Friday, April 13, 2007

How Fast Did WTC 7 Fall?



Our buddy Boloboffin takes the micro approach to debunking 9-11 Denial, looking at the question of whether it's true that WTC-7 collapsed in 6.6 seconds (it didn't). These short films strike me as a good way to go about debunking the crackpots. They require a lot less effort than mega-debunkings like Screw Loose Change the Video or Screw 9-11 Mysteries.

48 Comments:

At 13 April, 2007 14:30, Blogger BG said...

This is sad. SLC Blog is 0 for 2 in the last two posts.

The idea of measuring the collapse time for the "pre-collapse" penthouse being blown has no basis in logic.

 
At 13 April, 2007 14:36, Blogger MarkyX said...

the "pre-collapse" is part of the collapse, idiot.

 
At 13 April, 2007 14:53, Blogger 911_truthiness said...

This seems to be a thing with the people who blew up the WTC buildings.

Swing says they started to blow up the towers even before the first plane hit, His famous "Slow Motion, bit by bit, Bomb in the basement theory"

They collapse the east penthouse first just for a laugh.

 
At 13 April, 2007 14:53, Blogger BG said...

It will be very interesting to see if the expected NIST report even mentions the "pre-collapse".

 
At 13 April, 2007 15:01, Blogger 911_truthiness said...

bg. you don't even provide entertainment.

Swing at lease comes here and comes up with a new "Drivel de jour"

What do you say Swing?

Shhhh! Be quiet.. he is going to speak and I don't want to miss his next loony gem.

 
At 13 April, 2007 15:06, Blogger sggw said...

What were BG'S qualifications again?
You know, the qualifications that allow him to make assessments about what it takes for buildings to fall?
What school granted his a degree in architectural engineering?
What school educated him in civil engineering?
What institution of higher education matriculated him with training in structural dynamics?
How many engineering studies has he done?

 
At 13 April, 2007 15:07, Blogger tripntraveler said...

"Pre-collapse"? This my friends, is the sound, of goal posts being moved!

DT

 
At 13 April, 2007 15:08, Blogger tripntraveler said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 13 April, 2007 15:15, Blogger tripntraveler said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 13 April, 2007 15:28, Blogger Alex said...

Aw, Bill's not totally wrong on this one. It hinges on how you define "collapse time". Do you define it as the time between the point at which the majority of the structure failed? and the point at which the building was entirely levelled? Or do you define it as the time between the point at which some of the structure failed, and the point at which the building was levelled? If the former, then the collapse took between 6 and 7 seconds, which is consistent with an acceleration of 0.8 times earth gravity. If the latter, then the collapse took a lot longer, and the collapses of WTC1 and WTC2 would be something like half an hour.

Either way, though, it does nothing to support the twoofer's theories. The collapse was clearly slower than "free-fall", no matter how you look at it.

 
At 13 April, 2007 15:38, Blogger Pat said...

BG, so I suppose that means we're also 1 for 3 in the last three?

 
At 13 April, 2007 15:44, Blogger Jason said...

Good thinking, because you can't slow down or speed up recorded video or anything.

 
At 13 April, 2007 16:00, Blogger Civilized Worm said...

And here was me thinking you were quite sane for a twoofer.

 
At 13 April, 2007 16:11, Blogger Jason said...

I find it hilarious that someone makes a comment wondering how NIST will report on this information, and sggw jumps all over him asking for several irrelevant credentials.

On the flip side- a video of someone counting out-loud to measure the WTC7 collapse time goes unquestioned, despite the fact that it doesn't even provide a person's name (let alone credentials).

Thanks for staying objective.

PS - before you ask, yes, I'm an expert in pointing out double standards.

 
At 13 April, 2007 16:17, Blogger sggw said...

Well Jason how else would you gage credibility? Toofers rarely present facts, should we just take your word for it? Care to share yours wwith us?

 
At 13 April, 2007 16:20, Blogger Civilized Worm said...

