911 WTC 7 Silent Thermate Demolition, Debunkers Grab Your Ankles!

[Capstone]

...Note for MaryL, will you at least look at the physical reality of the 3 skyscrapers completely destroyed & by what sort of cause. You seem to be very much stuck on Anti-Islam sentiments.

Why bother with physics and such, when Argumentum ad Evil Muslim (vis-a-vis Occam's Razor) so beautifully explains everything?

 

[daws101]

The revised (November 2008) version of NIST's 'final report' conceded and charted approximately two and a quarter seconds worth of gravitational acceleration through stage 2 of its multi-stage analysis. That made freefall for something like 105 ft. of the so-called 'facade's' descent official dogma. So, it's not just twoofers who've documented the freefall.

2.5 seconds is of partial free fall is no evidence of cause...


In a video, it appears that WTC 7 is descending in free fall, something that would not occur in the structural collapse that you describe. How can you ignore basic laws of physics?
In the draft WTC 7 report (released Aug. 21, 2008; available at http://wtc.nist.gov/media/NIST_NCSTAR_1A_for_public_comment.pdf), NIST stated that the north face of the building descended 18 stories (the portion of the collapse visible in the video) in 5.4 seconds, based on video analysis of the building collapse. This time period is 40 percent longer than the 3.9 seconds this process would have taken if the north face of the building had descended solely under free fall conditions. During the public comment period on the draft report, NIST was asked to confirm this time difference and define the reasons for it in greater detail.

To further clarify the descent of the north face, NIST recorded the downward displacement of a point near the center of the roofline from first movement until the north face was no longer visible in the video. Numerical analyses were conducted to calculate the velocity and acceleration of the roofline point from the time-dependent displacement data. The instant at which vertical motion of the roofline first occurred was determined by tracking the numerical value of the brightness of a pixel (a single element in the video image) at the roofline. This pixel became brighter as the roofline began to descend because the color of the pixel started to change from that of the building façade to the lighter color of the sky.

The approach taken by NIST is summarized in Section 3.6 of the final summary report, NCSTAR 1A (released Nov. 20, 2008; available at http://wtc.nist.gov/NCSTAR1/PDF/NCSTAR%201A.pdf) and detailed in Section 12.5.3 of NIST NCSTAR 1-9 (available at http://wtc.nist.gov/NCSTAR1/PDF/NCSTAR%201-9%20Vol%202.pdf).

The analyses of the video (both the estimation of the instant the roofline began to descend and the calculated velocity and acceleration of a point on the roofline) revealed three distinct stages characterizing the 5.4 seconds of collapse:

• Stage 1 (0 to 1.75 seconds): acceleration less than that of gravity (i.e., slower than free fall).
• Stage 2 (1.75 to 4.0 seconds): gravitational acceleration (free fall)
• Stage 3 (4.0 to 5.4 seconds): decreased acceleration, again less than that of gravity

This analysis showed that the 40 percent longer descent time—compared to the 3.9 second free fall time—was due primarily to Stage 1, which corresponded to the buckling of the exterior columns in the lower stories of the north face. During Stage 2, the north face descended essentially in free fall, indicating negligible support from the structure below. This is consistent with the structural analysis model which showed the exterior columns buckling and losing their capacity to support the loads from the structure above. In Stage 3, the acceleration decreased as the upper portion of the north face encountered increased resistance from the collapsed structure and the debris pile below.

Questions and Answers about the NIST WTC 7 Investigation

 

[n0spam4me]

Stage 2 (1.75 to 4.0 seconds): gravitational acceleration (free fall)

This is the critical bit right here, the fact that in the video the building can be seen keeping its shape and descending straight down while accelerating at 9.8 m/s^2, is most definitely sufficient evidence to call it.

I call it what it is, controlled demolition.

 

[daws101]

Stage 2 (1.75 to 4.0 seconds): gravitational acceleration (free fall)

This is the critical bit right here, the fact that in the video the building can be seen keeping its shape and descending straight down while accelerating at 9.8 m/s^2, is most definitely sufficient evidence to call it.

