The Collapse Of WTC7: Why was it so fast?

[Aemilius]

You have shown to be wrong in both your facts and your reasoning multiple times by multiple people.

 

Yeah well you need to back that up.... I say you're just making stuff up and don't know what you're talking about. Post 38 is the product of a two month long exchange I had with a forty year veteran Ph.D research physicist devoted exclusively to this topic. You can make things up and attack me all you want, but it won't change the empirically verifiable information conveyed in Post 38. The only way you or anyone else is going to do that is by empirically showing some aspect of it to be fundamentally incorrect or inconsistent with physical principles.... something tells me, at least in your case, I don't have too much to worry about.

 

The fact you choose to ignore it says more about you than any science.

 

More subjective off topic fluff. Just like the rest, nothing you've said empirically contradicts anything in Post 38,... explosives brought down the building.

Edited August 27, 2014 by Aemilius

[swansont]

 

Planes falling from the sky, old bridges collapsing without warning, the impact on families, weeping little children, cruelty, misguided stupidity.... Was there an on topic comment in there somewhere?

 

Nothing you've said empirically contradicts Post 38,... explosives brought down the building.

 

Your claim is not true until proven false (a fallacy), so this is moot. One of the bits of data you cited to support the claim — free-fall descent — has been rebutted.

[Aemilius]

 

One of the bits of data you cited to support the claim — free-fall descent — has been rebutted.

 

Where, how and by who?

Edited August 27, 2014 by Aemilius

[Strange]

 

Where, how and by who?

 

For example, posts 32, 35, 40, 46 which, like others,you have simply ignored because they contradict your idea.

[andrewcellini]

aemillius i reject what you present as evidence on the grounds that your starting premises are false.

[John Cuthber]

 

What's to acknowledge? The building verifiably dropped like a stone at gravitational acceleration for 2.25 seconds (approximately 105 feet).... that's a fact. Trying to sandwich a period of free fall as a "Stage" between two other less than free fall "Stages" to get a fall time that doesn't "exhibit free fall" is the very definition of absurd.

 

OK, so have a look at your own post here

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/62527-the-collapse-of-wtc7-why-was-it-so-fast/?p=793409

 

where you look very carefully at the data for (about)1.75 seconds to 4 seconds and say "it is in free fall".

But you ignore the same data for the first second or so.

In that second, the data clearly show that the building is falling, but not in free fall.

 

So you have done essentially what you described as absurd.

 

Well, you are right, cherry picking like that is absurd.

So why is it the only way you can support your assertion?

 

How come the building starts falling more slowly than free fall, then builds up ?

If there was an explosion, the building would have nothing holding it up and would, from the outset, be in free fall.

It clearly was not - your own graphs and data show that.

For the first second or so (and that's a long time in explosives work) it falls too slowly.

 

So, as I said, this whole thread is like a discussion of the assassination of Stalin in '43

You are trying to "explain" something which never actually happened.

[Aemilius]

aemillius i reject what you present as evidence on the grounds that your starting premises are false.

 

Another one line wonder, that's fine.... one liners won't change the physically consistent basis of Post 38 or refute any of the empirically verifiable information conveyed. Just saying that my "starting premises are false" without even trying to show how or why they're false? That's just hand waving man.

 

You have shown to be wrong in both your facts and your reasoning multiple times by multiple people. <shrug> The fact you choose to ignore it says more about you than any science.

 

For example, posts 32, 35, 40, 46 which, like others,you have simply ignored because they contradict your idea.

 

 

Yeah, and it turns out all these multiple people that showed my facts and reasoning was wrong multiple times is just one guy raising the same objection multiple times. Maybe I should have responded earlier.... I'll own that.

 

Anyway, I'll just go ahead and respond to the posts by John Cuthber in order.... I'm sure someone (probably multiple people multiple times) will let me know if I miss anything.

Edited August 28, 2014 by Aemilius

[Ophiolite]

Your premise is that the building fell at free fall speed. You argue from this that the only way that could happen is if explosives were used to critically weaken it. However, it has been pointed out to you in several posts, some most recently listed by Strange, that the building did not fall at free fall speed.

