Tom,
After this reply there is only one way I will respond to you and your spin, and that is in a televised debate like you challenged me to on Hardfire through its host Ron Wieck about six to eight months ago.
I told Ron I would be glad to debate you as long as you publicly stated who you were. He said you would have to and then I didn't hear any more about it. What happened?
Misdirection & lack of response noted...
In other words, you are unwilling to make the ONE SENTENCE correction to your erroneous statement.
Here, let me DEMONSTRATE, and then help you with, your sloppiness.
You said:
Tony Szamboti said:
These methods also showed WTC 7 was undergoing full freefall acceleration during the first 2.25 seconds of its fall, which NIST admitted was true.
As several others have already noted, your mistake is your use of the word "... first..."
NO careful, precise person (not NIST, not Chandler) has claimed "WTC 7 was undergoing full freefall acceleration during the first 2.25 seconds of its fall".
NO careful person has even claimed that the "exterior walls were undergoing full freefall acceleration during the first 2.25 seconds of its fall".
For the outer walls alone:
NIST provides its raw height vs. time data, as shown in NIST NCSTAR1-9, vol 2, Fig 12-76 (pg. 602, pdf 264)
Here is a table of NIST's stated acceleration for the WTC7's north external wall over the first 2.25 seconds.
Time | Drop | Velocity | Accel | % G
(sec) | (feet) | (feet/sec) | (feet/sec2) |
0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00
0.25 | 0.0 | 0.1 | 1.1 | 3
0.50 | 0.1 | 0.6 | 3.2 | 10
0.75 | 0.4 | 1.7 | 5.8 | 18
1.00 | 1.0 | 3.6 | 9.0 | 28
1.25 | 2.2 | 6.3 | 12.5 | 39
1.50 | 4.2 | 9.9 | 16.2 | 50
1.75 | 7.2 | 14.4 | 20.1 | 62
2.00 | 11.5 | 19.9 | 23.9 | 74
2.25 | 17.3 | 26.3 | 27.5 | 85
This table was taken from a direct single (velocity) & double (accel) integration of NIST's best fit curve in Fig 12-76.
Even you, as sloppy as you are, Tony, should be able to see that NIST says that, "over the first 2.25 seconds of the outer north wall's fall, the acceleration increases gradually from 0g to 0.85g".
It most specifically does NOT say that the north wall "was undergoing full freefall acceleration during the first 2.25 seconds of its fall".
Not even Chandler, as confused as he is, says that the outer wall fell at free fall during the first 2.25 seconds. You pretty much the ONLY "engineer" on that Island of Stupid, Tony. (Lots of other sloppy truthers to keep you company, tho.)
If you actually read NIST's report with comprehension & rigor (see Table 12-2 in NCSTAR 1-9), you'll find that NIST clearly states that the north external wall begins to fall about 6.3 seconds after the start of fall of the east penthouse & about 12.9 seconds after the REAL "start of collapse of WTC7". As distinguished from the "start of collapse of the north exterior wall".
So, Tony, a COMPETENT (i.e., "non-sloppy") rendition of "what NIST really said" would read:
"NIST claims that the descent of the north face found three stages: (1) a slow descent with acceleration less than that of gravity that corresponded to the buckling of the exterior columns at the lower floors, (2) a freefall descent over approximately eight stories at gravitational acceleration for approximately 2.25 s, and (3) a decreasing acceleration as the north face encountered resistance from the structure below."
In my opinion, the best, most precise rendition of the data would read as follows.
"NIST claims that the north external wall of WTC7 began to fall about 12.9 seconds after the start of collapse. It's collapse acceleration gradually increased until, at about 2.75 seconds, it had attained an acceleration approximately equal to G. It maintained this acceleration for approximately 1 second (until about 3.75 sec), at which point its acceleration decreased significantly."
Ergo, Tony, you are shown to be sloppy. Imprecise. Erroneous. Wrong. In taking up about 12 back-and-forth posting about this trivial matter WITHOUT your bothering to provide a correction (even tho several posters have given you the answer), you are shown to be perversely argumentative.
Now, you answer me a question, Tony. Why should I bother to debate someone who cannot get some fact as trivial as this correct? Someone who has shown themselves to be unremittingly incompetent and perversely argumentative.
Tom