Joined: 24 Sep 2007 Posts: 515 Location: London, England
Posted: Mon Dec 15, 2008 3:24 pm Post subject: Re: NIST tries to explain away the speed of WTC7
This video is utter nonsense, just baseless accusations against NIST.
It displays the typical truther mindset - the narrator assumes that because he has posted a video on youtube, it (a) automatically IS the established truth of the matter, and (b) is in itself proof of a NIST fraud.
Basically, if NIST doesn't agree with a youtube video, it is a fraud. But then why have a NIST report at all, if all answers can be provided by truthers on youtube?
Which professionals endorse this youtube video? Which publications? Has it been put forward for debate among the scientific community? Or has it been 'laughed out of court'? I have no clue, because I've never heard of this youtube video. And neither have NIST it seems.
On the video, Sunder is basically asked a question that assumes that a youtube video which he presumably hasn't seen is more relevant than his entire NIST report. When he dishes out a stock answer (pretty much all he could possibly have done in the situation), the narrator jumps on this as evidence of fraud.
Then another NIST scientist does pretty much exactly the same to a Steven Jones question. But the narrator says he is doing this to "cover his tracks" - assumption of guilt again with no evidence to back it up.
I certainly agree that these NIST scientists didn't answer these questions very well. Why wasn't this media presentation better prepared? I think they are naive to not have considered the questions that truthers were going to ask them, but I can only assume that they know little or nothing of the truth movement, as they mix in professional circles where the truth movement is pretty much invisible.
If NIST was a fraud, and these scientists knew that, then they would have better answers ready for strange questions from truthers based on youtube videos. Why would NIST engage in a 7-year fraud and then not even be able to respond to fairly predictable truther questions? I haven't even seen the youtube video in question, yet I would be 100% sure that questions would centre around time of collapse (as they did on the twin towers).
The narrator here basically invents a series of NIST lies - he has no evidence of such. He assumes that because two figures for collapse times match in the NIST report, that they must have invented the collapse times then fiddled the data to match.
What evidence does he have to prove that they fiddled the data? None, except an assumption that they are crooks. This whole video could just be titled "We assume NIST are crooks, and so everything they do is fraudulent and everything they say is a lie".
Joined: 24 Sep 2007 Posts: 515 Location: London, England
Posted: Mon Dec 15, 2008 5:50 pm Post subject: Re: NIST tries to explain away the speed of WTC7
I've been looking around for more on Chandler's accusations.
It seems that Chandler and NIST are in agreement on many points. NIST acknowledge in the WTC7 report that the North-west corner collapsed at essentially freefall speed for some of the collapse, just as Chandler concludes.
It's actually quite unclear to me what exact point Chandler is making. If he thinks a corner of the tower collapsed in freefall for a period, and NIST agree, then what is his argument?
Posted: Mon Dec 15, 2008 7:48 pm Post subject: Re: NIST tries to explain away the speed of WTC7
Alex_V wrote:
I've been looking around for more on Chandler's accusations.
It seems that Chandler and NIST are in agreement on many points. NIST acknowledge in the WTC7 report that the North-west corner collapsed at essentially freefall speed for some of the collapse, just as Chandler concludes.
It's actually quite unclear to me what exact point Chandler is making. If he thinks a corner of the tower collapsed in freefall for a period, and NIST agree, then what is his argument?
You are missing the point (again) Alex. Chandler raised the issue because in the preliminary report NIST didn't mention freefall, it averaged the time for the first part of the collapse and came up with a drop speed somewhat slower than freefall (as it included the part at the start before the drop came). Because of Chandler, they had to amend the final report to include the fact that there was a portion (2.5 seconds or so) of freefall.
Chandler makes the point that Sunder has previously stated that a building cannot go into freefall unless all the support below has been removed as energy is needed to break down the structure - yet here we have NIST now acknowledging 2.5 seconds of freefall - yet nothing to explain how this impossible event can occur.