 

Thus your premise has been shown to false, so there is no handwaving by andrewcellini. The only handwaving here is from you - its so pronounced its creating waves in the North Sea.

 

Will you now either address the refutations, or concede you are mistaken. Any other action is unacceptable.

[Aemilius]

Was stage 1 the bit where the internal structure failed?

 

 

That's what they say. Stage (1) is where the NIST report says that.... "a slow descent with acceleration less than that of gravity that corresponded to the buckling of the exterior columns at the lower floors".

 

 

If so that would explain why there's roughly free fall in stage 2.

 

 

Actually no, it wouldn't. In Stage (2), the building undergoes free fall for 2.25 seconds (eight stories, approximately 105 feet). But no matter how the columns are buckled in Stage (1), they can't go into free fall because, as we know from fundamental well established and time tested empirically verifiable experiment, even if a giant laser beam suddenly vaporized all but the north face of the building causing the exterior columns to immediately begin buckling, free fall still would not occur.... the strength of buckling columns (whether buckled one at a time or all at once) doesn't just go from 100% to 0% when they fail, it goes from 100% to 0% while they fail, and that's a time consuming process.

 

Whether buckled due to weakening by heat....

 

 

 

Control on the right, details....

http://picasion.com/...8f520c5ad7e.gif

 

....or buckled due to failure from overloading....

 

 

 

Control on the right, details....

http://picasion.com/...8f520c5ad7e.gif

 

....buckling columns (a mode of natural progressive structural failure) cannot give rise to the conditions required for gravitational acceleration to occur as they fail because there's no point during the failure of a column where it's resistance to the downward motion of a load will be found equal to that of air....

 

 

 

Control on the right, details....

http://picasion.com/...8f520c5ad7e.gif

 

The scenario playing out below is physically impossible....

 

 

 

Control on the right, details....

http://picasion.com/...8f520c5ad7e.gif

 

There's only one way a load supported by a column can descend at gravitational acceleration, the column supporting it must be quickly removed in order to create the conditions required for free fall to occur.... there's no other way.

 

A column must either be knocked out....

 

 

 

Control on the right, details....

http://picasion.com/...8f520c5ad7e.gif

 

....pulled out....

 

 

 

Control on the right, details....

http://picasion.com/...8f520c5ad7e.gif

 

....or blown out....

 

 

 

Control on the right, details....

http://picasion.com/...8f520c5ad7e.gif

 

....for a load supported by it to descend at gravitational acceleration.

 

 

Of course, it also suggests that no explosives or anything like that were required.

 

 

In view of the empirically founded explanation above.... you're mistaken. I've shown why some additional force must be introduced to explain observations and also shown why no mode of natural progressive structural failure going on within this building could have given rise to the conditions required for free fall to occur at any point during it's descent

 

 

And it's consistent with what the report cited very early in this thread says

NIST NCSTAR 1A, WTC Investigation' said

The observed descent time of the upper 18 stories of the north face of WTC 7 (the floors clearly visible in the video evidence) was 40 percent greater than the computed free fall time. A more detailed analysis of the descent of the north face found three stages: (1) a slow descent with acceleration less than that of gravity that corresponded to the buckling of the exterior columns at the lower floors, (2) a freefall descent over approximately eight stories at gravitational acceleration for approximately 2.25 s, and (3) a decreasing acceleration as the north face encountered resistance from the structure below.

Why do you focus on those 2 seconds or so, and ignore the 1st 2 seconds?

 

 

Because, as shown above, buckling columns (whether buckled sequentially or all at once) couldn't have given rise to the conditions required for free fall to occur in any part of the building during it's descent.

 

The NIST, in Stage (1), says that.... "a slow descent with acceleration less than that of gravity that corresponded to the buckling of the exterior columns at the lower floors" occurs, and then says that in Stage (2).... "a freefall descent over approximately eight stories at gravitational acceleration for approximately 2.25 seconds" occurs.

 

The buckling columns in Stage (1) cannot explain the 2.25 second period of free fall descent observed in Stage (2). Buckling columns cannot create the conditions required for free fall.... it's physically impossible.

Edited August 28, 2014 by Aemilius

[John Cuthber]

"he strength of buckling columns (whether buckled one at a time or all at once) doesn't just go from 100% to 0% when they fail, "

Actually, it almost does.

