WTC7, The 2.25 seconds, what caused it?

[SanderO]

You’ll have to excuse me, and with all due respect, I don’t have any idea what “load transfer structures" your referring to on floors 5,6,7. Could you please elaborate, and show me on the steel framing plans what your referring too? The reason I ask, is because there aren’t any “load transfer structures”, perhaps we are misunderstanding each other as to what and where these structures actually are within WTC7.

Again, with all due respect, “There weren't many columns above 7/8 which coupled to the foundation” and "tower dropped from floor 8” is not only incorrect according to the steel framing plans, but doesn’t reflect NIST’s simulations and report.

Before we carry on, please answer a few questions so we can get on the same page.

First, could you tell me how many of the "columns above 7/8” weren’t "coupled to the foundation”?

Second, by “coupled”, I am presuming you mean, supported directly by the foundation. Is this correct?

Third, is this your hypothesis or NIST’s hypothesis? If it’s NIST’s hypothesis, could you please show me where NIST hypothesized the “tower dropped from floor 8”?

My hunch is definitely not what NIST suggested.

Coupled means directly connected with... and in continuous "axial" alignment with. A beam is a transfer structure as it transfers floor loads to a column typically. A truss is a type of beam... made of multiple members usually in triangular arrangement (triangles cannot "deform" and if the sides remain the same length... rectangles can!).

Typical design is to have ALL columns in a high rise... stacked on on top of the other... end to end... be supported by the foundation. This was NOT the case for 7wtc. The building about floor 8 had 81 columns... of those 81, 57 were on the perimeter... of those 57 at the perimeter only 24 were directly coupled with the foundation... 31 of the perimeter columns were supported by / on transfer structures.

The central region had 3 massive load transfer trusses and 8 MG27 massive load transfer cantilever beams and several load transfer girders MG 23, M53,. ALL of these load transfer structures were interconnected with a massive beam with was on the north side of the core from column 61 to column 73. The 8 load transfer cantilevers were supported by this beam and carried columns 47 -54 perimeter columns of the north face... the one you see collapsing in the video

The transfer structures were OVER the existing Con Ed sub station which went from street level to floor 3... and the transfer structure were located on floors 3,4 5 and these floors were for mechanical equipment, building electrical transformers, switching, emergency back up electrical power and diesel tanks to power the gensets and HVAC equipment serving the floors up to 23.

The key to understanding how these buildings came down... is to understand how they were designed

 

[stundie]

You tell me.

Thermite?

Nano-thermite?

Termites?

Mini-nukes?

Explosives?

Well what you are looking for is something which is capable of removing the resistance of about 8 floors almost simultaneously.

So it's obviously fires......along with gravity. lol

 

[Fledermaus]

Well what you are looking for is something which is capable of removing the resistance of about 8 floors almost simultaneously.

So it's obviously fires......along with gravity. lol

Until something is presented that is both logical and supported by the evidence fire is the only explanation for the collapse.

 

[stundie]

Until something is presented that is both logical and supported by the evidence fire is the only explanation for the collapse.

Because fire is the only thing in all of the things you listed which is capable of making 8 floors magically lose all resistance. lol

And don't make me laugh, your idea of what constitutes as logic or evidence is clearly skew-whif!! lol

 

[Fledermaus]

Because fire is the only thing in all of the things you listed which is capable of making 8 floors magically lose all resistance. lol

And don't make me laugh, your idea of what constitutes as logic or evidence is clearly skew-whif!! lol

No magic required.

So, still waiting for the TRUTHER version of what happened.

 

[stundie]

No magic required.

So using this logic and evidence, explain how fire caused the building to free fall for 2.25 seconds then?

So, still waiting for the TRUTHER version of what happened.

Well if you can't figure out which of those things you listed could remove 8 floors of steel almost instantly, then getting a truther version of events that you would be capable of comprehending, would be like trying to explain a typewriter to an ant. lol

 

[Fledermaus]

So using this logic and evidence, explain how fire caused the building to free fall for 2.25 seconds then?
Well if you can't figure out which of those things you listed could remove 8 floors of steel almost instantly, then getting a truther version of events that you would be capable of comprehending, would be like trying to explain a typewriter to an ant. lol

Well, we can ask the engineers.

