Merged David Chandler (ae911) sez "WTC7 was in free fall part of the time"

[BasqueArch]

No, the FDNY did not say that it was going to bring the building down. Stop lying. The FDNY does not bring down buildings.

FW , you're right and b s is wrong . The NYFD did not blow up WTC7.

From Infowars:
"Former Air Force Special Operations for Search and Rescue expert, Kevin McPadden traveled to ground zero completely of his own accord and spent the next four days searching through the rubble and nearby buildings for survivors.

STORY ONE

"While we were on the right side, there was firefighters getting ready, they were bussing them back and forth, and a couple of vets that were there - they got the vibe that something was coming down," said McPadden. (I ljust like the vague nonformal pseudo- informational noncommital weed adlib content of this remark )
"We started asking questions, everybody started asking questions, and the next thing you know there was a Red Cross representative pacing back and forth in front of the crowd holding his hand over the radio - I couldn't hear what it was saying but it was like pulsed - whatever the speech was on there it was pulsed - and that means to me most likely it was a countdown.""But he took his hand off at the last three seconds and he gave this heartfelt look - like just run for your life - because he didn't want to bring it on his conscience - he didn't want to go to his grave with that - and then we had a couple of seconds to put our heads together," said McPadden. "

STORY TWO - can you spot the contradictions

From Prisonplanet:
Despite numerous attempts to glean information from Red Cross officials, McPadden and other first responders were told nothing while one official, shortly after talking to firemen, held his hand over his radio and told them to "just sit tight" and "calm down" before admitting "they're thinking about bringing the building down."

"He took his hand off for the last three seconds of it - and you hear three, two, one,"said McPadden, adding that the official then gave a heartfelt look and told the first responders, "just run for your life."

FineWine The Red Cross blew up WTC7.

_____________________________________
The reason there is only one integrated explanation of the 9/11 events and why there are many conflicting disparate conspiracy hypotheses:

"Again, there are many ways of going wrong ... but only one way of going right; so that the one is easy and the other hard — easy to miss the mark and hard to hit it. "
- Aristotle

 

[FineWine]

FW , you're right and b s is wrong . The NYFD did not blow up WTC7.

From Infowars:
"Former Air Force Special Operations for Search and Rescue expert, Kevin McPadden traveled to ground zero completely of his own accord and spent the next four days searching through the rubble and nearby buildings for survivors.

STORY ONE

"While we were on the right side, there was firefighters getting ready, they were bussing them back and forth, and a couple of vets that were there - they got the vibe that something was coming down," said McPadden. (I ljust like the vague nonformal pseudo- informational noncommital weed adlib content of this remark )
"We started asking questions, everybody started asking questions, and the next thing you know there was a Red Cross representative pacing back and forth in front of the crowd holding his hand over the radio - I couldn't hear what it was saying but it was like pulsed - whatever the speech was on there it was pulsed - and that means to me most likely it was a countdown.""But he took his hand off at the last three seconds and he gave this heartfelt look - like just run for your life - because he didn't want to bring it on his conscience - he didn't want to go to his grave with that - and then we had a couple of seconds to put our heads together," said McPadden. "

STORY TWO - can you spot the contradictions

From Prisonplanet:
Despite numerous attempts to glean information from Red Cross officials, McPadden and other first responders were told nothing while one official, shortly after talking to firemen, held his hand over his radio and told them to "just sit tight" and "calm down" before admitting "they're thinking about bringing the building down."

"He took his hand off for the last three seconds of it - and you hear three, two, one,"said McPadden, adding that the official then gave a heartfelt look and told the first responders, "just run for your life."

FineWine The Red Cross blew up WTC7.

_____________________________________
The reason there is only one integrated explanation of the 9/11 events and why there are many conflicting disparate conspiracy hypotheses:

"Again, there are many ways of going wrong ... but only one way of going right; so that the one is easy and the other hard — easy to miss the mark and hard to hit it. "
- Aristotle

Ah, the Red Cross did it! Now we're getting somewhere. Everybody is aware of the extensive experience in demolition claimed by the Red Cross. For really big jobs, like blowing up major dams, bridges, skyscrapers, and asteroids, the Red Cross sometimes enlists the aid of manicurists and strippers.

