Kenneth L.Kuttler whats wrong?

[911kongen]

http://www.journalof911studies.com/articles/W7Kuttler.pdf

[Brainster]

There are several obvious errors that I can see. In order of importance:

1. The floors in WTC-7 did not collapse from the top down as can be seen in any video of the collapse. Indeed, this is something the Truthers constantly point to as indicative of controlled demolition. The collapse began much lower on the building.

2. Nobody has demonstrated conclusively that the collapse actually took 6.5 seconds from the moment the roofline began to fall (obviously we know it took much longer than that when we add in the time from the penthouse collapses).

3. The size of the floors was not 33 inches, resulting in a pile 130 feet high. That's silly, as any picture of the collapsed building will show. Of course, this appears to be an intentional error, as the writer will then claim that the collapse should have taken longer via his computations.

[16.5]

There are several obvious errors that I can see. In order of importance:

1. The floors in WTC-7 did not collapse from the top down as can be seen in any video of the collapse. Indeed, this is something the Truthers constantly point to as indicative of controlled demolition. The collapse began much lower on the building.

2. Nobody has demonstrated conclusively that the collapse actually took 6.5 seconds from the moment the roofline began to fall (obviously we know it took much longer than that when we add in the time from the penthouse collapses).

3. The size of the floors was not 33 inches, resulting in a pile 130 feet high. That's silly, as any picture of the collapsed building will show. Of course, this appears to be an intentional error, as the writer will then claim that the collapse should have taken longer via his computations.

Dude, don't feed the troll. The article was from 2006, and further you'll note that the moron writing the article got the time of collapse from David Ray Griffin's book.

Look! I'm doing science.

[Dave Rogers]

Here's my summary of what's wrong with Kuttler's more detailed paper on the WTC 1 and WTC2 collapses, and responses to it, from November 2007.

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=98714

It's not a long thread, and it dates back to the days when there was productive debate on this forum, so it's probably worth the effort of reading it. I would conclude that Kuttler is just one of the more intelligent delusional types.

As Brainster said, the WTC7 collapse didn't start from the top; this is painfully obvious from any video of the collapse. That alone means that everything in Kuttler's WTC7 paper is irrelevant. If the collapse starts low down the structure, the majority of it is accelerated by gravity right from the start of the collapse, and there's only a very small fraction that needs accelerating to the velocity of the falling block; hence, the loss of momentum to the falling block is very small. When I did an analysis of the WTC7 collapse based on the correct assumption that it started from the bottom, rather than Kuttler's assumption, I found a collapse time of about 6.5 seconds.

So, Kuttler's analysis is a classic example of GIGO.

Dave