Wait.

Beentheredonethat.

Your desire not to understand does not change reality.

Back to ignore.

At least until you present an intelligent counter-theory.

 

[zyzygy]

Well, we can ask the engineers.

Wait.

Beentheredonethat.

Your desire not to understand does not change reality.

Back to ignore.

At least until you present an intelligent counter-theory.

You may as well ask an ant to produce an intelligent counter theory.

 

[stundie]

Well, we can ask the engineers.

Which engineers are they then??

Wait.

Beentheredonethat.

Your desire not to understand does not change reality.

I was hoping to understand, but it's clear that you don't understand either. You pretend you understand...but life as a pantomime act is full of pretend.

Back to ignore.

Well it's not like you have anything of value to add to the debate is there.

At least until you present an intelligent counter-theory.

I would like an intelligent theory to counter in the first place. lol

However, when a theory relies on fires which supposedly caused 8 floors of steel to suddenly become structurally redundant, then we know we are delving into the land of fantasy....lol

Unless that can be explained of course! lol

 

[Fledermaus]

You may as well ask an ant to produce an intelligent counter theory.

Tell me if stundie presents anything resembling an intelligent counter-theory.

 

[Fledermaus]

Stundie, quit quoting me if you aren't going to address the OP.

 

[zyzygy]

Tell me if stundie presents anything resembling an intelligent counter-theory.

Life is not long enough for that. Or for any other truther to present an intelligent counter theory.

 

[stundie]

I will present an intelligent counter theory, when an intelligent theory has been presented.

I can't counter a theory which is devoid of logic or evidence.

 

[prison/con.net]

what fires? no planes hit building 7.

 

[Fledermaus]

what fires? no planes hit building 7.

And everybody knows you need a plane for there to be a fire.

 

[zyzygy]

And everybody knows you need a plane for there to be a fire.

I always light my wood stove by crashing a plane into it.

 

[zyzygy]

what fires? no planes hit building 7.

What. No.

 

[stundie]

I always light my wood stove by crashing a plane into it.

And if I need to remove about 8 floors of structural steel in an instant, I just use fire. lol

Cause fire is awesome at making buildings collapse.

 

[Mark F]

I do appreciate your manner in this post, and I apologise if I’ve been snappy towards you previously. This is the kind of dialogue I would rather carry on. You treat me with respect, and I’ll be glad to treat you with respect.

Great. I think we have some areas of agreement, some areas of disagreement and some areas where the plot is lost. In the interest of moving the project forward I'm going to run something up the flag pole to see what you think. Indulge me if you would please.

Elsewhere on the forum I have seen you at least allude to the idea that the 2.25 seconds of "free-fall" must mean that 57 perimeter columns all simultaneously disappear over an 8-story height. It isn't enough for the columns to merely buckle, they have to disappear to provide zero resistance. If one thinks about this for a minute it doesn't make logical sense. How would 57 columns over an 8-story height just evaporate instantaneously to produce 2.25 seconds of free fall.

They wouldn't, and they didn't.

The most logical explanation is that either the observation of "free-fall of the entire building" is wrong, or it wasn't free-fall that was being measured - or both. I submit it is both. There is no need to explain 57 columns simultaneously failing over an 8-story height because it didn't happen and that isn't what the observed period of acceleration under discussion shows. Indeed, the observed acceleration isn't even applicable to the entire building anyway. In other words, there is no need to explain that which did not happen (57 columns going poof)

1. The accelerations observed over that 2.25 second period were not at gravitational acceleration but rather an average - during that 2.25 second period the measured data point accelerated from less than G to G then briefly over G before slowing down below G again. This has been established and confirmed by several people making more detailed observations since Chandler and is inherent in the data anyway. It should not be a surprise Because GA was in fact exceeded during that 2.25 second period it wasn't "free-fall" and other forces besides gravity were in play.

