WTC7 falls at free fall speed? Why does the official story defy known laws of physics?

Originally posted by ANOK
So can you explain how sagging trusses can pull in the columns? Can you explain how WTC 7 landed in it's footprint? That is all I am asking, shouldn't be too hard for an expert as yourself, eh?

That's OT for this thread. Can you please stick to the topic of this thread?

Many thanks in advance

Fitz

Originally posted by ANOK

Originally posted by samkent
Interesting how you chose video from implosionworld when they explicitly state that 911 was not CD.

I didn't choose it for that reason, just the first one I found.

I don't care what they said. This is the problem with this discussion, you go by what other people are telling you, not by your own knowledge. So I am not debating you, I am debating whoevers point you decide to use.

The first one you find that's your problem ANOK detail!!!!

The video of a REINFORCED concrete structure built as a 3d grid ie internal floor columns overloaded until collapse is NOT THE SAME as a 110 floor tube in tube steel frame structure with open plan floor impacted by an aircraft flying at a few hundred miles per hour is it!!!! APPLES with APPLES.

Same with your post on the Gronzy thread like the others YOU didn't even bother to find out how the building was constructed that one was REINFORCED concrete as well

What is YOUR knowledge of construction how often have you been on site during construction on multi-storey buildings care to tell us of your experience in construction!!!

Have you ever been responsible for ANY decision made on the structure of a building I have lots of times

Did you bother to read this posted to you on another thread

www.era.lib.ed.ac.uk...

So ANOK please enlighten us all with YOUR construction background!!!!

Originally posted by John_Rodger_Cornman
Why did WTC7 fall at free fall speed during 9/11? No fire. No plane impact. Falls in a way that is consistent with demolition.

Why does the official story defy the known laws of physics?

I will tell you why: No doubt Bldg. 7 was intended to collapse along with the entire rest of the WTC complex, but due to technical issues or other factor unknown , did not go down on schedule. Had 7 fallen during the demolition of a Tower it would have been noticed much less and the perp's would claim that the falling debris had caused the destruction, a story which would have likely been swallowed whole by the compliant and trusting American people, who accepted even the most unlikely and outrageous excuses for what was seen. This is due to conditioning and a media that followed the official line completely and even lambasted anyone who noted some anomaly or fact that contradicted the official fairly tale and called them " conspiracy theorists " with derision and jokes.

Now that the perp's had a problem on their hands, they had to execute the finish to the overall plan that day; had they abandoned the effort expolsives no doubt would have been found and the jig would be up. It had to go.
So they used mostly conventional explosives, reliable and predictable, and the building fell exactly as one that was demolished with explosives, which means barring a miracle of physics, explosives were used to bring down 7 as well. Few camera's were positioned to record the collapse of 7. There are several video clips, and some still footage. All show the penthouse dropping first, proof that the core steel had been compromised internally, then the rest of the structure dropping neatly and in unison straight down.

During this drop, with NO support for any of the structure internally, it achieved free fall speed for about 2 seconds. Those 2 seconds prove beyond any shadow of a doubt, beyond dispute, that all interior supports had to have been eliminated at the same exact time, else the structure would have deformed on one side or the other while dropping down. The fact that the entire building came down whole and straight across proves that demolition was used, because only demolition could possibly account for all massive steel supports losing their ability to resist weight at the same moment. The fact of the free fall proves that the removal of all critical supports at the same time was intentional. No coincidental act could possibly account for the collapse.

So, we have empirical evidence, along with many other examples of irrefutable demolition and extreme temperatures, of the explosive demolition of Bldg. 7. It is a proven fact. there can be no doubt. Any excuse made to try and undermine the known facts are totally lacking and unlikely, if not impossible, and deserve tio be ignored. Bldg. 7 is special in that it is so obviously demolished by explosives that only the silly or uneducated attempt to discourage belief in the obvious. There are people who will argue and deny not because they sincerely believe what they are saying, but for attentions sake or some other personal reason. No rational observer could possibly come to any other conclusion: 7 was brought down by explosive demolition. All the evidence proves that. No other explanation can even come close.

