IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories » 9/11 Conspiracy Theories
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags wtc7

Reply
Old 12th January 2011, 06:10 AM   #1
achimspok
Muse
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 774
WTC7 and the NIST free fall failure

On the NIST website "Questions and Answers about the NIST WTC 7 Investigation (Updated 09/17/2010)" you find the following:

Quote:
In a video, it appears that WTC 7 is descending in free fall, something that would not occur in the structural collapse that you describe. How can you ignore basic laws of physics?

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 fašade to the lighter color of the sky.

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 timeŚcompared to the 3.9 second free fall timeŚwas 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.
http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/f..._qa_082108.cfm

That short free fall was/is discussed a lot.
I tried to "replicated" the NIST measurement.

HOW DID NIST MEASURE THE FREE FALL?

According to NIST_NCSTAR_1-9_vol2 12.5.3. NIST used the "camera 3".

That's the view NIST used for the measurement:


In the Draft Report NIST states: "The elevation of the top of the parapet wall was +925 ft. 4 in. The lowest point on the north face of WTC7 visible on the camera 3 video (section 5.7.1) prior to any downward movement was the top of windows on floor 29, which had an approximate elevation of +683 ft 6 in."


That information got lost in the final NCSTAR 1A Report.


However, just a small part of the "top of windows on floor 29" is visible.
To measure the fall of the building NIST had to measure a vertical path above the visible top of the windows.

Therefore we have to know how NIST defined the "parapet wall".

NIST defined "parapet wall" for the same elevation they defined as "roofline" in the final report.

Hence, we have to measure that path:


The following image shows that NIST was aware of a difficult problem to measure the fall down the described path:

The "screenwall" is visible above the roofline and had an elevation of about two additional floors and the lack of contrast allows no direct tracking of the roofline.


So how was NIST able to measure the fall of the perimeter wall?
They answer the question in the FAQ:
Quote:
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 fašade to the lighter color of the sky.
In other words, NIST did not measure the parapet wall! They measured the fall of the screenwall about 2 floor heights above the parapet wall. They took the time and subsequently calculated a fall speed for the smaller fall distance.

And there is a second problem with the NIST method.
The perimeter wall didn't bow downwards as visible from a different vantage.

Instead the perimeter wall stayed vertically straight even during the fall for several floors.
The motion of the perimeter wall as visible from "camera 3" is nothing but the bowing of the perimeter towards the core.


In other words, NIST measured the drop of the "screenwall" + the transition of the falling screenwall into the horizontal bowing of the perimeter wall + the transition into the vertical motion of the perimeter wall.

The red curve shows the motion NIST measured:

The fat bright blue curve is a calculated free fall.
The lower curves are the trackings of several floors in the NIST measure path. The slow onset of motion of these lower curves is the result of bowing away from the camera.

Since NIST gave the real elevations along the path it is possible to calculate the velocity for the entire motion.



That's a pretty different result.

In the Final Report as well as in the FAQ NIST described their result this way:
Quote:
* 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
The NIST "stage 1" includes about the frames 150 ... 202 of my motion tracking measurement.
That NIST "slower than free fall" stage 1 includes the following real events:
- the screenwall on top of the core started to move (frame 150...155)
- the screenwall reached about free fall (frame 156...170)
- the screenwall disappeared behind the parapet wall (frame 170)
- the perimeter wall bows towards the core (frame 170...180)
- the perimeter wall dropped above gravity (frame 180...200)

That's where stage 2 at "gravitational acceleration (free fall)" begins.
That means there is almost no vertical motion slower than freefall but for the very first 0.17 seconds AND that short amount of "slower than free fall" is probably stretched by the symmetrical averaging of the velocity over 9 frames.

So how is it possible that the perimeter dropped faster than free fall?
Simply imagine some dumbbell like object that rotates vertically and fall at the same time.


Core and perimeter were still connected by the floor system. Once the core dropped at gravitytational acceleration the core-floor-perimeter acted like a spring system. Firstly, the core pulled the perimeter inwards. Secondly, the perimeter failed at a very low elevation and was shot downwards by the "floor-springs". The falling core was slowed down at the same time until the entire system fell as one unit.
Of course the center of mass of the entire system cannot exceed gravitational acceleration but the perimeter can and it tells a lot about the intact inner structure of the upper and visible building part.

