WTC7 - Analysis and Conclusion

[Aemilus]

WTC7 - ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSION

A Complete Empirically Verifiable Scientific Method Driven Graphical Target System
Analysis and Conclusion Arrived at by Process of Elimination.



The conditions required for gravitational acceleration to occur have been known for centuries....



"The condition under which a body is, literally, free to fall under the influence of the local gravitational field with no resistance to its acceleration."



The control that appears on the right in many of the animations is intended as a reminder of that, and also signals the beginning of a comparison....



We can still know with certainty what conditions exist beneath an object as it falls....



....even though we may not be able to see into the space beneath it as it does....



Buckled columns, whether one or a hundred, whether one at a time or all at once (or any combination thereof) won't just go from 100% to 0% when they buckle, they'll steadily decrease in strength while they buckle and that takes time....



The mechanism of buckling (a mode of natural progressive structural failure) whether caused by heat....



....by overloading....



....or by fracturing (another mode of natural progressive structural failure)....



....absolutely cannot match or create the conditions required for gravitational acceleration to occur, it's literally impossible. There is no such thing as structural gravitational acceleration....



Some force must be introduced to quickly remove all support from beneath the literally falling visible upper part of the building seen in the video....



The progressive collapse of the building (NIST probable collapse sequence starting with column 79 on the left)....



....that essentially happens all at once....



....is clearly physically inconsistent with what we empirically know of natural progressive structural failure (defined as a time consuming process of individual/sequential/simultaneous failure involving one or a number of related structural components). It's a physical impossibility for the lower part of the asymmetrically damaged building (reportedly three core columns and nine perimeter columns)....



....to have naturally progressively collapsed in any way that could result in the upper part of the building symmetrically descending straight down through itself (NIST probable collapse sequence starting with column 79 circled below) at anything near gravitational acceleration for any period of time....



Any scenario like that playing out below resulting from natural progressive structural failure is an absolute physical impossibility....



....and there is absolutely no mode or combination of modes of natural progressive structural failure driven solely by gravity that can ever give rise to the conditions required for free fall to have occurred at any point during it's descent....



The scenario playing out below is an absolute physical impossibility. Just as there is no such thing as structural gravitational acceleration, nor is there any failure mode known as natural progressive structural gravitational acceleration....



There is simply no point during a natural progressive gravity driven collapse of any steel frame skyscraper where one could say anything like....

"Hold it.... right there! That's the point where all the steel columns and structural components that were supporting the building just a moment ago (with an area greater than that of a football field) will undoubtedly be found to be behaving in a manner very much like air (below left). It will take very careful calculation to tell the fall times apart during this free fall period of the ongoing natural progressive structural failure (below right)"....



For the 2.25 seconds (eight stories, approximately 105 feet) that we know the upper part of the building literally fell at gravitational acceleration it cannot have been using any of it's potential energy to crush the building contents, columns and other structural components beneath it and undergo free fall at the same time (as illustrated by this frangible impedance scenario)....



It's physically impossible for the lower asymmetrically damaged part of the building to have naturally progressively collapsed in a way that could result in the upper part of the building actually accelerating as it descended symmetrically straight down through itself, through the path of maximum resistance (below right), and then, driven on solely by gravity, actually continue to accelerate so nearly to gravitational acceleration (below left) as to require very careful calculation for any difference between the two to be detected....



Some other force powerful enough to quickly remove all support from beneath the upper part of the building as it descended must be introduced to explain the observed rate of descent during the 2.25 second period of gravitational acceleration. For the 2.25 seconds that the building literally fell at gravitational acceleration, no other force powerful enough to quickly remove all support from beneath the upper part of the building was seen to be introduced from outside the building, and no other force powerful enough to quickly remove all support from beneath the upper part of the building is known to have existed inside the building as an element or normal function of it's infrastructure. For a load supported by a column to descend at gravitational acceleration, all support must be quickly removed, there's absolutely no other way. It must be knocked out, pulled out, blown out, vaporized etc. Since no eight story tall boulders were seen rumbling through Manhatten that day that could have quickly knocked out all support....