Joined: 24 Sep 2007 Posts: 515 Location: London, England
Posted: Mon Dec 15, 2008 10:22 pm Post subject: Re: NIST tries to explain away the speed of WTC7
KP50 wrote:
You are missing the point (again) Alex. Chandler raised the issue because in the preliminary report NIST didn't mention freefall, it averaged the time for the first part of the collapse and came up with a drop speed somewhat slower than freefall (as it included the part at the start before the drop came). Because of Chandler, they had to amend the final report to include the fact that there was a portion (2.5 seconds or so) of freefall.
As I understand it, nothing was taken out of the final report, but they added an explanation of the different phases of collapse. If it was in response to Chandler's accusations, it only clarified a point on which they agree. NIST's computer model of the collapse has always showed buckling between floors 7-14, which precisely explains the portion of the collapse of the upper floors that approximated freefall.
As I said, NIST and Chandler agree on their observations. I think even Chandler himself concedes this. What they disagree on is what caused the effects that they observed.
Quote:
Chandler makes the point that Sunder has previously stated that a building cannot go into freefall unless all the support below has been removed as energy is needed to break down the structure - yet here we have NIST now acknowledging 2.5 seconds of freefall - yet nothing to explain how this impossible event can occur.
Again, it's explained by the computer model, ie the buckling of floors 7-14.
I just don't see anything here to debate, unless the truth movement have some suggestion as why fire couldn't initiate such a collapse. I don't understand why this period of freefall collapse supports a CD hypothesis any better than a collapse hypothesis (it seems to me they would look pretty much the same).
Posted: Tue Dec 16, 2008 2:15 am Post subject: Re: NIST tries to explain away the speed of WTC7
Alex_V wrote:
I just don't see anything here to debate, unless the truth movement have some suggestion as why fire couldn't initiate such a collapse. I don't understand why this period of freefall collapse supports a CD hypothesis any better than a collapse hypothesis (it seems to me they would look pretty much the same).
Why fire couldn't initiate such a collapse? Are you serious? Freefall means that all the support has been removed - simultaneously. That isn't possible with fire which is, by its nature, rather random in its effects. Freefall for 2.5 seconds means many, many supports have to have disappeared. Do you get it yet?
CD hypothesis fits the data much better because it looks like a building being demolished. Now where's your data to show that collapse from a fire can look like that?
Joined: 24 Sep 2007 Posts: 515 Location: London, England
Posted: Tue Dec 16, 2008 1:27 pm Post subject: Re: NIST tries to explain away the speed of WTC7
KP50 wrote:
Why fire couldn't initiate such a collapse? Are you serious? Freefall means that all the support has been removed - simultaneously. That isn't possible with fire which is, by its nature, rather random in its effects. Freefall for 2.5 seconds means many, many supports have to have disappeared. Do you get it yet?
CD hypothesis fits the data much better because it looks like a building being demolished. Now where's your data to show that collapse from a fire can look like that?
NIST's report suggests that very thing. Anyone who has a serious grievance with it is welcome to criticise, but I think taking pot-shots on internet forums or youtube is not really going to cut it in the real world, where professionals with proper credentials actually work with facts.
If the truth movement plans to offer any significant criticism of NIST's report and submit it to the rigour of examination by the structural engineering community, then I welcome that development. After years of whinging on internet sites, and producing next to nothing of any significance whatsoever, I won't be holding my breath.
But there's the nub of the problem. The truth movement, in it's arrogance, keeps proclaiming 'the argument is already won', despite having done nothing of any significance to prove this. And then they wonder why they are ignored.
Posted: Tue Dec 16, 2008 7:55 pm Post subject: Re: NIST tries to explain away the speed of WTC7
Alex_V wrote:
KP50 wrote:
Why fire couldn't initiate such a collapse? Are you serious? Freefall means that all the support has been removed - simultaneously. That isn't possible with fire which is, by its nature, rather random in its effects. Freefall for 2.5 seconds means many, many supports have to have disappeared. Do you get it yet?
CD hypothesis fits the data much better because it looks like a building being demolished. Now where's your data to show that collapse from a fire can look like that?
NIST's report suggests that very thing. Anyone who has a serious grievance with it is welcome to criticise, but I think taking pot-shots on internet forums or youtube is not really going to cut it in the real world, where professionals with proper credentials actually work with facts.