I leave it up to you to decide if either NIST did several "beginners mistakes" in a row while being very aware of the higher screenwall or if NIST just tries to hide the facts. The measurement itself is unambiguous.
achimspok is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th January 2011, 06:24 AM   #2
switchpoint
Thinker
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 142
Quote:
based on video evidence, was approximately
Kind of says it all.
switchpoint is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th January 2011, 06:25 AM   #3
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles
 
Dave Rogers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Cair Paravel, according to XKCD
Posts: 32,362
Just one point, other than that this is all futile nitpicking:

Originally Posted by achimspok View Post
In other words, NIST did not measure the parapet wall! They measured the fall of the screenwall about 2 floor heights above the parapet wall. They took the time and subsequently calculated a fall speed for the smaller fall distance.
The quote clearly states that NIST used the change in pixel colour to establish a start point for the timing of collapse. At no point does it suggest that they conflated the position of the screenwall with that of the roofline, nor that any of their measurements of position are taken from the screenwall.

Dave
__________________
There is truth and there are lies.

- President Joseph R. Biden, January 20th, 2021
Dave Rogers is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th January 2011, 07:00 AM   #4
achimspok
Muse
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 774
Originally Posted by Dave Rogers View Post
Just one point, other than that this is all futile nitpicking:



The quote clearly states that NIST used the change in pixel colour to establish a start point for the timing of collapse. At no point does it suggest that they conflated the position of the screenwall with that of the roofline, nor that any of their measurements of position are taken from the screenwall.

Dave
Right, they didn't mention a lot. But if they measured a vertical fall down to the windows they mentioned then they had no chance to measure the parapet wall especially triggered by the change of a pixel from "gray" to "sky color".

On the other hand they got the same "stages" I measured but interpreted the measured movement in the wrong way.
If they indeed would have find some way to measure the fall of the parapet wall then they would get different "stages"/"times", wouldn't they? I thought it is quite easy to understand.


Where are the 1.75 seconds (50 frames) of "slower than free fall" of the parapet wall besides the inward bowing?

...futile nitpicking, you say it.

Last edited by achimspok; 12th January 2011 at 07:36 AM.
achimspok is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th January 2011, 08:25 AM   #5
Myriad
The Clarity Is Devastating
 
Myriad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Betwixt
Posts: 17,452
Originally Posted by achimspok View Post
Where are the 1.75 seconds (50 frames) of "slower than free fall" of the parapet wall besides the inward bowing?

What inward bowing? There is bowing but I do not see any horizontal contraction of any part of the face of the building. Note that the building squashes outward horizontally in your animated gif of frames 140-170, the opposite of "inward" bowing. What you call inward bowing is, therefore, falling, at inconstant rates across the width of the facade, and at acceleration less than free fall, reflecting the start of buckling of the facade columns below.

Respectfully,
Myriad
__________________
A z°mbie once bit my sister...
Myriad is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th January 2011, 08:48 AM   #6
femr2
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 3,859
Originally Posted by Myriad View Post
What inward bowing? There is bowing but I do not see any horizontal contraction of any part of the face of the building. Note that the building squashes outward horizontally in your animated gif of frames 140-170, the opposite of "inward" bowing. What you call inward bowing is, therefore, falling, at inconstant rates across the width of the facade, and at acceleration less than free fall, reflecting the start of buckling of the facade columns below.

Respectfully,
Myriad
No, it's primarily non-vertical movement. An optical illusion from the Cam#3 viewpoint if you will. A side-effect of the global twisting of the building.
femr2 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th January 2011, 10:30 AM   #7
alienentity
Illuminator
 
alienentity's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 4,325
Originally Posted by femr2 View Post
No, it's primarily non-vertical movement. An optical illusion from the Cam#3 viewpoint if you will. A side-effect of the global twisting of the building.
Myriad's correct.

But to address the OP by achimspok....

Given that there is no evidence of controlled demolition in this collapse anyway, this is nothing but obsessive nitpicking. However...

To address one statement of yours which I think is blatantly incorrect,
'Motion of the perimeter wall as visible from "camera 3" is nothing but the bowing of the perimeter towards the core.'
It's very easy to falsify that statement as your own green line clearly shows a vertical drop of the parapet wall about midway thru the building, as well as an extensive horizontal distortion of the building.

As to whether they measured from the screenwall as you allege or the parapet wall: The first video I made examined that same question, that is - did the drop take 5.4s or not?

The answer, contrary to what you and David Chandler allege, is 'yes'.
5.4s is, as the NIST stated, 'approximately' the time it took to fall 18 floors.

Incidentally, you also attempt to muddy the waters by alleging that the video clip they used (camera 3) is somehow less accurate than another 'from a different vantage'. Funny thing that, because as it happens the second vantage is the one I used, since I wasn't aware of the Camera 3 clip at the time.
In my video I documented the vertical and horizontal motion of the building, and carefully (and correctly) identified the parapet wall, distinct and very easy to distinguish from the structures of the Penthouses and screenwall.