2. The single data point from which the measurement was derived does not and can not represent the entire building. The observations are valid only for that one spot on the roof of the curtain wall where the observations were taken. Other points on the structure may well have produced different measurements. Indeed, knowing how the building twisted and leaned as it collapsed during the time the observations were taken this bit should be obvious. Or in simpler terms, it is wrong to extrapolate a measurement taken from a single point and apply it to the entire structure, much of which had already collapsed before the measurement was even taken.

3. The measured data point was not moving straight down but was part of a structure which was twisting and leaning to the south as it collapsed. What was measured was the acceleration of a specific point on the building moving in 3 dimensions, not simply straight down and thus was being acted on by forces other than gravity. This goes back to #1 above. Therefore the measurement is not strictly of vertical movement and thus can not be simply free-fall.To be blunt, we know how fast the spot the measurement was taken from was moving, not how fast it was falling.


4. How fast something falls tells you nothing about why it fell.

So in summary, I don't find it odd that NIST takes zero time to explain something that never happened - 57 perimeter columns going poof over a height of 8 floors. The data, when looked at correctly does not support the idea that 57 columns/8 floors went poof. Other than being a mildly interesting sidebar I don't find Chandler's data to be very important. Certainly NIST did not since none of their conclusions were changed by his data.

 

[stundie]

Great. I think we have some areas of agreement, some areas of disagreement and some areas where the plot is lost. In the interest of moving the project forward I'm going to run something up the flag pole to see what you think. Indulge me if you would please.

Elsewhere on the forum I have seen you at least allude to the idea that the 2.25 seconds of "free-fall" must mean that 57 perimeter columns all simultaneously disappear over an 8-story height. It isn't enough for the columns to merely buckle, they have to disappear to provide zero resistance. If one thinks about this for a minute it doesn't make logical sense. How would 57 columns over an 8-story height just evaporate instantaneously to produce 2.25 seconds of free fall.

They wouldn't, and they didn't.

The most logical explanation is that either the observation of "free-fall of the entire building" is wrong, or it wasn't free-fall that was being measured - or both. I submit it is both. There is no need to explain 57 columns simultaneously failing over an 8-story height because it didn't happen and that isn't what the observed period of acceleration under discussion shows. Indeed, the observed acceleration isn't even applicable to the entire building anyway. In other words, there is no need to explain that which did not happen (57 columns going poof)

1. The accelerations observed over that 2.25 second period were not at gravitational acceleration but rather an average - during that 2.25 second period the measured data point accelerated from less than G to G then briefly over G before slowing down below G again. This has been established and confirmed by several people making more detailed observations since Chandler and is inherent in the data anyway. It should not be a surprise Because GA was in fact exceeded during that 2.25 second period it wasn't "free-fall" and other forces besides gravity were in play.

2. The single data point from which the measurement was derived does not and can not represent the entire building. The observations are valid only for that one spot on the roof of the curtain wall where the observations were taken. Other points on the structure may well have produced different measurements. Indeed, knowing how the building twisted and leaned as it collapsed during the time the observations were taken this bit should be obvious. Or in simpler terms, it is wrong to extrapolate a measurement taken from a single point and apply it to the entire structure, much of which had already collapsed before the measurement was even taken.

3. The measured data point was not moving straight down but was part of a structure which was twisting and leaning to the south as it collapsed. What was measured was the acceleration of a specific point on the building moving in 3 dimensions, not simply straight down and thus was being acted on by forces other than gravity. This goes back to #1 above. Therefore the measurement is not strictly of vertical movement and thus can not be simply free-fall.To be blunt, we know how fast the spot the measurement was taken from was moving, not how fast it was falling.


4. How fast something falls tells you nothing about why it fell.

So in summary, I don't find it odd that NIST takes zero time to explain something that never happened - 57 perimeter columns going poof over a height of 8 floors. The data, when looked at correctly does not support the idea that 57 columns/8 floors went poof. Other than being a mildly interesting sidebar I don't find Chandler's data to be very important. Certainly NIST did not since none of their conclusions were changed by his data.

Oh come on, I don't think anyone is suggesting that 57 columns just evaporated or vanished at all.