As to why the perp's can get away with blatant crimes and how proof does nothing toward getting justice for the victims, that is because the average person would rather ignore information that threatens their comfort level, and run from news that causes dramatic revisions of one's social viewpoint and foundation for existing. Most people would rather put it out of their minds, because it is too upsetting and scary to imagine that the very people at the top who are supposed to be loyal and protect us all actually are craven mass murderers with no regard for the citizen and willing to kill thousands to advance their goals of conquest and money attainment. Most would prefer to ignore such truths as Bldg. 7 holds because it can turn someones life upside down really fast, and most would avoid that at all costs. After all, if there is nothing anyone can do...what worry about it?

Sadly, the science and the facts mean little..until the average person is able to be outraged beyond his comfort level and willing to sacrifice something to do what needs to be done, we will remain here trying to explain to the unlearned what the facts mean, and avoid the trolls and morons that comment only to fill some void in their lives.

Originally posted by ANOK
So can you explain how sagging trusses can pull in the columns? Can you explain how WTC 7 landed in it's footprint? That is all I am asking, shouldn't be too hard for an expert as yourself, eh?

I believe this will be the sixth or seventh time you've refused to read this paper ANOK. You destroy your credibility with this alone.

www.sciencedirect.com...

You're welcome.

reply to post by richierich




Were they silent conventional explosives that destroyed WTC 7 ?

Can you point to any evidence in the debris to support your assertion ? Det cord, detonators etc ?

If WTC 7 was due to be brought down with the Towers in the morning, as you allege, how do you think that impacts on the supposed complicity of the BBC who announced the collapse about 20 mins early but in the late afternoon ?

reply to post by Zaphod58


Even if the building was ablaze, the frame of modern buildings is such, that all combustible material on the building burning is not sufficient to cause a collapse. Many buildings burned out to the bone without collapsing.



Now I wonder how you get a building lit up like that in the first place. What is in a modern skyscraper that can cause a building to light up like a Zippo?

Originally posted by Alfie1
reply to post by richierich

 

Were they silent conventional explosives that destroyed WTC 7 ?

Can you point to any evidence in the debris to support your assertion ? Det cord, detonators etc ?

If WTC 7 was due to be brought down with the Towers in the morning, as you allege, how do you think that impacts on the supposed complicity of the BBC who announced the collapse about 20 mins early but in the late afternoon ?

No they were audible, but NIST decided to edit most of the sound out of the WTC7 collapse videos.

But I myself and others have analyzed the audio from one clip and there are low frequency explosive booms that can be heard just before the collapse.

Plus there are many eye witness accounts of explosions, far too many for it to be a coincidence.

It's just you and others try hard to hide these very real facts.

Anyone with a little nous can do some research and discover this for themselves, it's not hard.

Why are you masking the obvious?

Originally posted by exponent

Originally posted by ANOK
So can you explain how sagging trusses can pull in the columns? Can you explain how WTC 7 landed in it's footprint? That is all I am asking, shouldn't be too hard for an expert as yourself, eh?

I believe this will be the sixth or seventh time you've refused to read this paper ANOK. You destroy your credibility with this alone.

www.sciencedirect.com...

You're welcome.

I think you're wrong, Anok's credibility is very intact here, it's just you trying to make him out to not have any to make yourself feel better and attempt to give your own argument some credibility.

Debunkers lost all credibility a long time ago, but here you are, 12 years down the line still trying to win it back.

As if anyone is going to pay $39.95 to read that! Or $3.99 for 24 hrs access! You cannot tell what is in the paper from a small excerpt.

You lot go on about 'truthers' selling books, and now this! Very hypocritical.

Your argument is based on some dubious paper you expect people to read. Why don't you buy it if you're so sure, and send it to Anok, and send me a copy while you're there...

Originally posted by _BoneZ_

Originally posted by samkent
Here [/url] ya go.
And it started with a little old vending machine fire.

