David Chandler Part II

[rsalinger]

I saw a new video by David Chandler posted here

at youtube with this identifier /watch?v=XtKLtUiww80

In it he disputes the claim that the 18 stories of WTC7 took 5.4 seconds to collapse. He times it in this version at around 3.9 seconds. It's hard to believe that the NIST would make such a mistake. I noticed that he uses a different video but I can see why exactly that would matter if his statement that he's got floor 29 accurately identified is correct. I'm hoping that some clever geometer can give me an insight as to why this is wrong.

Rgrds-Ross

[Cl1mh4224rd]

I noticed that he uses a different video but I can see why exactly that would matter if his statement that he's got floor 29 accurately identified is correct.


His method of identifying the 29th floor is... non-existent.

[T.A.M.]

The rub of it: All calculations are made from videos where the bottom half of the collapse cannot be seen, and is estimated. It is all up to interpretation.

I am guessing (with a good degree of certainty) that NIST had a few more videos of the WTC7 collapse then dear mr.chandler.

TAM:)

[boloboffin]

XtKLtUiww80

The Chandler video in our fancy JREF link.

[DGM]

Without a side by side comparison of the two videos I'm not sure any conclusion can be made. How do we know the speed (in relation to real time) is accurate in his video?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XtKLtUiww80

[T.A.M.]

how do we know he is not making crap up for that matter.

TAM:)

[boloboffin]

Making up crap is my first finding. Chandler uses Gross' hurried description of the NIST measurement to just throw numbers around. He could have gone to the NIST report, p. 600 of the accompanying chapters, and gotten a detailed description of where NIST started and stopped their measurements. But Chandler is a hack.

[rsalinger]

Well, I've done further research and I must say that there are some things you could use to refute it. First, can you actually resolve in his video the 7 feet of movement the NIST describes as phase I of the collapse? I don't see how. Second, his measurement technique is different - they use a measure of pixel brightness he is trying to detect actual movement. Third, I don't see how he can tell he has the 29th floor. However, if you leave that aside, he seems to show a much longer freefall than the NIST does. Comments?

[boloboffin]

His freefall measurement is a .25 of a second longer than NIST's. It's not that much longer, and probably due to his substandard measuring tools and techniques.

Plus a little pillow for the hack to have some breathing room.

[Cl1mh4224rd]

Well, I've done further research and I must say that there are some things you could use to refute it. First, can you actually resolve in his video the 7 feet of movement the NIST describes as phase I of the collapse? I don't see how. Second, his measurement technique is different - they use a measure of pixel brightness he is trying to detect actual movement. Third, I don't see how he can tell he has the 29th floor. However, if you leave that aside, he seems to show a much longer freefall than the NIST does. Comments?


I don't get it... If his methodology is flawed, what's the point in ignoring that and commenting on his conclusion instead? Are you working on the assumption that his conclusion is correct despite the flaws in his methods?

[rsalinger]

No, my intuition was that there's some obvious flaw beyond simple measurement error in his analysis and I'd like to have that in my repertoire when people bring it up. I guess I'll just stick with the problem of identifying the 29th floor accurately, the use of a different video, the only seven feet of movement, and the use of a different and less accurate measurement for movement (NIST pixel brightness versus being able to see the top move down at least one line in the video). I figured someone over here might have something I hadn't thought of.

Rgrds-Ross

[boloboffin]

No, my intuition was that there's some obvious flaw beyond simple measurement error in his analysis and I'd like to have that in my repertoire when people bring it up. I guess I'll just stick with the problem of identifying the 29th floor accurately, the use of a different video, the only seven feet of movement, and the use of a different and less accurate measurement for movement (NIST pixel brightness versus being able to see the top move down at least one line in the video). I figured someone over here might have something I hadn't thought of.

Rgrds-Ross

Your repertoire? You don't need a repertoire. Just stick to the truth.

[T.A.M.]

Not to mention, we are watching a VIDEO where he is ALLEGEDLY counting out the frames ONE BY ONE, yet is he really. I mean there is no movement in dozens of frames he is allegedly counting, but if there is no movement in the frames, how do we know that each alleged frame he is counting is one frame.

Beyond that, if we give him the benefit of the doubt on that one, his start and finish times are completely off the map.

TAM:)

[Bell]

Is Chandler using a copy of the original video, or is he using a YouTube video?

[boloboffin]

Chandler's Part III:

Vz43hcKYBm4

More hackery, more lies, more self-congratulatory BS.

[rsalinger]

Personally I thought it was amazing to simply distort what's in the report and claim it as facts. This seems to be the MO of these people. I particularly liked the idea that since the model mimics what's seen it must have been manipulated until it did no matter how absurd the assumptions. Or that they've hidden their data as if he had a computer that could even run such a simulation if he had the data, etc. When you look closely at the video, you can see very clearly the sky behind the top floor just before the whole thing comes down. You can see that it's unsupported. He also tries to make the point that free fall can only occur with NO resistance whereas they've actually simply fitted a line to the data which shows within limits that it fell as "essentially" free fall. Finally, his line is his graph is clearly incorrect - all the points fall on one side of the fitted line.

[boloboffin]

David Chandler has a website.

http://911speakout.org/

David Chandler has a "Why I Am Convinced 9/11 Was an Inside Job (pdf) (http://911speakout.org/WhyIAmConvinced.pdf)" essay at this website.

David Chandler is a liar about 9/11 evidence. Examples:

In addition to the massive waves of ejections, there are many photographs and videos showing individual "spurts" of material many floors below the point of collapse, identified by experts familiar with demolitions as "squibs," which are commonly seen during controlled demolitions.

...The jet fuel would have burned off within the first ten minutes. In the case of the South Tower, most of the fuel burned up in a fireball outside the building. The fires in the buildings, beyond the first few minutes, were essentially office fires, and not very large ones at that.

Even if the flames were maximally hot, the large mass of steel would wick away the heat energy and not raise the steel temperature sufficiently, especially since the duration of the fires was only on the order of an hour.

Trimmed for Rule 4.Woo, doggy.

[WilliamSeger]

Is Chandler using a copy of the original video, or is he using a YouTube video?

That was my first question, too, and I can't seem to find any description on his blog of what he's using, exactly. In addition to questions about whether the video resolution really supports the kind of accuracy he's claiming, if it's any kind of compressed video with MPEG-2 type "temporal compression" (i.e. I-frames and "predicted" P-frames), then his analysis is going to be faulty: At that low resolution, the initial movement could easily be below the difference threshold used by the compression algorithm. You would definitely need a version that doesn't have any temporal compression to do this kind of analysis, and I can't find any suitable version online. But Chandler doesn't even mention this potential problem, which makes me suspect he isn't aware of it.

But one big difference is that he measured points on the northeast corner, whereas NIST's measurements were taken from a point near the middle of the roof. Chandler just blows that off by claiming, "The fact that the roof stayed level shows the building was in free-fall across the entire width." That's certainly NOT a "fact.": All videos show a kink in the roofline; Chandler's "stayed level" claim is simply disingenuous.

I also can't find any description of how Chandler determined vertical distances. I know that in his first analysis, he took a horizontal distance -- the width of the building -- and (incorrectly) assumed that vertical distances would be similar, without accounting for possible perspective effects and pixel aspect ratios (i.e. video pixels are not necessarily square). He puts an arrow on a point and asserts that it's the 29th floor, works backwards from there, and claims that NIST dishonestly stated a starting time to make the analysis agree with their model. Considering the seriousness of that accusation, I would think he would put a little more effort into explaining how he determined that was the 29th floor.

It seems to me that Chandler has figured out that if the collapse started slowly, then the CD hypothesis doesn't really make any sense, so he's decided he needs to attack that slow start.

[Bell]

David Chandler has a website.

http://911speakout.org/

David Chandler has a "Why I Am Convinced 9/11 Was an Inside Job (pdf) (http://911speakout.org/WhyIAmConvinced.pdf)" essay at this website.

David Chandler is a liar about 9/11 evidence. Examples:



Woo, doggy.

Bolo, you meant to post this 7 years ago, did you?

[davidschandler48]

This is David Chandler speaking. You guys are off the charts in throwing around ad hominems with no evidence whatsoever. I have no intention of carrying on a running dialog here, but at least I can set some of the facts straight.

Methodology: I used a high resolution version of the video. The window spacing is barely visible in the originals, but I enlarged a freeze frame, enhanced it to show the periodicity of the window spacing, and used a geometry tool that enabled me to get an accurate identification of the 29th floor. If you go to the document, not the botched verbal statements of Sunder and Gross, it is clear they used the roofline and the 29th floor: actually the top of the windows of the 29th floor. They give the heights of those two points to a resolution of a few inches. Before you conclude I blew it somewhere, note that NIST in their re-analysis agrees with my results. I can't be that far off.

The 3.9 seconds is NIST's calculation for ideal freefall between the two elevations mentioned. It is correct. It is also a good estimate of the actual time of fall, which they artificially stretch out to 5.4 seconds.

The 5.4 seconds has no basis in anything other than the need to get a measurement that agrees with NIST's model. This is the point of this video analysis in Part II. The end point is easily identified. The start point has no basis in anything.

----------------

"His method of identifying the 29th floor is... non-existent." -- just because you don't understand something doesn't mean you're right.

"I am guessing (with a good degree of certainty) that NIST had a few more videos of the WTC7 collapse then dear mr.chandler." -- I have access to more videos than you may think. And by the way, why should NIST's data not be publicly accessible anyway? Isn't that our tax dollars at work? ... and by the way, I'm not dear to you, so don't say I am.

"how do we know he is not making crap up for that matter." -- Because I'm standing behind my measurements and putting my name on the line ... you're not even standing behind your own pot shots, whoever you are, TAM

"Making up crap is my first finding. Chandler uses Gross' hurried description of the NIST measurement to just throw numbers around. He could have gone to the NIST report, p. 600 of the accompanying chapters, and gotten a detailed description of where NIST started and stopped their measurements. But Chandler is a hack." -- I obviously DID get the data from NIST documents. I stated that in my earlier videos. You might want to check them out. I go through the methodology questions there. If I were making things up, NIST would have shot me down or ignored me rather than changing their tune on freefall.

"His freefall measurement is a .25 of a second longer than NIST's. It's not that much longer, and probably due to his substandard measuring tools and techniques. Plus a little pillow for the hack to have some breathing room." -- You obviously don't understand issues of uncertainty in measurement data. Also, I am using the corner of the building and NIST is using a point midway along the roofline. Some of the variation comes from the initial sagging of their measurement point. By the way, I have yet to call any of you guys hacks. Is this your idea of keeping things on the level of a rational intellectual discussion?

"Not to mention, we are watching a VIDEO where he is ALLEGEDLY counting out the frames ONE BY ONE, yet is he really. I mean there is no movement in dozens of frames he is allegedly counting, but if there is no movement in the frames, how do we know that each alleged frame he is counting is one frame." -- You can tell I'm stepping frames by the motion of the smoke. That's about all that moves, and tha'ts the point. If you don't believe I'm being straight, do the work yourself. All I've seen here is Monday night quarterbacking. Show me some of your expertise.

"Chandler's Part III: More hackery, more lies, more self-congratulatory BS." -- Where's the beef? ...talk about self-congratulatory...

"I particularly liked the idea that since the model mimics what's seen it must have been manipulated until it did no matter how absurd the assumptions. Or that they've hidden their data as if he had a computer that could even run such a simulation if he had the data, etc." -- The method of modeling the collapse is explicitly a matter of tweaking the inputs to see what it takes to get something that looks like the desired output. How do you know what their assumptions are or whether or not they are realistic? And even if they COULD model the collapse, which they obviously can't (5.4 seconds vs. 3.9), that doesn't mean that's how it happened. Is taking NIST on faith your idea of being a "skeptic"? And yes, there are people associated with AE911Truth that could run the models if they were made available.

...by the way, I get the definite impression from this whole forum that waving the flag is your idea of being intellectually cool, and anyone who would question whether the murdering thugs who did the 9/11 thing might have been Americans rather than Arabs is obviously a fool. Oklahoma City was obviously an Arab thing, right? That's what the media said initially, and that's what everyone was ready to buy into, but it just wasn't so.

"David Chandler is a liar about 9/11 evidence." -- That's an unsupported gratuitous accusation.
"Woo, doggy" -- Oh, is that you're reasoning?

"All videos show a kink in the roofline; Chandler's 'stayed level' claim is simply disingenuous." -- The kink moves down with the same acceleration as the rest of the building. I acknowledged there are small variations between their data and mine, but the acceleration they get is the same. You guys are all missing the point: NIST agrees with me. At this stage the accuracy of my measurements is a moot point.

"I also can't find any description of how Chandler determined vertical distances." -- Check out my earlier video that goes into the Freefall measurement in detail.

"I know that in his first analysis, he took a horizontal distance -- the width of the building -- and (incorrectly) assumed that vertical distances would be similar, without accounting for possible perspective effects and pixel aspect ratios (i.e. video pixels are not necessarily square)." -- I did in fact consider that question and concluded the pixels are square. Note the roundness of the CBS logo, for example. It has equal numbers of pixels each way. The main reason I rejected the horizontal calibration measurement was the smokyness of the left edge of the building. Look at my way earlier version of the measurement. I had to bracket the calibration. That doesn't mean I was unaware of the problem. It means I recognized the need to compensate to do the best with the data I had at the time. All of them produced reasonably consistent results, but when the NIST measurement data was published I was able to do a new version with improved reliability. I expected it might show me something definitively less than g, but I was wrong. It zeroed in on g with more precision than I had anticipated. NIST nails their number dead on g. Do you believe them and still think I'm all wet?

"David Chandler has a website.... (I guess I can't even quote the site by your forum rules)
David Chandler has a "Why I Am Convinced 9/11 Was an Inside Job (pdf)" essay at this website." -- That's right. I let people know exactly why I believe the way I do. Where are you blogs explaining why Arab terrorism makes so much sense to you? All I see here is a bunch of think-alikes talking to themselves.

"David Chandler is a liar about 9/11 evidence. Examples:

Woo, doggy. " -- Examples? Examples? Woo doggy!

This forum is pathetic.

[Bell]

This forum is pathetic.

Then don't post here.

'kay. Thanks. Bye!

[Cl1mh4224rd]

"His method of identifying the 29th floor is... non-existent." -- just because you don't understand something doesn't mean you're right.


But you didn't say anything about it that could or could not be understood. Maybe I missed something in the video or elsewhere, but all you said, basically, was "the top of this building lines up with the 29th floor of WTC7."

If you're using a different video than the one NIST used, how did you determine that?

[Bell]

Apparently I can't leave links when I'm new to the forum, and I don't plan to hang around this forum after this post, but I just wanted to point out to you guys that your argument is now not with me but with NIST.

So, you didn't plan to hang around this forum, but somehow managed to read this thread and post in it:confused:

[boloboffin]

This is David Chandler speaking.

Oh, excellent. I'll just pick out the places where you responded to me.

"Making up crap is my first finding. Chandler uses Gross' hurried description of the NIST measurement to just throw numbers around. He could have gone to the NIST report, p. 600 of the accompanying chapters, and gotten a detailed description of where NIST started and stopped their measurements. But Chandler is a hack." -- I obviously DID get the data from NIST documents. I stated that in my earlier videos. You might want to check them out. I go through the methodology questions there. If I were making things up, NIST would have shot me down or ignored me rather than changing their tune on freefall.

Mr. Chandler, in your second video, the one that I am commenting on, you only use the hurried definition given by Gross for your purposes. Again, you manage to misrepresent what's being said to justify yourself.

"His freefall measurement is a .25 of a second longer than NIST's. It's not that much longer, and probably due to his substandard measuring tools and techniques. Plus a little pillow for the hack to have some breathing room." -- You obviously don't understand issues of uncertainty in measurement data. Also, I am using the corner of the building and NIST is using a point midway along the roofline. Some of the variation comes from the initial sagging of their measurement point. By the way, I have yet to call any of you guys hacks. Is this your idea of keeping things on the level of a rational intellectual discussion?

I call you a hack because you are a hack. As you well know, your third video actually measures almost exactly the same amount of time as NIST for the period of freefall, which makes the comment I was responding to even more wrong. However, neither I nor the earlier commenter had the benefit of having seen the third video -- since you hadn't released it yet. You HAD released it when you posted this. Yet another example of your hackery.

"Chandler's Part III: More hackery, more lies, more self-congratulatory BS." -- Where's the beef? ...talk about self-congratulatory...

How is anything there of mine self-congratulatory? Perhaps you don't understand the term.
"David Chandler is a liar about 9/11 evidence." -- That's an unsupported gratuitous accusation.

I provided several examples of your lying about 9/11 evidence. One of the more egregious ones is where you claim that Silverstein admited to he and the fired commander making the decision to demolish Building 7. That, sir, is a LIE. And that's not even playing around with the definition of "pull." Silverstein quite clearly says that THEY made the decision to pull. He expressly excludes himself from the decision making. You have LIED.

Deal with it.

"Woo, doggy" -- Oh, is that you're reasoning?

No, that's not my reasoning. That's my judgment on the matter. It's my opinion, shared among many people who also understand the fraud you are perpetuating with your videos. You are not at a AE911Truth backslapping forum here. We know how wrong you are and the lies that you are telling about this event.

"David Chandler has a website.... (I guess I can't even quote the site by your forum rules)

You have to have 15 posts before you can post links or even quote them.

David Chandler has a "Why I Am Convinced 9/11 Was an Inside Job (pdf)" essay at this website." -- That's right. I let people know exactly why I believe the way I do. Where are you blogs explaining why Arab terrorism makes so much sense to you? All I see here is a bunch of think-alikes talking to themselves.

Let me get this straight. You are denying any existence of terrorism by Arabs whatsoever? Is that your final answer?

"David Chandler is a liar about 9/11 evidence. Examples:

Woo, doggy. " -- Examples? Examples? Woo doggy!

So right you had to quote me twice. Yes, those are example of your lies, your deceit, your wrongheadness, and your tendency toward all things woo. If you don't like this, the remedy lies in yourself.

[beachnut]

Oklahoma City was obviously an Arab thing, right? That's what the media said initially, and that's what everyone was ready to buy into, but it just wasn't so.

...

This forum is pathetic.

If you are saying WTC7 did not collapse due to fire, your work is complete junk.

OKC, in days we knew it was not Arab's, only a fool jumps to conclusions and make up idiot ideas like WTC7 was CD. 7 years, now you do it by choice? You choose to make up stupid ideas?

19 terrorists did 9/11, it is a fact. Prove otherwise you would have a Pulitzer Prize, but too bad you have no evidence for 7 years, for something that would take months, not years. It is year 7 and if you believe anything other than 19 terrorists you are as good as a Bigfoot believer.

So what happen to WTC7 in one sentence, do you have summary? Do you have some nut case idea?


...
Oops, you are a “9/11 was an inside job” nut case idea guy. Good for you! This is the place for you to post your tripe if it is new. Oops, your paper has JFK woo junk too. Never include off topic real stupid in a real stupid paper, it detracts from the purpose and overall theme.

Welcome to JREF - even though you have no evidence to support your inside job ideas. Welcome to JREF

JFK was killed by one man and has nothing to do with 9/11. Keep your CTs separate.

Steven Jones and others has established that there were very high temperatures present in the building, not just enough to weaken steel, but to melt it. He has found evidence for Thermate (Thermite + accelerant), … This is in your paper.
Jones made up thermite 4 years after 9/11; you are gullible. Jones has no evidence; he is still looking for it.

[boloboffin]

Bolo, you meant to post this 7 years ago, did you?

What? He's been posting 9/11 CT woo for seven years now?

:D

Well, how about that?

[WilliamSeger]

Methodology: I used a high resolution version of the video.

I can't find any version of that video has resolution sufficient to identify the windows, so perhaps you could be so kind as to provide your version for independent confirmation. Also, as I pointed out, whether you used an MPEG-2 compressed video or a duplicate of the original (with all frames intact) is an issue with regards to the "sudden onset of free-fall," independent of resolution, and it may explain why you can't find NIST's starting point, if they used a duplicate of the original.

Speaking of which, your previous analysis showed a period of slow descent, with some velocity but little or no acceleration, whereas NIST's data showed a similar period but with slow acceleration. Your current analysis seems more ambiguous, and since you don't really say anything about that period (other than the "sudden onset" claim), I can't tell what you are now claiming about the initial slow descent that NIST's analysis shows. Was the building descending slowly at first or not? If it was, that's obviously a difficult thing to explain with a controlled demolition, unless you hypothesize that the plotters found a way to initiate a slow collapse, like a progressive collapse, but then decided to blow out the columns on 8 floors (even though the building was already headed down).

And of course, you still have the difficulty of explaining the most obvious problem with WTC7 controlled demolition theories (only more so, really): What kind of explosives did they use that could "instantaneously" destroy the columns on 8 floors, yet not produce the explosive noise and seismic disturbances that are seen with controlled demolitions involving only one or two floors exploded?

And speaking of just the free-fall period, I don't accept your assertion that the only explanation is that the columns were blown out. If the columns were buckled to the point of failure during that first second or so of slow descent, how much resistance would they have presented to the falling top section, and is the analysis sensitive enough to detect that resistance? And if the columns were actually being pulled inward by the collapsing floors on that level, why would they need any additional energy from the falling top section?

(Edit to add: Your analysis of the Zapruder film doesn't inspire much confidence. Perhaps you should take a much closer look at that some day.)

[UNLoVedRebel]

Chandler, here is footage of inside WTC 7 on 9/11. Why don't we see the "cutter charges" you predicted would be there? I asked another poster this. The silence was deafening.


6-_0KPWWjIw&feature

[Bell]

What? He's been posting 9/11 CT woo for seven years now?

:D

Well, how about that?

It's more a case that all those claims have long been debunked. But that's the truth movement for you.

[boloboffin]

It's more a case that all those claims have long been debunked. But that's the truth movement for you.

Oh, I see. Yes, that's one of the facepalm moments about it. The only new thing Chandler has (the measurement of the freefall period) is something that verifies NIST's model of the collapse. Everything else is SSDT.

[T.A.M.]

This forum is pathetic.

No sir, you and your ilk are pathetic. 7 years out from that horrible tragedy, with allegedly proof positive it was an inside job, and what have you all done...*********** SQUAT!!

You wander around internet forums defending the crap you want to call science and analysis, when in fact it is nothing like legitimate science and investigative analysis.

You have had seven years, you, and the others who profess to know the real truth about 911, and you have not done anything at all with it. Sitting on the proof positive that 3000 innocent americans were killed by their own government. Allegedly 100s of thousands of you, and all you can manage is a few hundred dollars here and there, a few hundred at GZ on the 5th anniversary, a bunch of pathetic websites dedicated to your 15 minutes of fame. A few publishings, by the most famous of you, in pseudo journals where you have to pay to be published.