....and no suspicious looking Frenchmen were spotted rigging for verinage (a form of controlled demolition) the night before that could have quickly pulled out all support....



....and no bombs or rockets were seen to be dropped on/fired at it that could have quickly blown out all support....



....and no giant laser beams or other secret weapons were being tested in the area that could have quickly vaporized all support....



....and no other force capable of quickly removing all support from beneath the upper part of the building existed in the building as a normal function of it's infrastructure (blue)....



....it naturally follows that whatever the other force was that must be introduced to explain the observed 2.25 seconds of descent at gravitional acceleration, it must have been introduced some time before the event, and unless someone can show how the other force that must be introduced either during or just before the collapse of the building was introduced from outside the building, or that it was already existing inside the building as a normal function of it's infrastructure, the process of elimination really leaves only one possible explanation for the building's behaviour. Some energetic material powerful enough to quickly remove all support from beneath the upper part of the building during the 2.25 second period of gravitational acceleration must have been physically transported inside the building some time before the event, it had to be brought in. The explosion model is the only one....



....that can realistically match and empirically be expected to create the conditions that we know must have existed....



....beneath the literally falling visible upper part of the building during its observed largely symmetrical descent at gravitational acceleration for approximately 105 feet in 2.25 seconds....



The undisputed (both the NIST and independent researchers alike agree) confirmed observation of a significant well defined period of gravitational acceleration....



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)
During Stage 2, the north face descended essentially (displaying all the absolutely necessary, extremely important features) in free fall, indicating negligible (so small or unimportant as to be not worth considering, insignificant) support from the structure below.

Stage 3 (4.0 to 5.4 seconds): decreased acceleration, again less than that of gravity.




....means that an explosion, or a number of explosions, must have occurred that was powerful enough to quickly remove all support from beneath the upper part of the building (below right), either all at once or incrementally in advance of its descent, permitting it to descend at gravitational acceleration for the observed period and under the conditions required (below left) for free fall to occur....



The building was brought down by explosives.

[chunksmediocrites]

That appears reasonably well thought out. My skepticism at the level of conspiracy and the subsequent requirements for secrecy do not invalidate it- incredulity is certainly not evidence.

Speaking of evidence, explosives create residues, and leave signs of the material used. Has anyone found any evidence of the significant amount of explosives and detonating systems the conclusions above would require? Any evidence at all? Which again, does not mean there was none- it just keeps it firmly in the realm of deductive reasoning rather than proof.

And then of course, there are those structural engineers who disagree with the above conclusion:

I guess a lot of you have heard about the website ae911truth where a group of individuals claim that what happened to WTC 1, 2 and 7 could not have happened. This is just a claim, because they have nothing to show for their allegation that it could not have happened the way it did. You won't find any calculations that show how the NIST Report is wrong. On this site, you will find many structural engineers - those who actually know what they are talking about - explaining why the towers collapsed the way they did.

Also future terrorists or terrorist states: this level of redundancy is a bit of overkill, isn't it? I mean, attempting to fly commercial airliners into the World Trade Center, the Pentagon, and the White House is a lot- do you also need to wire one of the targets to collapse? Or, alternately: terrorist organization that learned of the first terrorist plot and then decided to use expert demolition skills to wire one of the targets to ensure collapse- what exactly is your pay value?

What parts of the NIST report do you think are inaccurate?

[Ari]

It's almost as if the building both gained a lot of extra weight and had beams snap *before* the collapse thus many weren't actually in the way to begin with.

[Ari]

Originally Posted by chunksmediocrites

Also future terrorists or terrorist states: this level of redundancy is a bit of overkill, isn't it?

This is a good point, given that one plane missed it's target, shouldn't we have found a building that just exploded or was left with demolition charges strapped everywhere?

