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
'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.
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
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.
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 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
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.
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. 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!
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.
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
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.
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.
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?
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?
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.
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?
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.
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?).
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!!
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.
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!)
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.
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 --
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"?
...this is a SPECTACULARLY BAD mistake on his part.
----------------
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.
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.
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.
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...
...this is a SPECTACULARLY BAD mistake on his part.
----------------
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.
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.
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.
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...
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:
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.
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?
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).
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.
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).
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, 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. 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:
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 up.
...this is a SPECTACULARLY BAD mistake on his part.
----------------
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.
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.
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....
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.
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.
Every time you come up with a new absurdity or repeat an old one, I add it to the front page of my site. 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.
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.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
) that you can use explosives to project heavy lumps of steel into long trajectories.
