29 Structural & Civil Engineers Cite Evidence for Controlled Explosive Demolition

[tfk]

Funny, I just watched this guy Chandler's video. He rants on about how NIST tries to hide all kinds of things. But strangely, his summary of what he really thinks happened (in terms of falling), is exactly what I get out of the NIST report. Also, what I get out of his method of analysis is that +/- 2% accuracy is probably generous.

H,

(Care to give a clue as to the etymology of your name??)

±2% ...?? Not with his technique.

±10% ...? Maybe.

There is one specific step that Chandler takes that enables all of his controversial statements. Have you picked up what it is yet?

I'm about to post on this very issue. As soon as Christopher gets back with his "analysis".

tom

 

[H'ethetheth]

H,

(Care to give a clue as to the etymology of your name??)

Yes. On the evening I decided to finally register at this forum I had watched a few episodes of this show:

±10% ...? Maybe.

Well, I don't think it's that bad. It's bad enough though.

There is one specific step that Chandler takes that enables all of his controversial statements. Have you picked up what it is yet?

No, sorry. What struck me was the lack of controversial statements. I'll take a better look at his stuff.

ETA: Unless you mean that he says free fall can only happen with no resistance.

I'm about to post on this very issue. As soon as Christopher gets back with his "analysis".

tom

I look forward to it.

 

[H'ethetheth]

While googling I also found this great post on another forum:
http://the911forum.freeforums.org/david-chandler-measures-absolute-free-fall-in-wtc-7-t79.html#p1050

This is the kind of problem we're talking about, Christopher. A measurement is meaningless without an error margin.

 

[jhunter1163]

Isn't the term for intellectually honest truther an "ex-truther"?

Today's Golden Guffaw winnah!

 

[tfk]

H,

That was a pretty damn silly video. From where?

While googling I also found this great post on another forum:
http://the911forum.freeforums.org/david-chandler-measures-absolute-free-fall-in-wtc-7-t79.html#p1050

This is the kind of problem we're talking about, Christopher. A measurement is meaningless without an error margin.

I have a real problem with Dr. G's (is this Greening?) empirical equations.

The original plot fits to:

Drop = -0.077t^3 + 4.8433t^2 -0.2123 t + 0.0669

And the plot shifted by 0.1 seconds gives:

Drop = -0.0176t^3 + 4.4721t^2 - 0.5854t + 0.0034

Neither of them satisfy the required initial condition that z0 = v0 = a0 = 0 (@ t = 0).

Other than that...

tom

 

[H'ethetheth]

H,

That was a pretty damn silly video. From where?

It's from a show called "the fast show".

I have a real problem with Dr. G's (is this Greening?) empirical equations.

Neither of them satisfy the required initial condition that z0 = v0 = a0 = 0 (@ t = 0).

I had the impression he wanted to approximate only the freefall phase, which (unlike Chistopher now claims) doesn't have these initial conditions. But what I like most about it is that it illustrates how easily an error of over ±6% arises in an analysis like this.

 

[tfk]

No, sorry. What struck me was the lack of controversial statements. I'll take a better look at his stuff.

In his videos explaining what he did, Chandler sounds like a reasonable guy.

It is when he takes his (erroneous) results and concludes that all the much more qualified engineers at NIST are a) incompetent and b) corrupt liars, that he crosses the line for me.

I understand that this topic gets people polarized. I understand that people get entrenched in their positions. I do NOT understand the arrogance it takes to accuse many 100s of experts, whom you do not know, of incompetence & corruption. Especially when you are accusing them relating to topics that are outside of your own field of expertise.

BTW, this IS out of Mr. Chandler's field, which is teaching a rudimentary level of physics. This is engineering. Much different.

Tom

 

[H'ethetheth]

In his videos explaining what he did, Chandler sounds like a reasonable guy.

It is when he takes his (erroneous) results and concludes that all the much more qualified engineers at NIST are a) incompetent and b) corrupt liars, that he crosses the line for me.

I understand that this topic gets people polarized. I understand that people get entrenched in their positions. I do NOT understand the arrogance it takes to accuse many 100s of experts, whom you do not know, of incompetence & corruption. Especially when you are accusing them relating to topics that are outside of your own field of expertise.

BTW, this IS out of Mr. Chandler's field, which is teaching a rudimentary level of physics. This is engineering. Much different.

Tom

Sure, but I got used to that attitude soon after my first contact with members of the truth movement. Paranoid confirmation bias; potent stuff.

Is he one of the 29 engineers currently more or less under discussion?

 

[Christopher7]

Here's the data:

The NIST point started moving down about 1s before the north corner. This is consistent with the video.

It moved down 7 feet in 1.75s, paused momentarily and started falling at free fall acceleration.

The north corner moved down about 3 feet in about .3s, paused momentarily and started falling at free fall acceleration.

The graphs were done using different programs and different points, yet they are almost identical. that's conformation beyond a reasonable doubt.

 

[tfk]

Sure, but I got used to that attitude soon after my first contact with members of the truth movement. Paranoid confirmation bias; potent stuff.

Is he one of the 29 engineers currently more or less under discussion?

I don't believe so. I believe that they are talking about a bunch of the ae911 guys. I could be wrong about that.

Chandler is not an engineer, of course. He is a high school physics teacher.

tom

 

[Newtons Bit]

Here's the data:

[qimg]http://img34.imageshack.us/img34/5822/graphcompare.jpg[/qimg]

The NIST point started moving down about 1s before the north corner. This is consistent with the video.

It moved down 7 feet in 1.75s, paused momentarily and started falling at free fall acceleration.

The north corner moved down about 3 feet in about .3s, paused momentarily and started falling at free fall acceleration.