I call it what it is, controlled demolition.

false! you call it what you wish it was.
there is no evidence credible or otherwise to support you false assumption...

"This analysis showed that the 40 percent longer descent time—compared to the 3.9 second free fall time—was due primarily to Stage 1, which corresponded to the buckling of the exterior columns in the lower stories of the north face. During Stage 2, the north face descended essentially in free fall, indicating negligible support from the structure below. This is consistent with the structural analysis model which showed the exterior columns buckling and losing their capacity to support the loads from the structure above. In Stage 3, the acceleration decreased as the upper portion of the north face encountered increased resistance from the collapsed structure and the debris pile below."
so stfu ....

 

[n0spam4me]

During Stage 2, the north face descended essentially in free fall, indicating negligible support from the structure below.

Free fall clearly indicates NO support, not "negligible support"
the fact is that if the falling bit had to do any work at all such as bending/breaking/pushing away any bit of structure, the fall would NOT have been at 9.8 m/s^2

 

[daws101]

During Stage 2, the north face descended essentially in free fall, indicating negligible support from the structure below.

Free fall clearly indicates NO support, not "negligible support"
the fact is that if the falling bit had to do any work at all such as bending/breaking/pushing away any bit of structure, the fall would NOT have been at 9.8 m/s^2

bullshit again no proof.

the rate of acceleration of a falling object due to gravity is again no proof of cause ...it's effect

cause-and-effect
[kawz-uh nd-i-fekt, -uh n-] /ˈkɔz ənd ɪˈfɛkt, -ən-/
Spell Syllables

• Examples

adjective
1.
noting a relationship between actions or events such that one or more are the result of the other or others

if you had any understanding of the above you'd see how full of shit you are

 

[n0spam4me]

So exactly by what mechanism was ALL of the structure removed out from under the falling building? The fact is that falling at 9.8 m/s^2 means that there is NO support, NOTHING the falling bit doesn't push anything or bend anything, it is ONLY falling. Therefore at the moment that the building started falling ALL of the support would have had to disappear and ALL at the same time.

By what means does fire in a skyscraper cause this effect?

 

[daws101]

So exactly by what mechanism was ALL of the structure removed out from under the falling building? The fact is that falling at 9.8 m/s^2 means that there is NO support, NOTHING the falling bit doesn't push anything or bend anything, it is ONLY falling. Therefore at the moment that the building started falling ALL of the support would have had to disappear and ALL at the same time.

By what means does fire in a skyscraper cause this effect?

that's what the evidence says....

 

[n0spam4me]

So exactly by what mechanism was ALL of the structure removed out from under the falling building? The fact is that falling at 9.8 m/s^2 means that there is NO support, NOTHING the falling bit doesn't push anything or bend anything, it is ONLY falling. Therefore at the moment that the building started falling ALL of the support would have had to disappear and ALL at the same time.

By what means does fire in a skyscraper cause this effect?

that's what the evidence says....

and exactly what is this "evidence" Please be specific.

 

[daws101]

So exactly by what mechanism was ALL of the structure removed out from under the falling building? The fact is that falling at 9.8 m/s^2 means that there is NO support, NOTHING the falling bit doesn't push anything or bend anything, it is ONLY falling. Therefore at the moment that the building started falling ALL of the support would have had to disappear and ALL at the same time.

By what means does fire in a skyscraper cause this effect?

that's what the evidence says....

and exactly what is this "evidence" Please be specific.

you know what it says, if not look it up yourself. I'm not gonna rehash it again ...

 

[n0spam4me]

so in other words, the "proof" really isn't there, the NIST has performed a lot of hand waving and doublespeak, and in the end, its down to the physics of the observed phenomenon and therein lies the proof that it was controlled demolition.

 

[daws101]

so in other words, the "proof" really isn't there, the NIST has performed a lot of hand waving and doublespeak, and in the end, its down to the physics of the observed phenomenon and therein lies the proof that it was controlled demolition.

bullshit ! all of what you just posted is your personal fantasy not fact.
it's full to bursting with false assumptions a lack of any real science knowledge and just plain nut jobbery...