By comparing that particular building collapse, it would seem that dishonesty and misinformation take precedence over facts and truth. Even though this was already debunked in the thread you linked to, I'll do it again here:

- Firstly, it was obviously only a partial collapse as evidenced in the image.

- Secondly, this was not a steel-structured building. It was a concrete-framed building with steel reinforcements in the concrete columns. The steel reinforcement decreased with height.

- Lastly, the Verinage demolition technique has already shown that concrete structures will easily crush themselves down to the ground once collapse has been initiated. And that's exactly what we see here.


Steel-structured highrises cannot crush themselves down to the ground, nor have any completely collapsed down to the ground due to fire in history. This is a fact that remains unchallenged.

Comparing a concrete-structured building to a steel-structured building is dishonest, misleading, and a form of trickery to the lay person who isn't versed in building construction or demolition techniques, and building collapse history.

Originally posted by samkent
Please explain what shutting down power and rigging a building have to do with each other?

I didn't say anything about rigging anything. It was called a lie that there was a power down on the weekend before. I proved that wrong with two separate people coming forward and testifying to the contrary.

Originally posted by samkent
Totally debunked. You must be reading older conspiracy rants on this subect.

Can you provide the peer-reviewed paper that debunks the peer-reviewed thermite paper? We all would love to see it.

Otherwise, please recant your "totally debunked" comment. Thanks.

edit on 16-3-2013 by _BoneZ_ because: sp

I see SamKent had no comeback on this!

This is why debunkers cannot be taken seriously, they are just trolls.

They talk rubbish, get shown up, then run away and hide for a few pages until the dust has settled, then pop back up again.

They get proven wrong all the time, and they just wait for the thread to move on a few pages, so people forget their absurd comments.

Truthers debunk debunkers, if it was not for us they would continue to spread the lies they cling onto.

Still waiting to see a debunker come up with evidence of a steel framed building collapsing from fire alone..

Never will see any evidence from them, because it's impossible.

Originally posted by exponent
www.sciencedirect.com...

Hmm seeing as that is the first time I've seen this linked then I doubt I ignored it.

But then again seeing as I can't see it anyway because I am not a member, maybe you will just post what it is in the article you want me to see. I'm not about to pay $ 39.95 to see what you're talking about.

If you do not have a Username and Password, click the "Register to Purchase" button below to purchase this article. Price: US $ 39.95 Register to Purchase

Are you serious?

Not sure if you noticed, but the normal way of doing things here is to quote what it is you want someone to see and then a link to it. You are always doing post a link and run threads, with no indication of what I'm supposed to be looking at.

Just like PLB's PDF I extremely doubt it says sagging trusses can pull in columns without first breaking the feeble week connections, as noted by PLB, who has been helping me nicely with my research.

Wow, at least at one time you guys were challenging, now it's just a joke. I have to admit though it is entertaining reading some of your replies, priceless stuff guys.

Nothing you have show as "evidence" so far has turned out to be what was claimed, so why should I believe this is any different?

Of course now you will use this as an excuse to claim I am ignoring it. Well if what you say is true, I am pretty darn sure there would be more than one article that explains it.

reply to post by Zaphod58


Of course we all know that machiavellians always draft their plans in a paper napkin over their knees just moments before they enact them... Give me a break, in such a major event was engineered (and I believe that it was, even if some of the theories are out there, there are facts that speak for themselves) the planning and preparation was massive for the event and the post event.

reply to post by Zaphod58

And exactly how did you get those calculations? To calculate the precise free fall speed, you would have to know the mass of the building, as well as the air density, which I'm sure you know changes with height.

Originally posted by extraterrestrialentity
To calculate the precise free fall speed, you would have to know the mass of the building,

I love it when truthers show their ignorance of physics, what makes you think the mass of a building effects the speed it falls? later at school you will learn the formulae for velocity, v=u + at, and as you can see mass is not in there

Originally posted by hellobruce

Originally posted by extraterrestrialentity
To calculate the precise free fall speed, you would have to know the mass of the building,

I love it when truthers show their ignorance of physics, what makes you think the mass of a building effects the speed it falls? later at school you will learn the formulae for velocity, v=u + at, and as you can see mass is not in there

Velocity, not free fall. You can look up the formula for free fall with air resistance online, as posting it here would make it too hard to understand.