No sir, it is not a few dozen concerned citizens of the world, who post here to reveal the snake oil for what it is, that are pathetic. It is the alleged thousands of people in the truth movement that have sat back in their computer chairs, and done nothing more than investigoogle for their cause, that are the pathetic ones.

You wanna impress people, get on TV with your evidence. Get before politicians with your evidence.

But that wont happen. You will say it is because the man keeps you from doing so, but we know the real reason...your movement has NO PROOF, just speculation and accusation.

Pathetic.

TAM:mad:

[roundhead]

Thanks David, for coming on here and sharing your explanations on this forum.

Much appreciated

It is noteworthy you do it in an adult like fashion, in spite of childish blabbering by many of the folks here, who much prefer hurling insults than actually addressing pertinent points.

Sadly, that is the way it generally works here.

Signed,

An unremovable rock in the shoe

[DGM]

Thanks David, for coming on here and sharing your explanations on this forum.

Much appreciated

It is noteworthy you do it in an adult like fashion, in spite of childish blabbering by many of the folks here, who much prefer hurling insults than actually addressing pertinent points.

Sadly, that is the way it generally works here.

Signed,

An unremovable rock in the shoe

You do know that here in the US we throw shoes away that are worn out? Time to step up to the plate and actually make a stand and present you evidence. Your ('truthers") act is getting stale.

[T.A.M.]

1. If you don't like the way the forums work, or how the posters post, then (A) complain to the mods, or (B) leave. No one is making you stay. Now I realize, not only from your "rock" comment, but from your behavior, that you enjoy trolling, and generally ****-disturbing, round head, but you are commenting on juvenile behaviour, yet acting like a childlike troll yourself.

2. There are no pertinent points, except in the minds of the delusionally paranoid, and scientifically illiterate.

TAM:)

[GregoryUrich]

Dr. Greening has used NIST's own equations to show that portions of the fall were FASTER than freefall (in accord with NIST's equations anyway).

Go to (http://the911forum.freeforums.org/it-s-official-it-s-faster-than-free-fall-t91.html)

[stateofgrace]

Dr. Greening has used NIST's own equations to show that portions of the fall were FASTER than freefall (in accord with NIST's equations anyway).

Go to (http://the911forum.freeforums.org/it-s-official-it-s-faster-than-free-fall-t91.html)

But didn't he also say this


"I think David Chandler has done some good work with his little video but I do have one complaint. This is with his selection of t(zero). Even looking at the velocity plot he displays in his video I would move his t(zero) cursor a tad to the left which would slow his acceleration significantly ......

This has prompted me to do some sensitivity tests on some of my own collapse plots. I have taken one of my "best efforts", which generates a very smooth curve, and looked at the effect of shifting t(zero) by just 0.1 seconds. When I do this I get these two curves:

The original plot fits to:

Drop = -0.077t^3 + 4.8433t^2 -0.2123 t + 0.0669

And the plot shifted by 0.1 seconds gives:

Drop = -0.0176t^3 + 4.4721t^2 - 0.5854t + 0.0034

Hence for the acceleration, by double differentiation, we have:

Original plot:

Accel = 9.6866 - 0.462t

Plot shifted by 0.1 seconds:

Accel = 8.9442 - 0.1056t

Thus we see a marked change in the calculated acceleration for just a 0.1 second shift. This is why I have argued that the measured acceleration is about 9.2 +/- 0.6 m/s^2.

This means the collapse of WTC 7 is still VERY fast, and WAY FASTER than NIST says, but certainly NOT at free fall!" Dr. G


http://the911forum.freeforums.org/david-chandler-measures-absolute-free-fall-in-wtc-7-t79.html
?

[GregoryUrich]

But didn't he also say this

http://the911forum.freeforums.org/david-chandler-measures-absolute-free-fall-in-wtc-7-t79.html
?

Dr. G, One White Eye and Einsteen have done some pretty careful analysis and while I haven't been following the details, I'm inclined to trust their work. They tend to acknowledge the limitations of their methods and are open to criticism.

Nonetheless, NIST still says it fell faster than freefall. No problem with that?

[stateofgrace]

Dr. G, One White Eye and Einsteen have done some pretty careful analysis and while I haven't been following the details, I'm inclined to trust their work. They tend to acknowledge the limitations of their methods and are open to criticism.

Nonetheless, NIST still says it fell faster than freefall. No problem with that?

No problem at all, should I have?

Do you?

I take it when you say "portions" you are now referring to the entire building? No problem with that?

[GregoryUrich]

No problem at all, should I have?

Do you?

I take it when you say "portions" you are now referring to the entire building? No problem with that?

The entire building above the point of collapse. The acceleration varied over the duration of the fall and for a period of around 1 sec the acceleration was greater than freefall.

Yes I have a problem with that. It means that NIST has presented a bogus equation because there is no way to physically account for an acceleration greater than freefall. Along with the other problems that Dr. Greening has pointed out, the report is essentially shown to be bunk.

I would think that any skeptic would be apalled at this sort of erroneous psuedo-science.

[Cl1mh4224rd]

Isn't that sort of thing possible by plugging bogus numbers into any equation?

[stateofgrace]

The entire building above the point of collapse. The acceleration varied over the duration of the fall and for a period of around 1 sec the acceleration was greater than freefall.

Yes I have a problem with that. It means that NIST has presented a bogus equation because there is no way to physically account for an acceleration greater than freefall. Along with the other problems that Dr. Greening has pointed out, the report is essentially shown to be bunk.

I would think that any skeptic would be apalled at this sort of erroneous psuedo-science.


Greg I am not trying to be argumentative but you stated

Dr. Greening has used NIST's own equations to show that portions of the fall were FASTER than freefall (in accord with NIST's equations anyway).



And then went onto to state


Nonetheless, NIST still says it fell faster than freefall. No problem with that?



and have now stated


It means that NIST has presented a bogus equation



Like yourself I haven’t followed the details of this discussion but if you could just clarify exactly what it is you wish to say.

Did the entire building collapse at free fall speed?
Was the entire collapse faster than free fall speed?
Or did portions of the building fall faster than free fall?

And if NIST are using bogus equations.

Then why should I be concerned when you state this

Dr. Greening has used NIST's own equations to show that portions of the fall were FASTER than freefall


Why is Dr Greening using "bogus equations" to make a point? It seems pretty pointless to me but then again, like you I haven't paid too much attention to this discussion.

[GregoryUrich]

Sorry if I am not expressing myself clearly. I am talking about NIST's equation, based on curve fitting to acceleration measurements from their video analysis. The measurements are based on the visible portion of the building which falls as a unit.

Greg I am not trying to be argumentative but you stated

1. Did the entire building collapse at free fall speed?
2. Was the entire collapse faster than free fall speed?
3. Or did portions of the building fall faster than free fall?

Why is Dr Greening using "bogus equations" to make a point? It seems pretty pointless to me but then again, like you I haven't paid too much attention to this discussion.

1. No. The acceleration varied as a smooth curve in accord with NIST's equation.
2. No.
3. My impression is that the visible portion fell pretty much as a contiguous unit.

Dr. Greening was just showing that NIST's curve fitting was incorrect. My point was not to show that Chandler is correct. I have seen other work by him with egregious errors and I am consequently skeptical of his more recent work. My point is that the skeptics here do not seem nearly as concerned with the shortcomings of NIST's WTC7 report as they do with Chandlers work.

I guess that makes my comments "off topic" but I think it is an important point in this context. There are very good reasons to reject NIST's WTC7 report. You can read about it here (http://the911forum.freeforums.org/withering-critique-of-the-new-wtc7-report-t44.html) if you are interested.

[stateofgrace]

Sorry if I am not expressing myself clearly. I am talking about NIST's equation, based on curve fitting to acceleration measurements from their video analysis. The measurements are based on the visible portion of the building which falls as a unit.



1. No. The acceleration varied as a smooth curve in accord with NIST's equation.
2. No.
3. My impression is that the visible portion fell pretty much as a contiguous unit.

Dr. Greening was just showing that NIST's curve fitting was incorrect. My point was not to show that Chandler is correct. I have seen other work by him with egregious errors and I am consequently skeptical of his more recent work. My point is that the skeptics here do not seem nearly as concerned with the shortcomings of NIST's WTC7 report as they do with Chandlers work.

I guess that makes my comments "off topic" but I think it is an important point in this context. There are very good reasons to reject NIST's WTC7 report. You can read about it here (http://the911forum.freeforums.org/withering-critique-of-the-new-wtc7-report-t44.html) if you are interested.

Thank you for the clarification. Rest assured I will read your link.

Regards Stateofgrace.

[boloboffin]

From the link to Greening's paper:

assume for a moment that collapse initiation in WTC 7 did in fact occur as NIST states: by a thermally induced buckling failure of column 79 on floors 12/13.

This is not what NIST states. Dr. Greening is quite capable of good work. He should try reading the report again.

[beachnut]

Dr. Greening has used NIST's own equations to show that portions of the fall were FASTER than freefall (in accord with NIST's equations anyway).

Go to (http://the911forum.freeforums.org/it-s-official-it-s-faster-than-free-fall-t91.html)
Only in our ample evidence world of fantasy. Good job, you signed the petition of woo. Your work is still wrong, you missed a lot of errors, need help?

Now you support pure junk? This is pure junk, if you need help a real engineer can help you.

With proof, with evidence you have a Pulitzer Prize! Hurry back with the award data.

[Brainster]

Has anybody yet demonstrated that free fall acceleration is a common occurence in controlled demolitions?

It always seems to be assumed this is so, but I have never seen it proven.

[T.A.M.]

Gregory:

I am glad to see you disgust for pseudoscience. Because of this, I expect nothing less than a rejection of 99% of the "science" put forth by the truth movement, as it is clearly, to a REAL skeptic, to be PSEUDOscience. You can't have it both ways!

TAM:)

[GregoryUrich]

Has anybody yet demonstrated that free fall acceleration is a common occurence in controlled demolitions?

It always seems to be assumed this is so, but I have never seen it proven.


It's not. Most of the energy which destroys the structure is potential energy. I have done some rough measurements on actual CD videos and the ones I measured were significantly slower than free fall. This of course makes WTC7 even more strange.

[GregoryUrich]

Gregory:

I am glad to see you disgust for pseudoscience. Because of this, I expect nothing less than a rejection of 99% of the "science" put forth by the truth movement, as it is clearly, to a REAL skeptic, to be PSEUDOscience. You can't have it both ways!

TAM:)

I have only seen two legitimate scientific papers from the truth movement. Neither is arguing for CD.

[GregoryUrich]

Only in our ample evidence world of fantasy. Good job, you signed the petition of woo. Your work is still wrong, you missed a lot of errors, need help?

Now you support pure junk? This is pure junk, if you need help a real engineer can help you.

With proof, with evidence you have a Pulitzer Prize! Hurry back with the award data.

Which junk is it you fantasize that I am supporting?

[RedIbis]

I have only seen two legitimate scientific papers from the truth movement. Neither is arguing for CD.

Fair enough. So other than CD, what might explain an acceleration greater (or equal to) freefall?

[Pardalis]

The momentum gained strength due to the increase in mass that was falling? It wasn't one block that was falling, but a block on a block on a block.

My layman opinion.

[T.A.M.]

yes momentum, that cool refreshing drink...

TAM:)

[GregoryUrich]

Fair enough. So other than CD, what might explain an acceleration greater (or equal to) freefall?

Dr. Greening and others have done more careful work and have come up with the maximum acceleration around 9.2 m/s^2 (+/- 0.6 m/s^2). I think the lower range is more realistic due to measurement errors induced by tipping which gives energy dissipation values that are not unthinkable for either CD or a normal collapse.

[beachnut]

Dr. Greening and others have done more careful work and have come up with the maximum acceleration around 9.2 m/s^2 (+/- 0.6 m/s^2). I think the lower range is more realistic due to measurement errors induced by tipping which gives energy dissipation values that are not unthinkable for either CD or a normal collapse.
What was your point? Where is your ample evidence? I think you missed a small point about the NIST work, good luck finding the error.

I warn you now, this is exactly like your level lawn crappy lens Pentagon thing; lack of knowledge and research before you boarded the ample evidence wagon.

9.81 m/s2 Check the initial conditions before you make silly claims. So Dr G says less than G. Good, and NIST; check the inits...

If you are supporting the work of Chandler, cool, you are still jumping on the train before you see it is going to fantasyland. Read his work, and try again.

[WilliamSeger]

With respect to Chandler's CD hypothesis, I'm still mainly interested in that first second or so, when the building apparently began moving downward but not at free-fall acceleration. In his latest YouTruth video, Chandler claims: "One moment the building is holding. The next moment it lets go and is in complete free-fall." That characterization seems to be designed to sound like what one should expect from a CD, but his own "speaks for itself" data actually appears to still show some small velocity for at least a second before the "sudden onset" of free-fall. I still haven't heard any rational explanation for how that slow movement, which NIST puts at 7 feet, could happen as a result of CD. It's a shame that Chandler apparently doesn't intend to return, since I'd really be interested in getting a copy of the video he used. For one thing, I'd like to see if his version has MPEG-2 temporal compression that would make it hard (probably impossible) for him to get accurate measurements of that first second or so.

I don't think this has been mentioned before, but in addition to using a different reference point on the building, he is not using the same video that NIST used: He is using a video shot from 3 or 4 miles away, whereas NIST used a video shot from a few blocks away. If Chandler is going to accuse NIST of faking the start time and generally inaccurate measurements in that first 1.75 seconds (which showed slow acceleration in their data), I think he ought to prove it using the same video they used.

[T.A.M.]

With respect to Chandler's CD hypothesis, I'm still mainly interested in that first second or so, when the building apparently began moving downward but not at free-fall acceleration. In his latest YouTruth video, Chandler claims: "One moment the building is holding. The next moment it lets go and is in complete free-fall." That characterization seems to be designed to sound like what one should expect from a CD, but his own "speaks for itself" data actually appears to still show some small velocity for at least a second before the "sudden onset" of free-fall. I still haven't heard any rational explanation for how that slow movement, which NIST puts at 7 feet, could happen as a result of CD. It's a shame that Chandler apparently doesn't intend to return, since I'd really be interested in getting a copy of the video he used. For one thing, I'd like to see if his version has MPEG-2 temporal compression that would make it hard (probably impossible) for him to get accurate measurements of that first second or so.

I don't think this has been mentioned before, but in addition to using a different reference point on the building, he is not using the same video that NIST used: He is using a video shot from 3 or 4 miles away, whereas NIST used a video shot from a few blocks away. If Chandler is going to accuse NIST of faking the start time and generally inaccurate measurements in that first 1.75 seconds (which showed slow acceleration in their data), I think he ought to prove it using the same video they used.

Chandler was here a few posts back, and whined and complained and called the forum pathetic. I don't remember if he addressed this in his diatribe, but you may want to go read it...FWIW.

TAM:)

[WilliamSeger]

Chandler was here a few posts back, and whined and complained and called the forum pathetic. I don't remember if he addressed this in his diatribe, but you may want to go read it...FWIW.

TAM:)

Yes, I saw that, but he didn't address any of these issues. He did answer how he determined where the 29th floor was, which was one question in my first post. (Then he berated people for not understanding something he was stating for the first time, as far as I can tell.) For someone who accuses all the NIST scientists of deliberately lying and falsifying their data to cover up a mass murder, he seems to be a tad thin-skinned himself, huh. So be it, but I don't see why anyone should take his CD conclusions seriously unless he's willing to defend them against all challenges, not just the ones he has answers for.

[OneRedEye]

What was your point? Where is your ample evidence? I think you missed a small point about the NIST work, good luck finding the error.

I warn you now, this is exactly like your level lawn crappy lens Pentagon thing; lack of knowledge and research before you boarded the ample evidence wagon.

9.81 m/s2 Check the initial conditions before you make silly claims. So Dr G says less than G. Good, and NIST; check the inits...

If you are supporting the work of Chandler, cool, you are still jumping on the train before you see it is going to fantasyland. Read his work, and try again.

What is the 'small point about the NIST work' that was missed? What error?

What initial conditions?

Edit: what silly claims?

[beachnut]

What is the 'small point about the NIST work' that was missed? What error?

What initial conditions?

Edit: what silly claims?
The error in his work. Have to ask him for all his stuff. Good luck.

Seems you must look that up, why join a thread when you are not prepared?

David Chandler makes silly claims (his work on 9/11 suffers from a lot of problems). If you don't see them you have failed to research his work, or you lack the knowledge to see his silly claims. Good luck. 7 years and 9/11 truth is just repeating the same old junk.

[OneRedEye]

The error in his work.
The error in whose work? Chandler or Urich? I have less idea than ever what you're talking about. Try again.
Have to ask him for all his stuff. Good luck.
Thank you for your well wishes. What stuff are you talking about? And whose stuff?
Seems you must look that up, why join a thread when you are not prepared?
What makes you say I come to this thread unprepared? What do you know of me?
David Chandler makes silly claims (his work on 9/11 suffers from a lot of problems).
Yes. So? What does that have to do with what Gregory Urich says, aside from being similar to what he said? Were you able to recognize what he said? Can you repeat it back to me in your own words?

If you don't see them you have failed to research his work, or you lack the knowledge to see his silly claims. Good luck. 7 years and 9/11 truth is just repeating the same old junk.

I can only shake my head in amazement.

[beachnut]

The error in whose work? Chandler or Urich? I have less idea than ever what you're talking about. Try again.

Thank you for your well wishes. What stuff are you talking about? And whose stuff?

What makes you say I come to this thread unprepared? What do you know of me?

Yes. So? What does that have to do with what Gregory Urich says, aside from being similar to what he said? Were you able to recognize what he said? Can you repeat it back to me in your own words?



I can only shake my head in amazement.
Why not use the donor stuff you got from Balsamo again. Play the attack card before you have to present evidence or keep up with the thread or history of other posters’ work.

You need to pay attention; do you have anything to support Chandlers work? I didn’t think so, unless you are shaking your head at the stupidity of Chandlers work.

[OneRedEye]

I don't agree with Chandler's methodology or conclusion(s). Neither does Gregory Urich. Neither does Frank Greening.

Your reply to Urich, quoting him, indicated unequivocally that you were critical of what Urich said and that you were almost assuredly conflating his opinions of Chandler (negative) with Chandler's work, a machination I have a hard time wrapping my mind around.

If you want to talk thread or history, let me tell you this: you are single-handedly responsible for wearing out the scroll button on my old mouse. Despite that, I have read more hundreds of the thousands of your posts than I'd ever care to admit. Sometimes, you know what you're talking about. This is not one of those times.

On the other hand, you've read little of mine and you know nothing about work I may have done to either confirm or refute Chandler. You simply assume I know nothing. It is better for the world at large if you continue to hold that perception, and I know you will.

Why not use the donor stuff you got from Balsamo again. Play the attack card before you have to present evidence or keep up with the thread or history of other posters’ work.

You need to pay attention; do you have anything to support Chandlers work? I didn’t think so, unless you are shaking your head at the stupidity of Chandlers work.
I'm not going to get lured into OT flaming because only one of us will have their posts moved/removed, but since you brought it up...

I'm glad you saw that earlier. You and about 40 other people, before it was swept away to the outer reaches. For the record, I don't know squat about any Balsamo character, neither do I care, but I did see a big icon proudly displayed under your name for about a year - and it makes me wonder.

[beachnut]

I don't agree with Chandler's methodology or conclusion(s). Neither does Gregory Urich. Neither does Frank Greening.

...
I'm glad you saw that earlier. You and about 40 other people, before it was swept away to the outer reaches. For the record, I don't know squat about any Balsamo character, neither do I care, but I did see a big icon proudly displayed under your name for about a year - and it makes me wonder.
Oops, I read all your posts. Darn.

Great, you posted what I was interested in. That was easy. I think that is what I knew, but you explain it better. I agree Chandler's work is pure woo.

[OneRedEye]

Oops, I read all your posts. Darn.
Nice, that was fast.

Great, you posted what I was interested in. That was easy. I think that is what I knew, but you explain it better. I agree Chandler's work is pure woo.
The digitizations he did weren't that far off the mark, actually. The argument could be made that the data he obtained is better than NIST's interpolation, unless you really believe g was exceeded. I just don't think either party was terribly accurate. As for anything beyond data collection, no comment, I'm not interested in Chandler's politics.


http://forums.randi.org/forumdisplay.php?f=19 (http://forums.randi.org/forumdisplay.php?f=19) here is your other junk, it is not hidden away, you can move your extra comments there.
Thanks. I noticed your 'junk' is not there.

Sorry about the Balsamo junk, i was not saying you are his sock. Sorry again. But it was strange you said almost the same thing he said. Strange.

Yes, strange. Strange that anyone else would come to the same obvious conclusion about your status around here?

[OneRedEye]

I may have misspoke when I said that Urich and Greening do not agree with Chandler's methodology and conclusions. Gregory has stated only that he is skeptical of the conclusions and Dr. Greening has simply favored his own work, a path that makes sense and is well-advised. It was not my place to put words in their mouth, the opinion is my own. I only wanted to emphasize the distinction in positions versus Chandler, because that seemed necessary and simple statements had a better chance on the receiving end than would complete and correct statements.

[beachnut]

Nice, that was fast.


The digitizations he did weren't that far off the mark, actually. The argument could be made that the data he obtained is better than NIST's interpolation, unless you really believe g was exceeded. I just don't think either party was terribly accurate. As for anything beyond data collection, no comment, I'm not interested in Chandler's politics.



Thanks. I noticed your 'junk' is not there.



Yes, strange. Strange that anyone else would come to the same obvious conclusion about your status around here?

20 posts or so, did you post under a different name?

I meant the conclusions made and the extraneous topics in Chandlers work is pure woo; as in false, fiction, and fantasy. Makes his work a waste of time and appears he decided on the conclusion before he did his work.

I edited out the Balsamo junk, it seems like you just happen to post the exact junk, the same idea, the same attack as Balsamo who does 11.2 G failed physics. I guess it is a coincidence you and Balsamo stated the same failed idea within days of each other.

[OneRedEye]

20 posts or so, did you post under a different name?
No. This is not my preferred venue.

I meant the conclusions made and the extraneous topics in Chandlers work is pure woo; as in false, fiction, and fantasy. Makes his work a waste of time and appears he decided on the conclusion before he did his work.
Thank you for making that distinction. The measurements, to me, stand on their own merit - or lack of merit.

