WTC7 fell at free fall speed

Mobertermy · 15th December 2009, 12:47 PM

WTC7 fell at free fall speed for 2.5 seconds and NIST initially denied this. Why did NIST lie about this?

Sword_Of_Truth · 15th December 2009, 12:49 PM

WTC7 took sixteen seconds to collapse.

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the JREF. The JREF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

Videos don't lie.

U R BEDUNKED.

ElMondoHummus · 15th December 2009, 12:50 PM

Already discussed back in 2008:
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=128194

End of thread.

carlitos · 15th December 2009, 12:51 PM

From "I'm not a truther" to this in one day? That has to be a record. Please employ the 'search' function of this website, or try this.

"Lie" is a pretty strong word, just FYI. Generally you would show evidence of that in your post.

TruthersLie · 15th December 2009, 12:51 PM

Originally Posted by Mobertermy

WTC7 fell at free fall speed for 2.5 seconds and NIST initially denied this. Why did NIST lie about this?

As I pointed out to you earlier twoof, NIST didn't LIE about this.

NIST denied that the collapse was at freefall. Having 2.25 seconds of near freefall in an 18 second collapse is NOT FREEFALL.

try again.

Reading for comprehension is your friend. During your suspension try to read the full DRAFT report where they imply for several pages that there was no internal support and it feel at near freefall.

Massive swing, and massive miss.

Newtons Bit · 15th December 2009, 12:55 PM

Originally Posted by Mobertermy

WTC7 fell at free fall speed for 2.5 seconds and NIST initially denied this. Why did NIST lie about this?

FYI, you should always provide links to your sources. It'll help discussion.

9/11 Chewy Defense · 15th December 2009, 12:56 PM

Unless WTC7 was skydiving it would reach it's terminal velocity.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terminal_velocity

Quote:

Based on wind resistance, for example, the terminal velocity of a skydiver in a free-fall position with a semi-closed parachute is about 195 km/h (120 mph or 55 m/s). This velocity is the asymptotic limiting value of the acceleration process, because the effective forces on the body balance each other more and more closely as the terminal velocity is approached. In this example, a speed of 50% of terminal velocity is reached after only about 3 seconds, while it takes 8 seconds to reach 90%, 15 seconds to reach 99% and so on. Higher speeds can be attained if the skydiver pulls in his limbs. In this case, the terminal velocity increases to about 320 km/h (200 mph or 90 m/s), which is also the terminal velocity of the peregrine falcon diving down on its prey. And the same terminal velocity is reached for a typical 150 grain bullet travelling in the downward vertical direction — when it is returning to earth having been fired upwards, or perhaps just dropped from a tower — according to a 1920 U.S. Army Ordinance study.

Unless Truthers are suggesting that WTC7 was in a liquid state when it collapsed.

Mobertermy · 15th December 2009, 01:01 PM

Originally Posted by TruthersLie

As I pointed out to you earlier twoof, NIST didn't LIE about this.

NIST denied that the collapse was at freefall. Having 2.25 seconds of near freefall in an 18 second collapse is NOT FREEFALL.

try again.

Reading for comprehension is your friend. During your suspension try to read the full DRAFT report where they imply for several pages that there was no internal support and it feel at near freefall.

Massive swing, and massive miss.

Nope it say right in the report "this Free Fall collapse continued for 8 stories" empahsis mine. It's unambiguous.

9/11 Chewy Defense · 15th December 2009, 01:02 PM

Originally Posted by Mobertermy

Nope it say right in the report "this Free Fall collapse continued for 8 stories" empahsis mine. It's unambiguous.

8 stories is hardly "free fall".

Try 20+ stories!

carlitos · 15th December 2009, 01:02 PM

Really, just read all 500 comments in this thread. Then see if you have anything new to add. I suspect not.

twinstead · 15th December 2009, 01:04 PM

Originally Posted by Mobertermy

Nope it say right in the report "this Free Fall collapse continued for 8 stories" empahsis mine. It's unambiguous.

Then hop to it and provide some calculations that in a collapse that took 18 seconds and was 20 stories, 8 stories at free fall is impossible, because what you have here is a simple argument from incredulity.

bardamu · 15th December 2009, 01:05 PM

Originally Posted by Mobertermy

WTC7 fell at free fall speed for 2.5 seconds and NIST initially denied this. Why did NIST lie about this?

NIST are compulsive liars.

TruthersLie · 15th December 2009, 01:07 PM

Originally Posted by Mobertermy

Nope it say right in the report "this Free Fall collapse continued for 8 stories" empahsis mine. It's unambiguous.