Originally posted by hellobruce
I love it when truthers show their ignorance of physics, what makes you think the mass of a building effects the speed it falls? later at school you will learn the formulae for velocity, v=u + at, and as you can see mass is not in there

Oh the irony, once again. You guys are off the hook! I don't know what school you went to but I would not recommend it, based on it's graduates.

The mass of a building effects things that are falling on it, EVEN if it is falling on itself. In engineering they call it resistance, that little physical reality you like to pretend didn't exist in the WTC buildings. Remember according to you armchair debunkers 15 floors "crushed"* 95 floors to the ground. And yes that IS what you are saying no matter how well you wrap it up in innuendos, and terms you fail to understand.

*If you don't like that term pick another and move on.

Why would the formula for velocity say anything about mass, when that formula is not reflecting that?

You need to look at the physics of colliding objects. Look at the effects of what objects colliding has on velocity.

A collision between two objects involves two things: how much mass each object has, and how fast it is going when it entered the collision.

This page will allow you to set up your own crash movie by selecting different vehicles and speeds. Fasten your seat belt!

What Happens When Two Things Collide

Go ahead mate give it a try, you might learn something.

Originally posted by DeeKlassified
I think you're wrong, Anok's credibility is very intact here, it's just you trying to make him out to not have any to make yourself feel better and attempt to give your own argument some credibility.

ANOK says that 'common sense' can somehow beat a peer reviewed paper. He doesn't want to be wrong, and so denies reality. This is why his credibility is shot.

Debunkers lost all credibility a long time ago, but here you are, 12 years down the line still trying to win it back.

I stand by my credibility, I have an extensive history of detailed, specific posts on the 911 topic. ANOK is still trying to find a way around the facts.

As if anyone is going to pay $39.95 to read that! Or $3.99 for 24 hrs access! You cannot tell what is in the paper from a small excerpt.

You lot go on about 'truthers' selling books, and now this! Very hypocritical.

What's hypocritical? It's Science Direct. Surely you've heard of it before. I'm not exactly about to go infringing copyright because you don't understand how a link to a journal article works.

Would you like me to summarise it for you? I'm happy to engage if you'll do so, but not if you're just going to insult me as you have already.

Your argument is based on some dubious paper you expect people to read. Why don't you buy it if you're so sure, and send it to Anok, and send me a copy while you're there...

Since when is the paper 'dubious'? You haven't even read it yet you cast aspersions upon it. This is an explicit show of bias on your part. How can you possibly say such a thing about something you have not read?

Here, I'll except a single section for you as that is generally permissible:

Originally posted by ANOK

Originally posted by exponent
www.sciencedirect.com...

Hmm seeing as that is the first time I've seen this linked then I doubt I ignored it.

Here's a neat trick. How about you take the link, go to google, put it in and marvel at the fact the second link is me linking you to this paper a year ago:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

But then again seeing as I can't see it anyway because I am not a member, maybe you will just post what it is in the article you want me to see. I'm not about to pay $ 39.95 to see what you're talking about.

But I thought you knew what you were doing in this field ANOK. You mean to tell me you can't even read a basic Elsevier paper but somehow you have detailed knowledge of physics/mechanics?

Not sure if you noticed, but the normal way of doing things here is to quote what it is you want someone to see and then a link to it. You are always doing post a link and run threads, with no indication of what I'm supposed to be looking at.

You're lying again ANOK. I have posted a total of 7 public threads in 5 years. I really don't think that 1.4 threads per year is excessive.

Just like PLB's PDF I extremely doubt it says sagging trusses can pull in columns without first breaking the feeble week connections, as noted by PLB, who has been helping me nicely with my research.

We already know the shear strength of the joints, or at least I do. You should too. Sufficient force can be applied to buckle an outer wall without breaking bolts. I'll show you the numbers if you actually bother to read.