 

[FineWine]

FW , you're right and b s is wrong . The NYFD did not blow up WTC7.

From Infowars:
"Former Air Force Special Operations for Search and Rescue expert, Kevin McPadden traveled to ground zero completely of his own accord and spent the next four days searching through the rubble and nearby buildings for survivors.

STORY ONE

"While we were on the right side, there was firefighters getting ready, they were bussing them back and forth, and a couple of vets that were there - they got the vibe that something was coming down," said McPadden. (I ljust like the vague nonformal pseudo- informational noncommital weed adlib content of this remark )
"We started asking questions, everybody started asking questions, and the next thing you know there was a Red Cross representative pacing back and forth in front of the crowd holding his hand over the radio - I couldn't hear what it was saying but it was like pulsed - whatever the speech was on there it was pulsed - and that means to me most likely it was a countdown.""But he took his hand off at the last three seconds and he gave this heartfelt look - like just run for your life - because he didn't want to bring it on his conscience - he didn't want to go to his grave with that - and then we had a couple of seconds to put our heads together," said McPadden. "

STORY TWO - can you spot the contradictions

From Prisonplanet:
Despite numerous attempts to glean information from Red Cross officials, McPadden and other first responders were told nothing while one official, shortly after talking to firemen, held his hand over his radio and told them to "just sit tight" and "calm down" before admitting "they're thinking about bringing the building down."

"He took his hand off for the last three seconds of it - and you hear three, two, one,"said McPadden, adding that the official then gave a heartfelt look and told the first responders, "just run for your life."

FineWine The Red Cross blew up WTC7.

_____________________________________
The reason there is only one integrated explanation of the 9/11 events and why there are many conflicting disparate conspiracy hypotheses:

"Again, there are many ways of going wrong ... but only one way of going right; so that the one is easy and the other hard — easy to miss the mark and hard to hit it. "
- Aristotle

For newbies and lurkers, McPadden was exposed as yet another fraud. There was no "countdown."

 

[BasqueArch]

Ah, the Red Cross did it! Now we're getting somewhere. Everybody is aware of the extensive experience in demolition claimed by the Red Cross. For really big jobs, like blowing up major dams, bridges, skyscrapers, and asteroids, the Red Cross sometimes enlists the aid of manicurists and strippers.

Haa

 

[Myriad]

It occurs to me, as I'm sure it has occurred to others, that something can easily accelerate faster than free fall, under gravity alone, if it's attached to something else that starts falling first.

To test this hypothesis, I borrowed Buster the Dummy from the Mythbuster crew, and got permission to use the 10,000 foot cliff at the Warner studios where the Roadrunner cartoons were filmed. At the top of the cliff I attached Buster to a handy 2-ton boulder by a rope with about 40 feet of slack. After I pushed the boulder off the cliff, I measured Buster's acceleration. For a few seconds he did not accelerate at all. Then his acceleration rapidly increased, peaking at well above g, before returning to very slightly below g for the remainder of the fall.(1)

So, having established that something that's attached to something that's already falling may accelerate faster than g, I re-examined the available information on building 7 and found considerable evidence that the wall in question was indeed attached to other parts of the building, and that other parts of the building did indeed begin falling first.

Therefore, I conclude that a brief period of free fall or even faster than free fall acceleration of a portion of a building experiencing progressive collapse, while it might be an unusual phenomenon, is not unexpected or unexplainable given the known circumstances. It is therefore in no way evidence of explosive demolition.

Respectfully,
Myriad

(1) The 2-ton rock then mysteriously landed on my own head, despite the fact that I was standing in a safety zone at the top of the cliff; this caused me to fall off the cliff myself, after which the rock again landed on me, followed by Buster. However, the experiment was successful despite this unfortunate accident.

 

[boloboffin]

I think you should sue Warner Brothers. Some stagehand obviously forgot to tidy away the trampoline at the bottom of the cliff.

 

[FineWine]

It occurs to me, as I'm sure it has occurred to others, that something can easily accelerate faster than free fall, under gravity alone, if it's attached to something else that starts falling first.