8 stories... how tall was the building? Only 8 stories?

No.. it was 47 stories. Now there was a 2.25 second section of the collapse which was inferred in the initial draft report, but they did not spell it out completely.

Along comes David chandler and he does good work showing that of teh 18 second collapse, 2.25 seconds (or about 8 floors) appear to fall at freefall.

So we have a smal fraction of the total collapse (less than 1/6th) which is in or near freefall...

so what?

If you read the REPORT (not the datamined quotes you have tried to pass off twoof) then you will find that they discuss it.

try again.

TruthersLie · 15th December 2009, 01:08 PM

Originally Posted by bardamu

NIST are compulsive liars.

GREAT.

PROVE IT.

I eagerly await your thesis. Please provide item, page number and report number for their lies.

And while you are at it, provide just one peer reviewed refuation of the 10,000 page report. Just one. In any language, from any country in the world.

9/11 Chewy Defense · 15th December 2009, 01:09 PM

NIST WTC 7 Investigation Finds Building Fires Caused Collapse
Report and Recommendations for Improving Building Safety Released for Comment

August 21, 2008

http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/r...wtc082108.html

Questions and Answers about the NIST WTC 7 Investigation (Updated 04/21/2009)

http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/f...qa_082108.html

Newtons Bit · 15th December 2009, 01:11 PM

Does anyone have a link to where NIST allegedly denied that the building collapsed at free-fall for any length of time? It would be nice if this was in the OP.

9/11 Chewy Defense · 15th December 2009, 01:13 PM

Taken from: http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/f...qa_082108.html

Quote:

In the draft WTC 7 report (released Aug. 21, 2008; available at http://wtc.nist.gov/media/NIST_NCSTA...ic_comment.pdf), NIST stated that the north face of the building descended 18 stories (the portion of the collapse visible in the video) in 5.4 seconds, based on video analysis of the building collapse. This time period is 40 percent longer than the 3.9 seconds this process would have taken if the north face of the building had descended solely under free fall conditions. During the public comment period on the draft report, NIST was asked to confirm this time difference and define the reasons for it in greater detail.

To further clarify the descent of the north face, NIST recorded the downward displacement of a point near the center of the roofline from first movement until the north face was no longer visible in the video. Numerical analyses were conducted to calculate the velocity and acceleration of the roofline point from the time-dependent displacement data. The instant at which vertical motion of the roofline first occurred was determined by tracking the numerical value of the brightness of a pixel (a single element in the video image) at the roofline. This pixel became brighter as the roofline began to descend because the color of the pixel started to change from that of the building facade to the lighter color of the sky.

40% longer than it would take to reach free fall!

DEBUNKED!

Justin39640 · 15th December 2009, 01:20 PM

Originally Posted by Mobertermy

WTC7 fell at free fall speed for 2.5 seconds and NIST initially denied this. Why did NIST lie about this?

Where is the evidence they initially denied this? You never seem to address or provide proof for this portion of the OP.

A lil visual aid might help. Check out what happens in my models. Check out the kick out action. When it kicks out for a time nothing is supporting the structure. what is it going to do?

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the JREF. The JREF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

second half of this one

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the JREF. The JREF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

(these are not made to model any sort of real life structure[obviously])

ETA: darnit, Newton beat me.

twinstead · 15th December 2009, 01:21 PM

Originally Posted by Mobertermy

So you just went from saying there was no free fall to saying there was free fall (there is a difference between quoting the relevant part and "datamining quotes" retard.) You said there was no free fall. I just showed you there was.

Do you know the difference between saying the entire collapse was at free fall and for 2.5 seconds of 18 sseconds it was in free fall?

TruthersLie · 15th December 2009, 01:21 PM

Originally Posted by Mobertermy

So you just went from saying there was no free fall to saying there was free fall (there is a difference between quoting the relevant part and "datamining quotes" retard.) You said there was no free fall. I just showed you there was.

ah...
reading comprehension bites you in the ass again.

When you have an 18 second collapse it is NOT AT FREEFALL.

When you have 2.25 seconds of a total 18 second collapse, then you have 1/6th of the total collapse.

so for 1/6 of the total collapse there was a period of near freefall, which was INPLIED and INFERRED in the NIST draft report.

But again since you have just gone to datamined twoof webpages and haven't read for COMPREHENSION, you have missed that it was ONLY THE CURTAIN WALL which collapsed that way because there were series of internal failures. Why is that sooooooo freaking hard to understand?

How do you get that NIST LIED? OH they didn't.