It doesn't take a genius to see that that building fell in over seven seconds. I'd like to know what reason you have to believe that the footage had been slowed down.

 
At 13 April, 2007 16:25, Blogger sggw said...

BTW Jason, I was just asking questions. This is what I responded to, not what you claim.


{This is sad. SLC Blog is 0 for 2 in the last two posts.
The idea of measuring the collapse time for the "pre-collapse" penthouse being blown has no basis in logic.}

 
At 13 April, 2007 16:38, Blogger Manny said...

It hinges on how you define "collapse time". Do you define it as the time between the point at which the majority of the structure failed? and the point at which the building was entirely levelled? Or do you define it as the time between the point at which some of the structure failed, and the point at which the building was levelled? If the former, then the collapse took between 6 and 7 seconds, which is consistent with an acceleration of 0.8 times earth gravity.

That's true as far as it goes, but here's the thing. There's a reason the twoofers want people to believe that the building collapsed at or near a free-fall speed. And that reason is that they wish people to believe that there was no resistance to the collapse from the structure of the building -- that explosives planted throughout the building broke up that structure and allowed the building to fall that quickly.

The point of the video is that the structure started failing well before the observed collapse of the facade of the building. That is, the facade fell very quickly not because the structure failed instantaneously from explosives but because the structure failed prior to the facade collapse and that the structure failure was much slower.

 
At 13 April, 2007 16:45, Blogger BG said...

Sure, Pat, I'll grant 1 for 3. I would perhaps grant a wildly speculative lifetime average of 300 for 500. If this were baseball you'd be batting 600.

 
At 13 April, 2007 16:49, Blogger Jason said...

I didn't say it had been slowed down.. in fact I said it could go either way.

Bottom line: video doesn't always play back at the same speed it was recorded, mainly due to differences in the framerate of common recording formats (progressive, interlaced), format conversions, or even the delivery mechanism (flash is notorious for going out of sync on some operating systems).

Don't get me wrong, it's probably pretty close, I just wouldn't consider it scientific measurement (whatever that means in the context of WTC7 collapse timing). ;)

 
At 13 April, 2007 16:55, Blogger Civilized Worm said...

Well if the video evidence is unreliable(and we're talking multiple videos here) then how are we to determine what speed it fell at?

 
At 13 April, 2007 16:59, Blogger bolo said...

Hi, this is Bolo, the maker of the little vid. Thanks for this post, guys!

Now, for the people who are talking trash about the detonation sequence, trash is exactly what it is you guys are talking. You have no evidence for your claims. You have only wishful thinking. You say that only to give yourself permission to believe just what you want to about Building 7's collapse.

You are allowed to believe anything you want to in America. I would never interfere with anyone's freedom of religion. But you need to be honest with yourself about what you're doing. Speculations about "collapsing the east penthouse first just for a laugh" is exactly that - speculation.

 
At 13 April, 2007 17:20, Blogger Jason said...

Well, not all video evidence is unreliable, but once it hits YouTube, there's really no way to tell how many times it has been converted, etc.

Plus, professional cameras record an extra "time code" track that can be used as a timing reference for syncing externally recorded sound, dropping out-of-sync frames, etc.

Basically any video source not from the Internet (or someone's VCR) is probably going to be fine.

 
At 13 April, 2007 17:31, Blogger The Artistic Macrophage said...

since 99% of the truther world and claims are based on google video and you tube video, then jason I am sure you place no merit in their claims, given how you feel about such videos...lol

TAM:)

 
At 13 April, 2007 17:57, Blogger shawn said...

video doesn't always play back at the same speed it was recorded

This might be the lamest excuse a Truther has ever used.

And the collapse of the penthouse counts as part of the collapse, BG.

 
At 13 April, 2007 19:58, Blogger heffe said...

No matter how you split the rch, the WTC buildings each collapsed in seconds. If fire was the cause, slower, less symmetrical break up would be expected. Three vanishing acts, all in one day, in one location, defies reason.