You allege:
'And there is a second problem with the NIST method.
The perimeter wall didn't bow downwards as visible from a different vantage.'
Yes, it does. You are incorrect again.

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF 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


Finally, you wrote an analysis regarding the behavior of the building. While I think your ideas are not without merit, they are far to generalized and simplified to correctly describe the mechanics of the collapse, IMO.
I think the NIST described, in words, much more accurately, the sequence of collapse events. And this is not really surprising, since you can't possibly infer from the videos the complex events that were taking place out of sight. For that information, even to speculate, you need to reconstruct the collapse in much greater detail, as NIST did.

btw, I find your term 'beginners mistake' really childish and frankly disingenuous. To imply that somehow teams of professional engineers are mere 'beginners' is really unconscionably disrespectful and deceitful. Really, it is you and I who are the 'beginners', and who need to learn.
Clearly, achimspok, you are choosing not to learn the facts, but instead you are attempting to obscure them through some rather transparent methods of dissembly.

I apologize for being harsh, but I really don't like dishonest people.
__________________
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'

Last edited by alienentity; 12th January 2011 at 10:32 AM.
alienentity is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th January 2011, 11:02 AM   #8
achimspok
Muse
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 774
Originally Posted by Myriad View Post
What inward bowing? There is bowing but I do not see any horizontal contraction of any part of the face of the building. Note that the building squashes outward horizontally in your animated gif of frames 140-170, the opposite of "inward" bowing. What you call inward bowing is, therefore, falling, at inconstant rates across the width of the facade, and at acceleration less than free fall, reflecting the start of buckling of the facade columns below.

Respectfully,
Myriad
Cam 3


Top view


Sorry, there is just inward bowing without vertical component prior to FREE FALL. What you call "inconstant rates" is just the transition from fall of the screenwall into bowing of the parapet wall into the falling of the perimeter. No reflecting of buckling whatsoever. The NE corner tilted north while bowing, that's it.
achimspok is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th January 2011, 11:05 AM   #9
femr2
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 3,859
Originally Posted by alienentity View Post
Myriad's correct.
The apparent vertical displacement is an optical illusion from the Cam#3 viewpoint. Go cross reference it with other viewpoints.

Quote:
To address one statement of yours which I think is blatantly incorrect,
'Motion of the perimeter wall as visible from "camera 3" is nothing but the bowing of the perimeter towards the core.'
It's very easy to falsify that statement as your own green line clearly shows a vertical drop of the parapet wall about midway thru the building, as well as an extensive horizontal distortion of the building.
You are yet again misinterpreting the effect of the Cam#3 perspective. It's not primarily vertical motion at all.

Quote:
As to whether they measured from the screenwall as you allege or the parapet wall: The first video I made examined that same question, that is - did the drop take 5.4s or not?
Not...



<5s.

Quote:
The answer, contrary to what you and David Chandler allege, is 'yes'.
5.4s is, as the NIST stated, 'approximately' the time it took to fall 18 floors.
A bad NIST value isn't made any better by adding quotes to 'approximately'.

Quote:
Incidentally, you also attempt to muddy the waters by alleging that the video clip they used (camera 3) is somehow less accurate than another 'from a different vantage'.
Incorrect. The point is showing how the viewpoint perspective affects interpretation of the motion, which you've clearly not 'got'.

Quote:
Funny thing that, because as it happens the second vantage is the one I used, since I wasn't aware of the Camera 3 clip at the time.
Hilarious

Quote:
In my video I documented the vertical and horizontal motion of the building, and carefully (and correctly) identified the parapet wall, distinct and very easy to distinguish from the structures of the Penthouses and screenwall.
...and so you did not use a point in the middle of the facade. NIST really shouldn't have either, as they messed up identifying where it actually was

etc...

Quote:
I apologize for being harsh, but I really don't like dishonest people.
Begin by being *right*.
femr2 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th January 2011, 11:10 AM   #10
JimBenArm
Based on a true story!
 
JimBenArm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 13,092
So you're saying that NIST didn't fall at free-fall velocity?
Man, that changes everything.
__________________
"JimBenArm is right" Hokulele Mom
JimBenArm is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th January 2011, 11:12 AM   #11
femr2
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 3,859
Originally Posted by Dave Rogers View Post
Just one point, other than that this is all futile nitpicking:



The quote clearly states that NIST used the change in pixel colour to establish a start point for the timing of collapse. At no point does it suggest that they conflated the position of the screenwall with that of the roofline, nor that any of their measurements of position are taken from the screenwall.