But thank you again for playing, and for dropping the "I'm not a truther" pretense. It was old at post 20.

ETA... but that is like how you don't understand GRADUAL either...

TruthersLie · 15th December 2009, 01:22 PM

dual post. please delete

9/11 Chewy Defense · 15th December 2009, 01:23 PM

Continued.....

Quote:

The approach taken by NIST is summarized in Section 3.6 of the final summary report, NCSTAR 1A (released Nov. 20, 2008; available at http://wtc.nist.gov/NCSTAR1/PDF/NCSTAR%201A.pdf) and detailed in Section 12.5.3 of NIST NCSTAR 1-9 (available at http://wtc.nist.gov/NCSTAR1/PDF/NCST...%20Vol%202.pdf).

The analyses of the video (both the estimation of the instant the roofline began to descend and the calculated velocity and acceleration of a point on the roofline) revealed three distinct stages characterizing the 5.4 seconds of collapse:

Stage 1 (0 to 1.75 seconds): acceleration less than that of gravity (i.e., slower than free fall).

Stage 2 (1.75 to 4.0 seconds): gravitational acceleration (free fall)

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

This analysis showed that the 40 percent longer descent time—compared to the 3.9 second free fall time—was due primarily to Stage 1, which corresponded to the buckling of the exterior columns in the lower stories of the north face. During Stage 2, the north face descended essentially in free fall, indicating negligible support from the structure below. This is consistent with the structural analysis model which showed the exterior columns buckling and losing their capacity to support the loads from the structure above. In Stage 3, the acceleration decreased as the upper portion of the north face encountered increased resistance from the collapsed structure and the debris pile below.

Again, it says that it was 40% longer/slower to reach its free fall speed.

Sword_Of_Truth · 15th December 2009, 01:44 PM

Originally Posted by bardamu

NIST are compulsive liars.

Have you figured out what a progressive collapse is yet, Bardamu?

Do you understand why the near-simultaneous failure of multiple structural supports is a natural part of a progressive collapse and not at all indicative of a controlled demolition?

DGM · 15th December 2009, 01:53 PM

bardamu:
Please show us where NIST denied this moment of free fall.

Maybe this will help Newtons Bit

Newtons Bit · 15th December 2009, 01:58 PM

Originally Posted by DGM

bardamu:
Please show us where NIST denied this moment of free fall.

Maybe this will help Newtons Bit

I would greatly appreciate it!

alienentity · 15th December 2009, 01:59 PM

Originally Posted by Mobertermy

WTC7 fell at free fall speed for 2.5 seconds and NIST initially denied this. Why did NIST lie about this?

Strawman. Show us where NIST denied the period of freefall.

Otherwise it makes you the liar, don't it?

9/11 Chewy Defense · 15th December 2009, 02:00 PM

I brought up NISTs free fall account.

He's not talking!

carlitos · 15th December 2009, 02:11 PM

He's not talking for 3 days, at least not here anyway.

alienentity · 15th December 2009, 02:11 PM

Chewy's got you, Mober. Either come up with a statement by NIST that denies a period of freefall, or you are exposed as a liar.

You could retract your lie if you wish. That would probably be a wise choice. Your call.

ETA If your positions and claims are based on myths and lies, as they partly appear to be, not only are your claims invalid and incorrect, you are also basically acting as a troll.

I understand that your initial story was also false, so I'm rapidly losing respect for anything further that you write. You've progressed from misrepresenting your story (apparently) to making false statements about Bazant's paper, (including 'Bazant's model is useless because it has absolutely nothing to do with reality. Period') to making false statements about NIST.

This is par for the course from a truther, won't even raise an eyebrow around here. Been there, done that.

It's revealing how little substance there is to most truther claims, and the truthers that make them. Oh well.

Next dumb thing you write will prompt me to put you onto ignore. Surprise me by not doing that.

9/11 Chewy Defense · 15th December 2009, 02:17 PM

Originally Posted by alienentity

Chewy's got you, Mober. Either come up with a statement by NIST that denies a period of freefall, or you are exposed as a liar.

You could retract your lie if you wish. That would probably be a wise choice. Your call.

We're all gonna have to wait for 3 days for Mobertermy to answer!

Awe shucks, I was getting into debating with him too.

But I'll wait!

dudalb · 15th December 2009, 02:29 PM

Originally Posted by bardamu

NIST are compulsive liars.

Compulsive Lying is one thing the Truthers are experts on.

alienentity · 15th December 2009, 02:56 PM

Oh, I see. Suspended.