I edited out the Balsamo junk, it seems like you just happen to post the exact junk, the same idea, the same attack as Balsamo who does 11.2 G failed physics. I guess it is a coincidence you and Balsamo stated the same failed idea within days of each other.
Yep. Just a coincidence. Junk is my middle name.

[rsalinger]

I particularly liked the idea that since the model mimics what's seen it must have been manipulated until it did no matter how absurd the assumptions. Or that they've hidden their data as if he had a computer that could even run such a simulation if he had the data, etc." -- The method of modeling the collapse is explicitly a matter of tweaking the inputs to see what it takes to get something that looks like the desired output. How do you know what their assumptions are or whether or not they are realistic? And even if they COULD model the collapse, which they obviously can't (5.4 seconds vs. 3.9), that doesn't mean that's how it happened. Is taking NIST on faith your idea of being a "skeptic"? And yes, there are people associated with AE911Truth that could run the models if they were made available.

This is just not correct as you've written it. The report states that the model assumptions were adjusted to match visual observations but the DCII video clearly states/implies that this is done to confuse or distort matters. If the model isn't calibrated to visual observations then how would you demonstrate that it's reasonable? It's the idea that this is done to distort and "hide" matters that I object to. You are confusing "their desired output" with matching the visual and other evidence. I don't want to impute your reasons for this, but I do think it's an unwarranted assumption. On your other point, I'd like to see more about the model, including the assumptions used in it and if I were for some reason skeptical about it I'd want to use the FOIA to get them published. I still think that there is 7 feet of movement - NIST uses a different point of reference and a different method for determining movement - pixel brightness changes. Why don't you try using what they did and see what you get?
Rgrds-Ross

[DGM]

I particularly liked the idea that since the model mimics what's seen it must have been manipulated until it did no matter how absurd the assumptions. Or that they've hidden their data as if he had a computer that could even run such a simulation if he had the data, etc." -- The method of modeling the collapse is explicitly a matter of tweaking the inputs to see what it takes to get something that looks like the desired output. How do you know what their assumptions are or whether or not they are realistic? And even if they COULD model the collapse, which they obviously can't (5.4 seconds vs. 3.9), that doesn't mean that's how it happened. Is taking NIST on faith your idea of being a "skeptic"? And yes, there are people associated with AE911Truth that could run the models if they were made available.

This is just not correct as you've written it. The report states that the model assumptions were adjusted to match visual observations but the DCII video clearly states/implies that this is done to confuse or distort matters. If the model isn't calibrated to visual observations then how would you demonstrate that it's reasonable? It's the idea that this is done to distort and "hide" matters that I object to. You are confusing "their desired output" with matching the visual and other evidence. I don't want to impute your reasons for this, but I do think it's an unwarranted assumption. On your other point, I'd like to see more about the model, including the assumptions used in it and if I were for some reason skeptical about it I'd want to use the FOIA to get them published. I still think that there is 7 feet of movement - NIST uses a different point of reference and a different method for determining movement - pixel brightness changes. Why don't you try using what they did and see what you get?
Rgrds-Ross
Contrary to popular belief (at least "truthers") the NIST report was not made for the general public to disprove any conspiracy/cover up theories.

The "deceptions" he describes is only his way of casting doubt to people that don't (and the report was not designed ) understand the purpose of the investigation in the first place.

Controlled demolition is a fantasy (that he can't support) that NIST dispelled quite compellingly in the report but, no "truther" cares to read (or understand) it.

I'm still waiting for him to make his point (whatever it is).

[WilliamSeger]

I'm still waiting for him to make his point (whatever it is).

His "Part III" YouTruth video is supposed to be the implications he draws from his analysis, so it appears his two points are:

1) Nothing but explosive demolition can explain that 2.25 seconds of "free fall."

2) NIST is a pack of liars for denying "free fall," so they must be covering up government responsibility for the demolition.

[Darth Rotor]

No. This is not my preferred venue.

Thank you for making that distinction. The measurements, to me, stand on their own merit - or lack of merit.
Lack.
I am trying to grasp how a computer simulation is supposed to trump reality, eye witnesses, and parsimony. If having to wait five years for FDR data was somehow going to change the fact that AA flight 77 hit the Pentagon and killed a few of my professional colleagues, and nearly killed two personal friends, I wonder at what else you pass the time with.

Is your intent in improving FDR decoding? Building better simulations? Or is it something else? Just a hobby?
Yep. Just a coincidence. Junk is my middle name.
I thought from OneRedEye that Red would be your middle name.

May I call you Joe? ;)

DR

[boloboffin]

His "Part III" YouTruth video is supposed to be the implications he draws from his analysis, so it appears his two points are:

1) Nothing but explosive demolition can explain that 2.25 seconds of "free fall."

2) NIST is a pack of liars for denying "free fall," so they must be covering up government responsibility for the demolition.

You know, Chandler measured that section of the collapse at 2.5 seconds before all of this. Then NIST releases its measurements, and they get 2.25 seconds. Chandler goes back with better equipment, and, voila! Now he's saying 2.25 seconds.

Sounds to me, using his logic, that NIST forced him to admit that his measurement was a fraud, that he's lying to stretch out the period of free fall, and he must be covering up his lack of evidence. Nice petard you've got there, Mr. Chandler.

http://i56.photobucket.com/albums/g171/boloboffin2/PoorDonkey.jpg

[OneRedEye]

Why do I get these? Will there be any coherent questions later, or is this all there is?

Darth Rotor:

Lack.

Maybe it's me, after all I'm the common denominator. I just don't understand. I'm with you for the first word, after that you lose me.

I am trying to grasp how a computer simulation is supposed to trump reality, eye witnesses, and parsimony.

What simulation? You do understand I'm only asking you because you quoted my post? I didn't mention any simulations. Some people have mentioned the NIST simulation, so did Chandler, but I didn't. Are you talking about the NIST simulations?

If having to wait five years for FDR data was somehow going to change the fact that AA flight 77 hit the Pentagon and killed a few of my professional colleagues, and nearly killed two personal friends,

OK, I understand you're going into a tangential hypothetical here, it has nothing to do with the thread, nothing do to with what I said or what anyone here has said, but that's OK...

... I wonder at what else you pass the time with.

Then you go and spoil it all with that. Why would you wonder what else I spend my time doing when you've no idea how I spend any of my time?

Is your intent in improving FDR decoding?
No. Did I say that, or anything remotely like that? Please tell me what gave you that idea.

Building better simulations?

Of what sort? Better? Probably not. But I'm pretty sure we're not talking about the same thing, anyway.

Or is it something else? Just a hobby?
I do have more than one hobby, yes.

Can you help me out here? Is this a case of 'when all you have is a hammer all the world's a nail' or what? FDRs, simulations... my hobbies, for gods' sakes... explain, if you will. Right now, I feel like I've been force-fed a psychotropic.

May I call you Joe?
Sure. Just don't call me late for dinner.

PS, to try to keep this barely on topic: there have been some legitimate issues raised in this thread with Chandler's work. For example, William Seger had a good point in the post beginning with

With respect to Chandler's CD hypothesis...

However, I doubt the criticism even needs to go to that level with regards to Chandler's measurements. In general, the point raised is not a big problem, just one of many small ones. It's a good thing (temporal compression) to be aware of, but not an impediment to obtaining small displacement data. You are correct that Chandler missed the gradual initial displacement entirely, NIST did not.

[roundhead]

You know, Chandler measured that section of the collapse at 2.5 seconds before all of this. Then NIST releases its measurements, and they get 2.25 seconds. Chandler goes back with better equipment, and, voila! Now he's saying 2.25 seconds.

Sounds to me, using his logic, that NIST forced him to admit that his measurement was a fraud, that he's lying to stretch out the period of free fall, and he must be covering up his lack of evidence. Nice petard you've got there, Mr. Chandler.

http://i56.photobucket.com/albums/g171/boloboffin2/PoorDonkey.jpg



Lying to STRETCH OUT THE PERIOD OF FREE FALL............


Wow, so we know there was free fall(shouldnt have been any with an intact structure underfoot)and we are argueing about .25 seconds.

Seems we should be wondering why NISt claims one leg was chopped out from under a many legged table, and the table still managed to fall flat on its butt, with the other legs offering nothing to retard it.


Free fall equals nothing underneath

Column 79 giving out= creaky, tilting, leaning ,arrested fall.

[beachnut]

Why do I get these? Will there be any coherent questions later, or is this all there is?

I think he confused you with Balsamo since you made a mistake and repeated the same exact false thought as Balsamo.

Plus your weak support of Chandler work and not distancing yourself from his CD baloney, could be the reason you are being treated as if you support 9/11 truth lies, fantasies and false information of others and Balsamo. Even though you have not said much about anything 9/11. I would ignore it, or figure it out in a PM.

Personally I think most think you are Balsamo or his envoy from p4t after you said exactly the same thing. But this will pass too. I doubt you support the insane conclusions of Chandler or Balsamo. Good luck.

[boloboffin]

Lying to STRETCH OUT THE PERIOD OF FREE FALL............

Using Chandler's argumentation, yes, that's what I'm claiming. What's the difference between what he's claiming about NIST and what I'm claiming about him? How is the argument different?

Wow, so we know there was free fall(shouldnt have been any with an intact structure underfoot)and we are argueing about .25 seconds.

Um, we're arguing about Chandler's duplicity in being forced to admit that his measurements were far too long and yet handwaving the change. Look, .25 is 11% of the actual amount of time we're talking about. That's a significant difference! Since Chandler has been caught lying, he should have the decency to admit his calumny and explain just why he's stretching out the period of freefall to push his wacky theories.

Seems we should be wondering why NISt claims one leg was chopped out from under a many legged table, and the table still managed to fall flat on its butt, with the other legs offering nothing to retard it.

False analogy. The structure of WTC 7 was far more complicated than a table, no matter how many legs you stick under there. Please try to fail harder.

Free fall equals nothing underneath

NIST explains how the building lost structural integrity over eight floors and allowed that drop to occur. Please read the report, kthaxbai.

Column 79 giving out= creaky, tilting, leaning ,arrested fall.

If you look at the building from when 79 actually gave out, you would get a progressive collapse. NIST describes it. You understand what the term means, yes? First this falls, then that falls, then that falls... progressive. That's what you're looking at when you look at videos of 7 falling.

[OneRedEye]

Thanks for acting as interpreter, beachnut. It actually makes a lick of sense now. Just a lick, mind you, but it's all I could ever ask.

I think he confused you with Balsamo since you made a mistake and repeated the same exact false thought as Balsamo.

Oh. Well, there's not much I can say about that except it tells me Darth Rotor jumps to pretty wild conclusions on marginal evidence. But maybe that's due to the environment... Are there any Bayesians out there? Could you kindly provide an estimate of the probability that Balsamo is me and I am Balsamo? Wait... I can do that! I can scrub this board and run the posts through the most elementary of classifier routines and probably tell you who all the sock puppets are. Would you like that?

No, I imagine not. Can't trust anything from Balsamo!

Plus your weak support of Chandler work...

That's how you'd characterize what I've said here? Very interesting. Weird, but interesting. Not crucifying = weak support? Sure, if you say so.

...not distancing yourself from his CD baloney

Do you mind if I dig a little deeper on this one? Does it matter if it's his CD baloney, or do you refer to CD baloney in general? How about the kind of CD baloney that's discussed here, right in this very thread? I don't need to distance myself from any CD baloney. (In case you didn't notice, that was a sentence this time, not a question)

If it makes you happier, I'll refer to Chandler as Balsamo.

...could be the reason you are being treated as if you support 9/11 truth lies, fantasies and false information of others and Balsamo.

Shouldn't Darth Rotor actually wait until Darth Rotor has seen a shred of support from me for '9/11 truth lies, fantasies and false information of others and Balsamo' since that would be.... (drumroll)... CRITICAL THINKING? C'mon, beachnut, I know you don't really have to answer for him/her, but it's probably not the first time you've been asked.

Personally I think most think you are Balsamo or his envoy from p4t...
Oh beachnut, I thought we were beyond that! You know, I want so badly to proclaim 'I AM BALSAMO' but sadly I'm not, and to say it would undoubtedly get me banned even though I'm not this Balsamo person.

This was fun for a time, but I want to come down now. Please Lord, if you've ever heard any prayers, please forgive me for saying you were a load of **** and all that; I need to come back to reality, please dear God. Does any one have any vitamin C? Beer???

No, beachnut, neither am I an envoy of the one you call Balsamo. Is he a rival chieftain, a warlord just over the hill? Should we fear him?

...after you said exactly the same thing.

That's right, can't forget about that. You don't believe in coincidences after all, or is it just this coincidence that strikes you as so improbable? Well, beachnut, I'd like to continue with this OT thing but it tends to get my posts moved - as you know. So, to continue on the topic:

Did you know that NIST quantitatively supports David Chandler's numeric results (albeit in conflict with some of their other results) just a tad more than I do? How does that make you feel? Like... maybe... they're really Balsamo?

Gotcha.

[beachnut]

...
Did you know that NIST quantitatively supports David Chandler's numeric results (albeit in conflict with some of their other results) just a tad more than I do? How does that make you feel? Like... maybe... they're really Balsamo?

Gotcha.
No, NIST does not support Chandler's results. If they did you would not waste time with the tangential items you wasted time posting to; instead you would post your numerical, or other evidential support for Chandlers work and how NIST supports Chandler's work.

The best part about your support of Chandler it is wasted because Chandlers conclusion is the WTC complex was blown up or destroyed by our own government with explosives or thermite, an insane idea proposed 4 years after 911 by Jones.

Is the real conspiracy on 911 the anti-intellectual movement to mislead people on 9/11 pushed by 911Truth hearsay, lies and fantasy. You seem to be part of 911Truth but you are afraid to declare such; you must know you have zero evidence.

So part of Chandlers CD conclusion includes the standard debunked nut case ideas like this and much more.


Why I Am Convinced 9/11 Was an Inside Job
By David Chandler
http://www.truthring.org/wp-content/uploads/2008/12/whyiamconvinced.pdf (http://www.truthring.org/wp-content/uploads/2008/12/whyiamconvinced.pdf)

There is no public evidence that any of the supposed hijackers were actually on any of the planes. There are informed opinions by flight instructors that some of the purported pilots were virtually unable to fly. Some of the supposed hijackers had been trained at CIA facilities in Florida, taken courses at Monterrey Naval Postgraduate School, were allowed into the US with questionable credentials, and were under FBI surveillance. How is it that the 19 supposed hijackers, some of them reportedly still alive, were identified almost immediately, when the other side of the official story is we were taken by complete surprise?
Wow!

No hijackers on the flight? David says no hijackers were on the planes, but the passenger manifest says otherwise. David has not provided evidence to the contrary. Why? Because this is made up out of the blue; thin air, just talk; pure fantasy based on ignorance and some bias.

NO, the instructors said the terrorist could fly well enough to crash large jets into even larger buildings. Sorry, this is a lie too from David. Look this up, this is the simple stuff.

No terrorist were trained by the CIT in Florida, you made this up, or you are repeating hearsay and lies of another.

Wow, the hijackers were not in these courses; they were people named the same.

Some of the 19 terrorists still alive is another lie. Good job, you like lies.

Pure paranoid conclusions based on nothing. Don’t be skeptical, just make statements supported by only hearsay; it is the only thing 911Truth can do.

Gotcha, is the best 911Truth can do next to running away declaring victory.
Was there hope of a Pulitzer Prize for David?

[OneRedEye]

This has grown tiresome. Think whatever you want.

Maximum derived roofline acceleration figures, in m/s^2:

NIST interpolation function: 10.6
Chandler's analysis: 9.8
A value I currently accept: 9.3

[WilliamSeger]

This has grown tiresome. Think whatever you want.

Maximum derived roofline acceleration figures, in m/s^2:

NIST interpolation function: 10.6
Chandler's analysis: 9.8
A value I currently accept: 9.3

The argument isn't about the numbers; it's about Chandler's unsubstantiated conclusions.

[beachnut]

This has grown tiresome. Think whatever you want.

Maximum derived roofline acceleration figures, in m/s^2:

NIST interpolation function: 10.6
Chandler's analysis: 9.8
A value I currently accept: 9.3

Now you proved CD, or that terrorists are still alive? Which fantasy do your numbers support?

Show the work? Source, anything?

So when is the Pulitzer Prize coming?


10.6 m/s is not 40 percent slower than G. So you just make up numbers? Neat, you and Chandler ignore the movement until you want to measure the movement. NIST did not come up with 10.6. You must of messed up.

Show your work, or it is fantasy. Hearsay. False. ? Hearsay!

[OneRedEye]

The argument isn't about the numbers; it's about Chandler's unsubstantiated conclusions.

You mean your argument isn't about the numbers. I said my concern was data collection, I don't expect it to be yours. The only reason I stuck my head in here in the first place (a sorry-ass idea if there ever was one) is because some mud was being slung, and I felt it was getting too close.

Of course, I found out later that even though beachnut quoted Gregory Urich and looked like he was responding to him, he was actually responding to Chandler. I didn't figure that out at first, but when beachnut quoted me and typed words at me, he was actually talking to Balsamo. Now I get it! Makes perfect sense.

[beachnut]

Tangent. Good work, doubt you had sources.

Why does Chandler shave time? What does it mean? It means Chandler ignores the Penthouse falling into the WTC7 and leaving a facade well before the collapse modeled by him and NIST begins.

Sad/funny/ironic only 0.001 percent of all world engineers support Chandlers failed conclusions. He even thinks some terrorist are still alive; delusion. Add CD; delusions.

[WilliamSeger]

You mean your argument isn't about the numbers. I said my concern was data collection, I don't expect it to be yours.

But I haven't seen any argument about your concern. The only thing resembling argument that I've seen is about Chandler's conclusions -- which is not to say that I think you support them (I haven't seen that), but rather that, given the margin of error in any measurement -- yours or his -- I just don't think the argument over Chandler's conclusions will be resolved by debating the accuracy of his data.

[OneRedEye]

Someone that speaks humanese. Thank you! I thought I was ******* insane!

But I haven't seen any argument about your concern.
No, you haven't. There was some discussion of numbers earlier in the thread, then beachnut added his salient comment, I went over the edge, and here we are.

The only thing resembling argument that I've seen is about Chandler's conclusions -- which is not to say that I think you support them (I haven't seen that)...

I do not support his methodology OR conclusions. I did say that (the demons are nodding their heads vigorously) earlier. Then I got tarred for supporting his conclusions, naturally. Do you still think there is anything resembling a rational argument taking place here?

...but rather that, given the margin of error in any measurement -- yours or his -- I just don't think the argument over Chandler's conclusions will be resolved by debating the accuracy of his data.
Well, he has some pretty wild conclusions. No measurements are going to close that gap, I'm afraid. And his latest video is just sad, so sad.

[rsalinger]

When I started this thread I was hoping to get a lively discussion going but it quickly degenerated into nonsense about sock puppets and who might be whom. If Rob B wants to post here, he should be able to, and just because someone doesn't like him or finds him a liar should be left out of a discussion about Chandler and his videos and what they might / might not show.

What I've learned is that the NIST used a different technique than Chandler used which seems to me to be more accurate than what he used. Furthermore, Chandler used a diffeerent piece of video which was much less detailed than what the NIST had to use. So, he misses the first 7 feet of the fall which is the fundamental difference between his numbers and the NIST numbers.
He totally ignores the fact that the entire center of the building has collapsed as proven by the penthouses. His argument seems to be entirely based on the idea that several floors couldn't collapse simultaneously which gets us into a discussion of physics which my level of understanding can't resolve with math.

Rgrds-Ross

[T.A.M.]

Rob B, if you are referring to Rob Basalmo, was banned from this site for using someone else's account to post here. He has NO RIGHT to post here for that violation.

As well, anyone who decides to post for him via proxy, may very well be breeching the rules, so I suggest caution in this area.

As for others disliking him, etc... that is not relevant, as you have said. His lack of posting here, as nothing to do with dislike of him, or finding him to be a liar.


TAM:)

[Heiwa]

When I started this thread I was hoping to get a lively discussion going but it quickly degenerated into nonsense about sock puppets and who might be whom. If Rob B wants to post here, he should be able to, and just because someone doesn't like him or finds him a liar should be left out of a discussion about Chandler and his videos and what they might / might not show.

What I've learned is that the NIST used a different technique than Chandler used which seems to me to be more accurate than what he used. Furthermore, Chandler used a diffeerent piece of video which was much less detailed than what the NIST had to use. So, he misses the first 7 feet of the fall which is the fundamental difference between his numbers and the NIST numbers.
He totally ignores the fact that the entire center of the building has collapsed as proven by the penthouses. His argument seems to be entirely based on the idea that several floors couldn't collapse simultaneously which gets us into a discussion of physics which my level of understanding can't resolve with math.

Rgrds-Ross

It does not matter when the roof line or pent house starts to drop. Just look what happens during the 2.25 seconds during the visible drop (no pent house) of the roof line! Chandler measures free fall (g = 9.82 m/s²) and our friends at NIST agree in their final 'final' report (g = 9.82 m/s² or 32.196 feet/s²). See fig. 3.15 in the NIST final 'final' WTC7 report http://wtc.nist.gov/NCSTAR1/PDF/NCSTAR%201A.pdf .

Any object falling at free fall cannot harm anything ... not even itself!

According NIST this is not so. An object like top part of WTC7 free falling at 32.196 feet/s² not only crushes the WTC7 below floor 16, no, the top part deforms itself as per very strange computer simulations and FE analysises.

Why cannot a free fall object harm anything or deform itself? Because it is in free fall.

Take Galilei. He dropped objects from a tower at Pisa around 1590. These objects did not destroy anything or deformed themselves when dropping. Reason is, still, that it was due to these objects were free falling.

It seems NIST uses some different techniques ... but you cannot beat the Italians.

If you think the pent house fell faster than free fall, pls elaborate.

[Bell]

Take Galilei. He dropped objects from a tower at Pisa around 1590. These objects did not destroy anything or deformed themselves when dropping. Reason is, still, that it was due to these objects were free falling.

Galilei did not drop those balls, it was a theoretical experiment.

[tsig]

It does not matter when the roof line or pent house starts to drop. Just look what happens during the 2.25 seconds during the visible drop (no pent house) of the roof line! Chandler measures free fall (g = 9.82 m/s²) and our friends at NIST agree in their final 'final' report (g = 9.82 m/s² or 32.196 feet/s²). See fig. 3.15 in the NIST final 'final' WTC7 report http://wtc.nist.gov/NCSTAR1/PDF/NCSTAR%201A.pdf .

Any object falling at free fall cannot harm anything ... not even itself!

