of the building is equivalent to approximately 272 tons of TNT.

There is no mention of using explosives to bring down the building.

You don't understand the article yourself bozo.

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: Number1

Originally posted by: kylebisme
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dyslexia

:disgust:

Look, stop using your dyslexia as a crutch and switch to a browser with a built in spell checker like firefox. The spelling mistakes get underlined in red automatically.

Simple yet effective.

It's just too bad there are no programs out there that could help you differentiate reality from made up stuff.

I think there are actually. For instance that energy thing. IF you only have X gravity energy (something we can all calculate if we get the real numbers related to the building) and subtract what estimates we can make for the visuals and other data related we can see if it did or didn't. If it did then we have to assume the 'official' version is correct unless some other factor plays in... IF it don't then what enabled it?... To me that is fundamental and simple.

EDIT: I should add that I don't care what either side said cuz they may have a bias. I'm Inspector ClueSo.... and my dog does bite.

The amount of Heat Energy to pulverize the concrete and 'atomize' it as we saw in the videos is massive. I'm awaiting monday when I can talk to the Company's Senior Engineer (where I function - if that is a proper term) to get the unbiased formula to use. Gravity energy becomes heat energy to squish concrete... etc., etc.

 

[First]

Originally posted by: First
I'll say it yet again since it's not sinking in; the burden of proof is on kylebisme's shoulders to provide the math or continue to be laughed at.

Bump, in case the wimp still thinks people have forgotten.

 

[Venix]

Originally posted by: event8horizon
it looks as though the concrete had not hardened with the skyline plaza collapse. i dont think that would be a good example for wtc 1,2, or 7 since the concrete was hard.
Cause

"Fairfax County hired Professor Ingvar Schoushoe of the University of Illinois, a concrete specialist, to investigate the cause of the collapse. He determined that the collapse occurred because of the premature removal of shoring from beneath newly poured floors.[10][11]

George Taylor, a workman for Northwest Sheet Metal, Inc., claimed that workmen were pulling concrete supports "out too damn fast. They're trying to hustle the job too damn fast."[2]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S...s_collapse#cite_note-9

so the link you posted only gave 2 examples of progressive collapses. the ronan point, which was interesting, and the murrah federal building. if anyone remembers, the murrah building got blasted by a big ass bomb!!

regarding bjorkman, looks like a good smear campaign.

lets focus on wtc 7. i think thats what the op was asking about. have you read the fema bpat report app c yet?

I don't give a shit about the WTC. This is about Björkman's ridiculous "axiom" denying the very existence of progressive collapse, which is quite obviously complete bullshit. The French even use progressive collapse as a method of controlled demolition, removing the supports of a single floor and allowing gravity to destroy the building.

And since when has quoting someone's positions and providing links as evidence been a "smear campaign?" Björkman should stop saying stupid shit if he doesn't want his idiotic statements to follow him around.

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: First

Originally posted by: First
I'll say it yet again since it's not sinking in; the burden of proof is on kylebisme's shoulders to provide the math or continue to be laughed at.

Bump, in case the wimp still thinks people have forgotten.

Let me ask you a question, First.

IF the 'official' version of a particular aspect is produced and documented and along comes someone else with a different conclusion also documented what other Math is needed by Kyle? It is right there, it seems to me. However, having said that, I support independent analysis to find the truth. IOW, providing the data that supports one's argument if it is different to either of the above providers. Or the same as the case may be. IF the above provider does not provide documentation then it is not anything but words incapable of being examined by either peers or us - assuming 'us' can cross examine the logic and the math.

 

[Brainonska511]

Your poll sucks. So does your "logic."

 

[Venix]

Originally posted by: First

Originally posted by: First
I'll say it yet again since it's not sinking in; the burden of proof is on kylebisme's shoulders to provide the math or continue to be laughed at.

Bump, in case the wimp still thinks people have forgotten.

After the beatdown he received in this thread, it's no wonder that he's loath to discuss actual physics and math. LOL, he doesn't even know what an integral is.

 

[Cogman]

Originally posted by: event8horizon
regarding bjorkman, looks like a good smear campaign.

Smear campaign? The guy is insane.

Is it any wonder that we would call his credibility into question we he says stuff like "If you drop a 60 million pound block of ice on a building, the building won't be crushed"

And

"If you jump on a scale, it will constantly report the same weight"

or

"Mass and weight are the same thing"

I'm sorry, but I'm not taking physics lessons from a guy that doesn't understand the difference between weight and mass.