If the truth movement plans to offer any significant criticism of NIST's report and submit it to the rigour of examination by the structural engineering community, then I welcome that development. After years of whinging on internet sites, and producing next to nothing of any significance whatsoever, I won't be holding my breath.
But there's the nub of the problem. The truth movement, in it's arrogance, keeps proclaiming 'the argument is already won', despite having done nothing of any significance to prove this. And then they wonder why they are ignored.
What do you think though Alex? You bang on and on like a broken record about professionals and science and the consensus of the scientific community but what do you think? Or do you actually think at all? I've seen no signs of it yet but I live in hope. It isn't that hard to work out, is it? You know what fire can do to steel? And that WTC7 looked like a demolition. Explain to me how fire can imitate demolition because frankly, I think it is impossible.
Even if you set fires in a large tower and tried to co-ordinate them so that key support columns all reached "melting point" at the same time (having of course set the conditions of forcing air onto the fire to reach such a temperature) I still think it is impossible to replicate the free fall of a demolition. The fact that NIST has a computer model proves absolutely nothing other than that they have a computer model.
Joined: 24 Sep 2007 Posts: 515 Location: London, England
Posted: Tue Dec 16, 2008 9:25 pm Post subject: Re: NIST tries to explain away the speed of WTC7
KP50 wrote:
What do you think though Alex? You bang on and on like a broken record about professionals and science and the consensus of the scientific community but what do you think? Or do you actually think at all? I've seen no signs of it yet but I live in hope. It isn't that hard to work out, is it? You know what fire can do to steel? And that WTC7 looked like a demolition. Explain to me how fire can imitate demolition because frankly, I think it is impossible.
Even if you set fires in a large tower and tried to co-ordinate them so that key support columns all reached "melting point" at the same time (having of course set the conditions of forcing air onto the fire to reach such a temperature) I still think it is impossible to replicate the free fall of a demolition. The fact that NIST has a computer model proves absolutely nothing other than that they have a computer model.
This is nothing but a series of strawmen. Nobody claims that key support columns all reached melting point at the same time. Nobody claims that collapses in demolitions are freefall. Nobody suggests that fire imitates demolition. Nobody says that the fire needed air forced upon it to reach certain temperatures?!! Or that the collapse initiation had to be exactly simultaneous among all columns.
No offence, but this sounds like fantasy piled on fantasy. I have no idea what people who 'think' in the truth movement believe needs to be proven about WTC7, or whether it is remotely relevant to the issue of proving some some conspiracy.
Your suggestion that I will see some truth if I just think about it scares me a little. I know that people find their own truth in the strangest of places. People tell me that God speaks to them at night, that they see ghosts, that there are strange patterns in dates and numbers that foretell events.
I just think all of this is irrelevant to any discussion of the analysis of these collapses, or any version of the scientific method that I have ever heard of. I think this is evasion, basically - in the absence of any official truth that suits the conspiratorial mind, we invent our own.
All I suggest is that discussion of these NIST reports and the collapses in general be conducted in credible channels. I don't think that's an outlandish suggestion to make.
Why should the truth movement, which has produced next to nothing of any significance whatsoever to criticise either of NIST's reports, be treated as having any credibility by me or anyone else?
Joined: 12 Sep 2006 Posts: 3889 Location: North Down, N. Ireland
Posted: Tue Dec 16, 2008 10:13 pm Post subject:
Alex, apart from the opportunity to bandy ad homs around, I'm not at all sure what your argument is exactly.
NIST have admitted a freefall speed was attained for 2.5 seconds.
While to you this is about equal to the time it takes to speak the words "So what, eh?", in WTC7 terms given an acceleration at one gravity of 32ft/s^2 it means distance.
A 741 ft steel framed and cored building symmetrically falling 112ft (or 15% of its own height) in those 2.5 seconds encountered no resistance whatsoever. The NIST hypothesized failure of a single beam completely negated the support afforded by 11 entire floors.
You find NIST's misleading assumptions perfectly acceptable, because a government mouthpiece said so.