Dave
So you must, therefore, be suggesting that NIST used a different point to determine the position/time graphs included within the report... ?



Dave, What point did NIST use to generate Fig 12-76 ?
femr2 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th January 2011, 11:12 AM   #12
Myriad
The Clarity Is Devastating
 
Myriad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Betwixt
Posts: 17,452
Originally Posted by achimspok View Post
Cam 3
http://img69.imageshack.us/img69/6567/c3view.gif

Top view
http://img138.imageshack.us/img138/2995/topview.gif

Sorry, there is just inward bowing without vertical component prior to FREE FALL. What you call "inconstant rates" is just the transition from fall of the screenwall into bowing of the parapet wall into the falling of the perimeter. No reflecting of buckling whatsoever. The NE corner tilted north while bowing, that's it.

Interesting claim, but your two animated views are inconsistent. In the cameras-eye view, the left (southwest) corner moves left, apparently to be consistent with the video. In the top down view, that corner moves north and a little east, and so would not move left from the cameras-eye viewpoint or any viewpoint near it. Something's been fudged there.

Also, horizontal spreading of the wall, as depicted in the first animation, caused only by inward bowing as depicted in the second, would require the wall to stretch (without fracturing, or causing all the windows to break). Not plausible.

Respectfully,
Myriad
__________________
A z°mbie once bit my sister...
Myriad is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th January 2011, 11:17 AM   #13
achimspok
Muse
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 774
Originally Posted by alienentity View Post
Myriad's correct.

But to address the OP by achimspok....

Given that there is no evidence of controlled demolition ...
Alienentity, I know your video since you made it. I wrote you several times to correct your "beginner failures". You simply add the times of different FALLING building part divide your sum by the distance and get some slow motion collapse. I even made a little video in response called "Little debunker riddle". You obviously do not or want not understand the nonsense you have blown out into the public. So how can I explain you some problem in 3 dimensional space. After all these years, I have no idea.

Originally Posted by alienentity View Post
btw, I find your term 'beginners mistake' really childish and frankly disingenuous. To imply that somehow teams of professional engineers are mere 'beginners' is really unconscionably disrespectful and deceitful. ...
Well, if it wasn't a "beginners mistake" then it was intentionally. How do you like it?
achimspok is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th January 2011, 11:23 AM   #14
achimspok
Muse
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 774
Originally Posted by Myriad View Post
Interesting claim, but your two animated views are inconsistent.
No, they aren't. It's the same 3D model and the same animation in two different views. I just split the windows because otherwise each window would be very small.
http://img515.imageshack.us/img515/2706/move00021.png

Originally Posted by Myriad View Post
Also, horizontal spreading of the wall, as depicted in the first animation, caused only by inward bowing as depicted in the second, would require the wall to stretch (without fracturing, or causing all the windows to break). Not plausible.
Imho any vertical displacement of the wall should cause a lot of broken windows. The horizontal bowing offers the possibily of deformation between each window.
No need to stretch the wall. What for? The east side was hollowed out and tilted north while the rest of the building contracted.

Last edited by achimspok; 12th January 2011 at 11:31 AM.
achimspok is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th January 2011, 11:57 AM   #15
Dragon37
Thinker
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 192
Oh joy, yet more blather regarding the free fall. The OP goes through a hell of a lot of "study" just to throw the free fall into question. All that was achieved was to reinforce what I have always said is that in the scope of the overall collapse it means nothing. Whether it was there or not, the free fall that is, doesn't make CD any more plausible.

If the deniers ever bothered to consider the entire event, 9/11 that is, they would realize that their focusing on a few things here and there makes them look foolish. The reason they have no working hypotheses for the entire 9/11 event is because there are massive gaps that require massive generalizations and leaps of faith to explain what went down on 9/11.
Dragon37 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th January 2011, 12:07 PM   #16
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles
 
Dave Rogers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Cair Paravel, according to XKCD
Posts: 32,362
Originally Posted by femr2 View Post
So you must, therefore, be suggesting that NIST used a different point to determine the position/time graphs included within the report... ?

http://femr2.ucoz.com/_ph/7/563913536.png

Dave, What point did NIST use to generate Fig 12-76 ?
OK, you may be right. It may have been the same point.

So, we've determined that when achimspok uses a different methodology to measure the rate of fall of a different point on WTC7 using a different definition of T=0, he finds that the collapse took place at a slightly different rate. What does that tell us, other than that NIST didn't waste their time obsessing about the fine details of what happened to WTC7 after collapse initiation, when it was already certain to be completely destroyed?

