Continuation: 'What about building 7?'
- Thread starter jaydeehess
- Start date
-
- Tags
- wtc7
chrismohr
Master Poster
- Joined
- Mar 14, 2011
- Messages
- 2,080
I find it very interesting that Niels Harrit's own expert scientific witness in the libel case he is bringing is a scientist who supports the possibility of greater than freefall for Building 7. This from AE911: "When Per Hedegaard finally entered the court room, he looked nervous and confused. Asked specific questions by Dr. Harrit, he was unable to give direct answers. For example, even though the looping video of the collapse of WTC 7 was shown a second time during the testimony of Utzon and a third time when he took the stand, Dr. Hedegaard said he could not see any violation of physical laws. While agreeing that the collapse of WTC 7 looked close to free-fall acceleration, he noted that it was too complicated for him to say for sure.
"But what does it mean when a building is falling 9.8 metres per second squared, Per?" Harrit asked. The professor of physics said he did not know. "This means the building is in free fall, Per," Harrit elaborated. "And when a building is in free fall, is there then energy left to destroy the supporting structure?" Hedegaard's answer was confusing. He talked about how energy moved faster than free-fall and suggested that WTC 7 could have fallen even faster than free-fall.
Looks like this physicist friend of Harrit's supports femr2's observations of >g collapse of Building 7!
"But what does it mean when a building is falling 9.8 metres per second squared, Per?" Harrit asked. The professor of physics said he did not know. "This means the building is in free fall, Per," Harrit elaborated. "And when a building is in free fall, is there then energy left to destroy the supporting structure?" Hedegaard's answer was confusing. He talked about how energy moved faster than free-fall and suggested that WTC 7 could have fallen even faster than free-fall.
Looks like this physicist friend of Harrit's supports femr2's observations of >g collapse of Building 7!
ozeco41
Philosopher
femr's work proved the point but the underlying principle is basic physics.
AND remember before femr did the measurements for us many- from both sides - had accepted averaging "G".
...most of them missing the simple fact that you cannot average anything unless you have bits over and bits under.
So it was there in front of us - for those who wanted to see.
Last edited:
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
So it was there in front of us - for those who wanted to see.
The fact of the matter is, it's really not as significant as some want to claim. Someday (I suspect), they hope to find someone to show how it was.
ozeco41
Philosopher
True. In fact I would risk being stronger and stating that is is of no significance. Then - to be pedantic - it will only be significant when "they" make a reasoned case which shows the significance...
....which brings me round to your final point.
Someday (I suspect), they hope to find someone to show how it was.
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
ozeco41
Philosopher
I'm glad it is not yours - and that no royalties apply. I've lost count of the number of times I've used the quote. I'd go broke if I had to pay up.........Points down to my signature line..............
A couple of weeks back I finally got around to putting it into my text file of 9/11 snippets. Prior to that each time I needed to cut and paste I would look for one of your posts and c&p your sig.
Last edited:
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
Are you insinuating I would apply royalties?
I never asked Jay.(maybe I did, I don't remember).......I assumed he wouldn't mind.
Last edited:
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
Of course I don't mind. It's not like an attributed quote to something I said in public is something I lay awake nights worrying about.
femr's work proved the point but the underlying principle is basic physics.
AND remember before femr did the measurements for us many- from both sides - had accepted averaging "G".
...most of them missing the simple fact that you cannot average anything unless you have bits over and bits under.
So it was there in front of us - for those who wanted to see.
Not to mention the precision/margin of error taking the measurements and the fact the it was a single point which was "measured" to make the assessment. If it was average it could not LITERALLY be free fall.
LSSBB
Devilish Dictionarian
Yes, if only a certain high school physics teacher understood that. Or NIST.