We do not. _________________ Dissolution of the Global Corporations.
It's the only way.
Posted: Tue Dec 16, 2008 10:56 pm Post subject: Re: NIST tries to explain away the speed of WTC7
Alex_V wrote:
This is nothing but a series of strawmen. Nobody claims that key support columns all reached melting point at the same time. Nobody claims that collapses in demolitions are freefall. Nobody suggests that fire imitates demolition. Nobody says that the fire needed air forced upon it to reach certain temperatures?!! Or that the collapse initiation had to be exactly simultaneous among all columns.
Are you being deliberately obtuse Alex? At least try to understand the implications of freefall instead of droning on and on about the scientific method. Otherwise you just embarrass yourself and waste my time.
Joined: 24 Sep 2007 Posts: 515 Location: London, England
Posted: Wed Dec 17, 2008 12:41 am Post subject:
chek wrote:
Alex, apart from the opportunity to bandy ad homs around, I'm not at all sure what your argument is exactly.
NIST have admitted a freefall speed was attained for 2.5 seconds.
While to you this is about equal to the time it takes to speak the words "So what, eh?", in WTC7 terms given an acceleration at one gravity of 32ft/s^2 it means distance.
A 741 ft steel framed and cored building symmetrically falling 112ft (or 15% of its own height) in those 2.5 seconds encountered no resistance whatsoever. The NIST hypothesized failure of a single beam completely negated the support afforded by 11 entire floors.
You find NIST's misleading assumptions perfectly acceptable, because a government mouthpiece said so.
We do not.
All I ask is that you prove your points. This is the only way to proceed. Otherwise, why should anyone take you seriously?
I think I'm right that NIST said that the north face was in freefall for 2.25 seconds, not 2.5.
As it stands, I don't even know where this idea that the collapse was symmetrical ever came from - certainly not from NIST. If you could prove that the collapse WAS symmetrical then NIST's report is entirely flawed on that basis alone.
Joined: 24 Sep 2007 Posts: 515 Location: London, England
Posted: Wed Dec 17, 2008 12:57 am Post subject: Re: NIST tries to explain away the speed of WTC7
KP50 wrote:
Alex_V wrote:
This is nothing but a series of strawmen. Nobody claims that key support columns all reached melting point at the same time. Nobody claims that collapses in demolitions are freefall. Nobody suggests that fire imitates demolition. Nobody says that the fire needed air forced upon it to reach certain temperatures?!! Or that the collapse initiation had to be exactly simultaneous among all columns.
Are you being deliberately obtuse Alex? At least try to understand the implications of freefall instead of droning on and on about the scientific method. Otherwise you just embarrass yourself and waste my time.
As I say, I totally disagree with your approach. You are listing a series of conditions that you imply have to be met for WTC7 to have collapsed, but I have simply no idea where you have plucked them from. Either your own imagination, or somebody elses.
You are arguing that the idea that key support columns reached 'melting point' at the same time is almost impossible in a collapse, but this is not NIST's analysis at all. You are attacking a made-up theory that nobody subscribes to.
NIST also doesn't claim that collapse initiation had to be simultaneous along all columns. Who does claim this? Where is this theory proven? I think it's pulled out of a hat nonsense.
Which demolitions are freefall? Is a freefall collapse a common occurence in a demoltion? More common than freefall in a collapse? What is the difference between a CD and a collapse, in terms of WTC7? Would we even be able to tell the difference?
Posted: Wed Dec 17, 2008 3:24 am Post subject: Re: NIST tries to explain away the speed of WTC7
Alex_V wrote:
As I say, I totally disagree with your approach. You are listing a series of conditions that you imply have to be met for WTC7 to have collapsed, but I have simply no idea where you have plucked them from. Either your own imagination, or somebody elses.
I am looking at conditions to be met for the building to go into freefall - that is there must be no support at all for that period of time.
Alex_V wrote:
You are arguing that the idea that key support columns reached 'melting point' at the same time is almost impossible in a collapse, but this is not NIST's analysis at all. You are attacking a made-up theory that nobody subscribes to.
You are confused - I am looking into how all of these support columns would have to stop supporting simultaneously which is a condition for the building to go into freefall.
