NIST and 2.5 sec...

[911kongen]

Ok.. I know this is debated a lot. But im wondering, a truthers is saying NIST only admitted free fall AFTER David Chandler had made his clames about free fall.. Is this right? Some one have a quick answer to this? And please dont make this a debate about screencap..

[McHrozni]

Ok.. I know this is debated a lot. But im wondering, a truthers is saying NIST only admitted free fall AFTER David Chandler had made his clames about free fall.. Is this right? Some one have a quick answer to this? And please dont make this a debate about screencap..

Pretty much, although this is because Chandler only focused on a small part of the collapse, during which the building was in free fall. Previously NIST only calculated the acceleration for an overall period of visible collapse, during which the building was not in free fall. The NIST report acknowledges that, it's earlier calculation is untouched (and correct).

McHrozni

[R.Mackey]

NIST also provided (before Chandler's outburst) an explanation of why there was a period of "near free-fall." It's in the report. However, I have yet to see a single Truther even acknowledge this.

I'm hesitant to spoil the surprise. It's there, go read it.

[911kongen]

NIST also provided (before Chandler's outburst) an explanation of why there was a period of "near free-fall." It's in the report. However, I have yet to see a single Truther even acknowledge this.

I'm hesitant to spoil the surprise. It's there, go read it.

Afraid you think im lazy, but do you know what page in the report? :o

[R.Mackey]

Yes, I do.

[911kongen]

Yes, I do.

Please tell me? :eek:

[R.Mackey]

I'm not picking on you individually... This is something I've begun to see more frequently here. We've been at this "debunking" schtick for so long that others have learned, whenever they have questions, to just come running to us for a quick and easy answer. Even when we've written sometimes large works explaining everything, those get ignored. You folks want the summary, the soundbite, something on YouTube.

This is no good. This is how the Truth Movement got into trouble in the first place. The lesson to take away is that, if you want to understand something, you have to put in some work.

The answer is in NIST's report, NCSTAR1-9. If you're interested in learning about what happened to WTC 7, you should read this report, all of it. You probably won't understand all of it, and that's fine, we can help with those questions. But you'll be surprised at how much you do understand, and how much you're able to learn.

If, on the other hand, you just want to take a quote from me and repeat it to piss off some Truther, I will not help you. Those kinds of arguments are waste of time.

Give it a read (http://wtc.nist.gov/NCSTAR1/NCSTAR1-9index.htm). It's well sourced and referenced, has a thorough table of contents and a logical flow to its organization. It'll take you about a week. It's worth it.

[911kongen]

I'm not picking on you individually... This is something I've begun to see more frequently here. We've been at this "debunking" schtick for so long that others have learned, whenever they have questions, to just come running to us for a quick and easy answer. Even when we've written sometimes large works explaining everything, those get ignored. You folks want the summary, the soundbite, something on YouTube.

This is no good. This is how the Truth Movement got into trouble in the first place. The lesson to take away is that, if you want to understand something, you have to put in some work.

The answer is in NIST's report, NCSTAR1-9. If you're interested in learning about what happened to WTC 7, you should read this report, all of it. You probably won't understand all of it, and that's fine, we can help with those questions. But you'll be surprised at how much you do understand, and how much you're able to learn.

If, on the other hand, you just want to take a quote from me and repeat it to piss off some Truther, I will not help you. Those kinds of arguments are waste of time.

Give it a read (http://wtc.nist.gov/NCSTAR1/NCSTAR1-9index.htm). It's well sourced and referenced, has a thorough table of contents and a logical flow to its organization. It'll take you about a week. It's worth it.

I have read all of your work Ryan, and Hardfire Shows. I have also read most of Mark Roberts work. I can not remember you talking about NISTs saying free fall before Chandler. I have read a lot about it, but I could not remember if NIST wrote this before Chandler or after. That NIST talked about all most free fall is something I cant remember. When there are people knowing this right off the bat, why cant I ask? It saves me a lot of time! You must understand not every body is like you Ryan, remembering every details. At least im not like that. Im a person that have read something, a week later it is possible that I have forgotten it! And im not a NASA scientist, im a professional musician! ;)

[TruthersLie]

911K.

In the draft report Nist does make mention of having a period of near freefall during the collapse. They mention it and allude to it, but they do not come RIGHT OUT and say it (because it really is rather irrelevant to the whole collapse)

David Chandler went and examined the collapse and showed that yes indeed, there is nearly 2.5 seconds of "near-freefall." The problem is that he took that and then ran the wrong way with it immediately saying it was CD w/out proof.