 

[First]

Originally posted by: LunarRay

Originally posted by: First

Originally posted by: First
I'll say it yet again since it's not sinking in; the burden of proof is on kylebisme's shoulders to provide the math or continue to be laughed at.

Bump, in case the wimp still thinks people have forgotten.

Let me ask you a question, First.

IF the 'official' version of a particular aspect is produced and documented and along comes someone else with a different conclusion also documented what other Math is needed by Kyle? It is right there, it seems to me. However, having said that, I support independent analysis to find the truth. IOW, providing the data that supports one's argument if it is different to either of the above providers. Or the same as the case may be. IF the above provider does not provide documentation then it is not anything but words incapable of being examined by either peers or us - assuming 'us' can cross examine the logic and the math.

I was merely responding to his totally unsupported, unsourced position that the physics behind NIST's explanation of WTC7's collapse are false or inaccurate or whatever other term kyle failed to spell correctly. He has yet to provide the data or mathematics, as was predictable from the beginning. A common thread among truthers is that they can never, ever come up with solid, verifiable evidence and that includes mathematical precision.

 

[Cogman]

Originally posted by: Venix

Originally posted by: First

Originally posted by: First
I'll say it yet again since it's not sinking in; the burden of proof is on kylebisme's shoulders to provide the math or continue to be laughed at.

Bump, in case the wimp still thinks people have forgotten.

After the beatdown he received in this thread, it's no wonder that he's loath to discuss actual physics and math. LOL, he doesn't even know what an integral is.

Bwhahaha! No wonder I couldn't find his math, he posted it on another forum. Then when they told him he was an idiot, he came here, but instead, didn't post any math as he knew he would look like an idiot.

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: Venix


I don't give a shit about the WTC. This is about Björkman's ridiculous "axiom" denying the very existence of progressive collapse, which is quite obviously complete bullshit. The French even use progressive collapse as a method of controlled demolition, removing the supports of a single floor and allowing gravity to destroy the building.

And since when has quoting someone's positions and providing links as evidence been a "smear campaign?" Björkman should stop saying stupid shit if he doesn't want his idiotic statements to follow him around.

I have seen single floor demo attempts where the demo team 'blew' one floor and expected the building to fall (in its footprint, I assume) but it didn't.. the top bit simply met the bottom bit and stopped. I've most often seen multi floor demo to produce pancake events - charges on each or almost every floor. WTC Towers were not multi floor events in the sense that I mean. Anything below the plane floor visits would be.

 

[event8horizon]

Originally posted by: Venix

Originally posted by: event8horizon
it looks as though the concrete had not hardened with the skyline plaza collapse. i dont think that would be a good example for wtc 1,2, or 7 since the concrete was hard.
Cause

"Fairfax County hired Professor Ingvar Schoushoe of the University of Illinois, a concrete specialist, to investigate the cause of the collapse. He determined that the collapse occurred because of the premature removal of shoring from beneath newly poured floors.[10][11]

George Taylor, a workman for Northwest Sheet Metal, Inc., claimed that workmen were pulling concrete supports "out too damn fast. They're trying to hustle the job too damn fast."[2]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S...s_collapse#cite_note-9

so the link you posted only gave 2 examples of progressive collapses. the ronan point, which was interesting, and the murrah federal building. if anyone remembers, the murrah building got blasted by a big ass bomb!!

regarding bjorkman, looks like a good smear campaign.

lets focus on wtc 7. i think thats what the op was asking about. have you read the fema bpat report app c yet?

I don't give a shit about the WTC. This is about Björkman's ridiculous "axiom" denying the very existence of progressive collapse, which is quite obviously complete bullshit. The French even use progressive collapse as a method of controlled demolition, removing the supports of a single floor and allowing gravity to destroy the building.

And since when has quoting someone's positions and providing links as evidence been a "smear campaign?" Björkman should stop saying stupid shit if he doesn't want his idiotic statements to follow him around.

i watched the vids, i do like how controlled demos produced progressive collapses. but read it again:

Björkman's axiom regarding any structure says:

"A smaller part of an isotropic or composite 3-D structure, when dropped on and impacting a greater part of same structure by gravity, cannot one-way crush down the greater part of the structure."

now watch your movie again and see how they did it. they start in the middle. that does not represent how the wtc 1 and 2 fell and it doesnt apply to the axiom. bjorkman is debunking bazant with the one way crush down theory.

so tell me what ya know about the fema bpat report appendix c.