Like my santa hat, Chewy?

9/11 Chewy Defense · 15th December 2009, 02:57 PM

Originally Posted by alienentity

Oh, I see. Suspended.

Like my santa hat, Chewy?

OMG AE, you look F-A-B-U-L-O-U-S!

Furcifer · 15th December 2009, 03:02 PM

Trying to salvage a thread out of this, is the NIST claim based on an estimation of what free fall would actually be, or is it based on what a bowling ball dropped off the roof? I don't have the links, and to behonest I never read the new report.

ElMondoHummus · 15th December 2009, 03:09 PM

Originally Posted by 3bodyproblem

Trying to salvage a thread out of this, is the NIST claim based on an estimation of what free fall would actually be, or is it based on what a bowling ball dropped off the roof? I don't have the links, and to behonest I never read the new report.

NIST measured the total north face's roofline's descent to over several stories.

Originally Posted by NIST WTC 7 FAQ

To further clarify the descent of the north face, NIST recorded the downward displacement of a point near the center of the roofline from first movement until the north face was no longer visible in the video. Numerical analyses were conducted to calculate the velocity and acceleration of the roofline point from the time-dependent displacement data. The instant at which vertical motion of the roofline first occurred was determined by tracking the numerical value of the brightness of a pixel (a single element in the video image) at the roofline.

... This analysis showed that the 40 percent longer descent time—compared to the 3.9 second free fall time—was due primarily to Stage 1, which corresponded to the buckling of the exterior columns in the lower stories of the north face. During Stage 2, the north face descended essentially in free fall, indicating negligible support from the structure below. This is consistent with the structural analysis model which showed the exterior columns buckling and losing their capacity to support the loads from the structure above. In Stage 3, the acceleration decreased as the upper portion of the north face encountered increased resistance from the collapsed structure and the debris pile below.

Now, this is from their FAQ. There's a ton more detail about the collapse in the report itself.

cyclonic · 15th December 2009, 03:35 PM

Originally Posted by 9/11 Chewy Defense

OMG AE, you look F-A-B-U-L-O-U-S!

Christ! droid,chewbacca get a room before it gets messy.

R.E. OP. What do you expect when the last straw/coulumn breaks the camels/buildings back?

what do you think should happen?

9/11 Chewy Defense · 15th December 2009, 03:37 PM

Originally Posted by cyclonic

Christ! droid,chewbacca get a room before it gets messy.

R.E. OP. What do you expect when the last straw/coulumn breaks the camels/buildings back?

what do you think should happen?

It's not like that, great imagination though! 2 thumbs up!

cyclonic · 15th December 2009, 03:44 PM

Originally Posted by 9/11 Chewy Defense

It's not like that, great imagination though! 2 thumbs up!

I don't know what body fluids a chewbacca excretes, frankly, i don't want to know!

9/11 Chewy Defense · 15th December 2009, 03:47 PM

Originally Posted by cyclonic

I don't know what body fluids a chewbacca excretes, frankly, i don't want to know!

That's hilarious! LMAO!

cyclonic · 15th December 2009, 03:52 PM

Originally Posted by Mobertermy

WTC7 fell at free fall speed for 2.5 seconds and NIST initially denied this. Why did NIST lie about this?

Mobertermy

suspended

Wow, he got suspended at freefall speed!

15th December 2009, 12:47 PM	#1
Mobertermy Muse Join Date: Nov 2009 Posts: 548	WTC7 fell at free fall speed WTC7 fell at free fall speed for 2.5 seconds and NIST initially denied this. Why did NIST lie about this?
Mobertermy Muse Join Date: Nov 2009 Posts: 548

15th December 2009, 12:50 PM	#3
ElMondoHummus 0.25 short of being half-witted Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: Somewhere north of the South Pole Posts: 11,938	Already discussed back in 2008: http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=128194 End of thread.
	__________________ must take this very carefully....booze is wise men's drink..... -pillory "... I'm quite willing to have everyone use my rejection of the 9/11 conspiracy theory as a basis for assessing my intelligence, judgment, and trustworthiness" -Prof. Ann Althouse

15th December 2009, 12:55 PM	#6
Newtons Bit Philosopher Join Date: Apr 2007 Posts: 6,887	Originally Posted by Mobertermy WTC7 fell at free fall speed for 2.5 seconds and NIST initially denied this. Why did NIST lie about this? FYI, you should always provide links to your sources. It'll help discussion.
Newtons Bit Philosopher Join Date: Apr 2007 Posts: 6,887	__________________ "Structural Engineering is the art of molding materials we do not wholly understand into shapes we cannot precisely analyze so as to understand forces we cannot really assess in such a way that the community at large has no reason to suspect the extent of our own ignorance." James E Amrhein My website.