Dave
__________________
There is truth and there are lies.

- President Joseph R. Biden, January 20th, 2021
Dave Rogers is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th January 2011, 12:09 PM   #17
alienentity
Illuminator
 
alienentity's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 4,325
Originally Posted by femr2 View Post

...and so you did not use a point in the middle of the facade. NIST really shouldn't have either, as they messed up identifying where it actually was

etc...
Femr2, you're tedious and repetitive. Just to clarify one of your misinterpretations/assumptions, yes, I used a point about midway.

So unroll your eyes, because you're talking wet.

Further, your constant misinterpretations of blatantly obvious details are not even entertaining, they're just plain irrelevant. Both camera angles show vertical displacement.

I measured it, Chandler measured it (but from the right corner, which moves later, as was also documented by NIST) and it's a fact. Stop trying to obfuscate - God only knows what you hope to accomplish....hoping that people will dismiss the entire report, throwing the baby out with the bathwater, so to speak?

Tell you what, I'll throw out your incorrect analysis, and stick with what I've already verified for myself.

Thanks for playing the 'attempt to revise physical reality' game.
__________________
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'
alienentity is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th January 2011, 12:15 PM   #18
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 25,832
Originally Posted by ElMondoHummus View Post
Oh good grief! It wasn't the Taliban that attacked the US, it was Al Qaeda!

How are we supposed to take criticisms seriously when basic errors of fact are so blatantly pushed? If I remember correctly (correct me if I'm wrong), I don't think a single person involved in the plot was even Afghani, and yes, I'm talking about the planning stages too.
And after ignoring the internal collapse of WTC7 and studying the facade, we have a final conclusion of fire did it.

19 terrorists did 911, as 911 truth want to be engineers are hung up on NIST, unable to comprehend an internal collapse of WTC7.

Beginner mistake or incompetence?
Quote:
Core and perimeter were still connected by the floor system.
Sources? Proof? Alas, only opinions from non-engineers with paranoid conspiracy theories.
beachnut is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th January 2011, 12:15 PM   #19
achimspok
Muse
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 774
Originally Posted by Dragon37 View Post
Oh joy, yet more blather regarding the free fall. The OP goes through a hell of a lot of "study" just to throw the free fall into question. All that was achieved was to reinforce what I have always said is that in the scope of the overall collapse it means nothing. Whether it was there or not, the free fall that is, doesn't make CD any more plausible.

If the deniers ever bothered to consider the entire event, 9/11 that is, they would realize that their focusing on a few things here and there makes them look foolish. The reason they have no working hypotheses for the entire 9/11 event is because there are massive gaps that require massive generalizations and leaps of faith to explain what went down on 9/11.
CD? Free fall means 9.81m/s▓. You can measure it. I did. Any problem about that? ...besides the constructed prerequisites for a buckled theory?
achimspok is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th January 2011, 12:17 PM   #20
alienentity
Illuminator
 
alienentity's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 4,325
Originally Posted by achimspok View Post
Well, if it wasn't a "beginners mistake" then it was intentionally. How do you like it?
False choice fallacy.

I dug thru a few of your posts on my channel, here's a sample of the kind of serial denialism of your approach:

'achimspok has replied to your comment on WTC 7 NIST Debunked Pt 1 (Hi Res):
Yes, the kerosene was smelled all over Lower Manhattan. And I would cite the Naudet Bros.: "Later they figured out that jet fuel..." That's the point. Start using your brain. Btw 10.000 gallons is non-sense. On the other hand fluids fall like fluids no matter how many gallons.
You can reply back by visiting the comments page.'

'achimspok has made a comment on WTC 7 NIST Debunked Pt 1 (Hi Res):

OK, your Jet-A traveled at 500mph into the tower took a 90░ turn to travel down the shaft... still in a tank? ...because IF the tank would be destroyed during the impact the vapor had a serious problem to travel at that speed.
So take the volume of the shafts, take a 3psi overpressure (NIST) and calculate how far the pressure could push the (burning) vapor ((little help: 77th floor)). What happens next (any other day but on 9/11)?
You can reply to this comment by visiting the comments page.'

'achimspok has made a comment on WTC 7 NIST Debunked Pt 1 (Hi Res):
And to end this near to stupid discussion: The myth of jet fuel fireballs are exactly the LESS LIKELY because you just had 3 express shafts, no falling cabins than #55, a destroyed west side, witnesses and physics. Just bring it together and don't repeat what you've been told.
You can reply to this comment by visiting the comments pag'

Yes, according to self-appointed guru, achimspok, the jet-fuel fireballs are a 'myth'.
All those eyewitnesses who reported the flames, fireballs, white smoke and jet-fuel smell in the subbasement etc... can all be safely ignored.
The victim who had his skin burned off (reported by Rodriguez) was just an illusion - that must've been done by thermite or something magic that we've never seen.