BREAK
Jay, I partially quoted you on your saying earlier, without credit. I hereby belatedly credit you. This thread is a shining testimony to your observation, by the way.
tsig
a carbon based life-form
- Joined
- Nov 25, 2005
- Messages
- 39,049
If Tony's scenario were correct the towers would have looked like giant sparklers, you'd think someone would notice two mammoth sparklers emitting explosive booms.
ozeco41
Philosopher
chrismohr
Master Poster
- Joined
- Mar 14, 2011
- Messages
- 2,080
>g is VERY significant. I first suggested it as a possibility before femr's measurements came out. It was visible in the NIST Report. When I suggested it I was mocked by several 9/11 Truthers, and I'm still getting mocked for it. That's because the "zero resistance" theory of 9/11 Truth falls apart with >g, which proves other forces at play besides gravity alone. Its importance is that it is a very effective rebuttal of the CD theory.The fact of the matter is, it's really not as significant as some want to claim. Someday (I suspect), they hope to find someone to show how it was.
ozeco41
Philosopher
On first reading your comment Chris I disagreed - totally.
THEN I saw where you are coming from. From WITHIN the false context and false logic used by truthers.
The argument against CD is only valid WITHIN the framework of context and "logic" used by truthers.
Within their own false framework >G in fact contradicts their claim. But their context and claim are both wrong.
So in the valid overall context >G matters not.
And I don't see any truther admitting that their own claim self contradicts by their own rules and assumptions.You are probably more optimistic and more generous than me.
ozeco41
Philosopher
Invisible flashing lights (AKA no sparks sparklers) are on par with silent no boom explosives. Same era of technology.
Tony Szamboti
Illuminator
- Joined
- Jun 2, 2007
- Messages
- 4,976
Chris, if one accepts the NIST scenario then they believe the exterior collapsed due to a lack of lateral support from the interior.
Of course, the over g situation can happen if the interior is falling and pulling on the exterior which then reacts to an already falling interior and initially accelerates at slightly greater than g.
However, the NIST scenario has the east side interior collapsing first and then a progression from east to west. The question I have for NIST and you is how do you explain the symmetry of the exterior collapse within that paradigm.
In your scenario the east side exterior would have to remain standing after its interior support was removed and wait for the west side interior to collapse and then come down simultaneously with the west side exterior. This symmetric collapse of the east and west side exteriors seems to cause problems for your hypothesis.
On the other hand, if all 24 core columns are removed simultaneously over a significant number of stories then symmetry for the exterior collapse, and free fall or even slightly over free fall acceleration for the exterior, is explainable.
Last edited:
WilliamSeger
Philosopher
- Joined
- Nov 28, 2006
- Messages
- 5,092
How do you explain the ~1.5 second, ~7-foot fall at less than free-fall that came before that?
Here's how I explain it, with a scale drawing that shows how much bowing over 8 stories that 7-foot drop represents. I can then explain the subsequent free-fall as what happened when the 2-story column sections began to break apart at their splices. How much resistance does a broken column provide?
(ETA: I don't claim that any particular column looked exactly like this, but rather that it is a schematic representation of what that 7-foot drop really means in terms of column shortening, even when spread over 8 stories.)
Last edited:
You have failed to show a symmetrical CD.
oops, not symmetrical.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Buseb-Gqyes
OMG< there were booms, of real explosives, unlike your loud sounds of silent explosives... simile
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_QaVFGEJlXo
oops, not symmetrical... and boom, from real explosives, not your silent ones... Where do you get those silent explosives?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lcb37yyHgT8
oops, not symmetrical, must be a gravity collapse with big bangs, which sound like explosives... oops, more real sounds of explosives, and not simile
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SaBQ3AkRetI
Holy Bat tripe, another gravity collapse, faked as a CD with explosives... Where do you get thermite that does not leave products?
Gee, CD looks like what you would call a gravity collapse.
Wonder why?
CD explosives are < E=mgh of the building's PE released, by more than an order of magnitude.
Thus, when Dan Rather said WTC 7 looks like CD, he was wrong, CD is a gravity collapse, so the failure of WTC 7 in fire, was a gravity collapse caused by fire. Wait, 911 was UCD by fire; done by 10 of 19 terrorists.
UCD - fire - 19 terrorists did it. Who did your CD plot with the inside job by thousands; who planted your silent explosives and magical burns for months thermite? Who?
It is not symmetrical. Your CD has failed, there is no boom. And no thermite was found. 13 years of fail - 911 truth - aka 911 lies and fantasy
The game you are playing is, one connection "which couldn't possibly fail" was holding the whole building together.
No wonder you are finding it hard to find people to "play"