15th December 2009, 12:56 PM	#7
9/11 Chewy Defense Banned Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Johnstown, PA Posts: 3,593	Unless WTC7 was skydiving it would reach it's terminal velocity. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terminal_velocity Quote: Based on wind resistance, for example, the terminal velocity of a skydiver in a free-fall position with a semi-closed parachute is about 195 km/h (120 mph or 55 m/s). This velocity is the asymptotic limiting value of the acceleration process, because the effective forces on the body balance each other more and more closely as the terminal velocity is approached. In this example, a speed of 50% of terminal velocity is reached after only about 3 seconds, while it takes 8 seconds to reach 90%, 15 seconds to reach 99% and so on. Higher speeds can be attained if the skydiver pulls in his limbs. In this case, the terminal velocity increases to about 320 km/h (200 mph or 90 m/s), which is also the terminal velocity of the peregrine falcon diving down on its prey. And the same terminal velocity is reached for a typical 150 grain bullet travelling in the downward vertical direction — when it is returning to earth having been fired upwards, or perhaps just dropped from a tower — according to a 1920 U.S. Army Ordinance study. Unless Truthers are suggesting that WTC7 was in a liquid state when it collapsed.
	Last edited by 9/11 Chewy Defense; 15th December 2009 at 12:58 PM.

15th December 2009, 01:01 PM	#8
Mobertermy Muse Join Date: Nov 2009 Posts: 548	Originally Posted by TruthersLie As I pointed out to you earlier twoof, NIST didn't LIE about this. NIST denied that the collapse was at freefall. Having 2.25 seconds of near freefall in an 18 second collapse is NOT FREEFALL. try again. Reading for comprehension is your friend. During your suspension try to read the full DRAFT report where they imply for several pages that there was no internal support and it feel at near freefall. Massive swing, and massive miss. Nope it say right in the report "this Free Fall collapse continued for 8 stories" empahsis mine. It's unambiguous.
Mobertermy Muse Join Date: Nov 2009 Posts: 548

15th December 2009, 12:51 PM	#4
carlitos "más divertido" Join Date: Jul 2009 Posts: 11,516	From "I'm not a truther" to this in one day? That has to be a record. Please employ the 'search' function of this website, or try this. "Lie" is a pretty strong word, just FYI. Generally you would show evidence of that in your post.

15th December 2009, 12:51 PM	#5
TruthersLie This space for rent. Join Date: Jun 2009 Location: Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates Posts: 3,720	Originally Posted by Mobertermy WTC7 fell at free fall speed for 2.5 seconds and NIST initially denied this. Why did NIST lie about this? As I pointed out to you earlier twoof, NIST didn't LIE about this. NIST denied that the collapse was at freefall. Having 2.25 seconds of near freefall in an 18 second collapse is NOT FREEFALL. try again. Reading for comprehension is your friend. During your suspension try to read the full DRAFT report where they imply for several pages that there was no internal support and it feel at near freefall. Massive swing, and massive miss.

15th December 2009, 01:02 PM	#9
9/11 Chewy Defense Banned Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Johnstown, PA Posts: 3,593	Originally Posted by Mobertermy Nope it say right in the report "this Free Fall collapse continued for 8 stories" empahsis mine. It's unambiguous. 8 stories is hardly "free fall". Try 20+ stories!

15th December 2009, 01:04 PM	#11
twinstead Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Big corner office in NWO Towers Posts: 11,573	Originally Posted by Mobertermy Nope it say right in the report "this Free Fall collapse continued for 8 stories" empahsis mine. It's unambiguous. Then hop to it and provide some calculations that in a collapse that took 18 seconds and was 20 stories, 8 stories at free fall is impossible, because what you have here is a simple argument from incredulity.
	__________________ You are not entitled to your opinion. You are entitled to your INFORMED opinion. No one is entitled to be ignorant. -- Harlan Ellison

15th December 2009, 01:05 PM	#12
bardamu Muse Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: au bout de la nuit Posts: 547	Originally Posted by Mobertermy WTC7 fell at free fall speed for 2.5 seconds and NIST initially denied this. Why did NIST lie about this? NIST are compulsive liars.
	__________________ "I creamed him without cracking a sweat. You may therefore assume by induction I can humiliate the entire gang of them at will. I probably won't even have to work a single calculation to do it." - R. Mackey (NASA scientist)