To test this hypothesis, I borrowed Buster the Dummy from the Mythbuster crew, and got permission to use the 10,000 foot cliff at the Warner studios where the Roadrunner cartoons were filmed. At the top of the cliff I attached Buster to a handy 2-ton boulder by a rope with about 40 feet of slack. After I pushed the boulder off the cliff, I measured Buster's acceleration. For a few seconds he did not accelerate at all. Then his acceleration rapidly increased, peaking at well above g, before returning to very slightly below g for the remainder of the fall.(1)

So, having established that something that's attached to something that's already falling may accelerate faster than g, I re-examined the available information on building 7 and found considerable evidence that the wall in question was indeed attached to other parts of the building, and that other parts of the building did indeed begin falling first.

Therefore, I conclude that a brief period of free fall or even faster than free fall acceleration of a portion of a building experiencing progressive collapse, while it might be an unusual phenomenon, is not unexpected or unexplainable given the known circumstances. It is therefore in no way evidence of explosive demolition.

Respectfully,
Myriad

(1) The 2-ton rock then mysteriously landed on my own head, despite the fact that I was standing in a safety zone at the top of the cliff; this caused me to fall off the cliff myself, after which the rock again landed on me, followed by Buster. However, the experiment was successful despite this unfortunate accident.

If you keep dropping 2-ton rocks on your head, you'll end up agreeing with Heiwa.

 

[Myriad]

I think you should sue Warner Brothers. Some stagehand obviously forgot to tidy away the trampoline at the bottom of the cliff.

I thought about it, but the problem is the Warner sister always shows up in court to defend them. I don't ever want to face her in a courtroom again. *Shudders.*

Respectfully,
Myriad

 

[johnny karate]

Johnny,

Of course he can't, because he would be lying. I do not know of ONE person from FDNY that agrees that WTC 7 came down from CD.

And yet Mr. Chandler flatly refuses to believe this. I anxiously await the evidence he will provide to the contrary.

 

[lapman]

A number of clips run with alternate sound tracks. It is common practice to strip the sound and do voice-overs or other manipulation. In short, the sound data is a very spotty, unreliable form of evidence. It certainly doesn't justify refusing to look at physical evidence.

Sheeze I missed this. You really are clueless about how sound recordings work. In all video cameras, you have a MAXIMUM of 2 channels. Even the "5.1 surround" is only simulated off the right and left channels. In general, to remove voice for alternate voice overs, you can hope it's on the center track or you have to have the original multi-track recording. In the case of hand held video recordings, you don't have that luxury. IIRC, there is software that you can isolate a specific wave form and remove it. With loud white noise events like explosions, it's impossible because of the saturation of all channels and the lack of a single wave form that can be isolated. So your contention that the sound of explosives could be removed is baseless. Add to that the fact that we're viewing footage from citizens and not from the government also destroys your argument. So we are back to the fact that the complete lack of the sound of explosives is irrefutable evidence against a CD.

 

[Oscar]

Myriad:

(1) The 2-ton rock then mysteriously landed on my own head, despite the fact that I was standing in a safety zone at the top of the cliff; this caused me to fall off the cliff myself, after which the rock again landed on me, followed by Buster. However, the experiment was successful despite this unfortunate accident

I enjoyed that post. It gave me a giggle. Far to few posts here are gigglesome.

More please, Myriad.

 

[bill smith]

Bill,


.
I have every confidence in the world that, no matter how simple, how direct, how straight forward may be the reply that I or anyone else offers, you will somehow manage to "take it" and FUBAR it into oblivion.
.

.
Am I psychic, or what??

Please refer to the post that you wrote, and to which I replied.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=4910959

You were talking about Physics Toolkit & Chandler's results.

Curiously enough, I answered you, talking about Physics Toolkit & Chandler's results.

And THAT data is readily available in the NIST WTC7 report. On the pages that I specified. You know, the very same report which you have repeatedly & PROUDLY announced that you refuse to read.

Ahhh, the burning irony...

Mr. Chandler & I have both given clear descriptions of that piece of free software. Which you are now confusing it for a piece of $100,000 FEA software.

Amazing...


.
ALL of the assumption that they used are laid out in exquisite detail. Guess where...