What they are saying is that the RESISTANCE disappeared, not the actual steel itself. Do you understand the difference??

If you are going to logically explain a point, it would really help you if you actually understood the point being made.

 

[Buck Naked]

Reply to post 3290 from thread," NIST's Fraudulent Report on the Collapse of WTC7 on 9/11 "

Let's both think this through.

First of all, there were NOT 57 perimeter columns that went straight to the ground. If you go to page 16 in NIST's document and look at the first floor framing plan, Figure 2-4, I count 20 new columns, not 57. Here is what NIST says about the foundations and columns at the lower levels in section 2-3.

I don’t see the relevence of where you’re going with this. NIST doesn’t make any claims that the design difference between distributed loads and concentrated loads of the columns played a part in the global collapse. Furthermore, the distributed load design on the East and West perimeter not only provide equal load bearing capacity as compared to perpendicularly attached and anchored columns to the foundation, the distributed load design provides greater shear strength from the North and South than would a simple perpendicular column concentrated load.

Furthermore, NIST says the columns buckled between the 7th and 14th floors. NIST does not state how the entire perimeter structure of a minimum of 18 floors fell at free fall as one unit.

Before continuing, let's discuss something. According to the graphs done by various individuals (Chandler and NIST to name two) which map data points of the descent of the roofline, there are data points within the 2.25 seconds that show non free fall. How do we resolve those data points? What do they mean? Certain folks on this board want to hand wave those data points away and not consider the fact that those data points show resistance of some type. What do you consider them to mean?

The data points are approximate, not perfectly calculated. The quality of the video(brightness, stillness, etc) was not perfect. The methods, although fairly accurate, used to determine these points relied upon imperfect evidence(the video), consequently, the data points are of approximative value only. If the data points were precise, I think the question that should be asked is how does the building drop faster than gravitational acceleration, not, whether or not, an itsy, bitsy, fraction of a fraction of resistance occurred.

 

[Bob0627]

Oh come on, I don't think anyone is suggesting that 57 columns just evaporated or vanished at all.

What they are saying is that the RESISTANCE disappeared, not the actual steel itself. Do you understand the difference??

If you are going to logically explain a point, it would really help you if you actually understood the point being made.

He likes to make things up then explain how it makes no sense. A recent example is his characterization of the free fall of WTC7 as "disputed" and the collapse taking 40 seconds, then asking a question based on these red herrings. So yeah, you'll get a "logical" explanation based on illogical red herring claims.

 

[Buck Naked]

Reply to post 3291 from thread," NIST's Fraudulent Report on the Collapse of WTC7 on 9/11 "

But wouldn't there be a point reached by the perimeter columns, where the resistance of those failing perimeter columns versus the DYNAMIC descending load of everything above the failure point would be almost nothing?

I think I understand what your imagining. You think that as the perimeter columns buckled and the mass from the structure above began to descend, this descent of the structure's mass grew so large, nothing below had the strength to resist?

According to NIST’s report, no, this is not what they describe, and actually the exterior structure as a whole should have gotten stronger(not in terms as a whole building, but as a hollowed out, steel framed, square tubular structure). This might startle you, but if you take a look ar figures 12-66 to 12-69, the core of the building has mostly collapsed, especially on the Eastern half, and before the exterior walls have even buckled. The loads the exterior columns are carrying, especially on the Eastern half, actually, is less, if we are to follow the sequence of collapse according to NIST.

Pay particular attention to the 15.5 second frame of figure 12-29, page 593.

Also for clarification, page 594

"By 13.5 s (26.8 s), all the interior columns had buckled and, at 15.5 s (28.8 s), the global collapse (i.e., buckling of exterior columns) was underway”

http://www.nist.gov/customcf/get_pdf.cfm?pub_id=861611

They failed! Do you expect a failing/buckled column to provide a constant resistance as it fails?

As long as the column didn’t break it’s splice and completely detach, I’d expect measurable resistance against gravitational acceleration.

The percentage of failure compared to the column's original strength during it's buckling phase is going to increase correct?

If that load is maintained or increased, yes. I understand what you’re saying, but I wouldn’t put it into terms as such.