15th December 2009, 01:07 PM	#13
TruthersLie This space for rent. Join Date: Jun 2009 Location: Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates Posts: 3,720	Originally Posted by Mobertermy Nope it say right in the report "this Free Fall collapse continued for 8 stories" empahsis mine. It's unambiguous. 8 stories... how tall was the building? Only 8 stories? No.. it was 47 stories. Now there was a 2.25 second section of the collapse which was inferred in the initial draft report, but they did not spell it out completely. Along comes David chandler and he does good work showing that of teh 18 second collapse, 2.25 seconds (or about 8 floors) appear to fall at freefall. So we have a smal fraction of the total collapse (less than 1/6th) which is in or near freefall... so what? If you read the REPORT (not the datamined quotes you have tried to pass off twoof) then you will find that they discuss it. try again.

15th December 2009, 01:08 PM	#14
TruthersLie This space for rent. Join Date: Jun 2009 Location: Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates Posts: 3,720	Originally Posted by bardamu NIST are compulsive liars. GREAT. PROVE IT. I eagerly await your thesis. Please provide item, page number and report number for their lies. And while you are at it, provide just one peer reviewed refuation of the 10,000 page report. Just one. In any language, from any country in the world.

15th December 2009, 01:09 PM	#15
9/11 Chewy Defense Banned Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Johnstown, PA Posts: 3,593	NIST WTC 7 Investigation Finds Building Fires Caused Collapse Report and Recommendations for Improving Building Safety Released for Comment August 21, 2008 http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/r...wtc082108.html Questions and Answers about the NIST WTC 7 Investigation (Updated 04/21/2009) http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/f...qa_082108.html
	Last edited by 9/11 Chewy Defense; 15th December 2009 at 01:11 PM.

15th December 2009, 01:11 PM	#16
Newtons Bit Philosopher Join Date: Apr 2007 Posts: 6,887	Does anyone have a link to where NIST allegedly denied that the building collapsed at free-fall for any length of time? It would be nice if this was in the OP.
Newtons Bit Philosopher Join Date: Apr 2007 Posts: 6,887	__________________ "Structural Engineering is the art of molding materials we do not wholly understand into shapes we cannot precisely analyze so as to understand forces we cannot really assess in such a way that the community at large has no reason to suspect the extent of our own ignorance." James E Amrhein My website.

15th December 2009, 01:13 PM	#17
9/11 Chewy Defense Banned Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Johnstown, PA Posts: 3,593	Taken from: http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/f...qa_082108.html Quote: In the draft WTC 7 report (released Aug. 21, 2008; available at http://wtc.nist.gov/media/NIST_NCSTA...ic_comment.pdf), NIST stated that the north face of the building descended 18 stories (the portion of the collapse visible in the video) in 5.4 seconds, based on video analysis of the building collapse. This time period is 40 percent longer than the 3.9 seconds this process would have taken if the north face of the building had descended solely under free fall conditions. During the public comment period on the draft report, NIST was asked to confirm this time difference and define the reasons for it in greater detail. To further clarify the descent of the north face, NIST recorded the downward displacement of a point near the center of the roofline from first movement until the north face was no longer visible in the video. Numerical analyses were conducted to calculate the velocity and acceleration of the roofline point from the time-dependent displacement data. The instant at which vertical motion of the roofline first occurred was determined by tracking the numerical value of the brightness of a pixel (a single element in the video image) at the roofline. This pixel became brighter as the roofline began to descend because the color of the pixel started to change from that of the building facade to the lighter color of the sky. 40% longer than it would take to reach free fall! DEBUNKED!
	Last edited by 9/11 Chewy Defense; 15th December 2009 at 01:16 PM.

15th December 2009, 01:21 PM	#19
twinstead Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Big corner office in NWO Towers Posts: 11,573	Originally Posted by Mobertermy So you just went from saying there was no free fall to saying there was free fall (there is a difference between quoting the relevant part and "datamining quotes" retard.) You said there was no free fall. I just showed you there was. Do you know the difference between saying the entire collapse was at free fall and for 2.5 seconds of 18 sseconds it was in free fall?
	__________________ You are not entitled to your opinion. You are entitled to your INFORMED opinion. No one is entitled to be ignorant. -- Harlan Ellison

15th December 2009, 01:22 PM	#21
TruthersLie This space for rent. Join Date: Jun 2009 Location: Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates Posts: 3,720	dual post. please delete