According NIST this is not so. An object like top part of WTC7 free falling at 32.196 feet/s² not only crushes the WTC7 below floor 16, no, the top part deforms itself as per very strange computer simulations and FE analysises.

Why cannot a free fall object harm anything or deform itself? Because it is in free fall.

Take Galilei. He dropped objects from a tower at Pisa around 1590. These objects did not destroy anything or deformed themselves when dropping. Reason is, still, that it was due to these objects were free falling.

It seems NIST uses some different techniques ... but you cannot beat the Italians.

If you think the pent house fell faster than free fall, pls elaborate.

It's not the fall but the sudden stop that causes the damage.

[rsalinger]

If you actually read the report, the free fall part is shown to occur after the interior of the building has already collapsed. That's why it's possible. While in free fall or close to it the building can't destroy anything, of course, until it contacts an intact lower floor. The fundamental problem with Chandlers interpretation is that he's ignoring the sequence of events. He may think that the sequence is impossible - floors collapsing due to fires followed by key column (8 floors freestanding) followed by CORE COLUMN collapse, but the free fall part is after all this happens.

[Heiwa]

If you actually read the report, the free fall part is shown to occur after the interior of the building has already collapsed. That's why it's possible. While in free fall or close to it the building can't destroy anything, of course, until it contacts an intact lower floor. The fundamental problem with Chandlers interpretation is that he's ignoring the sequence of events. He may think that the sequence is impossible - floors collapsing due to fires followed by key column (8 floors freestanding) followed by CORE COLUMN collapse, but the free fall part is after all this happens.

Not according to the NIST WTC7 report; NIST reluctantly agreed that the complete visible upper part of WTC7 free falls at g = 9.82 m/s² for 2.25 seconds (in the first version 'final' report that was not the case) but, on the other hand, suggests that plenty of destruction takes place both below and inside the falling structure during this free fall. The latter is not possible as you rightly confirm.

Actually - free fall during 2.25 seconds of the visible part is not possible unless there is nothing to restrain it! So what happened to all structure below that was supposed to restrain it? Did it evaporate?

Complete upper parts of buildings never free fall under any normal circumstances as there is always something below to cushion the fall. Here there is nothing! Everything has disappeared. Quickly.

The rubble was also disposed of - disappeared - quickly. Luckily there are photos of many strange looking rubble parts of the lower structure and you wonder how they could ever come about.

In my view powerful CD of the lower part of WTC7 produced the visible free fall of the upper part. NIST should be asked to go back and review its report.

[Lennart Hyland]

In my view powerful CD of the lower part of WTC7 produced the visible free fall of the upper part. NIST should be asked to go back and review its report.

But this powerful CD wasnt noticed by anyone.

[beachnut]

It does not matter when the roof line or pent house starts to drop. Just look what happens during the 2.25 seconds during the visible drop (no pent house) of the roof line! Chandler measures free fall (g = 9.82 m/s²) and our friends at NIST agree in their final 'final' report (g = 9.82 m/s² or 32.196 feet/s²). See fig. 3.15 in the NIST final 'final' WTC7 report http://wtc.nist.gov/NCSTAR1/PDF/NCSTAR%201A.pdf .

Any object falling at free fall cannot harm anything ... not even itself!

According NIST this is not so. An object like top part of WTC7 free falling at 32.196 feet/s² not only crushes the WTC7 below floor 16, no, the top part deforms itself as per very strange computer simulations and FE analysises.

Why cannot a free fall object harm anything or deform itself? Because it is in free fall.

Take Galilei. He dropped objects from a tower at Pisa around 1590. These objects did not destroy anything or deformed themselves when dropping. Reason is, still, that it was due to these objects were free falling.

It seems NIST uses some different techniques ... but you cannot beat the Italians.

If you think the pent house fell faster than free fall, pls elaborate.
Your failure to understand reality is your downfall.

Show me the work for NIST freefall, darn the 28.9-32.0 feet/s² picked off the fig 3.15 is not G at 32.2, but less than G (you failed to read and understand NIST). But then you were never a person to use reality to mess up your delusion of who knows what conclusion you make, it is too hard to read your paper of pure crap to find your delusional conclusion. Do you even try to match your words with the reference you give that refute your failed ideas?

Failure happens, and you have perfected it.

All I have to do to foil your pathetic rant is post what NIST said. What is your pathetic terrorist apologist point? Your rant is pure anti-intellectual political claptrap only your kids and grandkids will understand if they harbor the same delusional ideas on this topic as you do.

http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll116/tjkb/NIST3pt15statement.jpg
Your CD is pure delusional, maybe in your country idiots go around blowing up buildings with silent explosives, but in our country our idiots use big giant bombs that go boom. Your delusion is complete, your CD claptrap is proof you have zero abilities in research. Good job, your kids will be proud of your failure and apologizing for terrorists. Thanks so much for making up lies about 911, we needed your terrorist apologies to feel better.

[twinstead]

In my view powerful CD of the lower part of WTC7 produced the visible free fall of the upper part. NIST should be asked to go back and review its report.

And in my view you are TOTALLY unqualified to make this statement. Frankly, it might as well be my hair stylist making the observation.

[Seymour Butz]

Disgusting.

Over at ATS, I've got Griff, an actual SE, feigning outrage at the fact that structural codes haven't changed as a direct result of the findings in the 7 report. Specifically, since the *new* rec from NIST that's in 7's report that singles out long span floor beams isn't included.

The fact that the findings from the tower report are just now being adopted by ICC, and the 7 report was released just 3 months ago means nothing to him.

The fact that the ICC HAS adopted recs from the tower report means nothing to him.

Instead he is taking the intelluctually bankrupt position that this proves that NIST is incompetent and that they really are not trained and/or knowledgeable to be making reccommendations in the first place.

I swear, this is exactly the sort of junk that is so maddening about the TM. A guy like Griff could actually educate the losers that are drawn to the TM, but he doesn't. Instead, he picks and chooses where he posts, only when he has an angle that he can attack with innuendo and half-truths.

And he totally avoids threads that he can't use these tactics, like the one that was started about the latest video that attempts to debunk Bazant. Presumably because he knows that a structure with a FOS of 3 can't supply a 31g "jolt" to the descending upper block. And what's maddening about THAT is that he's admitted that there is enough PE for the structure to collapse to the ground, but thinks that there's something wrong with what happened. So instead of joining a thread like this, where it could be discussed, he sits it out.

A true troll........

[JSSTyger]

I'm getting tired of reading how Mr. Chandler is such a "cheat" or a "hack". Well he must be a very very good one because NIST bought into it.

And good lord...all the nitpicky things you people point out.

"The middle of the roofline fell 7 feet first though!!"

Whoop-Dee-Dooo!! In the grand scheme of things what does a measly 7 feet mean? 7 feet out of 571 feet. You guys can't be serious. And incase you guys didn't notice...The NW corner fell just as fast as the rest of the roofline did so the accelerations would be nearly identical...negligibly different.

"2.25 seconds is way different than Chandler's 2.5 seconds...11% off"

Free fall is free fall. Do you want a cookie for pointing out this meaningless "flaw" ? Creating a best fit line is in itself creating errors because the data fluctuates...as it should. In order to model real world data we need best fit curves and best fit lines for interpolation or extrapolation purposes to predict information between datapoints or outside the data range. "Best fit" means "errors minimized"...but there will always be error.

Lastly, I have my own bit I would like somebody to attempt to debunk.

There are closeup videos of the top SW corner showing "squibs" running bottom to top. Is it caused by

A) Pancaking?....No...pancaking slabs would cause a top/down effect
B) Glass breaking/Overpressures?...In an upward progression?
C) Column buckling?....Ahhh...sounds like a good answer right? WRONG. We must assume that the SW corner columns are under negligible compression. Why? Well...the bottom corner is gouged out...right???? When the bottom corner got gouged, all of the load it was carrying was shifted throughout the rest of the structural steel system. Sure these corner columns are held up by the frictional resistance of their connections to the horizontal structural members, but that resistance is only equal to the weight of the column(s). It is impossible for a structural steel column to buckle under its own weight...let alone buckle twice and then three and four and five and six times on successive floors.
D) Demolition? This would explain the observed phenomena. Minus sound, this is a textbook standard controlled demolition. Sound, however, to me, seems like a very minor issue considering everything else. Now...I am not an expert in demolition materials (which their could be zillions of)...but I would venture to guess "quiet" explosive materials do exist.

I understand that "Thermal Expansion" is the overall culprit to NIST's cataclysmic failure theory...so I would like to see a response to my observations that incorporates this theory.

[Grizzly Bear]

There are closeup videos of the top SW corner showing "squibs" running bottom to top. Is it caused by...<snip>
What squibs? This? (http://www.debunking911.com/damage7.jpg) The top corner damage (http://www.houstonwade.com/images/week4/WTC7_bigfireSmoke.jpg) that Jones or what's his face got all over trying to pass on as "squibs"?

[JSSTyger]

[QUOTE=beachnut;4374109]Your failure to understand reality is your downfall.

Show me the work for NIST freefall, darn the 28.9-32.0 feet/s² picked off the fig 3.15 is not G at 32.2, but less than G (you failed to read and understand NIST). But then you were never a person to use reality to mess up your delusion of who knows what conclusion you make, it is too hard to read your paper of pure crap to find your delusional conclusion. Do you even try to match your words with the reference you give that refute your failed ideas?


This person (beach nut) does not understand the concept of free fall in a VACUUM.

"G" is like infinity...it can't be reached when an object falls through air.

...and air does provide quite a resistance at high speeds...it halts a skydivers acceleration (yes HALTS...as in ZERO) at a speed of 176 feet per second. Air resistance can be a powerful force...and will always act as a decelerator

You, claiming 28.9 to 32.0ft/s^2 as not representative of free fall, should be ashamed of yourself. NIST admits it. You should too.

[JSSTyger]

What squibs? The top corner damage that Jones or what's his face got all over trying to pass on as "squibs"?

Cool I already got a response. Now can you refute my observations from the other post?

[Grizzly Bear]

A) Pancaking?....No...pancaking slabs would cause a top/down effect

Not applicable... the collapse initiation involved a different mechanism than for the twin towers...


B) Glass breaking/Overpressures?...In an upward progression?

And? Window breakage during collapse should surprise because...?


C) Column buckling?....Ahhh...sounds like a good answer right? WRONG. We must assume that the SW corner columns are under negligible compression. Why? Well...the bottom corner is gouged out...right???? When the bottom corner got gouged, all of the load it was carrying was shifted throughout the rest of the structural steel system. Sure these corner columns are held up by the frictional resistance of their connections to the horizontal structural members, but that resistance is only equal to the weight of the column(s). It is impossible for a structural steel column to buckle under its own weight...let alone buckle twice and then three and four and five and six times on successive floors.

Except the collapse initiation did not take place at the corner of the building. It initiated in the interior after a critical column was left with no lateral bracing for several floors. The design of the building influenced the remainder of how the collapse progressed... I believe your premise here is misplaced...



D) Demolition? This would explain the observed phenomena. Minus sound, this is a textbook standard controlled demolition.
Forgive if I do not see what you refer to as "text book standard." I saw a building which was on fire, after having another, much larger building collapse on top of it. I saw a building exposed to circumstances which have not been confronted by any prior precedent and constructed in a different fashion than other precedents. I would recommend that you search around the forum as this has been extensively discussed in the past. Odds are, if you find nothing compelling concerning the faults in your argument, then you probably won't agree with any input I offer. I don't feel like wasting time trying to convince you other wise if you aren't genuinely interested in getting a good understanding of otherwise.

Sound, however, to me, seems like a very minor issue considering everything else. Now...I am not an expert in demolition materials (which their could be zillions of)...but I would venture to guess "quiet" explosive materials do exist.
Then of course you probably would want to avoid the contention that it was in any way "textbook standard," as your argument here is deviating from it. Regardless of which... the hush-a-boom idea is rather cliche...

I understand that "Thermal Expansion" is the overall culprit to NIST's cataclysmic failure theory...so I would like to see a response to my observations that incorporates this theory.
The design had a lot to do with this condition and the severity to which it had been manifest. One-Meridian Plaza can be used to an extent to demonstrate how much damage just the thermal expansion and contraction from the heat can deal. This of course bears in mind that the influence on the structural integrity is different since it's framing system is not representative of WTC 7. Therefore, the example I'm using is demonstrating a principal, not a direct comparison.

LINK (http://www.usfa.dhs.gov/downloads/pdf/publications/tr-049.pdf)
Structural Conditions Observed
Prior to deciding to evacuate the building, firefighters noticed significant structural displacement occurring in the stair enclosures. A command officer indicated that cracks large enough to place a man’s fist through developed at one point. One of the granite exterior wall panels on the east stair enclosure was dislodged by the thermal expansion of the steel framing behind it.

If you're planning to focus on purely collapse based points however, it may be best to continue this in a more relevant thread.

[Gravy]

There are closeup videos of the top SW corner showing "squibs" running bottom to top.No, there aren't. Next.

[JSSTyger]

I often wonder why you people don't use your analytic abilities to analyze NIST's theory. Is this not the official theory? Back it up!! I'll admit...its got to be quite hard now that NIST has abandoned the fuel oil tanks and long span floor truss theories. We told you that stuff was BS all along but you guys follow NIST wherever it takes you. NIST coulda told you that the building did jumping jacks before it fell, create a visual model of it, and then you would applaud them for their "breakthrough" in engineering excellence.

[JSSTyger]

Not applicable... the collapse initiation involved a different mechanism than for the twin towers...


And? Window breakage during collapse should surprise because...?


Except the collapse initiation did not take place at the corner of the building. It initiated in the interior after a critical column was left with no lateral bracing for several floors. The design of the building influenced the remainder of how the collapse progressed... I believe your premise here is misplaced...



Forgive if I do not see what you refer to as "text book standard." I saw a building which was on fire, after having another, much larger building collapse on top of it. I saw a building exposed to circumstances which have not been confronted by any prior precedent and constructed in a different fashion than other precedents. I would recommend that you search around the forum as this has been extensively discussed in the past. Odds are, if you find nothing compelling concerning the faults in your argument, then you probably won't agree with any input I offer. I don't feel like wasting time trying to convince you other wise if you aren't genuinely interested in getting a good understanding of otherwise.


Then of course you probably would want to avoid the contention that it was in any way "textbook standard," as your argument here is deviating from it. Regardless of which... the hush-a-boom idea is rather cliche...


The design had a lot to do with this condition and the severity to which it had been manifest. One-Meridian Plaza can be used to an extent to demonstrate how much damage just the thermal expansion and contraction from the heat can deal. This of course bears in mind that the influence on the structural integrity is different since it's framing system is not representative of WTC 7. Therefore, the example I'm using is demonstrating a principal, not a direct comparison.

If you're planning to focus on purely collapse based points however, it may be best to continue this in a more relevant thread.

1) I was explaining away the different possible theories
2) Demolition was the only explanation that stood up
3) I was right in saying it could not have been pancaking slabs
4) Glass breaking/Overpressures....Glass breaking doesn't cause "smoke" and zero overpressures anyways if the lower floors are going down before the upper floors
5) Collapse initiation has not one thing to do with the observed phenomenon. I don't care if the mechanical room fell five years before the rest of the building.
6) How does a building being structurally damaged and having fires refute demolition????

I submit that you did not disprove anything I said. You are rather off topic. What I wanted is an explanation of those bottom to top bursts. I might add also that similar vertical bursts are easily visible on the north face. The verticality implies failing columns. Well...I trashed the buckling theory too.

[JSSTyger]

Why would the column(s) that were gouged out at the bottom buckle floor after floor? After each "break" the stresses are relieved and you have a smaller and smaller column! The shorter the column, the less likely it is to buckle (scientific fact)! Forget the fact the axial forces on it are pretty much zero. And bending?...From what I observe, that collapse is darn near perpendicular to the ground for the first 2.25 seconds. Bending? Ehhh no. Weak forces causing columns to buckle on successive floors is ridiculous. I'm sorry...but it is.

[T.A.M.]

I often wonder why you people don't use your analytic abilities to analyze NIST's theory. Is this not the official theory? Back it up!! I'll admit...its got to be quite hard now that NIST has abandoned the fuel oil tanks and long span floor truss theories. We told you that stuff was BS all along but you guys follow NIST wherever it takes you. NIST coulda told you that the building did jumping jacks before it fell, create a visual model of it, and then you would applaud them for their "breakthrough" in engineering excellence.

read it first, before you comment on it, or shut the **** up.

TAM:)

[Grizzly Bear]

1) I was explaining away the different possible theories
3) I was right in saying it could not have been pancaking slabs
Neither were applicable in the first place to WTC 7... I'm not sure what compelled you to believe such points were significant enough to concern yourself with here... And nobody that I am aware of has ever argued for such, it's a strawman.

2) Demolition was the only explanation that stood up
For broken windows? Overpressure, or by virtue of the wall deforming around the frame. Glass isn't intended to be used as a load bearing structural member, and they certainly aren't designed for the sort of shear from being knocked off kilter as the structure fails. A rather moot point since this kind of conflict isn't exclusive to demolition; Look up the John Hancock tower for a reference, in that case design flaws led to similar failures of glass paneling.

4) Glass breaking/Overpressures....Glass breaking doesn't cause "smoke" and zero overpressures anyways if the lower floors are going down before the upper floors
In other words... something along the lines of "too much dust" for it to be a "natural collapse" eh? Not sure what else you would expect from a building that was structurally unstable and collapsing. Oh... and lest not forget burning.

5) Collapse initiation has not one thing to do with the observed phenomenon. I don't care if the mechanical room fell five years before the rest of the building.
Then that indicates to me that your questions regarding the collapse aren't as genuine as you imply. Thank you for informing me that I'll not have to waste further time trying to "convince" you otherwise. It's clear it'll be a waste of time.

6) How does a building being structurally damaged and having fires refute demolition????
Because you're looking for controlled demolition when the building just burned for several hours uninhibited and had design specifications that were rather unique. The basis of "first time in history" or "looks like a CD" are generally irrelevant as it's clear you have not taken any interest in the design factors or circumstances which played a role. Good day, have fun :)

I submit that you did not disprove anything I said.
Well when dealing with a strawman argument I would suspect that there wouldn't be much to disprove :)

[JSSTyger]

read it first, before you comment on it, or shut the **** up.

TAM:)

such strong words. Do you always jump to such quick stupid conclusions? Why swear?

[HyJinX]

Yes, we always jump on such quick stupid conclusions.

ETA: People tend to swear when they are confronted with shear idiocy. It's natures way. Can you deal? The best way to avoid it, is to be less stupid. Deal?

[ElMondoHummus]

such strong words. Do you always jump to such quick stupid conclusions? Why swear?

JSSTyger, TAM's point is that your posts demonstrate you have studied misrepresentations of NIST descriptions rather than what the reports themselves actually conclude. That's what he was pointing out, and by the way, his advice is solid; I need to follow it through to completion myself when I have the time. So anyway, instead of responding to a complaint about how truthers continually approach the subject, why don't you tackle the substantial question Grizzly Bear posted? Namely: What squibs? When you answer that, then you can address the rest of his points, which all bring question to your understanding of the collapse events and NIST's descriptions of them.

The substance is there. Failing to address them is dodging the issue.

[JSSTyger]

Neither were applicable in the first place to WTC 7... I'm not sure what compelled you to believe such points were significant enough to concern yourself with here... And nobody that I am aware of has ever argued for such, it's a strawman.

As I said before. I am just eliminating possible failure mechanisms


For broken windows? Overpressure, or by virtue of the wall deforming around the frame. Glass isn't intended to be used as a load bearing structural member, and they certainly aren't designed for the sort of shear from being knocked off kilter as the structure fails. A rather moot point since this kind of conflict isn't exclusive to demolition; Look up the John Hancock tower for a reference, in that case design flaws led to similar failures of glass paneling.

I should never have mentioned the glass breaking. It matters not. I just didn't want people telling me the puffs were because of glass.


In other words... something along the lines of "too much dust" for it to be a "natural collapse" eh? Not sure what else you would expect from a building that was structurally unstable and collapsing. Oh... and lest not forget burning.

Hmmm...kind of a strange vertical "zip" the fire induced smoke did there. It was pretty darn fast. Come on man. We really are taking NIST at its word as far as the intensity and distributions of the fire goes. You got billowing smoke on the south side and raging fires only on certain levels at certain times. How do we know none of that damage was actually caused by explosives? I mean Barry Jennings is one key witness who specifically says an explosion took out the landing beneath him before any of the towers fell. That and there are vids of an entire column (number 20)missing. Good God debris can knock an entire column out? I don't see the damage as being fire damage and I don't see the fire intensity's being what NIST says.


Then that indicates to me that your questions regarding the collapse aren't as genuine as you imply. Thank you for informing me that I'll not have to waste further time trying to "convince" you otherwise. It's clear it'll be a waste of time.


Because you're looking for controlled demolition when the building just burned for several hours uninhibited and had design specifications that were rather unique. The basis of "first time in history" or "looks like a CD" are generally irrelevant as it's clear you have not taken any interest in the design factors or circumstances which played a role. Good day, have fun :)

Over-design factors you mean...most likely heavily over-designed. Its a government facility. But NIST would have you believe one failure can cause a global failure...


Well when dealing with a strawman argument I would suspect that there wouldn't be much to disprove :)

There is no "strawman" about the demolition of WTC 7. I've challenged many people many times to give an example of a solid object collapsing in on itself under its own weight straight down and I've never gotten a legitimate answer. Structural mechanics just doesn't work that way. You just can't have a building thats supposedly gouged on one side fall straight down.

[JSSTyger]

JSSTyger, TAM's point is that your posts demonstrate you have studied misrepresentations of NIST descriptions rather than what the reports themselves actually conclude. That's what he was pointing out, and by the way, his advice is solid; I need to follow it through to completion myself when I have the time. So anyway, instead of responding to a complaint about how truthers continually approach the subject, why don't you tackle the substantial question Grizzly Bear posted? Namely: What squibs? When you answer that, then you can address the rest of his points, which all bring question to your understanding of the collapse events and NIST's descriptions of them.

The substance is there. Failing to address them is dodging the issue.

grizzly also posted the video I was talking about so I saw no need to post it again.

[JSSTyger]

And furthermore they failed to address the issue I brought up by answering questions that weren't asked.

[ElMondoHummus]

There is no "strawman" about the demolition of WTC 7. I've challenged many people many times to give an example of a solid object collapsing in on itself under its own weight straight down and I've never gotten a legitimate answer. Structural mechanics just doesn't work that way. You just can't have a building thats supposedly gouged on one side fall straight down.