That's the basis of this widely used model.

"In 1757, mathematician Leonhard Euler derived a formula that gives the maximum axial load that a long, slender, ideal column can carry without buckling. An ideal column is one that is perfectly straight, homogeneous, and free from initial stress. The maximum load, sometimes called the critical load, causes the column to be in a state of unstableequilibrium;"

from wiki

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buckling

 

There really is a "switch" from the stable to unstable state.

And impact loading will help too.

 

I presume that you don't have enough grounding in engineering or physics to have realised that before.

 

The problem you have is that you keep arguing against yourself.

You say "the falling is too fast" and "the falling is too slow".

 

You keep trying to pretend that a building should stay still for a little over a second after the "explosion" destroys the structure.

And then it suddenly goes into free fall.

That only happens in scenarios like the critter in the first cartoon here

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cartoon_physics#mediaviewer/File:Cartoon_physics_WikiWorld.png

[Aemilius]

Now, would you like to acknowledge my point.

Here it is again, in case you missed it.

The other issue that gets glossed over is that they didn't exhibit free fall.

"The observed descent time of the upper 18 stories of the north face of WTC 7 (the floors clearly visible in the video evidence) was 40 percent greater than the computed free fall time."

 

Right.... the NIST says the observed descent time for the 18 visible stories was 40 percent greater than the computed free fall time for 18 stories.... that's consistent with physical principles. But the observed descent time for 8 stories was 0 percent greater than the computed free fall time for 8 stories.... and that's completely inconsistent with physical principles.

 

There's simply no point during a natural progressive structural failure where the conditions required for free fall can arise. An explosion or other type of event must have occurred that was powerful enough to quickly remove support from beneath the the literally falling upper part of the building (confirmed by both NIST and independent researchers alike), either all at once or incrementally in advance of it's descent, permitting it to descend at gravitational acceleration under and the conditions required for gravitational acceleration to occur.

 

The observed 40 percent greater than computed free fall time for eighteen stories does nothing to explain the observed 0 percent greater than computed free fall time for eight stories.... it's a physical impossibility.

 

 

 

OK, so have a look at your own post here

 

http://www.sciencefo...-fast/?p=793409

 

where you look very carefully at the data for (about)1.75 seconds to 4 seconds and say "it is in free fall".

 

No, that's where the NIST looked very carefully at the data for (about) 1.75 seconds to 4 seconds and said "it's in free fall", not me. The NIST conducted the pixel-by-pixel analysis that shows the building descended at gravitational acceleration for 2.25 seconds (eight stories, approximately 105 feet), and says buckling, a natural progressive mode of structural failure, was the cause, when buckling, as empirically shown above, clearly cannot have been the cause of the observed rate of descent in Stage (2).

 

 

 

But you ignore the same data for the first second or so.

In that second, the data clearly show that the building is falling, but not in free fall.

 

I think I've addressed Stage (1) now and how buckling utterly fails to empirically explain Stage (2).

 

 

 

So you have done essentially what you described as absurd.

 

No, I chose to look at an aspect of the NIST analysis that describes a physical impossibility.

 

 

 

Well, you are right, cherry picking like that is absurd.

So why is it the only way you can support your assertion?

 

No cherry picking. Like I said, I chose to look at an aspect of the NIST analysis that describes a physical impossibility, and I've also addressed Stage (1) and how it utterly fails to empirically explain Stage (2).

 

 

 

How come the building starts falling more slowly than free fall, then builds up ?

If there was an explosion, the building would have nothing holding it up and would, from the outset, be in free fall.

 

No, that's false, it doesn't have to all happen at once, in fact it rarely does. As anyone who owns an old television set knows, intentional explosive demolition is rarely if ever done by attaching simultaneous high-explosives/cutter charges to the steelwork.... it's done by attaching precision timed high-explosives/cutter charges to the steelwork.

 

 

 

It clearly was not - your own graphs....

 

The graph isn't mine, it's from the NIST report.

 

 

 

For the first second or so (and that's a long time in explosives work) it falls too slowly.