Alex_V wrote:
NIST also doesn't claim that collapse initiation had to be simultaneous along all columns. Who does claim this? Where is this theory proven? I think it's pulled out of a hat nonsense.
It is a condition of freefall - if there is support the building will collapse slower or collapse unevenly or both.
Alex_V wrote:
Which demolitions are freefall? Is a freefall collapse a common occurence in a demoltion? More common than freefall in a collapse? What is the difference between a CD and a collapse, in terms of WTC7? Would we even be able to tell the difference?
Demolitions aim to use gravity to bring the building down by simultaneously destroying the supports of the building. I hear it is very tricky. If accomplished successfully, the building will effectively go into freefall. A demolition attempts to bring a building down within its own footprint to prevent damage to surrounding buildings.
I do not know of any large steel-framed building that has completely collapsed due to fire, maybe you can find some so we can see whether it came down in freefall.
There, that wasted another 10 minutes of my life. You do realise that NIST used a computer model based on the theoretical temperature of fires they couldn't see. In other words, they guessed. It might be a long report, but it is still a guess.
Joined: 24 Sep 2007 Posts: 515 Location: London, England
Posted: Wed Dec 17, 2008 12:45 pm Post subject: Re: NIST tries to explain away the speed of WTC7
KP50 wrote:
I am looking at conditions to be met for the building to go into freefall - that is there must be no support at all for that period of time.
Well NIST's hypothesis and computer models suggest that the cause of this lack of support was floors 7-14, as the initiating columns that buckled caused internal collapses that eventually pulled the core down and the exterior facades down with it. Hence the period of freefall as the upper section fell through floors 7-14 (in broad terms).
Quote:
You are confused - I am looking into how all of these support columns would have to stop supporting simultaneously which is a condition for the building to go into freefall.
They don't. It is not a 'condition of freefall'. NIST show that a series of events caused by the buckling of one column brought about this effect.
Let's say, hypothetically, that it was the last remaining columns that buckled removing any support for the upper section - would that suit you? Rather than all the columns going at once 'simultaneously', there was a bunch of them that went as part of a chain reaction, and then the last remaining ones, holding up the upper section at some extreme strain, simply couldn't cope and buckled. Is that possible? What would happen then? Freefall?
Quote:
Demolitions aim to use gravity to bring the building down by simultaneously destroying the supports of the building. I hear it is very tricky. If accomplished successfully, the building will effectively go into freefall. A demolition attempts to bring a building down within its own footprint to prevent damage to surrounding buildings.
In other words, demolition causes a guided collapse. Hardly surprising that a demolition and a collapse may theoretically look similar, especially when the initiating event occurs lower in the building. If WTC7 did collapse, due to support being removed lower in the building, it would/could look like a demolition, and involve a period of freefall.
Quote:
I do not know of any large steel-framed building that has completely collapsed due to fire, maybe you can find some so we can see whether it came down in freefall.
It depends what you mean by large. Plenty of large steel structures have collapsed due to fire, and no doubt freefall was involved, as it would be in any collapse.
Any collapse, and any demolition, will involve a period of freefall. Is that a correct statement? I think so.
Quote:
There, that wasted another 10 minutes of my life. You do realise that NIST used a computer model based on the theoretical temperature of fires they couldn't see. In other words, they guessed. It might be a long report, but it is still a guess.
Joined: 12 Sep 2006 Posts: 3889 Location: North Down, N. Ireland
Posted: Wed Dec 17, 2008 3:49 pm Post subject:
Alex_V wrote:
As it stands, I don't even know where this idea that the collapse was symmetrical ever came from - certainly not from NIST. If you could prove that the collapse WAS symmetrical then NIST's report is entirely flawed on that basis alone.
Good luck with it.
You're quite correct Alex, it was only 2.25 seconds of 1G freefall which is only 8 stories of absolutely nothing/nada/zilcho impeding the downward fall of Building 7. Thank God you pointed that out or I might have thought something was amiss...
symmetrical adj.: having similarity in size, shape, and relative position of corresponding parts (emphasis added).