Yeah, good work achimspok. Keep fighting against the truth with all your heart. It'll get you a long way, maybe you can become the next leader of the Republican party, or work for a standup guy like Tony Blair, who would never tell a lie.
__________________
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'
alienentity is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th January 2011, 12:17 PM   #21
9/11 Chewy Defense
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 3,593
Quote:
I leave it up to you to decide if either NIST did several "beginners mistakes" in a row while being very aware of the higher screenwall or if NIST just tries to hide the facts. The measurement itself is unambiguous
The people in NIST are professionals, you are not a professional. NIST didn't hide the facts, you're just handwaving the evidence like a good Truther does on 1 of their bad days.

You know nothing about mathematics!
9/11 Chewy Defense is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th January 2011, 12:18 PM   #22
achimspok
Muse
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 774
Originally Posted by ElMondoHummus View Post
Oh good grief! ...
How are we supposed to take criticisms seriously when basic errors of fact are so blatantly pushed?
Where are the WMD?

(Sorry for being off topic.)
achimspok is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th January 2011, 12:20 PM   #23
alienentity
Illuminator
 
alienentity's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 4,325
Originally Posted by femr2 View Post
hilarious
I forgot to mention that I used the same clip Chandler did in his video.

You might mention to Chandler that he is also hilarious for not using the Camera 3 angle.

But he's a truther so I think in his case it's a stroke of genius, dontcha think?
__________________
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'
alienentity is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th January 2011, 12:22 PM   #24
9/11 Chewy Defense
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 3,593
Originally Posted by achimspok View Post
Where are the WMD?

(Sorry for being off topic.)
You mean Weapons of Mass Delusions? They're in your head!
9/11 Chewy Defense is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th January 2011, 12:23 PM   #25
alienentity
Illuminator
 
alienentity's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 4,325
Originally Posted by Dragon37 View Post
Oh joy, yet more blather regarding the free fall. The OP goes through a hell of a lot of "study" just to throw the free fall into question. All that was achieved was to reinforce what I have always said is that in the scope of the overall collapse it means nothing. Whether it was there or not, the free fall that is, doesn't make CD any more plausible.

If the deniers ever bothered to consider the entire event, 9/11 that is, they would realize that their focusing on a few things here and there makes them look foolish. The reason they have no working hypotheses for the entire 9/11 event is because there are massive gaps that require massive generalizations and leaps of faith to explain what went down on 9/11.
Exactly. Their work appears to be just an elaborate version of 'CD in the gaps'.
Any detail of the NIST reports that can be called into question is going to be conflated into 'Inside Job'
__________________
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'
alienentity is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th January 2011, 12:24 PM   #26
alienentity
Illuminator
 
alienentity's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 4,325
Originally Posted by achimspok View Post
Where are the WMD?

(Sorry for being off topic.)
Same place the Truther CD explosives are, only the WMD programs and the weapons actually existed and were destroyed by the UN.

The Truther CD explosives? They are pretty unicorn horns.
__________________
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'
alienentity is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th January 2011, 12:30 PM   #27
achimspok
Muse
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 774
Originally Posted by Dave Rogers View Post
OK, you may be right. It may have been the same point.

So, we've determined that when achimspok uses a different methodology to measure the rate of fall of a different point on WTC7 using a different definition of T=0, he finds that the collapse took place at a slightly different rate.
"when" but achimspok didn't use a different methodology or different T=0.
You can easily see that "stage 2" do not alow a lot of interpretation about T=0. It is what it is.

Originally Posted by Dave Rogers View Post
What does that tell us, other than that NIST didn't waste their time obsessing about the fine details of what happened to WTC7 after collapse initiation, when it was already certain to be completely destroyed?
It was already certain? How do we know if NIST's theory results in a slow east west disintegration of the core that never happened. Imho the disintegrated part harly could pull the north face inward. Imho the still not disintegrated part cannot either. In other words, it looks like the entire theory micht be wrong may be because NIST didn't waste their time obsessing about the fine details of what happened. They had a working theory written in the Interim report and made it fit. What difference does it make?
achimspok is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th January 2011, 12:43 PM   #28
Myriad
The Clarity Is Devastating
 
Myriad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Betwixt
Posts: 17,452
Originally Posted by achimspok View Post
No, they aren't. It's the same 3D model and the same animation in two different views. I just split the windows because otherwise each window would be very small.