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: First

Originally posted by: LunarRay

Originally posted by: First

Originally posted by: First
I'll say it yet again since it's not sinking in; the burden of proof is on kylebisme's shoulders to provide the math or continue to be laughed at.

Bump, in case the wimp still thinks people have forgotten.

Let me ask you a question, First.

IF the 'official' version of a particular aspect is produced and documented and along comes someone else with a different conclusion also documented what other Math is needed by Kyle? It is right there, it seems to me. However, having said that, I support independent analysis to find the truth. IOW, providing the data that supports one's argument if it is different to either of the above providers. Or the same as the case may be. IF the above provider does not provide documentation then it is not anything but words incapable of being examined by either peers or us - assuming 'us' can cross examine the logic and the math.

I was merely responding to his totally unsupported, unsourced position that the physics behind NIST's explanation of WTC7's collapse are false or inaccurate or whatever other term kyle failed to spell correctly. He has yet to provide the data or mathematics, as was predictable from the beginning. A common thread among truthers is that they can never, ever come up with solid, verifiable evidence and that includes mathematical precision.

I'd not support a claim that NIST is wrong unless I could display it. Likewise I'd not pay attention to anyone else who'd say ''they got it wrong cuz you can see it - or similar"... I totally agree! BUT, IF someone else said it and DID provide the data then there that is... That would stand or fall on its own science. To refute it ought to be the same standard as in trying to refute NIST.
The notion that NIST didn't include this or that is another matter. That kind of action by NIST weakens their version IF someone can display why it must be included and accompanying that claim ought to be all the science and math etc.. or it is simply words without substance... In Law there is a term "Vague and Argumentative".. I love that. A '1' is a '1' and four '1's' is a '4' plain and simple... it is not vague nor can you argue with it...

The 'look there', 'look at the video, it is obvious' is NOT proof that what we see is what we see... heheheheheheheh We interpret what we see but must prove with science that what we see is caused by what we think caused it... We can't repeat the tower events so we need to produce math/science that supports the hypothesis and if it don't then we drop it...

I'm working on a hypothesis now... I'm not a scientist or a CT or any of that... I'm interested in the challenge afforded by the events... this is fun for me. I can't help that the Terrorist tragedy is the cause of the event that I find interesting.
One thing for sure, though.... some folks are in Egypt at the moment! They are in upper or lower Egypt.. wading somewhere in de-nile. Denial of the Official Version or the Alternate version(s) and doing so without a basis other than their own bias.

 

[event8horizon]

watch nist admit freefall!

part 1 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V0GHVEKrhng
part 2 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XtKLtUiww80
part 3 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vz43hcKYBm4

 

[event8horizon]

this is what sunder says about freefall before he got schooled by a highschool teacher.
http://www.911blogger.com/node/17685


My question:
"Any number of competent measurements using a variety of methods indicate the northwest corner of WTC 7 fell with an acceleration within a few percent of the acceleration of gravity. Yet your report contradicts this, claiming 40% slower than freefall based on a single data point. How can such a public, visible, easily measurable quantity be set aside?"

Dr. Shyam Sunder replies:

"Could you repeat the question?"

[the question is repeated by the moderator, leaving out the word, "competent" as well as the last sentence]

"Well...um...the...first of all gravity...um...gravity is the loading function that applies to the structure...um...at...um...applies....to every body...every...uh...on...all bodies on...ah...on...um... this particular...on this planet not just...um...uh...in ground zero...um...the...uh...the analysis shows a difference in time between a free fall time, a free fall time would be an object that has no...uh... structural components below it. And if you look at the analysis of the video it shows that the time it takes for the...17...uh...for the roof line of the video to collapse down the 17 floors that you can actually see in the video below which you can't see anything in the video is about...uh... 3.9 seconds. What the analysis shows...and...uh...the structural analysis shows, the collapse analysis shows that same time that it took for the structural model to come down from the roof line all the way for those 17 floors to disappear is...um... 5.4 seconds. It's...uh..., about one point...uh...five seconds or roughly 40% more time for that free fall to happen. And that is not at all unusual because there was structural resistance that was provided in this particular case. And you had...you had a sequence of structural failures that had to take place and everything was not instantaneous."
--------

Note that:
--He acknowledges that freefall can only occur if there is no structure under the falling section of the building.
--He acknowledges that their structural modeling predicts a fall slower than freefall.
--He acknowledges that there was structural resistance in this particular case.
--He acknowledges that there was a sequence of failures that had to take place and that this process was not instantaneous.