Wow, at least at one time you guys were challenging, now it's just a joke. I have to admit though it is entertaining reading some of your replies, priceless stuff guys.

Your arrogance is getting worse and worse. The 911 conspiracy movement is all but dead, this forum is all but dead and still the NIST report is the accepted truth and their recommendations are in modern building codes.

Of course now you will use this as an excuse to claim I am ignoring it. Well if what you say is true, I am pretty darn sure there would be more than one article that explains it.

Sure, hell why don't we let you pick. Name an article in a peer reviewed journal that supports your conclusions and models something substantially similar to the WTC. IE not a reinforced concrete structure undergoing a sudden failure and a restrained load test.

reply to post by exponent


That is not saying what you claim it is, nowhere does it say sagging trusses can pull in columns.

Do you seriously think box columns are weaker than bolts? Seriously?

Dubious because of your claims, not the literature.

From the PDF supplied by PLB...

In the initial stages of heating the restraint from the surrounding structure tends to resist the expansion of a beam...

As I have been saying, heating of the truss/beam causes it to expand, and push against the columns. It cannot push the columns outwards, because "the surrounding structure tends to resist the expansion of a beam".

...The initial deflection is increased by this restrained expansion together with the thermal bowing caused by the temperature variation across the beam’s cross-section...

The truss can't expand outwards due to being pinned between columns, so the truss is deflected, it sags. How sad for your hypothesis?

Fig. 5 illustrates the main influence of the catenary action which is apparent in the deflection temperature curves when the beams survive up to large deflection. The fact that the axial compression force in the beam changes to tension force tends to stop the run-away caused by the applied load and material degradation. Depending on the temperature history during the fire scenario, the remaining material strength helps the heated beam to act in catenary to support the load, and tends to prevent run-away. The analysis was carried out using end-plate connections and a 50% load ratio.

In this study, the case has been made that catenary action can enhance survival times for steel beams in fire, suggesting that such methods should be extended to include its effect where support conditions are appropriate.

Catenary action certainly occurs, and has been seen to affect a heated beam’s behaviour by preventing run-away deflection at high temperature plus applied load. The tensile axial force grows progressively as the deflection grows provided that some horizontal reaction stiffness exists. A change of the horizontal restraint stiffness can have a large effect on the behaviour of the beam at high deflection, and the loading on the beam can be carried very effectively as catenary tension replaces bending.

Trusses CAN sag but that is all that that says.

If the heating of the truss/beam causes run-away deflection, and the connections survive, the beam fails, not the columns.

www.fire-research.group.shef.ac.uk...

Read it.

Edit; In fact from now on I will simply link back to this post if you continue trying to claim that the literature you are posting says what you claim it does. Isn't it against t&c to knowingly post lies? Especially when ones expected to pay for it! Where can I send you my bill for this information?

Originally posted by ANOK
reply to post by exponent

 

That is not saying what you claim it is, nowhere does it say sagging trusses can pull in columns.

It confirms unequivocally that trusses exert inward pulling forces on columns. You are undeniably wrong on this point, you can't simply deny it and expect not to be ridiculed.

Do you seriously think box columns are weaker than bolts? Seriously?

Luckily for professionals there's no simple measure of 'weaker' in this context. You're talking about a force being applied orthogonal to the design of the box columns resistance, but in the roughly correct orientation for the bolts. It's entirely plausible that they could be 'stronger' in this context.

Dubious because of your claims, not the literature.

I've been through the literature and I have only found small scale reproductions of NISTs studies that confirm them. I've yet to find anything that states 'trusses cannot pull in on columns'

As I have been saying, heating of the truss/beam causes it to expand, and push against the columns. It cannot push the columns outwards, because "the surrounding structure tends to resist the expansion of a beam".

On the contrary, in the WTC floor systems were significantly damaged and many of the attaching bolts failed. There's good modelled evidence that shows the trusses pushed the columns out 1-2 feet initially. There was no other source of restraint for the walls after all.