15th December 2009, 01:23 PM	#22
9/11 Chewy Defense Banned Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Johnstown, PA Posts: 3,593	Continued..... Quote: The approach taken by NIST is summarized in Section 3.6 of the final summary report, NCSTAR 1A (released Nov. 20, 2008; available at http://wtc.nist.gov/NCSTAR1/PDF/NCSTAR%201A.pdf) and detailed in Section 12.5.3 of NIST NCSTAR 1-9 (available at http://wtc.nist.gov/NCSTAR1/PDF/NCST...%20Vol%202.pdf). The analyses of the video (both the estimation of the instant the roofline began to descend and the calculated velocity and acceleration of a point on the roofline) revealed three distinct stages characterizing the 5.4 seconds of collapse: Stage 1 (0 to 1.75 seconds): acceleration less than that of gravity (i.e., slower than free fall). Stage 2 (1.75 to 4.0 seconds): gravitational acceleration (free fall) Stage 3 (4.0 to 5.4 seconds): decreased acceleration, again less than that of gravity This analysis showed that the 40 percent longer descent time—compared to the 3.9 second free fall time—was due primarily to Stage 1, which corresponded to the buckling of the exterior columns in the lower stories of the north face. During Stage 2, the north face descended essentially in free fall, indicating negligible support from the structure below. This is consistent with the structural analysis model which showed the exterior columns buckling and losing their capacity to support the loads from the structure above. In Stage 3, the acceleration decreased as the upper portion of the north face encountered increased resistance from the collapsed structure and the debris pile below. Again, it says that it was 40% longer/slower to reach its free fall speed.
	Last edited by 9/11 Chewy Defense; 15th December 2009 at 01:25 PM.

15th December 2009, 01:44 PM	#23
Sword_Of_Truth Penultimate Amazing Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 11,497	Originally Posted by bardamu NIST are compulsive liars. Have you figured out what a progressive collapse is yet, Bardamu? Do you understand why the near-simultaneous failure of multiple structural supports is a natural part of a progressive collapse and not at all indicative of a controlled demolition?

15th December 2009, 01:53 PM	#24
DGM #4 Join Date: May 2007 Location: West of Northshore MA Posts: 14,324	bardamu: Please show us where NIST denied this moment of free fall. Maybe this will help Newtons Bit
	__________________ Join the team, Show us what your machine can do (or just contribute to a good cause)Join the JREF Folders ! Team 13232 "Remember that the goal of conspiracy rhetoric is to bog down the discussion, not to make progress toward a solution" Jay Windley

15th December 2009, 01:58 PM	#25
Newtons Bit Philosopher Join Date: Apr 2007 Posts: 6,887	Originally Posted by DGM bardamu: Please show us where NIST denied this moment of free fall. Maybe this will help Newtons Bit I would greatly appreciate it!
Newtons Bit Philosopher Join Date: Apr 2007 Posts: 6,887	__________________ "Structural Engineering is the art of molding materials we do not wholly understand into shapes we cannot precisely analyze so as to understand forces we cannot really assess in such a way that the community at large has no reason to suspect the extent of our own ignorance." James E Amrhein My website.

15th December 2009, 01:59 PM	#26
alienentity Illuminator Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: Somewhere between Here and There Posts: 4,240	Originally Posted by Mobertermy WTC7 fell at free fall speed for 2.5 seconds and NIST initially denied this. Why did NIST lie about this? Strawman. Show us where NIST denied the period of freefall. Otherwise it makes you the liar, don't it?
	__________________ Heiwa - 'Anyone suggesting that part C structure can one-way crush down part A structure is complicit to mass murder!' 000063 - 'Problem with the Truthers' theories is that anyone with enough power to pull it off doesn't need to in the first place.' mrkinnies 'I'm not a no-planer' 'I don't believe Flight 77 hit the Pentagon'

15th December 2009, 02:00 PM	#27
9/11 Chewy Defense Banned Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Johnstown, PA Posts: 3,593	I brought up NISTs free fall account. He's not talking!

15th December 2009, 02:11 PM	#28
carlitos "más divertido" Join Date: Jul 2009 Posts: 11,516	He's not talking for 3 days, at least not here anyway.

15th December 2009, 02:17 PM	#30
9/11 Chewy Defense Banned Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Johnstown, PA Posts: 3,593	Originally Posted by alienentity Chewy's got you, Mober. Either come up with a statement by NIST that denies a period of freefall, or you are exposed as a liar. You could retract your lie if you wish. That would probably be a wise choice. Your call. We're all gonna have to wait for 3 days for Mobertermy to answer! Awe shucks, I was getting into debating with him too. But I'll wait!