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: event8horizon


i watched the vids, i do like how controlled demos produced progressive collapses. but read it again:

Björkman's axiom regarding any structure says:

"A smaller part of an isotropic or composite 3-D structure, when dropped on and impacting a greater part of same structure by gravity, cannot one-way crush down the greater part of the structure."

now watch your movie again and see how they did it. they start in the middle. that does not represent how the wtc 1 and 2 fell and it doesnt apply to the axiom. bjorkman is debunking bazant with the one way crush down theory.

so tell me what ya know about the fema bpat report appendix c.

I watched the video of the demos and see they apparently used one or two maybe three consecutive floors of demo charge placement to bring down the buildings depicted.
My observation is that while I see it occur, I can assume there was enough gravity energy available to do the job. Meaning that none or very little was used for any other reason. I think that is a key factor. Do Structural differences matter? Was Gravity energy consumed in the tower collapse that was not consumed in the video buildings? I don't know that answer, I'm simply stating the obvious.

 

[Cogman]

Originally posted by: event8horizon

Originally posted by: Venix

Originally posted by: event8horizon
it looks as though the concrete had not hardened with the skyline plaza collapse. i dont think that would be a good example for wtc 1,2, or 7 since the concrete was hard.
Cause

"Fairfax County hired Professor Ingvar Schoushoe of the University of Illinois, a concrete specialist, to investigate the cause of the collapse. He determined that the collapse occurred because of the premature removal of shoring from beneath newly poured floors.[10][11]

George Taylor, a workman for Northwest Sheet Metal, Inc., claimed that workmen were pulling concrete supports "out too damn fast. They're trying to hustle the job too damn fast."[2]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S...s_collapse#cite_note-9

so the link you posted only gave 2 examples of progressive collapses. the ronan point, which was interesting, and the murrah federal building. if anyone remembers, the murrah building got blasted by a big ass bomb!!

regarding bjorkman, looks like a good smear campaign.

lets focus on wtc 7. i think thats what the op was asking about. have you read the fema bpat report app c yet?

I don't give a shit about the WTC. This is about Björkman's ridiculous "axiom" denying the very existence of progressive collapse, which is quite obviously complete bullshit. The French even use progressive collapse as a method of controlled demolition, removing the supports of a single floor and allowing gravity to destroy the building.

And since when has quoting someone's positions and providing links as evidence been a "smear campaign?" Björkman should stop saying stupid shit if he doesn't want his idiotic statements to follow him around.

i watched the vids, i do like how controlled demos produced progressive collapses. but read it again:

Björkman's axiom regarding any structure says:

"A smaller part of an isotropic or composite 3-D structure, when dropped on and impacting a greater part of same structure by gravity, cannot one-way crush down the greater part of the structure."

now watch your movie again and see how they did it. they start in the middle. that does not represent how the wtc 1 and 2 fell and it doesnt apply to the axiom. bjorkman is debunking bazant with the one way crush down theory.

so tell me what ya know about the fema bpat report appendix c.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...ature=player_embedded#

Oh, wait, that wasn't supposed to collapse

Please read the rest of this thread before trying to defend Björkman in any way shape or form.

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=138715

 

[Venix]

Originally posted by: event8horizon
i watched the vids, i do like how controlled demos produced progressive collapses. but read it again:

Björkman's axiom regarding any structure says:

"A smaller part of an isotropic or composite 3-D structure, when dropped on and impacting a greater part of same structure by gravity, cannot one-way crush down the greater part of the structure."

now watch your movie again and see how they did it. they start in the middle. that does not represent how the wtc 1 and 2 fell and it doesnt apply to the axiom. bjorkman is debunking bazant with the one way crush down theory.

so tell me what ya know about the fema bpat report appendix c.

Are you blind? The tower at 3:30 is demolished by removing the fifth floor from the top, which results in the four top floors crushing the remaining 8+ lower floors. A smaller part of the structure, when dropped on and impacting a greater part of the same structure by gravity, completely demolished the greater part of the structure.

Are you seriously enough of an idiot to continue defending this "axiom" and its insane creator?

 

[LunarRay]

Question!