[BrotherMan]

Come on, guys. They're not going to pretend to blow up the White House or wherever that plane was going. That would be a step too far.

[Ymir's blood]

I blame Obama.

[LadyShea]

7 WTC had several floors burning long before it collapsed, weakening the structure

{Embed removed to appease Sock's evil work filter. Click on the link below to see the video. - liv}

Footage that kills the conspiracy theories: Rare footage shows WTC 7 consumed by fire | Daily Mail Online

[Ari]

Indeed the report seems to say that the internal support structure actually collapsed first leaving the top dangling in mid air.

There's also a few other confusions, one thing is that humans just aren't used to seeing massive amounts of energy, so while we might assume that something in the way will slow it down the amount it does can be miniscule. If you want to see this in action watch an industrial press bend and shape large pieces of metal, the action is so smooth as if the metal was actually tissue paper.

[The Lone Ranger]

Just so. Also, you have to keep in mind the enormous amount of inertia that a skyscraper has. We tend to think of them as solid structures. They aren't. They're like a gigantic house of cards.

Thus, a skyscraper can't really collapse any way but straight down. If you apply enough lateral stress, the supporting elements collapse and then the skyscraper collapses onto itself -- that is, it falls straight down. It's for the same reason that if you push on a house of cards it falls down, not sideways.


What seems "intuitive" to most of us simply doesn't apply at very large (or very small) scales.

[SR71]

Originally Posted by chunksmediocrites

That appears reasonably well thought out. My skepticism at the level of conspiracy and the subsequent requirements for secrecy do not invalidate it- incredulity is certainly not evidence.

Speaking of evidence, explosives create residues, and leave signs of the material used. Has anyone found any evidence of the significant amount of explosives and detonating systems the conclusions above would require? Any evidence at all? Which again, does not mean there was none- it just keeps it firmly in the realm of deductive reasoning rather than proof.

And then of course, there are those structural engineers who disagree with the above conclusion:

Also future terrorists or terrorist states: this level of redundancy is a bit of overkill, isn't it? I mean, attempting to fly commercial airliners into the World Trade Center, the Pentagon, and the White House is a lot- do you also need to wire one of the targets to collapse? Or, alternately: terrorist organization that learned of the first terrorist plot and then decided to use expert demolition skills to wire one of the targets to ensure collapse- what exactly is your pay value?

What parts of the NIST report do you think are inaccurate?

Yeah, they were dumb. I would've been much more terrified if say, the Chrysler building and Empire State had both been leveled with explosives on the same day as two airliners hit the Towers. The overkill was so much wasted effect.

[Stormlight]

So, basically, the Bush administration did this? The Bush administration? Really?? The bumbling idiots that were too dumb to hide a couple of WMDs in Iraq did this? Holy shit!

[beyelzu]

I'm sorry but I couldn't follow your presentation, could you please increase the number of simplistic animations that drive your really stupid and misleading point home while neglecting facts.

Protip-if your argument is so simple and obvious invoking basic rules of newtonian physics or thermodynamics, the experts didn't miss it.

[Sock Puppet]

LadyShea's post above has some sort of imbedded object that my work filter is calling "pornography." No idea why.

[Ymir's blood]

This?

The_Cure_-_Pornography.jpg

[livius drusus]

Originally Posted by Sock Puppet

LadyShea's post above has some sort of imbedded object that my work filter is calling "pornography." No idea why.

I very dictatorially removed it, but if Shea gets mad, I'm putting it back in. I don't need that kind of heat.

[Ymir's blood]

I am calling shenanigans on behalf of freeze peach.

[Aemilus]

Originally Posted by chunksmediocrites

That appears reasonably well thought out. My skepticism at the level of conspiracy and the subsequent requirements for secrecy do not invalidate it- incredulity is certainly not evidence.

Thanks, and agreed, no level of conspiratorial complexity can invalidate an empirically verifiable analysis.... that's a fact.