15th December 2009, 02:29 PM	#31
dudalb Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 22,804	Originally Posted by bardamu NIST are compulsive liars. Compulsive Lying is one thing the Truthers are experts on.

15th December 2009, 02:56 PM	#32
alienentity Illuminator Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: Somewhere between Here and There Posts: 4,240	Oh, I see. Suspended. Like my santa hat, Chewy?
	__________________ Heiwa - 'Anyone suggesting that part C structure can one-way crush down part A structure is complicit to mass murder!' 000063 - 'Problem with the Truthers' theories is that anyone with enough power to pull it off doesn't need to in the first place.' mrkinnies 'I'm not a no-planer' 'I don't believe Flight 77 hit the Pentagon'

15th December 2009, 02:57 PM	#33
9/11 Chewy Defense Banned Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Johnstown, PA Posts: 3,593	Originally Posted by alienentity Oh, I see. Suspended. Like my santa hat, Chewy? OMG AE, you look F-A-B-U-L-O-U-S!

15th December 2009, 03:02 PM	#34
Furcifer miscreant Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: hohm Posts: 13,379	Trying to salvage a thread out of this, is the NIST claim based on an estimation of what free fall would actually be, or is it based on what a bowling ball dropped off the roof? I don't have the links, and to behonest I never read the new report.

15th December 2009, 03:09 PM	#35
ElMondoHummus 0.25 short of being half-witted Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: Somewhere north of the South Pole Posts: 11,938	Originally Posted by 3bodyproblem Trying to salvage a thread out of this, is the NIST claim based on an estimation of what free fall would actually be, or is it based on what a bowling ball dropped off the roof? I don't have the links, and to behonest I never read the new report. NIST measured the total north face's roofline's descent to over several stories. Originally Posted by NIST WTC 7 FAQ To further clarify the descent of the north face, NIST recorded the downward displacement of a point near the center of the roofline from first movement until the north face was no longer visible in the video. Numerical analyses were conducted to calculate the velocity and acceleration of the roofline point from the time-dependent displacement data. The instant at which vertical motion of the roofline first occurred was determined by tracking the numerical value of the brightness of a pixel (a single element in the video image) at the roofline. ... This analysis showed that the 40 percent longer descent time—compared to the 3.9 second free fall time—was due primarily to Stage 1, which corresponded to the buckling of the exterior columns in the lower stories of the north face. During Stage 2, the north face descended essentially in free fall, indicating negligible support from the structure below. This is consistent with the structural analysis model which showed the exterior columns buckling and losing their capacity to support the loads from the structure above. In Stage 3, the acceleration decreased as the upper portion of the north face encountered increased resistance from the collapsed structure and the debris pile below. Now, this is from their FAQ. There's a ton more detail about the collapse in the report itself.
	__________________ must take this very carefully....booze is wise men's drink..... -pillory "... I'm quite willing to have everyone use my rejection of the 9/11 conspiracy theory as a basis for assessing my intelligence, judgment, and trustworthiness" -Prof. Ann Althouse

15th December 2009, 03:35 PM	#36
cyclonic Muse Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: Australia Posts: 977	Originally Posted by 9/11 Chewy Defense OMG AE, you look F-A-B-U-L-O-U-S! Christ! droid,chewbacca get a room before it gets messy. R.E. OP. What do you expect when the last straw/coulumn breaks the camels/buildings back? what do you think should happen?

15th December 2009, 03:37 PM	#37
9/11 Chewy Defense Banned Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Johnstown, PA Posts: 3,593	Originally Posted by cyclonic Christ! droid,chewbacca get a room before it gets messy. R.E. OP. What do you expect when the last straw/coulumn breaks the camels/buildings back? what do you think should happen? It's not like that, great imagination though! 2 thumbs up!

15th December 2009, 03:44 PM	#38
cyclonic Muse Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: Australia Posts: 977	Originally Posted by 9/11 Chewy Defense It's not like that, great imagination though! 2 thumbs up! I don't know what body fluids a chewbacca excretes, frankly, i don't want to know!

15th December 2009, 03:47 PM	#39
9/11 Chewy Defense Banned Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Johnstown, PA Posts: 3,593	Originally Posted by cyclonic I don't know what body fluids a chewbacca excretes, frankly, i don't want to know! That's hilarious! LMAO!

15th December 2009, 03:52 PM	#40
cyclonic Muse Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: Australia Posts: 977	Originally Posted by Mobertermy WTC7 fell at free fall speed for 2.5 seconds and NIST initially denied this. Why did NIST lie about this? Mobertermy suspended Wow, he got suspended at freefall speed!