You might have been told it's the same model and same movement. But it's inconsistent.

On the top down view, the southwest corner moves north and east, almost perfectly parallel to the orientation of the west wall. From any viewpoint south of the building and east of the plane of the west wall, from which the south and east walls are visible but the west wall hidden, that movement must appear as left to right. (Perspective, due to the movement of the point away from the camera, might change the magnitude of the apparent movement but cannot reverse its direction.)

The camera view, from a viewpoint south of the building and east of the plane of the west wall, from which the south and east walls are visible but the west wall is hidden, shows that corner moving right to left.

Now, if there were also vertical movement in the model, then the difference might be explained. (A vertical drop brings the corner closer to the camera, which could explain apparent right to left movement as being caused by perspective.) But wasn't your whole point that the model did not include vertical movement, that the vertical movement is just an illusion?

So, is this another case of beginner's mistake, or intentional deception?

Respectfully,
Myriad
__________________
A z°mbie once bit my sister...
Myriad is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th January 2011, 12:44 PM   #29
achimspok
Muse
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 774
Originally Posted by alienentity View Post
Both camera angles show vertical displacement.

I measured it, Chandler measured it (but from the right corner, which moves later, as was also documented by NIST) and it's a fact.
Well, the entire building tilted slightly to the east. The east corner fell at free fall, the west corner fell at free fall just a tiny little bit later, the east penthouse fell at free fall and at least the screenwall fell at freefall in a nice sequence.
You took the first falling as start and the last falling part as end and get - what a wonder - a "slower than free fall... You are wrong. You don't know what you are doing or you simply lie.

Originally Posted by alienentity View Post
Stop trying to obfuscate - God only knows what you hope to accomplish....
ditto
Originally Posted by alienentity View Post
hoping that people will dismiss the entire report, throwing the baby out with the bathwater, so to speak?
What's the name of the baby?

Originally Posted by alienentity View Post
Tell you what, I'll throw out your incorrect analysis, and stick with what I've already verified for myself.
It's your problem. I told you again and again about your mistakes in 5th grader physics you did to verify it for you and the YouTube community.
Go with god!
achimspok is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th January 2011, 12:48 PM   #30
achimspok
Muse
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 774
Originally Posted by 9/11 Chewy Defense View Post
You mean Weapons of Mass Delusions? They're in your head!
Any argument about the topic besides the babble of your Chewinggum Inquisition? What are you defending Chewy? Some physical nonsense you don't understand?
achimspok is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th January 2011, 12:50 PM   #31
achimspok
Muse
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 774
Originally Posted by alienentity View Post
Exactly. Their work appears to be just an elaborate version of 'CD in the gaps'. ...
Bunny gets frightened... CD? Has anybody said CD?
achimspok is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th January 2011, 12:52 PM   #32
achimspok
Muse
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 774
Originally Posted by alienentity View Post
...only the WMD programs and the weapons actually existed and were destroyed by the UN...
LOL You have no clue. You should read the paper sometimes.
achimspok is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th January 2011, 12:57 PM   #33
JimBenArm
Based on a true story!
 
JimBenArm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 13,092
So, why the childish namecalling? You're here to influence people with the strength of your argument, yet all you do is act like an immature, foot-stomping child.
If people don't agree with you, there are two explanations. Either you are wrong, or you haven't explained it sufficiently. Calling people ridiculous names will not change this. The responsible adult will try to find a way to make himself understood, as well as take time to examine the argument put forth by the person disagreeing with him. You are not doing either, and are making yourself look foolish, childish and frankly, not worth listening to.

But then, I know I'll get another snide remark from our oh-so-mature teacher.
__________________
"JimBenArm is right" Hokulele Mom
JimBenArm is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th January 2011, 12:57 PM   #34
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 25,832
Originally Posted by achimspok View Post
Bunny gets frightened... CD? Has anybody said CD?
Bunny not published Bunny's NIST critique. Bunny frightened? Heiwa Published nonsense letter, why Bunny no brave?

You have no conclusion? That is the first red flag of failure.
beachnut is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th January 2011, 01:08 PM   #35
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles
 
Dave Rogers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Cair Paravel, according to XKCD
Posts: 32,362
Originally Posted by achimspok View Post
It was already certain? How do we know if NIST's theory results in a slow east west disintegration of the core that never happened.
I'm trying to ascribe some meaning to this sentence. Are you arguing that the collapse of the core never happened, despite the collapse of the mechanical penthouses and the screenwall and the visibility of sky through several storeys of facade windows? Or are you suggesting that NIST's theory may have predicted some other mechanism than the actual one for the core collapse, which could somehow have been observed by more careful measurement of a different part of the structure after it had already occurred?