 

Since the detonation sequence of explosives can be and often is precisely timed, the door is thrown wide open for a whole spectrrum of possible outcomes. One could quickly detonate all the charges at once for immediate acceleration to free fall, or one could detonate them slowly over time, including a period of free fall at any point one wished.

 

 

 

You are trying to "explain" something which never actually happened.

 

Sounds more like you than me.

 

 

 

So, as I said, this whole thread is like a discussion of the assassination of Stalin in '43

 

Well I don't know about Stalin, but Post 38 remains empirically unassailed.... explosives brought down the building.

Edited August 28, 2014 by Aemilius

[John Cuthber]

I can only be bothered to point out a few of your errors at the moment

" But the observed descent time for 8 stories was 0 percent greater than the computed free fall time for 8 stories.... and that's completely inconsistent with physical principles."

Nope, not zero. Not measurably different from zero isn't the same thing.The internals structure wouldn't make much difference to the fall speed once it got underway.

 

"There's simply no point during a natural progressive structural failure where the conditions required for free fall can arise. An explosion or other type of event must have occurred that was powerful enough to quickly remove support from beneath the the literally falling upper part of the building"

Yes, you may recall that someone flew a plane into it, also you seem not to have understood the stuff about buckling.

 

"No, that's where the NIST looked very carefully at the data for (about) 1.75 seconds to 4 seconds and said "it's in free fall", not me. "

OK, it's NIST's graph, but it is the data you are using, so, in that sense it's "your" data, and it contradicts what you say.

Do you not understand that the data only indicate very close to "free fall", for about half the time?

They do so at the point where the building would be expected to be in near free fall because the structure isn't built to have a building dropped on it.

The resistance it offers to that huge impact load is small, compared to the weight of the building.

Essentially, once the building starts to fall, it hardly notices the structure under it.

 

"No, I chose to look at an aspect of the NIST analysis that describes a physical impossibility."

Nope, the physics is fine. The problem is your lack of understanding.

 

"No cherry picking. Like I said, I chose to look at an aspect of the NIST analysis "

Nonsense, the choice of the few seconds in the middle of the graph where the building is in near free fall but ignoring the start and finish, is clearly cherry picking the data.

Did you think you would get away with that?

 

"As anyone who owns an old television set knows, ..... it's done by attaching precision timed high-explosives/cutter charges to the steelwork."

And, as anyone who has watched the TV shows knows, it takes a lot of time, and expertise to place those charges- not to mention pre cutting through the structure, drilling damned great holes in the concrete etc.

Are you saying the tooth fairy did it?

Because humans couldn't have- they would have been spotted.

 

 

And finally (hopefully)

The thread title asks

Why was it so fast?

well, it wasn't fast so there's nothing to answer.

Edited August 28, 2014 by John Cuthber

[Aemilius]

"....the strength of buckling columns (whether buckled one at a time or all at once) doesn't just go from 100% to 0% when they fail, "

 

Actually, it almost does.

 

That's the basis of this widely used model.

"In 1757, mathematician Leonhard Euler derived a formula that gives the maximum axial load that a long, slender, ideal column can carry without buckling. An ideal column is one that is perfectly straight, homogeneous, and free from initial stress. The maximum load, sometimes called the critical load, causes the column to be in a state of unstable equilibrium;"

from wiki

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buckling

There really is a "switch" from the stable to unstable state.

And impact loading will help too.

 

Fascinating. So.... a long, slender, ideal, perfectly straight, homogenous column free from initial stress can become unstable under maximum axial loading.... that's a real game changer!

 

I presume that you don't have enough grounding in engineering or physics to have realised that before.

The problem you have is that you keep arguing against yourself.

You say "the falling is too fast" and "the falling is too slow".

You keep trying to pretend that a building should stay still for a little over a second after the "explosion" destroys the structure.

And then it suddenly goes into free fall.

That only happens in scenarios like the critter in the first cartoon here

http://en.wikipedia....s_WikiWorld.png

 

I quote you and respond, you should do the same. Where did I say "the falling is too fast" or "the falling is too slow". Use real quotes, not what your impression is of what I said in quotes. I'm having trouble with the rest there.... Is the cartoon part of your argument?

 

I can only be bothered to point out a few of your errors at the moment

"But the observed descent time for 8 stories was 0 percent greater than the computed free fall time for 8 stories.... and that's completely inconsistent with physical principles."