First of all, WTC7 is not a solid object. Any conclusions drawn from presuming it should act like a tree, a rock, or any other "solid" object instead of the heterogenous, interconnected structure it really is is flawed from the start. Second of all, it did not merely collapse "under it's own weight", but also did so due to the structural damage and fire weakening of the structure. So there is more than one issue at play here. Third of all, your complaint about not getting a "legitimate" answer is because your framing demonstrates your lack of knowledge on the subject. Query the forum poster named "Architect" about how a structure is supposed to react when compromised. He'll not only clear up your misunderstandings about how to treat WTC 7 as a system, he'll also remind you that collapses are expected to happen when a structure is fatally compromised, and that the exact manifestation of the collapse is highly dependent on a variety of factors. So setting a false premise of other buildings collapsing "under it's own weight" straight down is poisoning the well; the principles behind collapse are very well known, and the manner in which WTC 7 collapsed in no way disproves NIST's proposed mechanism, and certainly doesn't open the door for alternate explanations involving explosives or incendiaries.

grizzly also posted the video I was talking about so I saw no need to post it again.

There are no squibs exploding in that video. The mere fact you use the term "squibs" shows that you do not understand explosives demolition, but instead take your cues from conspiracy peddling sources.

[ElMondoHummus]

And furthermore they failed to address the issue I brought up by answering questions that weren't asked.

Grizzly answered "questions (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=4464642#post4464642) that weren't asked" (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=4464882#post4464882)? Whatever; posts 102 and 108 demonstrate otherwise. Your best bet is to stick to points about the collapse from here on out.

[A W Smith]

There is no "strawman" about the demolition of WTC 7. I've challenged many people many times to give an example of a solid object collapsing in on itself under its own weight straight down and I've never gotten a legitimate answer. Structural mechanics just doesn't work that way. You just can't have a building thats supposedly gouged on one side fall straight down.

But it DID fall in the direction it was gouged out.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s77v8iJueSw
s77v8iJueSw

[JSSTyger]

All I was doing in my original post here was eliminating "plausible" theories...not all of them NIST theories...but any possible theory you all could come up with. I know what NIST says about ohhh thermal expansion and column 79 blowing out on level 13 and somehow the internal structure just ripped itself away from the facade and lead the collapse while the facade was standing for a few seconds. Yes I know the NIST fairy tale. I have seen the model where the frame just twists and wilts. And the whole north and west faces of the facade shows no signs, no cracks, no buckled columns or beams punching through them...minimal broken windows. I mean...not to be offensive but this is all just common sense.

You can call me a loon..if that makes you feel better. But this not a blind belief. And I do have credentials that,in the very least, lend me partial credibility.

[JSSTyger]

But it DID fall in the direction it was gouged out.
s77v8iJueSw

No...the first 2.25 seconds was very near perpendicular to the ground....see GldBr's veoh video

[JSSTyger]

First of all, WTC7 is not a solid object. Any conclusions drawn from presuming it should act like a tree, a rock, or any other "solid" object instead of the heterogenous, interconnected structure it really is is flawed from the start. Second of all, it did not merely collapse "under it's own weight", but also did so due to the structural damage and fire weakening of the structure. So there is more than one issue at play here. Third of all, your complaint about not getting a "legitimate" answer is because your framing demonstrates your lack of knowledge on the subject. Query the forum poster named "Architect" about how a structure is supposed to react when compromised. He'll not only clear up your misunderstandings about how to treat WTC 7 as a system, he'll also remind you that collapses are expected to happen when a structure is fatally compromised, and that the exact manifestation of the collapse is highly dependent on a variety of factors. So setting a false premise of other buildings collapsing "under it's own weight" straight down is poisoning the well; the principles behind collapse are very well known, and the manner in which WTC 7 collapsed in no way disproves NIST's proposed mechanism, and certainly doesn't open the door for alternate explanations involving explosives or incendiaries.



There are no squibs exploding in that video. The mere fact you use the term "squibs" shows that you do not understand explosives demolition, but instead take your cues from conspiracy peddling sources.

Whether you like it or not...the building fell under its own weight. And it a solid object meaning its not a liquid...I didn't mean solid like a block of concrete.

[A W Smith]

No...the first 2.25 seconds was very near perpendicular to the ground....see GldBr's veoh video



What? you believe it should have fallen over like an oak tree with an axeman's notch in it? Thats absurd. Can you run the math by me again that shows how it should hinge over at the bottom? You know the south side damage had nothing to do with collapse initiation.

http://i294.photobucket.com/albums/mm89/AWSmith1955/wtc7floorfailure.jpg

[JSSTyger]

OK I'm leaving the forum for the night. This just so not cool they actually created a thread to hound a guy who uses REAL physics to support his theory on WTC 7. Just goes to show that, when dealing with the govt., if the means doesn't support the desired conclusion...the means is invalid. I mean Chandler repeatedly explained himself throughout his vids. He was scientifically accurate in his methodology. He showed and explained his data. I suppose you hate him just because hes on the "opposite side" but...what more could he have done??? He had "zero" budget. NIST had 40 million.

Maybe NIST's presentation was better

Shyam Sunder: "gravity is uhh the uhh duhh loading function uhh which applies duhh to all umm structures duhh on this uhhh planet...and not just....uhhh at ground zero.....free fall requires no structural resistance...which is NOT the case (oops I guess yes it WAS the case uhhh for a third of the collapse)"

You can't hate Chandler just because he exposed NIST

[TexasJack]

You can call me a loon..if that makes you feel better. But this not a blind belief. And I do have credentials that,in the very least, lend me partial credibility.

As opposed to NIST, who possess credentials that give them full credibility.

[DavidJames]

OK I'm leaving the forum for the night. Have a nice night and hopefully when you wake up you'll realize that you haven't presented one scintilla of intelligent information, will apologize for wasting everyone's time and promise to go to school so you can be a productive contributor to society when you grow up.

[beachnut]

I often wonder why you people don't use your analytic abilities to analyze NIST's theory. Is this not the official theory? Back it up!! I'll admit...its got to be quite hard now that NIST has abandoned the fuel oil tanks and long span floor truss theories. We told you that stuff was BS all along but you guys follow NIST wherever it takes you. NIST coulda told you that the building did jumping jacks before it fell, create a visual model of it, and then you would applaud them for their "breakthrough" in engineering excellence.
Have you learned why NIST studied WTC7? Not to placate the 911Truth delusions (no).

You can spew implications of delusions all you want about NIST and 911 built on hearsay, false information and fantasy. But you can't refute NIST conclusions, or the big picture. Why does 911Truth lack the knowledge and skills to do this? Because after 7 years 911Truth is evidence free.

What is the problem, can’t 911Truth grasp the complex plot of 19 terrorists,
1 – kill pilots
2 – fly planes into buildings
Much too complex so they make up delusions to sell books and DVDs to people too challenged to research 911 on their own and would rather regurgitate failed ideas based on hearsay, false information, and fantasy.

Like your squibs, the most idiotic idea on 911 ever! (maybe nukes and beam weapons beat it)

I have some questions you need to ask 911Truth and yourself. Where is 911Truth’s Pulitzer Prize for exposing the biggest inside job in history the destruction of the WTC complex by whoever 911Truth delusions say it was? Where is their evidence?

Why do a minuscule number of engineers (any type of engineer you want) support the delusions of 911Truth; at 0.001 percent?

Wowzer, are you one of those 0.001 percent engineers, or are you just supporting their failed ideas?

You can't hate Chandler just because he exposed NIST
No one hates the guy, his delusions of CD is stupid. Using knowledge and sound judgment to simple to see he is spewing conclusions that are delusions. You may hate him when you see how little knowledge it takes to refute his failed conclusions.

I hope you are not wasting time to prove he is right when you can just go to the nearest TV station, radio station and break this Pulitzer Prize story! Tell me you are taking action and not arguing with people who have read all of NIST, engineers, pilots, ATC, mathematicians, history majors, young people who have learned to be skeptical of all, and other professional people and laypeople who post here and are not only skeptical of the official story but also skeptical of 911Truth who have been found to be delusion experts.

Most of the people posting at JREF are skeptical of stuff! I wonder why? Gee, I get this feeling of skepticism on each page here for some reason. But you support failed conclusions with no skepticism, without study, without evidence to support your contrary view. Where as the 19 terrorists left evidence, something the delusion of 911Truth failed to do – leave evidence.

Prove to me fires do not destroy buildings and I will convert, but I cheated, I have seen steel buildings fail in fire quicker than wood buildings. And I found this out at before I was a teenager just by observation. My engineering degrees only make me overqualified to plant my peach trees and roses, and build my pergola for my grapes.

No one hates the messenger they hate his anti-intellectual conclusions (...). In the USA we let people spew hearsay, false information, and fantasy as if it were true. You need to gain knowledge to sort out the delusional conclusion this guy has.

You need to stop believing everything you find on the Internet and have more skepticism. Look up there at the top left… see … you have fallen into a nest of skeptics and I need to work on the friendly part and stop being too lively. Did you fail to bring your skepticism with you, and your science?

[ElMondoHummus]

This is better; you're restricting yourself to points about the collapse.

All I was doing in my original post here was eliminating "plausible" theories...not all of them NIST theories...but any possible theory you all could come up with.


No, all you were doing was stating unsupported incredulity at specific details.

Everyone else: Let's refrain from snark about him "eliminating "plausible" theories". His context makes clear that he really meant what he thinks are implausible explanations, and there's enough in what he posts to go after substance rather than nitpick about a simple error in word choice.


I know what NIST says about ohhh thermal expansion and column 79 blowing out on level 13 and somehow the internal structure just ripped itself away from the facade and lead the collapse while the facade was standing for a few seconds. Yes I know the NIST fairy tale. I have seen the model where the frame just twists and wilts. And the whole north and west faces of the facade shows no signs, no cracks, no buckled columns or beams punching through them...minimal broken windows. I mean...not to be offensive but this is all just common sense.


Thermal expansion is a well established problem with steel; hence the need for fireproofing and construction standards that take it into account.

You need to actually demonstrate what you think is wrong with the model. Simply calling it a "fairy tale" is not a refutation of it. Not in the absence of arguments demonstrating the points that are incorrect, and most definitely not in the presence of long falsified claims like "squibs".


You can call me a loon..if that makes you feel better. But this not a blind belief. And I do have credentials that,in the very least, lend me partial credibility.

No one has to call you anything. Arguing explosives establishes what sort of thinker you are without any action from us. And it doesn't matter what your "credentials" are, your statements evaporate whatever credibility your credentials supposedly establish.

It's never about "who" anyone is; the crux of the argument is either supported or refuted by what they say. And so far, what little you've said is merely a repeat of the same distortions presented for years now. Take your mention of squibs: That's been bounced off of members of this forum since before I've been here (http://www.google.com/custom?hl=en&safe=off&cof=S%3Ahttp%3A%2F%2Fforums.randi.org%3BL%3Ahttp%3 A%2F%2Fforums.randi.org%2Fimages%2Fmisc%2Fsearchlo go.gif%3BLH%3A75%3BLW%3A849%3B&domains=forums.randi.org&q=squibs&sitesearch=forums.randi.org). When someone says "squibs", I just direct them to these sites:

http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/squibs%3F2
http://debunking911.com/overp.htm
http://www.911myths.com/html/wtc7_squibs.html


... and until those points are addressed, there's nothing more to say about it.

[Disbelief]

1) 6) How does a building being structurally damaged and having fires refute demolition????


For a few reasons:

1) If the building was prepped beforehand, how did the demolitions survive the damage and fires? Would they not have exploded from impact and intense heat?

2) If the building was prepped beforehand, how were they able to account for the damage to be able to still demolish the building? Changing the strcture with damage would change the dynamics of any planned demolition.

3) If the charges were set after the tower collapse, how did a team get in covertly?

4) If the charges were set after tower collapse, how did they analyze the building so quickly and know where to set the charges?

These are just a few reasons off the top of my head, and there are probably some I am missing.

[GStan]

For a few reasons:

1) If the building was prepped beforehand, how did the demolitions survive the damage and fires? Would they not have exploded from impact and intense heat?

2) If the building was prepped beforehand, how were they able to account for the damage to be able to still demolish the building? Changing the strcture with damage would change the dynamics of any planned demolition.

3) If the charges were set after the tower collapse, how did a team get in covertly?

4) If the charges were set after tower collapse, how did they analyze the building so quickly and know where to set the charges?

These are just a few reasons off the top of my head, and there are probably some I am missing.

5) Complete absence of sounds consistent with demolition charges.
6) Complete absence of materials in the rubble pile consistent with demolition charges.
7) Complete absence of any belief by the closest witnesses to the collapse (firefighters) of possibility of a demolition.

[T.A.M.]

such strong words. Do you always jump to such quick stupid conclusions? Why swear?

No not always, just feeling particularly annoyed by ignorance and paranoia today, so I decided to lash out. You were the recipient. The swearing, well why not?

TAM;)

[T.A.M.]

There is no "strawman" about the demolition of WTC 7. I've challenged many people many times to give an example of a solid object collapsing in on itself under its own weight straight down and I've never gotten a legitimate answer. Structural mechanics just doesn't work that way. You just can't have a building thats supposedly gouged on one side fall straight down.

SO prove it. Show us your own calculations that provide proof that WTC7 could not have collapsed as NIST has theorized/proposed.

Thanks in advance.

TAM:)

[T.A.M.]

All I was doing in my original post here was eliminating "plausible" theories...not all of them NIST theories...but any possible theory you all could come up with. I know what NIST says about ohhh thermal expansion and column 79 blowing out on level 13 and somehow the internal structure just ripped itself away from the facade and lead the collapse while the facade was standing for a few seconds. Yes I know the NIST fairy tale. I have seen the model where the frame just twists and wilts. And the whole north and west faces of the facade shows no signs, no cracks, no buckled columns or beams punching through them...minimal broken windows. I mean...not to be offensive but this is all just common sense.

You can call me a loon..if that makes you feel better. But this not a blind belief. And I do have credentials that,in the very least, lend me partial credibility.

It doesn't make me feel better, but can I still call you one? I mean you come here, and you inform us that a large group of engineers trained in the relative fields are wrong, and that you know the answer, yet you neither provide evidence through scientific experiment or calculation that they are wrong, nor anything close to a logical or sensible alternative with likewise calculations.

So yah, Loon is a pretty good title. Please provide us the credentials, for curiosity, but then, to win the big prize, use your knowledge, which allowed you to obtain those credentials, to show us where and how NIST got it wrong.

TAM:)

[T.A.M.]

OK I'm leaving the forum for the night. This just so not cool they actually created a thread to hound a guy who uses REAL physics to support his theory on WTC 7. Just goes to show that, when dealing with the govt., if the means doesn't support the desired conclusion...the means is invalid. I mean Chandler repeatedly explained himself throughout his vids. He was scientifically accurate in his methodology. He showed and explained his data. I suppose you hate him just because hes on the "opposite side" but...what more could he have done??? He had "zero" budget. NIST had 40 million.

Maybe NIST's presentation was better

Shyam Sunder: "gravity is uhh the uhh duhh loading function uhh which applies duhh to all umm structures duhh on this uhhh planet...and not just....uhhh at ground zero.....free fall requires no structural resistance...which is NOT the case (oops I guess yes it WAS the case uhhh for a third of the collapse)"

You can't hate Chandler just because he exposed NIST

SO you have reduced yourself to making fun of someones speech patterns, and still remain on your soapbox condemning others for how they treat people?

There is a word for that...look it up if you don't know what it is.

TAM

[DGM]

You can't hate Chandler just because he exposed NIST

How so? Did you actually read (and understand) their report?

You


I know what NIST says about ohhh thermal expansion and column 79 blowing out on level 13 and somehow the internal structure just ripped itself away from the facade and lead the collapse while the facade was standing for a few seconds. Yes I know the NIST fairy tale. I have seen the model where the frame just twists and wilts. And the whole north and west faces of the facade shows no signs, no cracks, no buckled columns or beams punching through them...minimal broken windows. I mean...not to be offensive but this is all just common sense.

Apparently not!

[TexasJack]

Shyam Sunder: "gravity is uhh the uhh duhh loading function uhh which applies duhh to all umm structures duhh on this uhhh planet...and not just....uhhh at ground zero.....free fall requires no structural resistance...which is NOT the case (oops I guess yes it WAS the case uhhh for a third of the collapse)"

You can't hate Chandler just because he exposed NIST

FYI here is Sunder's education, since you think you are qualified to speak on this subject, can you remotely come close to that? Or more importantly, can you refute the scientific conclusions he and the NIST determined?


Indian Institute of Technology, Delhi, B. Tech., (Honors), Civil Engineering, 1977

Massachusetts Institute of Technology, S.M., Civil Engineering, 1979

Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Sc.D., Structural Engineering, 1981

[Sizzler]

WTC7 was the smoking gun that brought me to examine the "911 was an inside job" claim.

And after NIST released their final report, I am even more convinced that WTC7 remains the smoking gun.

It is so f'n obvious, yet so F'n irrelevant these days it isn't even funny.

Move on people. Only your kids kids will be able to examine it with an open mind.

[R.Mackey]

WTC7 was the smoking gun that brought me to examine the "911 was an inside job" claim.

And after NIST released their final report, I am even more convinced that WTC7 remains the smoking gun.

It is so f'n obvious, yet so F'n irrelevant these days it isn't even funny.

Move on people. Only your kids kids will be able to examine it with an open mind.

How times change...

I recently came across a post by Newtons Bit that made a whole lot of sense.

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3967250&postcount=4

With this in mind, I hereby state that I will abandon the CD hypothesis if no serious challenge to NIST's WTC7 report is put forth.


Oh well. For the record, I did enjoy some of your commentary, and at times you were quite open minded. I have a new policy (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=4461706#post4461706), however, that I need to refer you to. Thanks for your understanding.

[beachnut]

WTC7 was the smoking gun that brought me to examine the "911 was an inside job" claim.

And after NIST released their final report, I am even more convinced that WTC7 remains the smoking gun.

It is so f'n obvious, yet so F'n irrelevant these days it isn't even funny.

Move on people. Only your kids kids will be able to examine it with an open mind.
Where is your evidence?

The only smoking gun WTC7 represents is that fire destroys buildings; old story and the moronic delusions of 911Truth have proven to be failed for over 7 years.

The best we can expect from 911Truth is more moronic rehashing of their old failed ideas. Does anyone take physics in high school anymore? I see that no child left behind has failed as the left behinds have followed the idiotic rants of 911Truth.

The only smoking guy for you is you have failed to use evidence to make a rational conclusion, and you must seek out knowledge and use sound judgment to do better.

My grandkids already understand reality and will not fall for delusions based on hearsay, lies and fantasy as you have.
911Truth = failure (no Pulitzer Prize for the doltish ideas of 911Truth)

It is so obvious you missed it and got it backwards. Same old 911Truth.

[Disbelief]

WTC7 was the smoking gun that brought me to examine the "911 was an inside job" claim.

And after NIST released their final report, I am even more convinced that WTC7 remains the smoking gun.

It is so f'n obvious, yet so F'n irrelevant these days it isn't even funny.

Move on people. Only your kids kids will be able to examine it with an open mind.

If this is true, maybe you can start with post 127.

[Sword_Of_Truth]

This is David Chandler speaking.

A.) Is it true that you are only a high school teacher?

B.) I have been personally amused the full on retreat from the claim of "free fall speed" that the truthers have been chanting endlessly for nearly 4 years. All the whooping and hollering over the so called "admission" by the NIST that WTC7 came down at free fall acceleration for a portion of the collapse is actually a surrendering of precious ground. The truth movement isn't moving forward, they are falling back and licking thier wounds.

C.) I don't believe that you truly feel that the NIST has been "dry labbing" or willfully and knowingly falsifying data. I don't know the proper avenues by which to bring up a complaint of professional misconduct by the NIST team, but I'm fairly certain it doesn't involve whining about it on youtube.

D.) What have you done with David Chandlers 1 through 47?

[alienentity]

Hi Kiddies,

This is my first post in JREF forums. Not really important, but a small milestone...

Regarding David Chandler, I came across his vids recently, and I thought - is this true? Are NIST committing fraud, 'dry-labing'? I paid some attention to the claims and decided to test the 5.4 sec vs 3.9 claim.

I made some annotated versions of Chandler's vids, 'cause he doesn't allow comments on his channel (coward).
The first is titled 'NIST WTC 7 (Chandler debunked) 1' on my youtube channel

My own new vid, with my analysis is 'WTC 7 NIST Debunked Pt 1 (Hi Res)'
watch?v=bKgtmnf63Nw

(I don't think I can post direct links yet). You'll have to google or search in youtube.
sorry.

My conclusion: Chandler was wrong. 5.4 sec stands as the correct time from observable collapse of the top floors.

Please check my videos and pass on if you likey. Bitchslap those wascally twoofers often and hard, I say!

[T.A.M.]

welcome to the forum alienidentity.

TAM:)

[beachnut]

bKgtmnf63Nw

this is it

What vid ed did you use? Does it burn to DVD etc.

thanks, welcome

[T.A.M.]

very nice video.

Good job.

TAM:)

[Grizzly Bear]

Hi Kiddies,

This is my first post in JREF forums. Not really important, but a small milestone...

Regarding David Chandler, I came across his vids recently, and I thought - is this true? Are NIST committing fraud, 'dry-labing'? I paid some attention to the claims and decided to test the 5.4 sec vs 3.9 claim.

I made some annotated versions of Chandler's vids, 'cause he doesn't allow comments on his channel (coward).
The first is titled 'NIST WTC 7 (Chandler debunked) 1' on my youtube channel

My own new vid, with my analysis is 'WTC 7 NIST Debunked Pt 1 (Hi Res)'
watch?v=bKgtmnf63Nw

(I don't think I can post direct links yet). You'll have to google or search in youtube.
sorry.

My conclusion: Chandler was wrong. 5.4 sec stands as the correct time from observable collapse of the top floors.

Please check my videos and pass on if you likey. Bitchslap those wascally twoofers often and hard, I say!

15 posts will give you the option in the future :)
Looks like your vid got me to dust off my youtube account and comment...

[A W Smith]

Wow. I did not notice before how the west top corner of 7 pulled towards the east as the penthouse on the east started to drop. You can see it at about 5.30 in the video when you roll the clip back and forth.. So something is shrinking the width of the building from east to west. Exactly as would be expected with a cascading collapse of interior columns towards the west.as #79 failed. This is even before the kink becomes pronounced.

[alienentity]

Thank you all.

If you watch my vid on my channel, you'll also notice that David Chandler and I had a bit of 'back and forth' over the last 24 hrs. I'm glad he took notice (that was part of my motivation) but I told him frankly that he isn't behaving like a scientist - I don't see a problem with constructive criticism of NIST's collapse model, but he goes way beyond that. Hence he deserves a good swift kick in the pills, IMHO.