Originally Posted by chunksmediocrites

Speaking of evidence, explosives create residues, and leave signs of the material used. Has anyone found any evidence of the significant amount of explosives and detonating systems the conclusions above would require? Any evidence at all? Which again, does not mean there was none- it just keeps it firmly in the realm of deductive reasoning rather than proof.

No. Empirically verifiable repeatable data is synonymous with fact and fact is synonymous with proof. As far as the evidence for or presence of residue left behind by the energetic materials employed the NIST did not check for any residual evidence. It makes no difference to the empirical analysis though which unambiguously and irrefutably indicates by simple process of elimination that no other explanation other than the physical transportation of some form of energetic materials into the building could have been responsible for the observed behaviour of the building.

Originally Posted by chunksmediocrites

And then of course, there are those structural engineers who disagree with the above conclusion:

Hah! An anonymous blog that makes no mention whatsoever of WTC7 (the stated topic). Nothing there called one keystroke of the empirical analysis into question.... you're going to need bigger guns.

Originally Posted by chunksmediocrites

Also future terrorists or terrorist states: this level of redundancy is a bit of overkill, isn't it? I mean, attempting to fly commercial airliners into the World Trade Center, the Pentagon, and the White House is a lot- do you also need to wire one of the targets to collapse? Or, alternately: terrorist organization that learned of the first terrorist plot and then decided to use expert demolition skills to wire one of the targets to ensure collapse- what exactly is your pay value?

There's no empirically verifiable data in anything you wrote there (open to correction if you can point something out) that can be applied or used to either confirm or deny the veracity of any aspect of the empirical analysis making it (everything you wrote) essentially useless for empirical analysis. In other words.... all the questions you raised there are beyond the scope of the analysis and none of them or any of the possible answers to them have any impact on it in the sense of showing any part of it to be incorrect.

[Aemilus]

Originally Posted by Ari

It's almost as if the building both gained a lot of extra weight and had beams snap *before* the collapse thus many weren't actually in the way to begin with.

Right, and that would be a good explanation if we had photographs of fifty story tall construction cranes loading the top of the building with a bunch of forty ton lead ingots just prior to it's destruction.... until someone reveals the existence of such photographs though it's just useless unsupported fantasy.

[Aemilus]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

7 WTC had several floors burning long before it collapsed, weakening the structure

{Embed removed to appease Sock's evil work filter. Click on the link below to see the video. - liv}

Footage that kills the conspiracy theories: Rare footage shows WTC 7 consumed by fire | Daily Mail Online

Sorry, the empirically verifiable fact of the matter is (as clearly illustrated by analysis) that heat induced buckling absolutely can not match or create the conditions required for gravitational acceleration to occur. You can drench a steel frame building in any flammable liquid or load it with any flammable material you please but no matter what you do, no free fall.... there is no such thing as natural progressive structural gravitational acceleration.

[Aemilus]

Originally Posted by Ari

Indeed the report seems to say that the internal support structure actually collapsed first leaving the top dangling in mid air.

Can you provide an excerpt from this "report" that empirically explains how anything like that could happen? I say you can't.

Originally Posted by Ari

There's also a few other confusions, one thing is that humans just aren't used to seeing massive amounts of energy, so while we might assume that something in the way will slow it down the amount it does can be miniscule. If you want to see this in action watch an industrial press bend and shape large pieces of metal, the action is so smooth as if the metal was actually tissue paper.

Actually the only thing here that's confusing is why in the world anyone would think that any of that could somehow undermine the veracity of or call into question any part of a top to bottom empirically verifiable analysis, it doesn't.... it's not science.

[Aemilus]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

Also, you have to keep in mind the enormous amount of inertia that a skyscraper has. We tend to think of them as solid structures. They aren't. They're like a gigantic house of cards.

No they're not. A house of cards is held together only by gravity and even a slight disturbance can bring it down whereas WTC7 was solidly welded and bolted together. For your analogy to be apt you would have to solidly glue the cards together.