Follow the 9-11 money. Bush and Silverstein are reaping billions. Cheney, Rummy, Rice and the other minions are making millions. Coincidence? No more than the events on the day of 9-11.

 
At 13 April, 2007 20:02, Blogger The Artistic Macrophage said...

So heffe; you figure the entire scheme of 9/11 was orchestrated and carried out in the 9 months of power the REPs had before 9/11?

So Bill and Al, they were not involved? Their chase of OBL was real, unlike BUSH et al, who were chasing the CIA asset OBL, not the real one that Bill and Al were chasing for 8 years?

TAM:)

 
At 13 April, 2007 20:32, Blogger heffe said...

My guess is the details of the plan were hatched on Bill and Al's watch, by the elements of the military-industrial cabel they angered by cutting their funds. However, Bill and Al and the Bushes are all on the same team. Bill and Al did not profit directly, but Bill certainly has no problem coatailling on the Bush political capital resulting from 9-11. And there are all those rumors of the midnight plane traffic in Arkansas when GHWB was VP, Bill was governor, and Ollie North was running drugs and guns. It is a small world in Washington.

 
At 13 April, 2007 20:56, Blogger Cl1mh4224rd said...

BG said: "It will be very interesting to see if the expected NIST report even mentions the "pre-collapse"."

You really do need to put significantly more effort into that truth-seeking hobby of yours. As it is, you're just not very good at it...

They're already well aware of this "pre-collapse", as mentioned on slide/page 26 of this PDF, which is within their "Working Collapse Hypothesis for WTC7" section (which starts on slide/page 6.

This is dated April 5, 2005.

 
At 13 April, 2007 21:17, Blogger Alex said...

If fire was the cause, slower, less symmetrical break up would be expected.

Why?

 
At 13 April, 2007 21:33, Blogger shawn said...

Three vanishing acts, all in one day, in one location, defies reason.

No, it doesn't defy reason. You really don't understand how massive these builds were, do you?

 
At 13 April, 2007 23:02, Blogger BG said...

Cl1mh4224rd said...

Thanks for pointing this out (NIST PDF).

On Slide 29, there is this follow up:

Analysis to date indicates:
􀂉 Massive size of columns 79, 80, and 81 appears to require severe
fires and/or damaged fireproofing to initiate thermally-related failures

With respect to the new report NIST is planning, I don't think it's a certainty that it will cover the details previously admitted.

If I were in the shoes of the hired liars, I think I'd fit James' chaos theory in there. Perhaps they can do a Monte Carlo analysis with a collapse model to document the third "spontaneous controlled demolition" in history.

 
At 14 April, 2007 01:34, Blogger Jay said...

With respect to the new report NIST is planning, I don't think it's a certainty that it will cover the details previously admitted.

If I were in the shoes of the hired liars, I think I'd fit James' chaos theory in there. Perhaps they can do a Monte Carlo analysis with a collapse model to document the third "spontaneous controlled demolition" in history.


BG, i said this before to someone. The report on WTC7 will be looked at by every structural and civil engineer in the world who works on buildings, because its so important to understand what happened. So lets just wait and see what the rest of the structural and Civil engineers in the world have to say about the NIST report on WTC7 when it comes out.

Calling them liars before the report is even finished is not very respectfull now is it.

 
At 14 April, 2007 02:57, Blogger Der Bruno Stroszek said...

It does show an admirable open-mindedness, doesn't it? "I haven't read the report - indeed, no-one has - but it's full of lies."

 
At 14 April, 2007 07:16, Blogger Alex said...

Well what do you expect? After all, he's still referring to the collapses as controlled demolitions! Anyone who can look at the damage that was done to surrounding buildings and call it a controlled demolition, is obviously a few cards short of a full deck.

 
At 14 April, 2007 08:16, Blogger CHF said...

Jason, BG, heffe, Swing...

can one of you please explain why the penthouse fell before the rest of the building?