To Beachnut - I used imovie, and I can burn to DVD. There are two resolutions of my video available, the one linked to here is Hi Res. If you want something even better, I'll put it up on my channel for you. Lemme know.

AW Smith noticed the 'oscillation' of the NW corner - I wondered if it was an video aberration but I think you're probably right about shrinkage.
I also noticed a pronounced change in the windows below the E penthouse after it collapses - they appear lighter. NIST seems to think this is a change in reflection caused by the upper wall moving, but I wonder if it could be skylight showing thru empty space.

It could also have been the worklights from Larry Silverstein's Fire Department demolition crew. That's more likely.....;)

[Brainster]

Nice job, AE, I have posted this at SLC.

[UNLoVedRebel]

Great vid! Chandler's methodology of trying to detect motion frame x frame shows a complete lack of understanding in human perception. Horizontal progressive failure confirmed yet again.

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Chandler on alienentitys youtube page: "Sunder and the NIST are all liars, alienentity is just a musician and now I'm leaving because I can't handle all the name-calling here".

God help us all if the twoof movement ever selects a grown up as its patron saint du jour.

[T.A.M.]

That is funny. So a SCHOOL TEACHER (IIRC) uses an ad hominem against a musician (one that alienidentity could easily throw back at the SCHOOL TEACHER), shouts from the rooftop that they "are all liars", then pokes his tail between his legs and slinks away. And this man is in charge of teaching children. Not setting a very good example.

TAM:)

[A W Smith]

That is funny. So a SCHOOL TEACHER (IIRC) uses an ad hominem against a musician (one that alienidentity could easily throw back at the SCHOOL TEACHER), shouts from the rooftop that they "are all liars", then pokes his tail between his legs and slinks away. And this man is in charge of teaching children. Not setting a very good example.

TAM:)

Chandler should start a group. school teachers for 911 truth.
(http://badbadteacher.com/) Hes not the only teacher to make bad decisions as shown by the category list to the right (http://badbadteacher.com/)

[Grizzly Bear]

I also noticed a pronounced change in the windows below the E penthouse after it collapses - they appear lighter. NIST seems to think this is a change in reflection caused by the upper wall moving, but I wonder if it could be skylight showing thru empty space.

Actually from the videos I've seen, as the east penthouse collapsed into the interior numerous windows started to break from the top to the bottom up to the point that the main exterior wall began to fail. I interpreted it as breakage with zoomed in versions but through youtube the resolutions' shoddy at best. Regardless I assume you noticed this through the same videos that I've seen. My understanding is that it was effect of the collapse progression in the very early stages

[ElMondoHummus]

Chandler on alienentitys youtube page: "Sunder and the NIST are all liars, alienentity is just a musician and now I'm leaving because I can't handle all the name-calling here".

God help us all if the twoof movement ever selects a grown up as its patron saint du jour.

That's 99% a pure, classic ad-hominem attack, with the remaining 1% being left off because he merely implied, not directly stated, that alienentity was wrong because he's a musician. Otherwise, it's classic.

Again, as everyone who's a regular here already knows: It's not who the person is, it's what they say. I don't tote Gravy's page because his tour guide expertise puts him in the midst of New York, I do so because what he's put together stands on its own merit. No less.

Similarly, I've moved away (yes, I did often commit the mistake in the past, and occasionally slip these days) from denigrating Steven Jones (physicist) and DRG (theologian) on the basis of their non-expertise on the subject. It made sense at the time, but that's the trap of ad-hominem: It makes sense in a relative way, but it's the absolute issue of logical support that matters. And their arguments do not fail because of their education or career, they fail on their own lack of merit. The only thing salvaging them seems to be the academic authority of the authors, and even that has been rapidly eroding as time goes by.

At any rate, that's not a good showing by Chandler. If he's got a counter, he needs to state it in some way other than simple denigration.

[alienentity]

ElMondoHummus - well said. I should point out that Chandler's exact words were 'As for all the name calling, which is where this thread seems to be heading, I'm not into that. I'm out-a-here. Bye. '
And he accused me of a double-standard, because I said I'd wager that if he had a PhD SE, he'd be singing a different tune. To be clear I was referring to his insistence on CD, and that 2.25 s of 'Freefall means controlled demolition, pure and simple. That means we're dealing with a crime and a criminal cover-up.'

So, to be clear, I questioned his credentials to
1) do forensic video analysis (is that the correct term?)
2) make definitive statements about CD and WTC 7

physics? Hell yeah! He has training in physics... Doesn't have very much to do with his 'truther' stance though.....

I find it both disturbing and humorous (a combination which is more palatable after a couple of single malts) that he can look at a detailed critique of his timing and ask me why I'm focusing on his credentials and not the facts.

Hard facts are not the strong suit of 9-11 truthers. And they HATE to be reminded of that...

So, no ad Hummusnems are really needed.

[alienentity]

So what's your best working theory about the collapse?

The burning question is how, during an overall 14+ second progressive collapse, you get 2.25 secs near freefall.

CD is obviously a cop out, since it doesn't fit the observed collapse (E to W). But it is a convenient handle for people to hang on to, I'll give it that. Plus it has the 'Men in Black' factor as a huge paranoia bonus.

But what really happened?

[alienentity]

One quick note OT, since I just joined the forum:

I want to send out a message of humble gratitude and respect to Mr. James Randi, whose works I have followed for at least 20 years. Even though he fled his native country he's still a great guy. (I'm Canadian, y'see).

Also props to Gravy for his tireless and valuable work on 9-11 misinformation..err 'truth'.

[Sword_Of_Truth]

ElMondoHummus - well said. I should point out that Chandler's exact words were 'As for all the name calling, which is where this thread seems to be heading, I'm not into that. I'm out-a-here. Bye. '
And he accused me of a double-standard, because I said I'd wager that if he had a PhD SE, he'd be singing a different tune. To be clear I was referring to his insistence on CD, and that 2.25 s of 'Freefall means controlled demolition, pure and simple. That means we're dealing with a crime and a criminal cover-up.'

And he did call NIST liars, and he did attack you for being "just a musician". For someone to wade in slinging mud like that, to turn and cite "name calling" as his reason for declining further debate is intellectually dishonest, hypocritical and downright childish behavior.

And as far as the "just a musician" thing goes, he completely misses the point. If he wants to prove his claims, he doesn't need to disprove the work of a musician or a New York tour guide or a public access cable TV show host. He needs to defeat all of the above AND John Gross and Shyam Sunder.

It doesn't matter who he argues about WTC7 with, it will always be Sunder and Gross's work he is going up against. But if he waltzes into a room and immediately starts tossing out calls of "liar" and "dry-labbing" but can't handle it when it starts coming back, then he isn't even going to get off the ground.

[twinstead]

Dry-labbing?

[alienentity]

Further to Chandler's faulty analysis (not his credentials), I have investigated his claim that motion observed early on is an artifact, and not the start of anything. I am authoring a new clip shortly to demonstrate that the motion observed is no artifact, but is the start of parapet wall collapse.

Mr. Chandler is now backpedaling slightly, writing to me that 'My point doesn't depend on whether or not there was some precursor motion. The motion you may or may not be seeing is not the start of collapse by any definition. The east penthouse has already collapsed. There is ongoing movement in the building. It is not the start of anything. It's only significance is it yields a 5.4 second collapse to match NIST's model.'

So he's admitting that the start point was an arbitrary assignment anyway, and that the only distinction to be made is exactly where this all starts. This is after he has gone after NIST hammer and tong about this exact start point.....
He now is trying to claim that it is all irrelevant.....which would also include his analysis, wouldn't it?
The reason he retreats is because he realizes that I have disproven his criticism (on that matter) in a fair and unmistakable way. At least I've managed to make a slight impression on his thinking. It's a start.

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Dry-labbing?

Drylabbing: The faking of test results, especially when the test itself has never been conducted. (http://www.doubletongued.org/index.php/dictionary/drylabbing/)

Chandler claims this is what the NIST has done, though he provides no proof other than his own religious zealotry on behalf of the twoof movement.

[twinstead]

Drylabbing: The faking of test results, especially when the test itself has never been conducted. (http://www.doubletongued.org/index.php/dictionary/drylabbing/)

Chandler claims this is what the NIST has done, though he provides no proof other than his own religious zealotry on behalf of the twoof movement.

Ah, I learn something new every day. ;)

[alienentity]

Request:

I'm looking for a hi res video of WTC 7 from this angle, (youtube...../watch?v=LD06SAf0p9A) showing the entire collapse sequence, not just part.
Anyone know where I can get one?

thx in advance.

[Grizzly Bear]

Request:

I'm looking for a hi res video of WTC 7 from this angle, (youtube...../watch?v=LD06SAf0p9A) showing the entire collapse sequence, not just part.
Anyone know where I can get one?

thx in advance.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PK_iBYSqEsc&feature=related

Probably the closest to what you're looking for, though it's part of a longer video

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Request:

I'm looking for a hi res video of WTC 7 from this angle, (youtube...../watch?v=LD06SAf0p9A) showing the entire collapse sequence, not just part.
Anyone know where I can get one?

thx in advance.

Linky for our resident E.T.

LD06SAf0p9A

[A W Smith]

heres a video from a little bit further west which shows the lower story's

http://www.wntube.net/play.php?vid=1149

[alienentity]

Thanks! You guys are great!

AE

[Heiwa]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PK_iBYSqEsc&feature=related

Probably the closest to what you're looking for, though it's part of a longer video

Nice piece of government propaganda, to say the least. Do you see any top part floors 16 - 47 free falling in the simulations? When something free falls, only forces acting on (breaking) it are the air resistance forces and they cannot do much harm, e.g. break up the structure.

So beware! Do not believe everything you see or read originating from NIST.

[Pushkin]

When something free falls, only forces acting on (breaking) it are the air resistance forces and they cannot do much harm, e.g. break up the structure.

.

Thats an interesting point of view.

Lets imagine a scenario where you took a piece of a brick wall - lets say a few metres wide by a few metres tall and set it down on the floor of a transport aircraft.

now take it up to a thousand feet and tip it gently out of the back door.

is it your opinion that the air resistance forces would not do much harm to it at all. that the mortar would hold the wall together? and it would land on the ground intact?

[T.A.M.]

well, while I am sure the air resistance is substantial, it doesn't seem strong enough to tear skydivers limb from limb.

TAM;)

[Heiwa]

Thats an interesting point of view.

Lets imagine a scenario where you took a piece of a brick wall - lets say a few metres wide by a few metres tall and set it down on the floor of a transport aircraft.

now take it up to a thousand feet and tip it gently out of the back door.

is it your opinion that the air resistance forces would not do much harm to it at all. that the mortar would hold the wall together? and it would land on the ground intact?

During free fall through air as assumed in the example (brick wall dropped from airplane), only air resistance forces act on the brick wall and try to stop the fall.

When the brick wall contacts ground, i.e. free fall is arrested (end of free fall through air), damages will result to both ground and brick wall.

The funny thing with the NIST WTC7 report is that apparently air resistance forces acting on the upper part -floors 16 -47 - destroy it during the 2.25 seconds it free falls. This is a even more amazing than the thermal expansion model that breaks solid columns like spaghetti before free fall starts.

NIST is just a joke - National Institution of Stupid Theories!

[Heiwa]

well, while I am sure the air resistance is substantial, it doesn't seem strong enough to tear skydivers limb from limb.

TAM;)

It must have been! According NIST air resistance forces broke up the upper part of WTC 7 - floors 16-47 - during the 2.25 seconds free fall phase. Amazing! I thought the upper part was stronger than that :) .

[Grizzly Bear]

Nice piece of government propaganda, to say the least.
Heiwa we all know you and other like to make NIST the scapegoat for your incompetence... you don't need to be any more clear. We know you think NIST is a group of government shilling cowards you don't like me using their content for specific points, then come up with something more substantive than a blatant ad hominem attack.

Do you see any top part floors 16 - 47 free falling in the simulations?
Well mister Heiwa, you're apparently the one with X-ray vision. Why don't you tell me what you see happening through the exterior wall while the penthouse is collapsing in that video?


So beware! Do not believe everything you see or read originating from NIST.
Thankfully Heiwa, I have not read the NIST report in detail. I came to my conclusions about the building collapses based on my own education. You want to get a scapegoat, blame the architecture program at my university for my disagreement with your flawed claims :)

[beachnut]

During free fall through air as assumed in the example (brick wall dropped from airplane), only air resistance forces act on the brick wall and try to stop the fall.

When the brick wall contacts ground, i.e. free fall is arrested (end of free fall through air), damages will result to both ground and brick wall.

The funny thing with the NIST WTC7 report is that apparently air resistance forces acting on the upper part -floors 16 -47 - destroy it during the 2.25 seconds it free falls. This is a even more amazing than the thermal expansion model that breaks solid columns like spaghetti before free fall starts.

NIST is just a joke - National Institution of Stupid Theories!
Your paper is not a joke, it is a collection of nut case ideas that defy physics and logic to form a conclusions based on your delusions.

You have no clue when it comes to fire, structural steel, and physics. This is based on your paper you keep SPAMing this forum with. I don’t need NIST to understand the failure of the WTC, seems your bias against the United States and your need to apologize for murderers of American and World Citizens is greater than your need to be rational and use real science to guide your discussion. You choose the ridiculous kids on the bed model, a dumb pizza box model, the insane lemon model, and spew anti-intellectual tripe where physics and gravity are not valid.

It must have been! According NIST air resistance forces broke up the upper part of WTC 7 - floors 16-47 - during the 2.25 seconds free fall phase. Amazing! I thought the upper part was stronger than that :) .
That is a most ridiculous statement. You have made it impossible to reply to your fantasy ideas like this failed statement. I can’t see how you will top this tripe, but you will. What a childish statement. It makes no sense, and is not science, it is pure tripe as if you were trying to post stupid statements to discredit 911Truth and yourself.

Failed models of Heiwa:
Kids bouncing on bed.
Pizza boxes. Are you the local delivery kid?
Lemon smashing Lemon. New rock group? Why not use pumpkins?
Air resistance broke up part of WTC7.
And more…

Sad, some physics teacher thinks his video is support for his conclusoin WTC7 was brought down with bombs.

[thebestodb]

Your paper is not a joke, it is a collection of nut case ideas that defy physics and logic to form a conclusions based on your delusions.

You have no clue when it comes to fire, structural steel, and physics. This is based on your paper you keep SPAMing this forum with. I don’t need NIST to understand the failure of the WTC, seems your bias against the United States and your need to apologize for murderers of American and World Citizens is greater than your need to be rational and use real science to guide your discussion. You choose the ridiculous kids on the bed model, a dumb pizza box model, the insane lemon model, and spew anti-intellectual tripe where physics and gravity are not valid.

Beachnut can you help me? I've been trying to look for discussion among civil engineers and I asked over here
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=136853
but the second I mention these topics my posts go unanswered except for once when I was directed to a very small forum from Hokulele

http://groups.google.com/group/NSPE-WPR

http://www.bxnspe.org/forum/


Thanks for your time.

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Thanks! You guys are great!

AE

Just remember us when you hit 15 posts and you don't need us anymore. ;)

[twinstead]

Just remember us when you hit 15 posts and you don't need us anymore. ;)

Yea, they always use us, abuse us, then cast us aside once they can post links themselves

[beachnut]

Beachnut can you help me? I've been trying to look for discussion among civil engineers and I asked over here
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=136853
but the second I mention these topics my posts go unanswered except for once when I was directed to a very small forum from Hokulele

http://groups.google.com/group/NSPE-WPR

http://www.bxnspe.org/forum/


Thanks for your time. http://www.cseforum.net/
http://www.cebulletin.com/
http://civilengineerblog.com/forum/

I have no idea the quality of these forums, and the middle link is just a CD bulletin, you may already have all of these.

I doubt Chandler’s delusions would go far at these sites.

[thebestodb]

Yeah those forums are just too small. Most civil engineers don't want to spend the time tediously calculating out the deflections, shear and moment diagrams of each beam or slab. I happen to want to because I have been in school too long to not want to apply that knowledge in real life scenarios. Being in construction technology there is no computer simulations ironically and I really want to put diagrams to the points of failures because it's all I've been doing in school for like 2 years.

[Dave Rogers]

One place you'll find people who are interested in detailed analysis of the 9/11 collapses is http://the911forum.freeforums.org/. There's a lot of discussion of video analysis and failure modes, from people of quite widely varying shades of opinion. I can't promise you'll find a large and interested community of experienced civil engineers, but at the very least you should find some encouragement and feedback there.

Dave

[Gravy]

Just checking this thread for the first time. Excellent job, alienentity! I've given this a "featured link" on my site. Looking forward to more of your work.

[alienentity]

Just checking this thread for the first time. Excellent job, alienentity! I've given this a "featured link" on my site. Looking forward to more of your work.

Thank you sensei. I noticed it today when I visited your site.

I just finished watching your debate on Hardfire with James Fetzer. You were able (thanks in part to the host) to avoid his endless recitations of the truther canon, and expose his thoroughly deceitful approach. Well done.

Michael Shermer didn't fare nearly as well. Not that he didn't have good points, but the host IMHO allowed the Fetzer machine to gather too much steam.

The best thing Fetzer has going for him is that he can and should be used to discredit the 'truth' movement, by his own lunatic rantings.

I'm very interested in Steven Jones at the moment. I'd really like to do a video on him sometime in the future, but I need to do a lot of study first.

Best regards,

MF:cool:

[alienentity]

So beware! Do not believe everything you see or read originating from NIST.

Thanks for the tip. I wonder if I should be skeptical of everything I see and read originating from the 9-11 'Truth' movement as well.. ya think?

So I gather you disagree with NIST - apparently 100% of their work (something a bit odd about that, seems a little....biased?). I take it you have a more brilliant and complete theory waiting in the wings.

Please don't tell me you subscribe to the terrifyingly implausible theories of Dr. Thermite (Steven Jones). I would be horrified to discover yet another promising intellect being wasted so tragically.

(God only knows what you'd discover if you tested the 6-month old dust-bunnies under my couch!):eek:

So long and thanks for all the fish!

[moorea34]

Good Job Alienentity ;)

Thank you also for all contributors debunking stupid theories...



Moorea34

[dtugg]

Thanks for the tip. I wonder if I should be skeptical of everything I see and read originating from the 9-11 'Truth' movement as well.. ya think?

So I gather you disagree with NIST - apparently 100% of their work (something a bit odd about that, seems a little....biased?). I take it you have a more brilliant and complete theory waiting in the wings.

Please don't tell me you subscribe to the terrifyingly implausible theories of Dr. Thermite (Steven Jones). I would be horrified to discover yet another promising intellect being wasted so tragically.

(God only knows what you'd discover if you tested the 6-month old dust-bunnies under my couch!):eek:

So long and thanks for all the fish!

Heiwa is much worse than Jones. In fact, some of the stupidest things I have ever read came from him. Read this thread. (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=135609)

[JSSTyger]

Good Lord JREF forums are full of shills. No wonder nothing ever gets through to them. I don't see one person explaining why the 2.25 second free fall was neglected in their previous reports!! I'd also be willing to bet all of you laughed at truthers who were pointing out this fact long before NIST. I don't know how many times NIST has been forced to change their theories.

"Ahhh but it was structural damage"....NIST now says NOPE. "Ahhhh but it was long span floor trusses"...NIST now says NOPE

They are soooo taking you for a ride...

[JSSTyger]

Thanks for the tip. I wonder if I should be skeptical of everything I see and read originating from the 9-11 'Truth' movement as well.. ya think?

So I gather you disagree with NIST - apparently 100% of their work (something a bit odd about that, seems a little....biased?). I take it you have a more brilliant and complete theory waiting in the wings.

Please don't tell me you subscribe to the terrifyingly implausible theories of Dr. Thermite (Steven Jones). I would be horrified to discover yet another promising intellect being wasted so tragically.

(God only knows what you'd discover if you tested the 6-month old dust-bunnies under my couch!):eek:

So long and thanks for all the fish!

NIST is a whole corporation of experts who flipped up whereas Jones is only one individual. Its not the truthers fault only Jones and a few others have been able to sample the WTC dust. Maybe we should have all the test data ever done and see where that leads us. Also...when does NIST plan on releasing their model input data?

[R.Mackey]

Good Lord JREF forums are full of shills. No wonder nothing ever gets through to them. I don't see one person explaining why the 2.25 second free fall was neglected in their previous reports!! I'd also be willing to bet all of you laughed at truthers who were pointing out this fact long before NIST. I don't know how many times NIST has been forced to change their theories.

"Ahhh but it was structural damage"....NIST now says NOPE. "Ahhhh but it was long span floor trusses"...NIST now says NOPE

They are soooo taking you for a ride...

:D How much would you like to bet? (P.S.: This is you (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=2323813#post2323813). And read here (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=4461706#post4461706) before replying.)

Apart from comedy value, this subforum has outlived its usefulness. I go on travel for a week, and the only thing that happened here since is behavior like the above, plus new suspensions over suspected sockpuppets (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=136787). It's over, kids. Been over. Even you realize it now.

[Gravy]

I don't know how many times NIST has been forced to change their theories.You should have considered that before making this post.

"Ahhh but it was structural damage"....NIST now says NOPE.When did NIST say that they thought structural damage not caused by fire played a significant role in WTC 7's collapse? Please cite relevant passages.


"Ahhhh but it was long span floor trusses"...NIST now says NOPECitations, please. Thanks.

[Heiwa]

Thanks for the tip. I wonder if I should be skeptical of everything I see and read originating from the 9-11 'Truth' movement as well.. ya think?

So I gather you disagree with NIST - apparently 100% of their work (something a bit odd about that, seems a little....biased?). I take it you have a more brilliant and complete theory waiting in the wings.

Please don't tell me you subscribe to the terrifyingly implausible theories of Dr. Thermite (Steven Jones). I would be horrified to discover yet another promising intellect being wasted so tragically.

(God only knows what you'd discover if you tested the 6-month old dust-bunnies under my couch!):eek:

So long and thanks for all the fish!

So you haven't read my paper at http://heiwaco.tripod.com/nist3.htm ? Delicious sushi, if you know what I mean. When I was a structural analysis teacher in Japan 1972-1976 I learnt sushi cooking. Child's cooking!

Debunks NIST and Bazant 100%. And Gravy of course!

Made me the Petitioner of the Month at A&E911truth.org . You can't beat that. Gravy was very unhappy - wrote letters to Richard Gage (see other thread) and was making a fool of himself (Gravy!) as usual.