Nope, not zero. Not measurably different from zero isn't the same thing.The internals structure wouldn't make much difference to the fall speed once it got underway.

 

You can say that, but I have an expert who's looked at it and says it would take "very careful calculation" to tell the fall time of the upper part of the building apart from gravitational acceleration.

 

"There's simply no point during a natural progressive structural failure where the conditions required for free fall can arise. An explosion or other type of event must have occurred that was powerful enough to quickly remove support from beneath the the literally falling upper part of the building"

 

Yes, you may recall that someone flew a plane into it, also you seem not to have understood the stuff about buckling.

 

Clearly showing your entire rebuttal to be of no value whatsoever.... you don't even know what building we're talking about. WTC 7 (the subject of this thread) was not hit by a plane.

 

"No, that's where the NIST looked very carefully at the data for (about) 1.75 seconds to 4 seconds and said "it's in free fall", not me."

 

OK, it's NIST's graph, but it is the data you are using, so, in that sense it's "your" data, and it contradicts what you say.

Do you not understand that the data only indicate very close to "free fall", for about half the time?

 

Depends on what building you're talking about.

 

They do so at the point where the building would be expected to be in near free fall because the structure isn't built to have a building dropped on it.

 

Near free fall is not an expected feature of a building undergoing natural progressive structural failure.... and no building was dropped on WTC 7. You don't know what your talking about.

 

The resistance it offers to that huge impact load is small, compared to the weight of the building.

Essentially, once the building starts to fall, it hardly notices the structure under it.

 

So the building didn't notice the structure under it. I actually had to take a break after I read that.... hilarious!

 

"No, I chose to look at an aspect of the NIST analysis that describes a physical impossibility."

Nope, the physics is fine. The problem is your lack of understanding.

 

Well, since you don't even know what building we're talking about, I'd say you're hardly in a position to make any value assessments as to my level of understanding.

 

"No cherry picking. Like I said, I chose to look at an aspect of the NIST analysis "

Nonsense, the choice of the few seconds in the middle of the graph where the building is in near free fall but ignoring the start and finish, is clearly cherry picking the data.

Did you think you would get away with that?

 

Get away with what? I'm empirically scrutinizing a substantial well defined period of gravitational acceleration that can't be explained by natural progressive structural failure occurring in the building using the analog target system of analysis.... sorry if you don't care for the approach.

 

"As anyone who owns an old television set knows, ..... it's done by attaching precision timed high-explosives/cutter charges to the steelwork."

And, as anyone who has watched the TV shows knows, it takes a lot of time, and expertise to place those charges- not to mention pre cutting through the structure, drilling damned great holes in the concrete etc.

Are you saying the tooth fairy did it?

 

Who did it? The thread topic is about why WTC 7 came down so quickly, not about who made it come down so quickly.

 

Nothing you've said empirically contradicts any aspect of Post 38, and the fact that your rebbutal revolves around the false starting premise that a fuel laden plane flying into the building caused the whole thing when no plane actually hit the building (WTC 7 was not hit by a plane) really renders everything you've said so far.... meaningless.

 

 

 

....data you cited to support the claim — free-fall descent — has been rebutted.

 

Not by John Cuthber it hasn't.... Are you talking about someone else, perhaps?

 

Post 38 remains empirically unassailed.... explosives brought down the building.

Edited August 29, 2014 by Aemilius

[Ophiolite]

 

I quote you and respond, you should do the same. Where did I say "the falling is too fast" or "the falling is too slow". Use real quotes, not what your impression is of what I said in quotes.

This is, I think, a very reasonable request. The fact that you have raised it suggests you consider it sloppy, or ambiguous, or perhaps even intellectually questionable to misquote other members. I applaud that attitude.

 

So the building didn't notice the structure under it. I actually had to take a break after I read that.... hilarious!

What John said was "Essentially, once the building starts to fall, it hardly notices the structure under it."

 

Do you understand the relevant and important difference the words you omitted - essentially and hardly - have on the meaning of John's sentence? I presume not, for if you did the only plausible reason for omitting them would be dishonest manipulation of the words of others. Will you now correct your error and address John's point as written?