 

[n0spam4me]

and without actually looking at the blueprints of the WTC, somebody sez
"the wall was mostly glass" and when the allegation is proven wrong.
I get attacked for presenting the info that the wall was > 2/3 steel.
WHAT?
and additionally the opposition can not provide an explanation that satisfies the conditions, that is the observation that WTC7 fell at free fall and kept its shape while descending straight down.

 

[daws101]

and without actually looking at the blueprints of the WTC, somebody sez
"the wall was mostly glass" and when the allegation is proven wrong.
I get attacked for presenting the info that the wall was > 2/3 steel.
WHAT?
and additionally the opposition can not provide an explanation that satisfies the conditions, that is the observation that WTC7 fell at free fall and kept its shape while descending straight down.

spammy "WE" HAVE DONE THE SHIT YOU ARE POSTING TO DEATH.
EVERYONE HAS SEEN THE BLUE PRINTS VIDEO CLIPS ETC...
so you are talking out your ass again.

 

[n0spam4me]

Question for all who read this forum,
does the factual info, that is the blueprints of the towers and the laws of physics support the assertions that I have made? If not, can somebody show me where it is wrong, issue an actual correction with factual data.
can you do that?

 

[daws101]

Question for all who read this forum,
does the factual info, that is the blueprints of the towers and the laws of physics support the assertions that I have made? If not, can somebody show me where it is wrong, issue an actual correction with factual data.
can you do that?

your assertions are based on a false premise.

false premise is an incorrect proposition that forms the basis of an argument or syllogism. Since the premise (proposition, or assumption) is not correct, the conclusion drawn may be in error. However, the logical validity of an argument is a function of its internal consistency, not the truth value of its premises.

For example, consider this syllogism, which involves an obvious false premise:

• If the streets are wet, it has rained recently. (premise)
• The streets are wet. (premise)
• Therefore it has rained recently. (conclusion)

This argument is logically valid, but quite demonstrably wrong, because its first premise is false - one could hose down the streets, the local river could have flooded, etc. A simple logical analysis will not reveal the error in this argument, since that analysis must accept the truth of the argument's premises. For this reason, an argument based on false premises can be much more difficult to refute, or even discuss, than one featuring a normal logical error, as the truth of its premises must be established to the satisfaction of all parties.

 

[Capstone]

2.5 seconds is of partial free fall is no evidence of cause...

It is, however, clear evidence that certain means could not have been causal, namely any means that would call for interaction between the portion of the building that descended 105 ft. against zero resistance and a solitary speck of debris from the building materials that must have been removed from the path of descent (as opposed to having been crushed or destroyed under the weight of the "collapsing" structure).

In the draft WTC 7 report (released Aug. 21, 2008; available at http://wtc.nist.gov/media/NIST_NCSTAR_1A_for_public_comment.pdf), ...[emphasis Capstone's]

Typical. Even after I specified the charting that was done in the "revised (Novemeber 2008) version of NIST's final report", you go and cite the earlier non-revised version.

Nevertheless, the measurement from a single data point at the center of the roof-line doesn't override the clearly observable facts that both the roof-line and the "facade" remained intact throughout the 105 ft. drop of the "north face". Accordingly, even with limiting the freefall to the northern "facade", an incredible amount of material would still had to have been completely removed from its visually symmetrical path of descent. What makes an already laughable notion truly hilarious, though, is that the prospect of such an occurrence is clearly defeated by the video itself. If only the north side fell against zero resistance, where the hell were the remaining three sides of the building that should have been observed collapsing more slowly and in a non-symmetrical fashion?!

Contrary to such ridiculous assertions by the NEOCT's apologists, there's plenty of video evidence that shows various sides of Building 7's exterior walls coming down intact, empirically proving the symmetry of the "collapse", which in turn demands that the freefall was evenly distributed among all four exterior walls.



The 40% longer than freefall time has not only been exposed as the likely result of 'dry-labbing' the timeframe on which NIST's multi-stage analysis was based; it's irrelevant anyway, because the 2.25 sec. period of freefall was admitted and charted through the second stage. As I've said before, the building could've taken a week to completely collapse, and that still wouldn't account for the period of freefall admitted by NIST, despite the fact that the admission amounts to a violation of physical law under the fire-induced progressive collapse hypothesis (yes, even if it only applies to the "north face").