[Gravy]

So you haven't read my paper at http://heiwaco.tripod.com/nist3.htm ? Delicious sushi, if you know what I mean. When I was a structural analysis teacher in Japan 1972-1976 I learnt sushi cooking.Foiled by another Heiwa analogy: the indestructable sushi tower!

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3551/3336506016_398df1966f.jpg?v=0


Made me the Petitioner of the Month at A&E911truth.org . You can't beat that. Gravy was very unhappy - wrote letters to Richard Gage (see other thread) and was making a fool of himself (Gravy!) as usual.I merely linked to your statements (http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/home), which speak for themselves.

[Homeland Insurgency]

When did NIST say that they thought structural damage not caused by fire played a significant role in WTC 7's collapse? Please cite relevant passages.

They didn't. That would be the debunkers. If fact NIST didn't say anything on WTC-7 for years. But as soon as they got the word from their masters the debunkers changed their tune real quick didn't they?

I guess controlled demolition and big giant planes aren't the only things that can globally collapse a steel structured high-rise.

What's next? Lightning strike? Gust of wind? Enrico Caruso or Beniamino Gigli?

[Heiwa]

Foiled by another Heiwa analogy: the indestructable sushi tower!

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3551/3336506016_398df1966f.jpg?v=0


I merely linked to your statements (http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/home), which speak for themselves.

Yes, drop a piece of sushi on a sushi tower ... and the piece bounces. Thanks for the analogy. I will use it next time I serve sushi to some guests! Once a week!

Your web site, Gravy, is really rubbish. I wonder why you waste so much time on it! Who is it you try to impress?

[JSSTyger]

You should have considered that before making this post.

When did NIST say that they thought structural damage not caused by fire played a significant role in WTC 7's collapse? Please cite relevant passages.


Citations, please. Thanks.

I don't have the time or patience to continue to cite sources unless I'm certain somebody is undecided on their view. NIST says in one of their press briefings that long span floor trusses and structural damage were not the primary cause of collapse. I have no intention of spending all day looking for, copying, and pasting links I've copied 350 times over. Its in their press briefing. If you are already decided you want to remain blind, a link wouldn't help anyways.

[JSSTyger]

Free fall for 2.25 seconds is impossible. Get it through your heads. Learn the physics behind free fall. Learn structural mechanics of bending of beams and columns also. Straight down vertical free fall for 2.25 seconds. Its unprecendented because it CAN'T HAPPEN.

When somebody can show me another instance in nature of ANY object whatsoever that collapses inward onto itself (without being molten or designed to do so)...then I will delete my account on here.

[DGM]

Free fall for 2.25 seconds is impossible. Get it through your heads. Learn the physics behind free fall. Learn structural mechanics of bending of beams and columns also. Straight down vertical free fall for 2.25 seconds. Its unprecendented because it CAN'T HAPPEN.

When somebody can show me another instance in nature of ANY object whatsoever that collapses inward onto itself (without being molten or designed to do so)...then I will delete my account on here.
Then please explain what it does mean. Seeing as it "CAN'T HAPPEN". Are we talking some alien technology?

BTW, Why do you think we would care if you quit?

[Hokulele]

When somebody can show me another instance in nature of ANY object whatsoever that collapses inward onto itself (without being molten or designed to do so)...then I will delete my account on here.


You have never tried to cook a soufflé?

[alienentity]

JSSTyger wrote 'Free fall for 2.25 seconds is impossible'

Tell you what. Since you're so certain it's impossible, perhaps you'd care to give a detailed description why that is.

BTW, I've recently done some careful calculations and analysis of the truss/transit system used on WTC 7.
You may or may not be aware that building 7's main structural engineer, Irwin Cantor, has firmly supported the evidence of progressive collapse. If anyone knows how that building was put together, it would be him.
A NYTimes article quotes Cantor 'We had to do design tricks to accommodate the existing Con Ed facility,'This building had an awful lot of transfers.'' NYTIMES 2002

There were serious fires observed on 5th, 6th and 7th floors, where the transfer trusses were.

In addition, in 1989 enormous structural changes were made to the interior to accommodate the needs of Salomon Bros - a cost of 200 million, 375 tons of steel, the addition of nine diesel generators on the fifth floor - 3 double-height trading floors were created in the rebuild.

Said Cantor 'This is the first time I've ever seen such dramatic interior changes being made in a new building'

NYTimes The Salomon Solution; A building within a building, at a cost of $200 million
Feb 19, 1989

The truss system was 7 floors high, which is about 91 feet, give or take. The period of collapse near freefall is approx 2.25 seconds, 8 floors and 105 ft. That's pretty damn close, isn't it? (Coincidence, mere coincidence) That is very good evidence corroborating the theory that the transfer system completely collapsed (fairly sudden failure) partway thru the progressive collapse already underway.

You don't need explosives to explain this mechanism. In fact the East-West progressive collapse is 100% consistent with the scenario I just described, and NIST reports.

To be completely blunt, explosive squbs are actually ruled out, since on the video and still shots, the windows on the North side don't start falling out until slightly after the collapse of the E. Penthouse is observed (the structure below has already given way).

Unless the omnipotent conspirators not only perfected explosive nano-thermite side-cutting devices (never before developed), invisibly installed them, waited for Larry Silverstein to relay the go-ahead thru NYFD chief Daniel Nigro, and also altered the space-time continuum in order to detonate the charges AFTER collapse was initiated, the better explanation is that of the debris/fire damage progressive collapse.

ps you'd also need to figure out how Nigro contacted the conspirators, and why the NYFD would sacrifice hundreds of firefighters when they knew the buildings were going to collapse beforehand.

If we ever needed a definition of an illogical proposition, this would be a top contender. I really do like Dr. Judy Wood/ James Fetzer's Space-based energy weapons though. Hard to choose between such stunning lunacy.

[Gravy]

I don't have the time or patience to continue to cite sources unless I'm certain somebody is undecided on their view. NIST says in one of their press briefings that long span floor trusses and structural damage were not the primary cause of collapse. I have no intention of spending all day looking for, copying, and pasting links I've copied 350 times over. Its in their press briefing. If you are already decided you want to remain blind, a link wouldn't help anyways."I refuse to support my claims with evidence" is not an acceptable answer here.

Let's try this again, one question at a time. When did NIST say that they thought structural damage not caused by fire played a significant role in WTC 7's collapse? Please cite relevant passages.

Since you've done this many times, doing it once more for us should be a trivial matter. Proceed.

[alienentity]

When somebody can show me another instance in nature of ANY object whatsoever that collapses inward onto itself (without being molten or designed to do so)...then I will delete my account on here.

Would the collapse of the Interstate 35W bridge in Minneapolis count?

How about the structural steel portion of the Windsor building in Madrid? While the concrete structure survived, the steel part collapsed into it's own footprint.

Before you delete your account, you may want to consider a fact not ever (as far as I've read) considered by WTC 7 truther investigators:

Other buildings which were clobbered by WTC tower debris had some of their fireproofing shaken off - destroying whatever fire-rating it would have had.

Think about where debris hit WTC7, and where fires were observed, and where it is likely fireproofing would have failed. The only coincidence is that building 7 happened to be hit by tower debris, in those particular areas - the rest is purely causal.

It might be a coincidence that one steps off the curb in front of a moving vehicle, but the gruesome result is not a coincidence.:(

[JSSTyger]

Would the collapse of the Interstate 35W bridge in Minneapolis count?

How about the structural steel portion of the Windsor building in Madrid? While the concrete structure survived, the steel part collapsed into it's own footprint.

Before you delete your account, you may want to consider a fact not ever (as far as I've read) considered by WTC 7 truther investigators:

Other buildings which were clobbered by WTC tower debris had some of their fireproofing shaken off - destroying whatever fire-rating it would have had.

Think about where debris hit WTC7, and where fires were observed, and where it is likely fireproofing would have failed. The only coincidence is that building 7 happened to be hit by tower debris, in those particular areas - the rest is purely causal.

It might be a coincidence that one steps off the curb in front of a moving vehicle, but the gruesome result is not a coincidence.:(

You just named absolutely ZERO things that completely caved in on themselves. And WTC 7 was far from being heated to those temperatures seen in the madrid fire et al. The fires and duration aren't even comparable...and "portions" don't count.

And that dumb debris damage probably isn't debris damage at all...unless you submit that an entire 47 story column can be ripped out top to bottom. Column 20 is nowhere to be seen. The "debris" hypothesis is only conjecture based on extremely little evidence. Truthers at least have a witness, Barry Jennings, who can pinpoint when the first signs of structural damage happened....which was before any building fell. And please don't mention the BBC Conspiracy Files. We all know exactly what he said in his interview with Loose Change.

The NIST/Zafar photo contradiction also lends evidence that debris did not cause the massive structural damage at the SW corner. A legit analysis can be done by counting windows by looking at their rows and columns very easily. Either one photo is fake...or the NIST photo was taken after the Zafar photo. It is accepted that the NIST photo came in the morning and the Zafar photo came in the early afternoon....impossible. The following are the possibilities

1) Zafar photo taken earlier...after the north tower collapse. NIST photo taken after that corner got blown out by explosives
2) NIST photo doctored

http://wtc7corner.blogspot.com/

Pretty good proof of a conspiracy no matter how you look at it.

[Grizzly Bear]

Free fall for 2.25 seconds is impossible. Get it through your heads. Learn the physics behind free fall. Learn structural mechanics of bending of beams and columns also. Straight down vertical free fall for 2.25 seconds. Its unprecendented because it CAN'T HAPPEN.

When somebody can show me another instance in nature of ANY object whatsoever that collapses inward onto itself (without being molten or designed to do so)...then I will delete my account on here.

"Straight down" anything is irrelevant... a collapse is driven by gravity and the location of the initiating failure or failures will determine how the collapse behaves. I'm afraid precedence isn't a driving factor that influences this, it's simple collapse dynamics. Not a single conspiracy theorist that argues CD in front of me does anything to make that connection. All they do is look at a CD and say out of blatant ignorance that because it "looks like" it is, despite not a single sign existing that it ever was. Old news, move on

[Gravy]

And that dumb debris damage probably isn't debris damage at all...unless you submit that an entire 47 story column can be ripped out top to bottom.


Oops.
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3326/3337230550_0320defa76_o.jpg


Everyone knows that buildings can't be damaged by falling things.
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3334/3336531037_c9b420edb0.jpg


http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3600/3337373498_891590462f_o.jpg


Reality's a bitch, ain't it?

Still waiting for you to produce your evidence for those two claims.

[alienentity]

'The "debris" hypothesis is only conjecture based on extremely little evidence. Truthers at least have a witness, Barry Jennings, who can pinpoint when the first signs of structural damage happened....which was before any building fell'

There are plenty of pictures which show the debris damage if you look for them. If you choose not too, then it never happened I guess. Also you can look up the testimony of firefighters, who reported heavy debris damage.
But if it makes you uncomfortable to accept such simple evidence, by all means keep your mind closed to it. But that won't bring you any closer to a real understanding.

Interesting you should mention Barry Jennings, who got to the empty management centre along with someone named Hess. From what I gather, the centre wasn't evacuated until something like 9:45, so they were there after that point. He believed it was just after 9am - fire dept records contradict this directly.

There are some threads on JREF forums discussing the details I think. I recall reading a few of them.

In any case, Jennings experiences were genuine, but his sense of timeline was apparently questionable. It seems more likely it was much later than he believed.

I was only joking about the structures collapsing on themselves, since I assumed you would reject any and all ideas. But I thought it would be fun to test you a bit - you didn't disappoint!

I'm curious - are you a thermite person or a squb person? Or perhaps another yet unknown explosive, not invented? I assume since building 7 damage couldn't have been from a 110 story building collapsing on it (that really would be implausible - no other buildings were damaged or collapsed from the tower debris did they? No, I didn't think so), there must have been massive detonations of hidden explosives to create the damage that you do accept.
But that kind of rules out thermite.....although I never can tell with truthers, most often they check 'all of the above' and let credulity rule.

btw, I wish you were joking about the pictures you linked to. They show the same thing from two different angles. I wouldn't need more than 1 minute to study it and identify the same damage on both.
If that's the best evidence you've got, I feel for the 'truth' movement.

I'm not going to waste any more time discussing this stuff if that's the level you're at - you're obviously not interested in learning anything.

[T.A.M.]

Good Lord JREF forums are full of shills. No wonder nothing ever gets through to them. I don't see one person explaining why the 2.25 second free fall was neglected in their previous reports!! I'd also be willing to bet all of you laughed at truthers who were pointing out this fact long before NIST. I don't know how many times NIST has been forced to change their theories.

"Ahhh but it was structural damage"....NIST now says NOPE. "Ahhhh but it was long span floor trusses"...NIST now says NOPE

They are soooo taking you for a ride...

You are very rude, so expect it in return, truther.

NIST is a whole corporation of experts who flipped up whereas Jones is only one individual. Its not the truthers fault only Jones and a few others have been able to sample the WTC dust. Maybe we should have all the test data ever done and see where that leads us. Also...when does NIST plan on releasing their model input data?

I have no ideea what you mean by "flipped up".
Jones is a retard. He has been wrong on every aspect.
Maybe the authorities should provide all evidence in every criminal investigation to laymen like yourself, right???

I don't have the time or patience to continue to cite sources unless I'm certain somebody is undecided on their view. NIST says in one of their press briefings that long span floor trusses and structural damage were not the primary cause of collapse. I have no intention of spending all day looking for, copying, and pasting links I've copied 350 times over. Its in their press briefing. If you are already decided you want to remain blind, a link wouldn't help anyways.

If you don't have time, then save a bunch of it and shut up.

Free fall for 2.25 seconds is impossible. Get it through your heads. Learn the physics behind free fall. Learn structural mechanics of bending of beams and columns also. Straight down vertical free fall for 2.25 seconds. Its unprecendented because it CAN'T HAPPEN.

When somebody can show me another instance in nature of ANY object whatsoever that collapses inward onto itself (without being molten or designed to do so)...then I will delete my account on here.

Is there another structure in nature that is even remotely similar in structure (internal and external) to a 110 (or 47) storey skyscraper?

Please don't go down the Judy Wood road, and mention a tree, for the love of god.

You just named absolutely ZERO things that completely caved in on themselves. And WTC 7 was far from being heated to those temperatures seen in the madrid fire et al. The fires and duration aren't even comparable...and "portions" don't count.

And that dumb debris damage probably isn't debris damage at all...unless you submit that an entire 47 story column can be ripped out top to bottom. Column 20 is nowhere to be seen. The "debris" hypothesis is only conjecture based on extremely little evidence. Truthers at least have a witness, Barry Jennings, who can pinpoint when the first signs of structural damage happened....which was before any building fell. And please don't mention the BBC Conspiracy Files. We all know exactly what he said in his interview with Loose Change.

The NIST/Zafar photo contradiction also lends evidence that debris did not cause the massive structural damage at the SW corner. A legit analysis can be done by counting windows by looking at their rows and columns very easily. Either one photo is fake...or the NIST photo was taken after the Zafar photo. It is accepted that the NIST photo came in the morning and the Zafar photo came in the early afternoon....impossible. The following are the possibilities

1) Zafar photo taken earlier...after the north tower collapse. NIST photo taken after that corner got blown out by explosives
2) NIST photo doctored

http://wtc7corner.blogspot.com/

Pretty good proof of a conspiracy no matter how you look at it.

I know you are not hanging your hat on the testimony of the late Barry Jennings?

and after the above handful of useless, angry, substanceless posts from you, I will do you one better on the time and energy efficiency you seem so keen on...welcome to ignore.

TAM:)

[twinstead]

Truthers are funny. What possesses somebody to vehemently argue about a subject he knows absolutely nothing about, and insult those who do?

[Gravy]

Yes, drop a piece of sushi on a sushi tower ... and the piece bounces. Thanks for the analogy. I will use it next time I serve sushi to some guests! Once a week!

Your web site, Gravy, is really rubbish. I wonder why you waste so much time on it! Who is it you try to impress?Funny how you've never pointed out anything that's wrong.

Every time you come up with a new absurdity or repeat an old one, I add it to the front page of my site (http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/home). In the past day you've compared the towers to sushi and reaffirmed your belief that one wouldn't be destroyed if 30 stories were dropped on it from a height of two miles.

Keep it up, Anders! I couldn't possibly invent material to discredit the "truth" movement as thoroughly as you do. You make Richard Gage proud!

[Gravy]

There are plenty of pictures which show the debris damage if you look for them.


Don't be ridiculous! If WTC 7 was damaged by debris from the north tower, there would be north tower debris all around it!

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3656/3338671606_03af1d9e08_o.jpg


http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3394/3338671618_8f58f9bdce_o.jpg



http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3617/3338671614_8d1cffc8f6_o.jpg



http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/wtc7damagecomposite.jpg/wtc7damagecomposite-large.jpg


http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/Shrinkerswtc7contrast.jpg/Shrinkerswtc7contrast-full.jpg

Eyewitness accounts of WTC 7 damage (http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/accountsofwtc7damage)

[beachnut]

Free fall for 2.25 seconds is impossible. Get it through your heads. Learn the physics behind free fall. Learn structural mechanics of bending of beams and columns also. Straight down vertical free fall for 2.25 seconds. Its unprecendented because it CAN'T HAPPEN.

When somebody can show me another instance in nature of ANY object whatsoever that collapses inward onto itself (without being molten or designed to do so)...then I will delete my account on here.
You failed to present the math, the independent math to confirm your delusion and support the tripe you post?

You believe in lies, hearsay and fantasy without questioning the source.

7 years and engineers have not found anything wrong with the basic premise fire did it. Yes, the WTC complex was damage by impacts and fire. You must of missed the FULL SCALE MODEL failing on 911. You failed to understand the investigations.

Your free fall common sense is what Einstein found to be the case with many; "Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen.” Einstein.
A bit of tripe for 911Truth and a little bit with physics to show what the problem is.


I don't have the time or patience to continue to cite sources ... lol

Why? Due to the fact they are all hearsay, lies and fantasy. Good idea not to post too much junk science and delusions. You are over 7 years late to earn the Pulitzer Prize for delusions on 911 and there is no category.

Call everyone a government agent and run away. Bye

[Disbelief]

For a few reasons:

1) If the building was prepped beforehand, how did the demolitions survive the damage and fires? Would they not have exploded from impact and intense heat?

2) If the building was prepped beforehand, how were they able to account for the damage to be able to still demolish the building? Changing the strcture with damage would change the dynamics of any planned demolition.

3) If the charges were set after the tower collapse, how did a team get in covertly?

4) If the charges were set after tower collapse, how did they analyze the building so quickly and know where to set the charges?

These are just a few reasons off the top of my head, and there are probably some I am missing.

JSS, here are a few questions that you haven't answered.

[Unsecured Coins]

why is it no explosives were heard?

[tfk]

Free fall for 2.25 seconds is impossible. Get it through your heads. Learn the physics behind free fall. Learn structural mechanics of bending of beams and columns also. Straight down vertical free fall for 2.25 seconds. Its unprecendented because it CAN'T HAPPEN.

When somebody can show me another instance in nature of ANY object whatsoever that collapses inward onto itself (without being molten or designed to do so)...then I will delete my account on here.
JSS

Excuse me for being the new guy. What do you do for a living?

I'm curious because of your "learn some physics. Learn structural mechanics of bending of beams & columns" comments.

I kinda thought that I already knew that stuff... Perhaps you could enlighten me.

tom

[Cl1mh4224rd]

NIST is a whole corporation of experts [...]


Weren't the majority (or, at least, a significant portion) of the experts involved in the NIST's reports from the academic and private sectors, and not directly employed by the NIST/government?

[tfk]

Weren't the majority (or, at least, a significant portion) of the experts involved in the NIST's reports from the academic and private sectors, and not directly employed by the NIST/government?
Cl,

Yeah, they were. But the folks that chaired most (not all) of the various working groups and that finally assembled, edited and published the reports were NIST employees.

So, in Twoofer world, they could easily take some honest academic or industry professional's conclusion and invert it (slip in a few "not"s), and that guy would never be any the wiser.

Because, of course, after working on the project for 3 years or so, none of those guys ever bothered to read their own results. Or if they read them, didn't notice when NIST lied about what they said. Or were threatened with "you'll never work in this industry again". Or "we know where your kids go to school."

So, they would never dare drop a dime to the NYTimes and tell someone anonymously that NIST had been manipulating the results & falsifying data.

And THAT's how the true, hard core engineering data and analyses were suppressed.

... or something like that...

tom

[Gravy]

NASA is full of government-employed experts. Therefore there were no Mercury or Apollo missions or shuttle flights or unmanned space expeditions or satellite launches or aircraft innovations. Or am I missing something?

[alienentity]

Almost at 15 posts.. I have just uploaded a new video, which is a companion video to my 'WTC 7 NIST Debunked Pt 1'.
The title is 'WTC7 collapse' (very original, don't you think?). /watch?v=GnW0rlectQ0

It is in response to quibbling about the exact start time for the collapse of the parapet wall. I got hold of some new clips (thanks in part to some of you here on the forum) especially the one identical to that used by NIST.

I provided timecode references to the main parts to make it perfectly clear.

btw, since the first video, I've done a lot of reading, and listening. I've discovered (most of you already know this, I suspect) that Steven Jones and James Fetzer subscribe to the odd idea that WTC7 collapsed in about 6.5 seconds......complete nonsense, of course. But it astonished me that two seemingly well-trained intellectuals would fall into such an obvious fallacy; even worse, their appalling judgement heads the 9-11 truth movement.....aye aye aye!!

For those of you who haven't clenched your teeth and listened to the entire interview between 'Uncle Fetzer' and Dr. Thermite from Jan 07, here's a partial link:
911podcasts. com JimFetzer-StevenJones_20070117.mp3

It was like listening to two lunatics discuss what size tinfoil hat gets better reception of ET transmissions.... Fascinating to see Dr. Judy Wood and Fetzer gang up on Jones - these people may be brilliant theoreticians, but they make lousy forensics investigators.

[alienentity]

Widescreen version - for your home theatre (wink)
youtube. com /watch?v=-U8eXMeK0P0

Do I get to post my own links now?

:D

[Grizzly Bear]

Almost at 15 posts.. I have just uploaded a new video, which is a companion video to my 'WTC 7 NIST Debunked Pt 1'.
The title is 'WTC7 collapse' (very original, don't you think?).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GnW0rlectQ0

It is in response to quibbling about the exact start time for the collapse of the parapet wall. I got hold of some new clips (thanks in part to some of you here on the forum) especially the one identical to that used by NIST.