[swansont]

I'm still trying to wrap my head around the claim that free-fall descent is physically impossible.

[Aemilius]

This is, I think, a very reasonable request. The fact that you have raised it suggests you consider it sloppy, or ambiguous, or perhaps even intellectually questionable to misquote other members. I applaud that attitude.

 

What John said was "Essentially, once the building starts to fall, it hardly notices the structure under it."

 

Do you understand the relevant and important difference the words you omitted - essentially and hardly - have on the meaning of John's sentence? I presume not, for if you did the only plausible reason for omitting them would be dishonest manipulation of the words of others. Will you now correct your error and address John's point as written?

 

Hah! Sorry about the misquote, but in view of the fact that he doesn't even know what building we're talking about, there's no need to resort to any sinister tactics to knock down his argument.... he's done a fine job of it all by himself.

 

As far as addressing his concerns, his "argument" is clearly based on a false premise, namely, that a fuel laden plane flew into WTC 7 and caused the whole thing. What good would it do to address points raised that are obviously based on a false premise? You tell me.... What would be the point of that?

 

No offense but, in view of all that, I'm not terribly interested in talking with him anymore.... you go ahead.

Edited August 29, 2014 by Aemilius

[Aemilius]

What's really interesting is that, for some reason, coming up on nearly thirty posts now since I posted Post 38, not one member of the forum has just directly addressed it by simply copying and pasting one or more of the animations along with some accompanying text to say something like.... "No, this is wrong and here's why. In reality this animation would play out differently than you have depicted it, it would actually play out like this...."

 

If I'm so wrong and everyone looking at post 38 can immediately see I'm wrong, why can't anyone simply point to what's wrong in Post 38? The only reason I can think of is that none of you can point out anything wrong with it,... that must be it.

 

Post 38 remains empirically unassailed, explosives brought down the building.... that's just the way it is....

 

 

Edited August 29, 2014 by Aemilius

[John Cuthber]

I have a bus to catch so I'm not going to waste much time on this now.

OK, It's been a while- they building was hit by a building that was hit by a plane, rather than the building was hit by a plane.

Like hat matters...

The premise I'm working on is one of sudden major damage to the building.

That's not false.

 

Since I ruled out people as the setters of the explosives (because they would have been seen, I'n not asking who did it: I'm asking what did it?

The tooth fairy is one option you might choose.

 

And you tried to get away with pretending not to cherry pick the data.

[Strange]

What's really interesting is that, for some reason, coming up on nearly thirty posts now since I posted Post 38, not one member of the forum has just directly addressed it by simply copying and pasting one or more of the animations along with some accompanying text to say something like.... "No, this is wrong and here's why. In reality this animation would play out differently than you have depicted it, it would actually play out like this...."

 

Why would anyone take your cartoons seriously? Even if they weren't produced by someone who has a bias and little understanding of physics, they are still cartoons with no evidentiary value.

 

You might as well ask why someone doesn't use the ability of Bugs Bunny to run off a cliff without falling to build a flying machine.

[swansont]

 

 

Post 38 remains empirically unassailed, explosives brought down the building.... that's just the way it is....

 

 

 

The burden of proof is on you. Bald assertions don't need to be "assailed".

[Bignose]

Since the detonation sequence of explosives can be and often is precisely timed, the door is thrown wide open for a whole spectrrum of possible outcomes. One could quickly detonate all the charges at once for immediate acceleration to free fall, or one could detonate them slowly over time, including a period of free fall at any point one wished.

If you're going to assert this, then there is little to no point in arguing with you. Because basically you are saying here that no matter how the building fell, explosives could have done it. In other words, every single object falling supports your idea of the use of explosives.

 

In science, when all evidence supports an idea, that idea is not considered very strong at all. A strong idea can be falsified. Your saying that explosives could encompass 'a whole spectrrum [sic] of outcomes' means that the idea of using explosives can't be falsified.

 

If this is your position, then why should anyone bother to discuss this with you? Because you're placed total and complete faith in this idea, and nothing is going to dissuade you.

[John Cuthber]

Actually, it doesn't quite.

This is a fairly typical YT vid of a building being demolished by a series of explosions.