The graphs were done using different programs and different points, yet they are almost identical. that's conformation beyond a reasonable doubt.

Yes, it's confirmation that an object with nothing below it falls at roughly the acceleration of gravity.

Are you expecting a Nobel prize?

 

[hokie]

The graphs were done using different programs and different points, yet they are almost identical. that's conformation beyond a reasonable doubt.

Remember C7 if the error is large, then two distinct methods might look the same.

The $64 question is, "How good are the numbers?"

There is a great peer reviewed paper in which it is reported that the numbers people have been publishing have a 42% possible error.

Just in case you have a weird idea the answer is not 0!

 

[Justin39640]

another collapse

hope someone enjoys watching these lol
but they basically all say the same thing
no matter how i remove the support the result is the same for the most part
falls straight down
although this is really only a slight demo in the simplest of formats



the choppiness is not slow-mo
its my computer rendering and crunching numbers to figure out how the over 1000 parts should interact based on the physics engine

this video was sped up 8 times
my PC isnt a slouch either
its a 1 1/2 yr old high end gaming computer
goes to show how complex the models that NIST built are

 

[hokie]

No matter how well a job is done, ther are always the weenies that complain.

 

[Stellafane]

My God, you mean to tell me that Truthers are still at it?? And after almost 8 years, and all their so-called research, they are only now just getting around to the stupifiying discovery that when an object falls, it initially (brace yourself now) isn't moving and then, through some unknown and seemingly unfathomable force, it starts moving faster and faster?

I used to be fairly active in this forum, but sheesh -- what is there left to say to someone who is just now getting around to realize we live on a planet that has this mysterious thing called "gravity." Or maybe the thinking here is that gravity was invented by the NWO as a tool to...to...(oh what the hell)....bring everybody down?

 

[Hokulele]

<snip>

Or maybe the thinking here is that gravity was invented by the NWO as a tool to...to...(oh what the hell)....bring everybody down?

http://www.theonion.com/content/node/39512

 

[Christopher7]

Yes, it's confirmation that an object with nothing below it falls at roughly the acceleration of gravity.

Thank you for acknowledging that WTC 7 fell at free fall acceleration.

Both graphs show sudden onset of free fall acceleration after moving down a few feet and pausing momentarily. Suddenly there was nothing to resist the upper portion for about 100 feet.

 

[tfk]

Here's the data:

http://img34.imageshack.us/img34/5822/graphcompare.jpg

The NIST point started moving down about 1s before the north corner. This is consistent with the video.

It moved down 7 feet in 1.75s, paused momentarily and started falling at free fall acceleration.

The north corner moved down about 3 feet in about .3s, paused momentarily and started falling at free fall acceleration.

The graphs were done using different programs and different points, yet they are almost identical. that's conformation beyond a reasonable doubt.

You've got NO idea what you are talking about, do you? You're just pulling snippets of verbiage from here & there & stringing them together, aint cha?

Well, you don't have to bother with NIST's data. You can just look at Chandler's graph to see that you are wrong.

Your first major mistake is that you're interpreting the graph as if it plotted vertical height vs. time. In this sort of graph, if the line stays horizontal for a period of time, it means that the point remains stationary for that time.

But this is NOT a height vs. time graph. It is a vertical VELOCITY vs. time graph. On this type of graph, if the line stays horizontal, the roof is NOT stationary. It is descending at a constant velocity.

According to Chandler, the VELOCITY starts at 0.2 seconds, increases to about 1.5 m/sec @ 0.3 sec. And stays constant between 0.3 and 0.8 seconds. Therefore, between 0.2 & 0.8 seconds, the roof is in motion.

Nothing "pauses momentarily". If it did pause momentarily, it's VELOCITY would drop back down to zero for that moment. There is no point on Chandler's chart, after it begins moving at 0.2 seconds, where the velocity drops back to zero. Ergo, the roofline does not "pause" at any time after it begins to fall.

You are wrong. And Chandler was intentionally misleading in his statements

In Chandler's presentation:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gC44L0-2zL8&feature=PlayList&p=1F271C700C5A9C1A&index=1

Starting at about 1:55. At 2:05, he says "Notice that the data hovers close to zero for nearly a second, and then drops precipitously." He is not talking about the ROOF "hovering, and then dropping precipitously". He is talking about the VELOCITY.

And a velocity hanging "close to zero" means "the roof was dropping".

By the way, employing appropriate technical terminology, Chandler's data sucks. This is not his raw data, which might be much better. It is sloppily derived data with absurd percent error bands.

He should never have used this data. His use of this data CREATED his controversial claim that the outer wall fell "in free fall". It did not. If fell at about 94% G.

The difference between G & .94 G is everything in this silly discussion. At .94G, all the Twoofer silliness simply evaporates.

BTW, "parroting" is not "explaining". If this is the best that you can do in terms of explaining Chandler or NIST, you're not going to do well in this debate.

I also notice that you answered NONE of my questions. Please let me know whether or not you plan to take up this challenge.

tk

 

[Christopher7]

You've got NO idea what you are talking about, do you? You're just pulling snippets of verbiage from here & there & stringing them together, aint cha?

I posted the data.

NIST said that WTC 7 fell at free fall acceleration and yet you deny it.

You are in denial. You have just proven this.

No fact, no mater how well documented, will penetrate your OCT filter.

You are saying that David and NIST are wrong and you know better.

Please

 

[H'ethetheth]

I don't believe so. I believe that they are talking about a bunch of the ae911 guys. I could be wrong about that.

Chandler is not an engineer, of course. He is a high school physics teacher.

tom

Hm, I think I should read what you said again, because I'm not sure I follow.