The load applied to the failed column is going to increase because is is moving downward due to the buckling. You're going to eventually reach an "event horizon" when the dynamic/descending load is enough to make the column provide zero resistance.

Sure, this is theoretically possible, but NIST doesn't describe this. Furthermore, you would have the above exterior columns square tubular structure integrity that would greatly resist once it hit below, possibly even retaining a recognizable tubular structure many stories above ground level and certainly would not collapsed into a pile as it did.

 

[stundie]

He likes to make things up then explain how it makes no sense. A recent example is his characterization of the free fall of WTC7 as "disputed" and the collapse taking 40 seconds, then asking a question based on these red herrings. So yeah, you'll get a "logical" explanation based on illogical red herring claims.

I know how he operates, he doesn't respond to me anymore though, probably because I laughed hard and fast at his "Fisher Price" experiment which proves that a paint can, can crush a cardboard tube in an attempt to explain how the towers actually collapsed.

 

[Buck Naked]

1. The accelerations observed over that 2.25 second period were not at gravitational acceleration but rather an average - during that 2.25 second period the measured data point accelerated from less than G to G then briefly over G before slowing down below G again. This has been established and confirmed by several people making more detailed observations since Chandler and is inherent in the data anyway. It should not be a surprise Because GA was in fact exceeded during that 2.25 second period it wasn't "free-fall" and other forces besides gravity were in play.

You’ll have to explain what "other forces" could have contributed to the increase of speed other than gravity.

2. The single data point from which the measurement was derived does not and can not represent the entire building. The observations are valid only for that one spot on the roof of the curtain wall where the observations were taken. Other points on the structure may well have produced different measurements. Indeed, knowing how the building twisted and leaned as it collapsed during the time the observations were taken this bit should be obvious. Or in simpler terms, it is wrong to extrapolate a measurement taken from a single point and apply it to the entire structure, much of which had already collapsed before the measurement was even taken.

3. The measured data point was not moving straight down but was part of a structure which was twisting and leaning to the south as it collapsed. What was measured was the acceleration of a specific point on the building moving in 3 dimensions, not simply straight down and thus was being acted on by forces other than gravity. This goes back to #1 above. Therefore the measurement is not strictly of vertical movement and thus can not be simply free-fall.To be blunt, we know how fast the spot the measurement was taken from was moving, not how fast it was falling.


4. How fast something falls tells you nothing about why it fell.

I think you’re looking at these data points and charts of the timing of global collapse of WTC 7 to literally.

These charts aren’t perfectly precise, as the main piece of evidence they used to calculate these data points originated from a video recording of the event. The data points are approximative, otherwise, if they were precise, as you noted above, there would have to be another force contributing to the increase of speed past gravitational acceleration.

So in summary, I don't find it odd that NIST takes zero time to explain something that never happened - 57 perimeter columns going poof over a height of 8 floors. The data, when looked at correctly does not support the idea that 57 columns/8 floors went poof. Other than being a mildly interesting sidebar I don't find Chandler's data to be very important. Certainly NIST did not since none of their conclusions were changed by his data.

That is not true, NIST did change it’s report after the commentary period and acknowledge there was free fall. It’s NIST who then calculated the 2.25 seconds.

And why don’t you find it odd that NIST doesn’t explain how this 2.25 second of free fall occurred? NIST’s primary objective was to determine why and how WTC7 collapsed.

Page 1

A principal part of the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) investigation of the WTC disaster was the examination of the WTC 7 collapse.

The specific objectives were to:

1. Determine why and how WTC 7 collapsed;

1. http://www.nist.gov/customcf/get_pdf.cfm?pub_id=861611

​

On another note, I did explain this to you from a Newtonian Physics point of view. But, to sum up my explanations and focus on the ridiculous such as “disappeared” and “poof”, when it was so obvious those words were chosen for visual effect to go along with my Newtonian point of view makes me doubt your seriousness of the discussion. Anyway, I’m going to drop it for now.​

NIST calculated and acknowledged the 2.25 seconds of free fall. So, are we still discussing the NIST report or have you moved on to another hypothesis?​