I mean c'mon...what kind of bizarre demolition was this?

 
At 14 April, 2007 19:16, Blogger Civilized Worm said...

IT AM BIZZARO DEMOLITION INCOPORATED!


If fire was the cause, slower, less symmetrical break up would be expected.

Why?


Because he expected it!

 
At 14 April, 2007 19:39, Blogger Jason said...

Regarding other video evidence - you're right, I wouldn't trust any numbers to be exact when the video source is YouTube (or similar). I don't care who posted it, what they're saying, etc.

Either way, the difference between 7 seconds & 15 seconds isn't enough to change my opinion about what happened. It's not the claim that the building fell at "free fall" speed that people should be keying in on, it's the fact that it fell under a minute (roughly).

chf: I don't know why the penthouse fell first, but it was obviously the start of the entire collapse, so I'm not sure I understand the significance (to you or I) one way or the other.

 
At 14 April, 2007 19:51, Blogger shawn said...

it's the fact that it fell under a minute (roughly)

If you think it should've taken a minute to fall you're dumber than I can possibly fathom.

It's not like a floor collapse, five seconds passes, then the next collapses, another five seconds passes, the next floor collapses, etc. If it took a minute to collapse, then there'd be something fishy.

 
At 14 April, 2007 20:00, Blogger Civilized Worm said...

What sources do you trust Jason?

 
At 14 April, 2007 21:26, Blogger Jason said...

Well, the hard part isn't timing it, it's actually defining when a collapse starts & ends. Assuming that definition existed, I would probably just look for a consensus among two or more sources that timed it (as defined) using a time coded video & a stopwatch.

shawn: Considering there isn't even a published explanation of what caused the collapse to begin with (and that's what you guys swear by), how can you say, "if it took a minute to collapse, then there'd be something fishy"? Would you also find it fishy if the building didn't collapse at all, given the observable damage?

 
At 14 April, 2007 22:13, Blogger James B. said...

If you think it should've taken a minute to fall you're dumber than I can possibly fathom.



Hey, do you know how long it takes to say clunkity-clunk 47 times?

 
At 15 April, 2007 07:22, Blogger Just said...

Demolitian Experts highly overrated

Until 9/11 in 2001, we believed controlled demolitions, especially so-called "building implosions", required highly-skilled demolition experts.

But on that very day we were all proved wrong. When severely damaged, buildings have no choice but to fall straight down due to gravity, as Jonathon Moseley clarifies.

Full article on my blog

 
At 15 April, 2007 15:00, Blogger pomeroo said...

A conspiracy liar writes: "Follow the 9-11 money. Bush and Silverstein are reaping billions. Cheney, Rummy, Rice and the other minions are making millions. Coincidence? No more than the events on the day of 9-11."

Yes, let's do just that.

Are Bush and Silverstein "reaping billions"? No, this is an absurd lie invented out of whole cloth by an ignorant fraud.

Are Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Rice making a fortune on investments in 9/11-related industries? Well, show us something. I say that the charge is a slanderous falsehood based on absolutely nothing. The onus is on the conspiracy liar to show us what he's got.

And they NEVER have ANYTHING.

 
At 15 April, 2007 16:14, Blogger Civilized Worm said...

Demolitian Experts highly overrated

Wow, you're a retard!



What sources Jason?

 
At 16 April, 2007 06:07, Blogger sggw said...

Jason must think that Demolitian Experts highly overrated because none of them agree with the toofers

 
At 17 April, 2007 23:32, Blogger Paul said...

10 seconds into the collapse 10 seconds into the collapse.
You have really got to be kidding posting this rubbish.
You guys are really getting desperate aren't you, you traitorous loons.
Keep America free and help get to the truth, posting this makes you all look like a joke.

 
At 03 May, 2007 13:29, Blogger Caleb said...

You keep clicking those heels and whispering "ten seconds into the collapse".. over and over.. and your wish will be granted. honest.

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home