I provided timecode references to the main parts to make it perfectly clear.

btw, since the first video, I've done a lot of reading, and listening. I've discovered (most of you already know this, I suspect) that Steven Jones and James Fetzer subscribe to the odd idea that WTC7 collapsed in about 6.5 seconds......complete nonsense, of course. But it astonished me that two seemingly well-trained intellectuals would fall into such an obvious fallacy; even worse, their appalling judgement heads the 9-11 truth movement.....aye aye aye!!

For those of you who haven't clenched your teeth and listened to the entire interview between 'Uncle Fetzer' and Dr. Thermite from Jan 07, here's a partial link:
http://911podcasts.com/JimFetzer-StevenJones_20070117.mp3

It was like listening to two lunatics discuss what size tinfoil hat gets better reception of ET transmissions.... Fascinating to see Dr. Judy Wood and Fetzer gang up on Jones - these people may be brilliant theoreticians, but they make lousy forensics investigators.


and as for your other link... http://youtube.com/watch?v=-U8eXMeK0P0

After this point, you'll be able to post your own links. I'll comment once I've seen them :)

[alienentity]

and as for your other link... http://youtube.com/watch?v=-U8eXMeK0P0

After this point, you'll be able to post your own links. I'll comment once I've seen them :)

Merci Buckets:Banane42:

[Gravy]

Very good.

[alienentity]

Ok friends, here's a little levity for you: My latest video, Episode 1 of the 9-11 Looney Conspiracy Theories Show, wrapped in another 'Trojan Horse' title 'WTC7 Jones Finally Admits No Freefall!!' (Another poke at David Chandler....of course!)

Enjoy!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3NJV-G496T4

:Banane54:

[beachnut]

Widescreen version - for your home theatre (wink)
youtube. com /watch?v=-U8eXMeK0P0

Do I get to post my own links now?

:D
5.4 seconds for 18 floors.

good video

[boloboffin]

David Chandler does it agin!

B9YjireIPCQ

This one was posted April of last year, so maybe somebody's already jumped on it, but this is a SPECTACULARLY BAD mistake on his part.

He claims that a piece of structural steel traveling horizontally at 32 m/s from the collapse can't have been a ricochet from the collapse, because by the time the descending section reached it, it only would have been travelling at 16 m/s. You might think conservation of momentum, big piece, little piece, but, oh, no. It's worse than that.

For the sake of the argument, I'm accepting his figures. The leading edge of the descending section is the 96th floor and the piece breaking off is at the 82nd floor. That means, with a floor height of 4.06 m, that the leading edge must descend at least 13 floors, or 52.78 m before breaking off the ejected debris.

Chandler claims that it's only going 16 m/s, but he couldn't be more wrong.

http://www.ajdesigner.com/constantacceleration/cavelocityt.php

Solving for time, you plug in initial velocity (0), final velocity (16), and acceleration (9.81). You get 1.63 seconds.

http://www.ajdesigner.com/constantacceleration/caavevelocity.php

Solving for average velocity, you plug in initial velocity (0) and final velocity (16). You get 8 m/s.

http://www.ajdesigner.com/constantacceleration/cadisplacement.php

Solving for distance, you plug in time (1.63) and average velocity (8 m/s). You get 13.04 m.

So in freefall conditions, as specified by Chandler, if the final velocity is 16 m/s, the descending section has only fallen 13.04 m, not 52.78 m.

Chandler screwed up big time. As a matter of fact, after falling 52.78 m at 9.81 m/s2, you get a final velocity of 32 m/s, exactly the velocity of the horizontal component as measured by Chandler. Assuming a final velocity of 32 m/s --

http://www.ajdesigner.com/constantacceleration/cavelocityt.php

Solving for time, you plug in initial velocity (0), final velocity (32), and acceleration (9.81). You get 3.2 seconds.

Average velocity is 16 m/s.

http://www.ajdesigner.com/constantacceleration/cadisplacement.php

Solving for distance, you plug in time (3.2) and average velocity (16 m/s). You get 51.02 m, much closer to the actual distance than Chandler. Using the assumption that the upper section is descending with no resistance, it CANNOT physically have fallen 52 m faster than 3.2 seconds, and by that time it will be traveling around 32 m/s.

Oh, my, how Chandler did screw up. Is it just a coincidence that the actual average velocity is what he claims the final velocity to be? Did Chandler grab the average velocity and use it as final velocity and post a big screw up on the intertubes? Does he ever get tired of confirming the "official story"?

Somehow, this must be NIST's fault, right?

[davidschandler48]

...this is a SPECTACULARLY BAD mistake on his part.

----------------
:eek:

OK. I dropped a factor of 2 somehow. If that's "SPECTACULAR" you guys are awfully easy to entertain. There's a lot easier way to do the problem than all the work you went through, by the way.

Simply equate potential energy at the start to kinetic energy at the finish.
mgh=0.5mv^2. Solving for v you get v=sqrt(2gh).
For h=52.78 m, v=32.16 m/s.

I probably divided by 2 instead of multiplying by 2 inside the radical. I probably shouldn't do these things in my head. Let's make a deal. I'll concede when I'm wrong and you concede when you're wrong. That could lead to civil discussions. :cool:

This originated as a quick little side calculation...a little too quick apparently. It has zero bearing on the substance of the horizontal ejection issue.

[WilliamSeger]

It has zero bearing on the substance of the horizontal ejection issue.

Really? Zero bearing on your deflection argument, or that argument has zero bearing on the "horizontal ejection issue?"

BTW, how much explosives would be required to accelerate that piece of steel to 32 m/s?

[ozeco41]

Really? Zero bearing on your deflection argument, or that argument has zero bearing on the "horizontal ejection issue?"

BTW, how much explosives would be required to accelerate that piece of steel to 32 m/s?

Even more to the point, WilliamSeger, is how do you get any explosive to accelerate a lump of steel?

Candidates for the two most commonly used "truther tricks" to deceive lay persons:

1)The false claim that "free fall" requires demolition; AND

2) The equally false claim (or "even falser" if that is acceptable logic AND English ;) ) that you can use explosives to project heavy lumps of steel into long trajectories.

[ozeco41]

....BTW, how much explosives would be required to accelerate that piece of steel to 32 m/s?

What explosives can be used and how could you use then to achieve that trick?

[Grizzly Bear]

Even more to the point, WilliamSeger, is how do you get any explosive to accelerate a lump of steel?

Candidates for the two most commonly used "truther tricks" to deceive lay persons:

1)The false claim that "free fall" requires demolition; AND

2) The equally false claim (or "even falser" if that is acceptable logic AND English ;) ) that you can use explosives to project heavy lumps of steel into long trajectories.

The most gross error I see out of every controlled demolition argument is the utter neglect to do a proper case study on the building they are arguing was CD'd and the examples they choose to prove that the said building could not have collapsed. If they do neither, they've failed the most basic exercise in architecture and have started from the wrong premise. As they say... garbage in... garbage out...

[boloboffin]

...this is a SPECTACULARLY BAD mistake on his part.

----------------
:eek:

OK. I dropped a factor of 2 somehow. If that's "SPECTACULAR" you guys are awfully easy to entertain. There's a lot easier way to do the problem than all the work you went through, by the way.

Simply equate potential energy at the start to kinetic energy at the finish.
mgh=0.5mv^2. Solving for v you get v=sqrt(2gh).
For h=52.78 m, v=32.16 m/s.

I probably divided by 2 instead of multiplying by 2 inside the radical. I probably shouldn't do these things in my head. Let's make a deal. I'll concede when I'm wrong and you concede when you're wrong. That could lead to civil discussions. :cool:

This originated as a quick little side calculation...a little too quick apparently. It has zero bearing on the substance of the horizontal ejection issue.

It's spectacularly bad because it was a simple error that led you to post yet another idiotic YouTube. Your whole rationale is making too much of things you don't understand, and now when that's demonstrated yet again, you want to sweep it under the rug?

One of the reasons I bring it up is that someone used your bad calculations to "prove" that the horizontal ejection of that debris couldn't have been from the descent of the top section. Yet your own measurements accurately calculated show that the ejected material is traveling at the same speed the upper section would have been traveling when it reached that spot.

And all of this is indeed a sidebar to your crowning achievement, helping NIST to confirm their own modeling and continuing to pretend that you've exposed them. When you stop trying to score silly points against a position you're opposed to politically, you will stop rushing simple mathematical mistakes to YouTube and understand what your correct observations have actually done.

ETA: No, sorry, looking at the video again (which remains up and which has no admission of error posted as of yet), that was YOUR point. YOU were saying the debris couldn't be explained by the descent of the upper section.

[Seymour Butz]

BTW, how much explosives would be required to accelerate that piece of steel to 32 m/s?



Actually, it's not that great.

I did this, I believe at ATS, using 1/4' wall steel for the ext columns and spandrels, and IIRC that it was "only" something like 60kg of TNT at 15'.

Unfortunately for troofers, this assumed that the ext column was magically hovering in midair. This would mean that the floors were gone and not connected to the ext columns anymore..... which means where were the explosives then? Also hovering?

Note that I used the formula that Ryan Mackey gave in one of his debunking papers, but ALSO note that he used a short, thick walled tube rather than an actual example of a column. The spandrel provided a lot of surface area for the impulse to "push" against, while not adding all that much weight.

[911kongen]

There is something i dont understand. Why is Sunder saying that WTC 7 collapsed in 3.9 seconds, but there modell collapsed in 5.4 seconds.. Is he talking about the Chandlers video? If not, isent he debunking NISTs report?
Hear it for your self in David Chandlers video part 1. I cant post a link...

[boloboffin]

It's been over two days since Chandler showed up here and admitted he was wrong. The video is still up without any notation of its error. No annotation, no information in the sidebar, no comments allowed, nothing. Chandler appears to be content publishing clearly inaccurate material admitted by him to be inaccurate.

This is no way to promote truth.

ETA: More fun. The video above was a second part to this one:

Ah2hTMOlD5s

In the first part, Chandler talks a lot of crap about terminal velocity of this same piece of ejected material. In the second, he admits that it was crap -- but there is no correcting information on the first video. And that first video was supposed to be supported by the second. It's the same message given. The collapsing upper section had not reached the speed necessary to fling that piece of material out that fast, claims Chandler. The second video was supposed to prove that.

Instead, his own calculations show that the building could have obtained that rate of speed. Yet both videos remain up without corrections.

The shoutout in the first video to Eric Hufschmidt's Painful Deceptions is, of course, the buttercream icing on this cake of fail.

[Brainster]

Good job, Bolo, I have posted on this at SLC. I also note with some amusement that Chandler remarks at about 1:53 into the first video that the chunk he's following (probably a girder he says) continues to accelerate. Of course he can't be talking about horizontally, so he has to be talking vertically. But that's hardly a surprise that a large chunk of steel would accelerate as it falls, so I couldn't figure out why he remarked on it.

The idea that he can pinpoint that chunk as being from the 82nd floor is ridiculous; my guess is that the potential for error there is quite large.

ETA: I don't get the reference to the shoutout to Hufschmid; did Eric do similar computations?

[boloboffin]

Good job, Bolo, I have posted on this at SLC. I also note with some amusement that Chandler remarks at about 1:53 into the first video that the chunk he's following (probably a girder he says) continues to accelerate. Of course he can't be talking about horizontally, so he has to be talking vertically. But that's hardly a surprise that a large chunk of steel would accelerate as it falls, so I couldn't figure out why he remarked on it.

The idea that he can pinpoint that chunk as being from the 82nd floor is ridiculous; my guess is that the potential for error there is quite large.

ETA: I don't get the reference to the shoutout to Hufschmid; did Eric do similar computations?

He talks about the acceleration in the second video because of his erroneous claim of terminal velocity in the first. In the first, he was trying to imply that the beam had been thrown out at terminal velocity due to explosives, whereas in the second the measured acceleration shows that it's heavy and therefore required explosives (since the slow upper section couldn't have done that). :rolleyes:

Chandler mentions Hufschimd in the first video, saying that it was the use of this particular video clip in Painful Deceptions that "sucked him in" to 9/11 Truth. I haven't checked, but I'd like to see when Hufschimd was exposed as a Holocaust denier relative to when Chandler gave him a plug in that video. Does that mean Chandler's a Holocaust denier? Not at all. But he's not above giving one a shout-out while he puts out rotten information about the WTC collapses.

[Brainster]

He talks about the acceleration in the second video because of his erroneous claim of terminal velocity in the first. In the first, he was trying to imply that the beam had been thrown out at terminal velocity due to explosives, whereas in the second the measured acceleration shows that it's heavy and therefore required explosives (since the slow upper section couldn't have done that). :rolleyes:

Chandler mentions Hufschimd in the first video, saying that it was the use of this particular video clip in Painful Deceptions that "sucked him in" to 9/11 Truth. I haven't checked, but I'd like to see when Hufschimd was exposed as a Holocaust denier relative to when Chandler gave him a plug in that video. Does that mean Chandler's a Holocaust denier? Not at all. But he's not above giving one a shout-out while he puts out rotten information about the WTC collapses.

Hufschmid's page on the Holocaust is dated 7-16-06 (http://www.erichufschmid.net/StopNaziCoverup.html), but his Holocaust Denial was well-known before this. For example, in May of 2006, I linked to a phone conversation between the Loose Change kids and Hufschmid, discussed at Hufschmid's page (http://www.erichufschmid.net/Avery-Rowe-Bermas-Hufschmid-phonecall.html). Huf gripes about how he's on the outs with the movement he helped found in the US:

Quite a while ago KPFK used my book and video during one of their fund raising drives. Months later they wanted to do it again, but this time somebody told them that they were not allowed to promote me or my material.

However, they promote the Loose Change video, and they will interview Dylan, Korey, and Jason.

Why will they promote Loose Change but not my video? Because the radio station does not like my views on such issues as the Holocaust.

This is also the reason I am not promoted by other 9/11 truth groups, and other radio stations.

But I remember finding signs of Hufschmid's anti-Semitism if not quite Holocaust Denial on his long-ago AOL page, which was one of the very early Truther sites. Ah, here (http://web.archive.org/web/20011012140512/http://members.aol.com/erichuf/Revenge.html):

In discussing the perfidy of the Jews in October of 2001, Eric brings up this grievance:

The Jews exploit the Nazi situation and distort history by reminding us dozens of times each year about the “Holocaust”. The Jews never mention that every group of people has been a victim of war, and every group to claim to have been a victim of a holocaust or two. They also ignore their killings of Palestinians and the stealing of Palestinian land and property, which could be described as a Palestinian Holocaust.

Note that at this point Eric was still pretty much pushing the blowback thesis; he had not yet gotten to 9-11 Denial (or considering the above, Holocaust Denial) yet. But by February 2, 2002 he had his page of questions (http://web.archive.org/web/20020201180149/http://members.aol.com/erichuf/) up.

[alienentity]

...this is a SPECTACULARLY BAD mistake on his part.

----------------
:eek:

OK. I dropped a factor of 2 somehow. If that's "SPECTACULAR" you guys are awfully easy to entertain. There's a lot easier way to do the problem than all the work you went through, by the way.

Simply equate potential energy at the start to kinetic energy at the finish.
mgh=0.5mv^2. Solving for v you get v=sqrt(2gh).
For h=52.78 m, v=32.16 m/s.

I probably divided by 2 instead of multiplying by 2 inside the radical. I probably shouldn't do these things in my head. Let's make a deal. I'll concede when I'm wrong and you concede when you're wrong. That could lead to civil discussions. :cool:

This originated as a quick little side calculation...a little too quick apparently. It has zero bearing on the substance of the horizontal ejection issue.

Surprise, surprise. Mr. Chandler excuses himself for his incompetence (again) while in his infamous 'NIST admits Freefall' video he wrongfully accuses them of 'drylabing' and 'fraud', for giving what I have shown is perfectly justifiable and accurate info. Hysterical accusations.

Methinks he doth protest too much. Chandler keeps demonstrating his mediocre analysis, his questionable competence to think critically in the case of the WTC collapses, and keeps coming to the wrong conclusions.
Hmmm....seems pretty obvious he doesn't know what he's talking about.

Stick to HighSchool teaching David, you're probably really good at it. You suck at this other stuff.
http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_3047049f1f1cc9e5be.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=16127)

[alienentity]

In all fairness, CAN YOU IMAGINE the hysterical bleating which would ensue if Mr. Chandler had discovered NIST was off in THEIR calculations by a factor of 2?

It would be 'cover up', 'fraud' etc.... on every truther website in bold, which Chandler grinning from ear to ear, another hero of 9/11 truth.

Keep working hard to blame your government and let the real terrorists off the hook boys! You're a bunch of real heroes....

[JSSTyger]

There is something i dont understand. Why is Sunder saying that WTC 7 collapsed in 3.9 seconds, but there modell collapsed in 5.4 seconds.. Is he talking about the Chandlers video? If not, isent he debunking NISTs report?
Hear it for your self in David Chandlers video part 1. I cant post a link...

First of all, it was only 18 stories. Second of all, you are correct that this small little detail debunks NIST's report. I have always wondered why ANYONE cares about the irrelevant 1 to 2 seconds where virtually nothing happens.

NIST's answer to free fall of the north face in their original Q&A read something on the order of "No...WTC 7 NEVER entered free fall (acceleration). We measured the time it took for the top 18 stories to fall past a certain point. It was 5.4 seconds"

That statement has NO SCIENTIFIC MERIT at all. There is no science behind it. To say the building never experienced free fall acceleration because of the total time of fall is beyond incompetent. This is not a math error where somebody forgot to divide by 2. Its a completely blown concept. People who never took a physics class probably do not understand just how horrid of an explanation that statement really is. Unfortunately...we can't help those people.

I wish we could move past the fact that it was an intentional error and move on to more important things...like asking why it was intentional.

[boloboffin]

First of all, it was only 18 stories. Second of all, you are correct that this small little detail debunks NIST's report. I have always wondered why ANYONE cares about the irrelevant 1 to 2 seconds where virtually nothing happens.

NIST's answer to free fall of the north face in their original Q&A read something on the order of "No...WTC 7 NEVER entered free fall (acceleration). We measured the time it took for the top 18 stories to fall past a certain point. It was 5.4 seconds"

That statement has NO SCIENTIFIC MERIT at all. There is no science behind it. To say the building never experienced free fall acceleration because of the total time of fall is beyond incompetent. This is not a math error where somebody forgot to divide by 2. Its a completely blown concept. People who never took a physics class probably do not understand just how horrid of an explanation that statement really is. Unfortunately...we can't help those people.

I wish we could move past the fact that it was an intentional error and move on to more important things...like asking why it was intentional.

I'm sorry -- when did we establish that it was a) an error, and b) intentional?

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Every time you come up with a new absurdity or repeat an old one, I add it to the front page of my site (http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/home). In the past day you've compared the towers to sushi and reaffirmed your belief that one wouldn't be destroyed if 30 stories were dropped on it from a height of two miles.

Keep it up, Anders! I couldn't possibly invent material to discredit the "truth" movement as thoroughly as you do. You make Richard Gage proud!

Am I the only person here who has become absolutely convinced that Heiwa is not an engineer of any kind? That either Anders Borkman is not an engineer, or Heiwa has stolen Mr Borkmans identity and is impersonating him?

I just do not see any other possible explanation, save for deliberate lying, for his sushi tower and pizza box nonsense given what he would have to know as a consequence of his education and certification.

[WilliamSeger]

Am I the only person here who has become absolutely convinced that Heiwa is not an engineer of any kind? That either Anders Borkman is not an engineer, or Heiwa has stolen Mr Borkmans identity and is impersonating him?

I just do not see any other possible explanation, save for deliberate lying, for his sushi tower and pizza box nonsense given what he would have to know as a consequence of his education and certification.

I suppose it's possible to get a degree without actually learning anything (or forgetting everything soon after), but the reason that I can't believe he's an engineer is that I can't imaging how he could have completed the course work without getting into arguments with professors that would have undoubtedly ended with strong suggestions that he should consider a different career path.

[Panoply_Prefect]

Am I the only person here who has become absolutely convinced that Heiwa is not an engineer of any kind? That either Anders Borkman is not an engineer, or Heiwa has stolen Mr Borkmans identity and is impersonating him?

I just do not see any other possible explanation, save for deliberate lying, for his sushi tower and pizza box nonsense given what he would have to know as a consequence of his education and certification.

Actually mr Borkman (not sure if it was intentionally misspelled, but its darn funny) is in fact what he claims to be. He has been published several times on a different conspiracy, the one about the Estonia disaster (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MS_Estonia). He has also been published several times in the well respected Svensk Sjöfartstidning, Swedish Naval Gazette. I made a post about it some time ago:

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4143701&postcount=481

[ozeco41]

Many of Heiwas nonsense claims have a caricature of sound engineering such that I would not question his engineering knowledge at the basic level.

So the real issue is why does he continue to post nonsense and keep doing it after the falsity has been demonstrated.

[tsig]

Many of Heiwas nonsense claims have a caricature of sound engineering such that I would not question his engineering knowledge at the basic level.

So the real issue is why does he continue to post nonsense and keep doing it after the falsity has been demonstrated.

As the man said as they tarred and feathered him and rode him out of town on a rail "If it weren't for the fame of the thing I'd ruther walked".

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Actually mr Borkman (not sure if it was intentionally misspelled, but its darn funny) is in fact what he claims to be. He has been published several times on a different conspiracy, the one about the Estonia disaster (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MS_Estonia). He has also been published several times in the well respected Svensk Sjöfartstidning, Swedish Naval Gazette. I made a post about it some time ago:

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4143701&postcount=481

Ok, so that leaves two possibilities.

A: Heiwa is lying or pulling our legs.

B: Heiwa has succumbed to illness or injury that has affected his ability to use his education and training.

Whatever is going on in his head, Heiwas claims on this forum are not engineering.

[psikeyhackr]

The entire building above the point of collapse. The acceleration varied over the duration of the fall and for a period of around 1 sec the acceleration was greater than freefall.

Yes I have a problem with that. It means that NIST has presented a bogus equation because there is no way to physically account for an acceleration greater than freefall. Along with the other problems that Dr. Greening has pointed out, the report is essentially shown to be bunk.

I would think that any skeptic would be apalled at this sort of erroneous psuedo-science.
.
I think appalled and pseudo-science are words which should normally be associated with the NIST. :D

Make them give back the $20,000,000. LOL

But I suppose one has to have a little sympathy for people required to come up with explanations for the IMPOSSIBLE.

psik

[ozeco41]

Ok, so that leaves two possibilities.

A: Heiwa is lying or pulling our legs.

B: Heiwa has succumbed to illness or injury that has affected his ability to use his education and training.

Whatever is going on in his head, Heiwas claims on this forum are not engineering.

Yes! "Heiwas claims on this forum are not engineering."