How times change. At least with the Randi band of Government Loyalists a couple of years ago, they were politic enough to invent reasons (however far fetched) to explain why any event whatsoever that happened on 11/9/2001 was entirely innocent. (Anyone else remember how they postulated that the debris shower rubbed itself to a visible-from-orbit hotspot by ... friction? Oh, how we laughed....) Rather than denying its occurrence altogether.
Alex, this tactic of putting a telescope to your blind eye and seeing no ships is, as KP points out, a monumental waste of everybody's time.
If you can watch the fall of WTC7 - with no lateral deviation whatsoever - and claim "I don't even know where this idea that the collapse was symmetrical ever came from" without showing yourself to possess a limited grasp of language and meaning, then good luck to you too. _________________ Dissolution of the Global Corporations.
It's the only way.
Joined: 24 Sep 2007 Posts: 515 Location: London, England
Posted: Fri Dec 19, 2008 2:40 am Post subject:
chek wrote:
If you can watch the fall of WTC7 - with no lateral deviation whatsoever - and claim "I don't even know where this idea that the collapse was symmetrical ever came from" without showing yourself to possess a limited grasp of language and meaning, then good luck to you too.
I just don't think there is any symmetry to the way the building collapsed, if you take the NIST models as a guide. I am happy for you to describe the collapses as symmetrical, but I wouldn't want you accusing NIST of making that claim, because in their models the collapse seems anything but symmetrical (imo).
At the same time, I know what (I think) you mean - you are talking about video footage whereby one face of the building seems to fall in a fairly uniform fashion. It certainly is swift, and I agree that no part of the building seems to hover in the air defying gravity.
But I stand by my initial point - tit for tat on an internet forum means next to nothing. Whatever you want to prove you have to go out there and prove it. I want the truth movement, if it's to be genuinely useful, to produce something that I cannot just dismiss as half-baked.
However one wishes to evaluate the NIST report, one should bear in mind that the seismographic records showed a collapse time of about 18 seconds for Building 7.
All of the more popular shorter time-estimates such as 6.5 seconds are based upon film clips which don't always show enough to serve as a sole source. The fact that a portion of the building may have fallen at free-fall speed for 2.25 seconds is not as odd as people make it sound when one considers that Building 7 was not as much of a top-down collapse as occurred with the Towers. To the extent that some lower floors give out before a part of the top begins collapsing one may expect the later collapse of this top part to reflect the loss of support beneath it. But the seismographic record makes it clear that we do not have a free-fall collapse in Building 7.
However one wishes to evaluate the NIST report, one should bear in mind that the seismographic records showed a collapse time of about 18 seconds for Building 7.
All of the more popular shorter time-estimates such as 6.5 seconds are based upon film clips which don't always show enough to serve as a sole source. The fact that a portion of the building may have fallen at free-fall speed for 2.25 seconds is not as odd as people make it sound when one considers that Building 7 was not as much of a top-down collapse as occurred with the Towers. To the extent that some lower floors give out before a part of the top begins collapsing one may expect the later collapse of this top part to reflect the loss of support beneath it. But the seismographic record makes it clear that we do not have a free-fall collapse in Building 7.
So what you are suggesting is that -
Yes, part of the collapse we did see was very close to free fall
Yes, the collapse was accelerating
BUT
We didn't see the last part of the collapse
SO
It is rational to believe that the second the collapse was out of sight it stopped accelerating and actually slowed down DRASTICALLY - so much so that the caluclated 6.5 approx second collapse worked out from assuming the collapse continued at the same rate of acceleration was in fact out by TWELVE POINT FIVE SECONDS...
IN OTHER WORDS
The collapse sudenly changed to a matrix style and utterly surreal super slow motion progression, as soon as we could no longer see it...
Are you by any chance on crack?
Seismic records could of course relate to explosions going on as part of a controlled demolition - but let's not be irrational eh?
The sudden super slow motion theory is far more suitable.... _________________
Or even the first part necessarily. Film clippings can give the impression that a collapse begins at a certain point when it may have in fact started earlier and yet not be visible on the basis of just films. That's why one needs to consult both the seismographs and films rather than just using whichever is convenient.