Or are you simply engaging in a dishonest attempt to discredit the entire NIST report by disputing one minor detail of it?

Originally Posted by achimspok View Post
Imho the disintegrated part harly could pull the north face inward. Imho the still not disintegrated part cannot either.
That sounds nicely non-falsifiable.

Originally Posted by achimspok View Post
In other words, it looks like the entire theory micht be wrong may be because NIST didn't waste their time obsessing about the fine details of what happened.
Thank you for your uninformed opinion.

Dave
__________________
There is truth and there are lies.

- President Joseph R. Biden, January 20th, 2021
Dave Rogers is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th January 2011, 01:17 PM   #36
tsig
a carbon based life-form
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 39,049
Originally Posted by JimBenArm View Post
So you're saying that NIST didn't fall at free-fall velocity?
Man, that changes everything.
You're behind on your twoofer arguments. Now NIST fell at faster than free fall and also fell slower than free fall and dustified all of which proove inside jerb.
tsig is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th January 2011, 01:19 PM   #37
JimBenArm
Based on a true story!
 
JimBenArm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 13,092
They had gerbils inside them?
Wow, the rabbit hole is deeper than I thought.
__________________
"JimBenArm is right" Hokulele Mom
JimBenArm is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th January 2011, 01:24 PM   #38
achimspok
Muse
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 774
Originally Posted by Myriad View Post
You might have been told it's the same model and same movement. But it's inconsistent.

On the top down view, the southwest corner moves north and east, almost perfectly parallel to the orientation of the west wall. From any viewpoint south of the building and east of the plane of the west wall, from which the south and east walls are visible but the west wall hidden, that movement must appear as left to right. (Perspective, due to the movement of the point away from the camera, might change the magnitude of the apparent movement but cannot reverse its direction.)
You are right. My SW corner of the model is slightly moving north. That's not the intention. That's just because of a simple surface manipulation effect that pulls in two opposite sides at the very same radius. It was done to show the effect (without wasting to much time in the tiny details so to say) of the general movement.

Originally Posted by Myriad View Post
The camera view, from a viewpoint south of the building and east of the plane of the west wall, from which the south and east walls are visible but the west wall is hidden, shows that corner moving right to left.
Oh, got it. You mean the camera view north and west of the building just like "camera 3". Do you see the towers in the background? The towers were south of WTC7.
Well, the east side was hollow and the east wall tilted north during the contraction.

Originally Posted by Myriad View Post
...But wasn't your whole point that the model did not include vertical movement, that the vertical movement is just an illusion?
That's the point. The model do not include any vertical movement of the perimeter. Just the center part of the core 3x3 columns goes straight down (even if it looks a little angular to the bowed perimeter in the end).

Respectfully[/quote]
achimspok is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th January 2011, 01:30 PM   #39
tsig
a carbon based life-form
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 39,049
Originally Posted by Dragon37 View Post
Oh joy, yet more blather regarding the free fall. The OP goes through a hell of a lot of "study" just to throw the free fall into question. All that was achieved was to reinforce what I have always said is that in the scope of the overall collapse it means nothing. Whether it was there or not, the free fall that is, doesn't make CD any more plausible.

If the deniers ever bothered to consider the entire event, 9/11 that is, they would realize that their focusing on a few things here and there makes them look foolish. The reason they have no working hypotheses for the entire 9/11 event is because there are massive gaps that require massive generalizations and leaps of faith to explain what went down on 9/11.
Yep, let's worry about the mouse in the corner and ignore the elephant trumpeting in the middle of the room.
tsig is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th January 2011, 01:31 PM   #40
achimspok
Muse
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 774
Originally Posted by JimBenArm View Post
So, why the childish namecalling? You're here to influence people with the strength of your argument, yet all you do is act like an immature, foot-stomping child.
If people don't agree with you, there are two explanations. Either you are wrong, or you haven't explained it sufficiently. Calling people ridiculous names will not change this. The responsible adult will try to find a way to make himself understood, as well as take time to examine the argument put forth by the person disagreeing with him. You are not doing either, and are making yourself look foolish, childish and frankly, not worth listening to.

But then, I know I'll get another snide remark from our oh-so-mature teacher.
Did I call someone names? No.
I think I used some kind of metaphor in the general sense.
"Bunny"! = anxious animal.
...just something like the "Truthers - Murder" metaphor. Oh, that wasn't a metaphor. That was more like name calling I guess. Some kind of comparison.
achimspok is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories » 9/11 Conspiracy Theories

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 06:23 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.