Is there an Official Version regarding the WTC 1 and 2 falls.. Models, building data or math etc. I can't find but one page of stuff.

I know I'm not Internet savvy! A hint at where to look would be appreciated.

 

[Cogman]

Originally posted by: LunarRay
Question!

Is there an Official Version regarding the WTC 1 and 2 falls.. Models, building data or math etc. I can't find but one page of stuff.

I know I'm not Internet savvy! A hint at where to look would be appreciated.

http://wtc.nist.gov/NCSTAR1/

knock yourself out.

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: Cogman

Originally posted by: LunarRay
Question!

Is there an Official Version regarding the WTC 1 and 2 falls.. Models, building data or math etc. I can't find but one page of stuff.

I know I'm not Internet savvy! A hint at where to look would be appreciated.

http://wtc.nist.gov/NCSTAR1/

knock yourself out.

Thanks, I appreciate that link.

 

[event8horizon]

Originally posted by: Cogman

Originally posted by: event8horizon

Originally posted by: Venix

Originally posted by: event8horizon
it looks as though the concrete had not hardened with the skyline plaza collapse. i dont think that would be a good example for wtc 1,2, or 7 since the concrete was hard.
Cause

"Fairfax County hired Professor Ingvar Schoushoe of the University of Illinois, a concrete specialist, to investigate the cause of the collapse. He determined that the collapse occurred because of the premature removal of shoring from beneath newly poured floors.[10][11]

George Taylor, a workman for Northwest Sheet Metal, Inc., claimed that workmen were pulling concrete supports "out too damn fast. They're trying to hustle the job too damn fast."[2]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S...s_collapse#cite_note-9

so the link you posted only gave 2 examples of progressive collapses. the ronan point, which was interesting, and the murrah federal building. if anyone remembers, the murrah building got blasted by a big ass bomb!!

regarding bjorkman, looks like a good smear campaign.

lets focus on wtc 7. i think thats what the op was asking about. have you read the fema bpat report app c yet?

I don't give a shit about the WTC. This is about Björkman's ridiculous "axiom" denying the very existence of progressive collapse, which is quite obviously complete bullshit. The French even use progressive collapse as a method of controlled demolition, removing the supports of a single floor and allowing gravity to destroy the building.

And since when has quoting someone's positions and providing links as evidence been a "smear campaign?" Björkman should stop saying stupid shit if he doesn't want his idiotic statements to follow him around.

i watched the vids, i do like how controlled demos produced progressive collapses. but read it again:

Björkman's axiom regarding any structure says:

"A smaller part of an isotropic or composite 3-D structure, when dropped on and impacting a greater part of same structure by gravity, cannot one-way crush down the greater part of the structure."

now watch your movie again and see how they did it. they start in the middle. that does not represent how the wtc 1 and 2 fell and it doesnt apply to the axiom. bjorkman is debunking bazant with the one way crush down theory.

so tell me what ya know about the fema bpat report appendix c.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...ature=player_embedded#

Oh, wait, that wasn't supposed to collapse

Please read the rest of this thread before trying to defend Björkman in any way shape or form.

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=138715

you cant be serious about that vid. first off, just half the building fell and towards the end, it didnt look like all of it collapsed. do you have a longer video of that event so we can see what was left over. to me, it didnt look like it collapsed all the way.

so, how far into the fema bpat appendix c report are ya?

 

[event8horizon]

Originally posted by: Venix

Originally posted by: event8horizon
i watched the vids, i do like how controlled demos produced progressive collapses. but read it again:

Björkman's axiom regarding any structure says:

"A smaller part of an isotropic or composite 3-D structure, when dropped on and impacting a greater part of same structure by gravity, cannot one-way crush down the greater part of the structure."

now watch your movie again and see how they did it. they start in the middle. that does not represent how the wtc 1 and 2 fell and it doesnt apply to the axiom. bjorkman is debunking bazant with the one way crush down theory.

so tell me what ya know about the fema bpat report appendix c.

Are you blind? The tower at 3:30 is demolished by removing the fifth floor from the top, which results in the four top floors crushing the remaining 8+ lower floors. A smaller part of the structure, when dropped on and impacting a greater part of the same structure by gravity, completely demolished the greater part of the structure.

Are you seriously enough of an idiot to continue defending this "axiom" and its insane creator?

you and cogman are talking about the same building now. do you guys have a longer version of that particular vid b/c just half the building collapsed and it didnt look like it collapsed all the way.
thanks