Or even the first part necessarily. Film clippings can give the impression that a collapse begins at a certain point when it may have in fact started earlier and yet not be visible on the basis of just films. That's why one needs to consult both the seismographs and films rather than just using whichever is convenient.
Joined: 24 Sep 2007 Posts: 515 Location: London, England
Posted: Tue Dec 23, 2008 5:38 pm Post subject: Re: NIST tries to explain away the speed of WTC7
chrisc wrote:
Alex_V wrote:
Any collapse, and any demolition, will involve a period of freefall. Is that a correct statement? I think so.
So you have some documented examples to back up your statement...?
No I don't. Theoretically I think the statement is true. Do you disagree?
What I am trying to say is that, where there is little or no support for a mass, no matter what the cause, the mass will fall.
If I understand the truther approach properly, there seems to be some suggestion that a period of 2.25 seconds of freefall is too much to expect in the case of WTC7. I would like to know why. At what point does an amount of freefall in a collapse become suspicious, or even impossible?
Quote:
This is the part of the final NIST report on this:
It is NIST's explanation of the descent of the north face of the building, yes.
Joined: 24 Sep 2007 Posts: 515 Location: London, England
Posted: Tue Dec 23, 2008 7:23 pm Post subject: Re: NIST tries to explain away the speed of WTC7
chrisc wrote:
Alex_V wrote:
chrisc wrote:
Alex_V wrote:
Any collapse, and any demolition, will involve a period of freefall. Is that a correct statement? I think so.
So you have some documented examples to back up your statement...?
No I don't. Theoretically I think the statement is true. Do you disagree?
Since you lack any evidence for your assertion it's lacking in credibility.
I don't understand what you are saying. Do you disagree? I think the assertion has to be basically true, so I don't think it lacks any credibility at all. If you disagree with it I'll try and prove it to your satisfaction, but if you DO agree with it then say so and let's move onto something more interesting.
Quote:
Alex_V wrote:
What I am trying to say is that, where there is little or no support for a mass, no matter what the cause, the mass will fall.
Freefall acceleration implies no support for a mass.
We're in agreement on this issue.
If I understand the truther approach properly, there seems to be some suggestion that a period of 2.25 seconds of freefall is too much to expect in the case of WTC7. I would like to know why. At what point does an amount of freefall in a collapse become suspicious, or even impossible?
Posted: Tue Dec 23, 2008 8:01 pm Post subject: Re: NIST tries to explain away the speed of WTC7
Alex_V wrote:
chrisc wrote:
Alex_V wrote:
chrisc wrote:
Alex_V wrote:
Any collapse, and any demolition, will involve a period of freefall. Is that a correct statement? I think so.
So you have some documented examples to back up your statement...?
No I don't. Theoretically I think the statement is true. Do you disagree?
Since you lack any evidence for your assertion it's lacking in credibility.
I don't understand what you are saying.
I'm saying please show me the other examples of buildings collapsing with a free fall acceleration.
Quote:
Alex_V wrote:
What I am trying to say is that, where there is little or no support for a mass, no matter what the cause, the mass will fall.
Freefall acceleration implies no support for a mass.
Alex_V wrote:
We're in agreement on this issue.
If I understand the truther approach properly, there seems to be some suggestion that a period of 2.25 seconds of freefall is too much to expect in the case of WTC7. I would like to know why.
Because, as NIST said, it equates to 8 stories of the building -- 8 stories that appear to cease to exist in less than 2 seconds...
Joined: 24 Sep 2007 Posts: 515 Location: London, England
Posted: Tue Dec 23, 2008 8:24 pm Post subject: Re: NIST tries to explain away the speed of WTC7
chrisc wrote:
Alex_V wrote:
chrisc wrote:
Alex_V wrote:
chrisc wrote:
Alex_V wrote:
Any collapse, and any demolition, will involve a period of freefall. Is that a correct statement? I think so.
So you have some documented examples to back up your statement...?
No I don't. Theoretically I think the statement is true. Do you disagree?
Since you lack any evidence for your assertion it's lacking in credibility.