 

[Faun]

and without actually looking at the blueprints of the WTC, somebody sez
"the wall was mostly glass" and when the allegation is proven wrong.
I get attacked for presenting the info that the wall was > 2/3 steel.
WHAT?
and additionally the opposition can not provide an explanation that satisfies the conditions, that is the observation that WTC7 fell at free fall and kept its shape while descending straight down.

Umm ... whom here, besides you, said, "the wall was mostly glass?"

 

[Faun]

2.5 seconds is of partial free fall is no evidence of cause...

It is, however, clear evidence that certain means could not have been causal, namely any means that would call for interaction between the portion of the building that descended 105 ft. against zero resistance and a solitary speck of debris from the building materials that must have been removed from the path of descent (as opposed to having been crushed or destroyed under the weight of the "collapsing" structure).

In the draft WTC 7 report (released Aug. 21, 2008; available at http://wtc.nist.gov/media/NIST_NCSTAR_1A_for_public_comment.pdf), ...[emphasis Capstone's]

Typical. Even after I specified the charting that was done in the "revised (Novemeber 2008) version of NIST's final report", you go and cite the earlier non-revised version.

Nevertheless, the measurement from a single data point at the center of the roof-line doesn't override the clearly observable facts that both the roof-line and the "facade" remained intact throughout the 105 ft. drop of the "north face". Accordingly, even with limiting the freefall to the northern "facade", an incredible amount of material would still had to have been completely removed from its visually symmetrical path of descent. What makes an already laughable notion truly hilarious, though, is that the prospect of such an occurrence is clearly defeated by the video itself. If only the north side fell against zero resistance, where the hell were the remaining three sides of the building that should have been observed collapsing more slowly and in a non-symmetrical fashion?!

Contrary to such ridiculous assertions by the NEOCT's apologists, there's plenty of video evidence that shows various sides of Building 7's exterior walls coming down intact, empirically proving the symmetry of the "collapse", which in turn demands that the freefall was evenly distributed among all four exterior walls.



The 40% longer than freefall time has not only been exposed as the likely result of 'dry-labbing' the timeframe on which NIST's multi-stage analysis was based; it's irrelevant anyway, because the 2.25 sec. period of freefall was admitted and charted through the second stage. As I've said before, the building could've taken a week to completely collapse, and that still wouldn't account for the period of freefall admitted by NIST, despite the fact that the admission amounts to a violation of physical law under the fire-induced progressive collapse hypothesis (yes, even if it only applies to the "north face").

And glaringly absent from every one of those videos is the sight and sound of and explosives and/or thermite. And of course, while it is known much of the interior collapsed prior to the facade, it is unknown how extensively that critically damaged the building's supporting columns.

 

[n0spam4me]

your assertions are based on a false premise.

Thank you ever so much for your OPINION, note that it is not a matter of opinion that the WTC wall was composed of > 2/3 steel by area. You may dispute this, but you would be wrong.

Also the quantity of jet fuel alleged to have burned in the towers has insufficient energy to cause the destruction of the towers.

and without actually looking at the blueprints of the WTC, somebody sez
"the wall was mostly glass" and when the allegation is proven wrong.
I get attacked for presenting the info that the wall was > 2/3 steel.
WHAT?
and additionally the opposition can not provide an explanation that satisfies the conditions, that is the observation that WTC7 fell at free fall and kept its shape while descending straight down.

Umm ... whom here, besides you, said, "the wall was mostly glass?"

The sides of the buildings were, in large part, windows, were they not?

From post # 879 of this thread and there are others if one but looks. This is one of the cornerstone arguments for the alleged "FLT175" being able to penetrate the wall in the manner observed. and its WRONG.
the wall is > 2/3 steel by area. Its in the blueprints, I'm not going to list a link because the links are in abundance and even in the infamous Prof. Tomasz Wierzbicki paper on the crash mechanics he at least gets the dimensions of the steel in the WTC wall(s) correct.