The truss can't expand outwards due to being pinned between columns, so the truss is deflected, it sags.

How sad for your hypothesis?

Not really 'sag', as the two words mean different things. A truss undergoing deflection is undergoing compression. A truss sagging has failed in compression and has now switched to tension. You cannot quote 3 excerpts discussing catenary action and then claim that it can't possibly be due to tension. Look up the damn word, learn some of the trade you keep claiming you're knowledgeable in.

Trusses CAN sag but that is all that that says.

No, it says trusses will sag. We know that a catenary is formed when the truss slips into tension, so we know the only force there is inward on the columns. This is confirmed by the paper I linked to.

If the heating of the truss/beam causes run-away deflection, and the connections survive, the beam fails, not the columns.

What exactly is 'run-away deflection'? In the paper you link it is an effect suffered in tension. You seem to think it's in compression. You are wrong:

These deflections are largely
caused by restrained thermal expansion, and are not a sign of loss of load capacity in the
beam. At a later stage catenary action increasingly prevents run-away deflection at high
temperatures under the effect of the applied load, as axial tension starts to develop, and the
beam then acts as a cable hanging from the adjacent cold structure

It couldn't be more clear and explicit.

Edit; In fact from now on I will simply link back to this post if you continue trying to claim that the literature you are posting says what you claim it does. Isn't it against t&c to knowingly post lies? Especially when ones expected to pay for it! Where can I send you my bill for this information?

You're welcome to bill me ANOK. The problem is that you'll expose yourself by doing so and we can either mock you or your employer for hiring you. I don't know how it can be made any clearer to you but apparently denial is the strongest of all feelings.

Originally posted by exponent
It confirms unequivocally that trusses exert inward pulling forces on columns. You are undeniably wrong on this point, you can't simply deny it and expect not to be ridiculed.

Yes it does.

But what it doesn't confirm unequivocally is that force is enough to cause the columns to be pulled in. Says right there in that PDF in black and white mate. You can read and understand English right? I really have no idea how you make the stretch to complete failure from sagging trusses, oh wait no, it must be true because NIST said so.


Did you actually read what I quoted from that PDF? How can you still claim it says sagging trusses can pull in columns when clearly it explains how sagging effects only the truss and the connections. It says NOTHING about columns failing.

Here it is again in case you missed it...

In the initial stages of heating the restraint from the surrounding structure tends to resist the expansion of a beam...

As I have been saying, heating of the truss/beam causes it to expand, and push against the columns. It cannot push the columns outwards, because "the surrounding structure tends to resist the expansion of a beam".

...The initial deflection is increased by this restrained expansion together with the thermal bowing caused by the temperature variation across the beam’s cross-section...

The truss can't expand outwards due to being pinned between columns, so the truss is deflected, it sags. How sad for your hypothesis?

Fig. 5 illustrates the main influence of the catenary action which is apparent in the deflection temperature curves when the beams survive up to large deflection. The fact that the axial compression force in the beam changes to tension force tends to stop the run-away caused by the applied load and material degradation. Depending on the temperature history during the fire scenario, the remaining material strength helps the heated beam to act in catenary to support the load, and tends to prevent run-away. The analysis was carried out using end-plate connections and a 50% load ratio.

In this study, the case has been made that catenary action can enhance survival times for steel beams in fire, suggesting that such methods should be extended to include its effect where support conditions are appropriate.

Catenary action certainly occurs, and has been seen to affect a heated beam’s behaviour by preventing run-away deflection at high temperature plus applied load. The tensile axial force grows progressively as the deflection grows provided that some horizontal reaction stiffness exists. A change of the horizontal restraint stiffness can have a large effect on the behaviour of the beam at high deflection, and the loading on the beam can be carried very effectively as catenary tension replaces bending.

Trusses CAN sag but that is all that that says.

If the heating of the truss/beam causes run-away deflection, and the connections survive, the beam fails, not the columns.

www.fire-research.group.shef.ac.uk...

Do you not understand what that is saying? Obviously not.