You can hear each bang.

Now that's no great shock- explosions are loud.

Now listen to the soundtrack of the collapse of WTC7

No series of bangs.

No controlled demolition.

 

The assertion has been assailed.

[Aemilius]

I'm still trying to wrap my head around the claim that free-fall descent is physically impossible.

The claim that free fall descent is physically impossible? It's not a claim, it's the Law of Conservation of Energy, and in the case of this building (WTC7) it is physically impossible. I've explained why about as thoroughly as humanly possible in the link removed

 

One liner posts are useless and accomplish nothing. Either copy and paste that portion of the analysis you're having trouble with or just continue being befuddled.

 

The burden of proof is on you. Bald assertions don't need to be "assailed".

Another analytically useless one liner. The burden of proof is only on me If it can be shown that the analysis as a whole or some part of it is a bald assertion. You haven't shown that. Copy and paste that part of the link removed you feel is an assertion and not an empirically verifiable fact and show why it's incorrect.

I have a bus to catch so I'm not going to waste much time on this now.

OK, It's been a while- they building was hit by a building that was hit by a plane, rather than the building was hit by a plane.

Like hat matters...

The premise I'm working on is one of sudden major damage to the building.

That's not false.

 

Since I ruled out people as the setters of the explosives (because they would have been seen, I'n not asking who did it: I'm asking what did it?

The tooth fairy is one option you might choose.

 

And you tried to get away with pretending not to cherry pick the data.

Whatever you were going on about there, it didn't show any aspect of the link removed to be incorrect (I hope you enjoyed your bus ride though).

If you're going to assert this (that the detonation sequence can be and often is precision timed), then there is little to no point in arguing with you. Because basically you are saying here that no matter how the building fell, explosives could have done it. In other words, every single object falling supports your idea of the use of explosives.

 

In science, when all evidence supports an idea, that idea is not considered very strong at all. A strong idea can be falsified. Your saying that explosives could encompass 'a whole spectrrum [sic] of outcomes' means that the idea of using explosives can't be falsified.

 

If this is your position, then why should anyone bother to discuss this with you? Because you're placed total and complete faith in this idea, and nothing is going to dissuade you.

Precion timed detonation of charges is routine in demolitions. That's a fact, not an assertion. If you're going to continue trying to misrepresent facts as assertions, I'd say there's little to no point arguing with you. Nothing you said breaks thelink removed

Actually, it doesn't quite.

This is a fairly typical YT vid of a building being demolished by a series of explosions.

You can hear each bang.

Now that's no great shock- explosions are loud.

Now listen to the soundtrack of the collapse of WTC7

No series of bangs.

No controlled demolition.

 

The assertion has been assailed.

No, thelink removed (it's an analysis, not an assertion) hasn't been assailed at all. No audio analysis will alter or change the result of the graphical analysis I did (unless you can empirically show otherwise) or the conclusion it naturally arrives at through process of elimination that indicates some energetic material capable of quickly removing all support from beneath the upper part of the building (WTC7) had to have been physically transported inside the building some time prior to the event.

 

And still.... not one member of this forum has managed to openly criticize it, let alone break it (the analysis) by simply copying and pasting one or more of the animations along with some accompanying text to say something like.... "No, this is wrong and here's why. In reality this animation would play out differently than you have depicted it, it would actually play out like this...."

 

As I said before, if I'm so obviously wrong that everyone looking at the analysis can immediately see I'm wrong or that it's incorrect.... Why hasn't anyone simply pointed that out in the above described manner?

 

Unless and until someone does that the analysis and it's conclusion stand.... the building was brought down by explosives.

 

Happy New Year.

Edited December 28, 2014 by hypervalent_iodine

[MigL]

I don't think anyone has ever had the ba*ls to call swansont befuddled.

 

Personally I agree with you 100%. The buildings were brought down by explosives.

 

( Several belly and wing tanks filled with JP-4 fuel, similar to kerosene, which fuels jet engines, exploded, or at least fire-balled in the interior of the buildings and weakened the central support structure. Is that what you meant ? )

[swansont]

The claim that free fall descent is physically impossible? It's not a claim, it's the Law of Conservation of Energy

 

How does energy conservation prevent free fall?