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

Thus, a skyscraper can't really collapse any way but straight down. If you apply enough lateral stress, the supporting elements collapse and then the skyscraper collapses onto itself -- that is, it falls straight down. It's for the same reason that if you push on a house of cards it falls down, not sideways.

No matter how a building naturally progressively collapses, whether straight down or to the side, no free fall.... and if you try your little experiment after you've solidly glued the cards together to reflect the way WTC7 was solidly welded and bolted together the only thing you'll find falling apart like a house of cards is your hopelessly flimsy analogy.

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

What seems "intuitive" to most of us simply doesn't apply at very large (or very small) scales.

No, there's nothing intuitive about the Law of Conservation of Energy as applied to a falling body (for those of us who made it through eighth grade anyway). Nothing you wrote there had any impact or cast any doubt on the veracity of the empirical analysis or showed it to be incorrect in any way.

[Aemilus]

Originally Posted by beyelzu

I'm sorry but I couldn't follow your presentation....

Even someone recovering from a botched hemispherectomy could follow the analysis.... How are you feeling?

Originally Posted by beyelzu

....could you please increase the number of simplistic animations that drive your really stupid and misleading point home while neglecting facts.

Neglecting facts.... Which ones? It's moronic in debate to just jump up and point out that facts are being neglected without elaborating to say what those facts are or how they're being neglected.... moronic. As far as the "simplistic animations" go, their formatting was guided by a Cambridge University educated forty-five year veteran PH.D reseach physicist over the course of a two month long exchange I had with him devoted exclusively to the topic and if there was anything stupid or misleading about them or the point they make he would have closed in on me faster than a ravenous Hyena closing in on an abandoned newborn Wildebeest.... the only thing that's simplistic, stupid and misleading here is you pretending to actually know what you're talking about.

Originally Posted by beyelzu

Protip-if your argument is so simple and obvious invoking basic rules of newtonian physics or thermodynamics, the experts didn't miss it.

The analysis is simple, obvious and invokes the Law of Conservation of Energy and since it was posted for the first time over seven months ago no expert or academic has been successful in pointing out any error at all.

[Dingfod]

Originally Posted by Aemilus

Even someone recovering from a botched hemispherectomy could follow the analysis.... How are you feeling?

Well, now I'm convinced...

...that I want some of what you've been smoking.

[Kael]

Doesn't all this hinge on rather dramatically over-analyzing a few seconds of video? That hardly strikes me as an open-and-shut empirical case. You certainly attempt to make the most of it, but if that's all you've got I don't find it very persuasive, or verifiable for that matter.

[LadyShea]

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

Boyle: There was a huge gaping hole and it was scattered throughout there. It was a huge hole. I would say it was probably about a third of it, right in the middle of it. And so after Visconti came down and said nobody goes in 7, we said all right, we’ll head back to the command post. We lost touch with him. I never saw him again that day.

http://www.firehouse.com/terrorist/9.../gz/boyle.html
(Broken Link Cached here: WebCite query result )

This proves there was a big hole on the south side of the building. From the photographic evidence and these quotes which aren't meant to be technical, I suspect there was a large hole in the center of the building which may have gone up 10 stories connected to a large rip on the left side of the building which continued up another 10 or more stories. Together they would make "a hole 20 stories tall".

Hayden: Yeah. There was enough there and we were marking off. There were a lot of damaged apparatus there that were covered. We tried to get searches in those areas. By now, this is going on into the afternoon, and we were concerned about additional collapse, not only of the Marriott, because there was a good portion of the Marriott still standing, but also we were pretty sure that 7 World Trade Center would collapse. Early on, we saw a bulge in the southwest corner between floors 10 and 13, and we had put a transit on that and we were pretty sure she was going to collapse. You actually could see there was a visible bulge, it ran up about three floors. It came down about 5 o’clock in the afternoon, but by about 2 o’clock in the afternoon we realized this thing was going to collapse.