I don't understand what you are saying.
I'm saying please show me the other examples of buildings collapsing with a free fall acceleration.
You really know how to dodge a point, well done. You simply will not say whether or not you disagree with the idea. I could just turn around and say "Please show me an example of a building collapsing without any freefall acceleration".
Do you expect me to have data of collapse times throughout history to back up what was an idea that I think is theoretically true? I don't, and you obviously know that. But I cannot see a case where it wouldn't be true. How does anything collapse - in a sort of slow-motion sink? Buildings with supports made out of sponge could collapse in this way.
I think you have taken a small point that I think anyone would reasonably accept is probably true, and you have turned it into a focus of the debate, without ever making any counter point or even stating an opinion on the issue. It comes across as obfuscation - if you disagree with me, then say or prove so.
Quote:
Alex_V wrote:
We're in agreement on this issue.
If I understand the truther approach properly, there seems to be some suggestion that a period of 2.25 seconds of freefall is too much to expect in the case of WTC7. I would like to know why.
Because, as NIST said, it equates to 8 stories of the building -- 8 stories that appear to cease to exist in less than 2 seconds...
Any free fall acceleration is unexpected -- in the case of WTC1 it was a lot less than with WTC7, more like 2 or 3 stories worth of free fall.
Where does NIST say they 'cease to exist'? - you make it sound like the twilight zone.
If I understand correctly, NIST suggest that any support for the upper part of the building is removed from floors 7-14. The expected result of this is freefall of the north face for 8 floors. Is this an unexpected result? - not in my opinion, it is the entirely expected result if the support is removed from floors 7-14. What else can the upper part of the building do?
You say 'any freefall acceleration is unexpected', but I say that is entirely untrue, given the circumstances that NIST are suggesting.
IF freefall is unexpected, or suspicious, or impossible, then you have a point against NIST's version of events. This is the challenge - it has to be proven that it is unexpected, or suspicious, or impossible. And a quick hint - just saying it is not enough.
Because of the lack of any alternative theory, or any proof that the WTC7 report is wrong on the issue, I side with NIST. What else is any reasonable person to do?
Posted: Tue Dec 23, 2008 8:28 pm Post subject: Re: NIST tries to explain away the speed of WTC7
Alex_V wrote:
If I understand the truther approach properly,?
Hmm interesting concept, curious even. So non Truthers deal in? Lies Disinfo?
I would have thought you were following a path of your own truth findings? So you're not a Truther then?? _________________ 'Come and see the violence inherent in the system.
Help, help, I'm being repressed!'
“The more you tighten your grip, the more Star Systems will slip through your fingers.”
Posted: Tue Dec 23, 2008 8:41 pm Post subject: Re: NIST tries to explain away the speed of WTC7
Alex_V wrote:
I could just turn around and say "Please show me an example of a building collapsing without any freefall acceleration".
Well perhaps someone has done the same type of measurements on videos of controlled demolitions, I'd be interested in seeing them. I suspect that they would show that the distance a building falls with free fall acceleration, if any, equates to the number of stories explosively removed. I expect most controlled demolitions don't achieve any free fall acceleration because the point is to get the mass of the building to assist in the demolition and if it's assisting in the demolition then it's not going to be accelerating with a free fall rate...
Alex_V wrote:
Where does NIST say they 'cease to exist'? - you make it sound like the twilight zone.
If I understand correctly, NIST suggest that any support for the upper part of the building is removed from floors 7-14.
Joined: 24 Sep 2007 Posts: 515 Location: London, England
Posted: Tue Dec 23, 2008 11:38 pm Post subject: Re: NIST tries to explain away the speed of WTC7
chrisc wrote:
So what happened to the structure of these 7 floors in the first 1.75 seconds -- it appears to me that they did in effect cease to exist -- the structure clearly ceased to support the building...
Agreed. If you want to disagree with NIST's findings you will have to look at their explanation of how that could have happened.
If however you just want to believe that it could not happen, there's little point referring to NIST at all.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum You cannot attach files in this forum You cannot download files in this forum
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Chat
Usergroups
Calendar
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