And, no, I do not believe that NIST has released their model. I could be wrong. Think of it as one of those tiny little screwdrivers that they hand out at technical seminars, bill. You'd put your eye out with it...
.

.
I answered your comment directly and truthfully, bill. That's what I try to do.

You follow a different path.

Tom

T.is playng he perception game here again. He is tring to create the perception that NIST have in fact released the numerical data that they used to create their computer model of the collapse of WTC7. Nothing could be further from the truth. That data is held under lock and key and NIST will never willingly release it.

If you doubt what I say read this unobtrusive little sentence near the end of his spiel:-

'' And, no, I do not believe that NIST has released their model ''

Everybody should use an opportunity like this to measure T's credibility . Whether he was being honest and forthright or sneaky and devious.

 

[Baylor]

Someone needs to get ktobesis in here. He's a sound engineer. He should be able to eloquently explain to Mr. Chandler why his idea on lack of sounds is nonsense.

 

[tfk]

You know, bill, I am struggliing to figure out what your game is.
I cannot imagine how you keep score. Or what you think is a win.

You say things.
You say things that are laughably, blatantly, obviously wrong.
You say things that are self contradictory.
You point out your own contradictions.

You make a fool of yourself. And you really, sincerely don't seem to care in the slightest.

I really, sincerely don't understand.
___

Yesterday, we talked at length about Chandler's video analysis & a tiny bit about the free video measurement software (Physics ToolKit, "PTK") that he used.

You invoke PTK as software that forced NIST to revise their conclusions. And then claim that NIST is withholding their raw data.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=4910959#post4910959

'Physics Toolkit' ... caused the mighty NIST to make serious adjustments in their final draft which obviously tells us that the program is solid enough when the correct data is plugged in. I wonder what data NIST plugged into their computer model ? ...
Do you think that ... NIST should make this harmless data available to the public who paid for it ?

I pointed out that NIST published all of their raw data. And told you exactly where to find it.

.
... NIST's data is in the public domain... page 603 of NIST's NCSTAR 1-9 Vol 2....

Knowing nothing software or computer modeling, you then confused the freeware video analysis program (PTK) for a $100K FEA modeling program (LS-DYNA). And, as a freebie, you accused me of lying.

So then can I take it that NIST has published the data that they used to program their computer model of the collapse of WRC7 ? Along with the assumptions they used ?... Well I'm sure you wouldn't lie or be misleading now T would you ?

I explained to you each program's purpose, and which data I know NIST has released, and which I believe they have not released.

You were talking about Physics Toolkit & Chandler's results. And THAT data is readily available in the NIST WTC7 report. On the pages that I specified.
... [PTK], which you are now confusing it for a piece of $100,000 FEA software.
ALL of the assumption that they [NIST] used are laid out in exquisite detail.
And, no, I do not believe that NIST has released their model. I could be wrong.

.
.
And now you come back with this gem...

T... is tring to create the perception that NIST have in fact released the numerical data that they used to create their computer model of the collapse of WTC7.

.
I stated clearly, "no, I do not believe that NIST has released their model. I could be wrong."

And from my statement, you assert that I am "trying to create the perception that NIST have in fact released the numerical data".

Breath taking in its self-contradictory stupid, bill.
But wait, there's more. You're on a roll...

You then cite the very quote which proves you to be lying...?!!!

If you doubt what I say read this unobtrusive little sentence near the end of his spiel:-
'' And, no, I do not believe that NIST has released their model ''

.
You cite, you highlight, the very sentence which proves that you are lying.
This level of wanton credibility-suicide boggles the rational mind, bill.
__

But you're still not quite done.

You've got a few more gallons of gas to pour on yourself. A few more matches to strike...
So you wrap up this whole self-immolation by accusing me of lying. Twice more, for good measure.

T.is playng he perception game here again.
...
Everybody should use an opportunity like this to measure T's credibility . Whether he was being honest and forthright or sneaky and devious.

__

You've been very clear about your motives and the tactics that you choose to employ. In case there was any lingering doubt, just yesterday, you laid it out explicitly after being busted for posting your "silent explosives video". Another assertion that you knew to be a lie.

I was just playing a little game. You know the one where you say something and then you watch what the responses are ?

I cannot imagine how you think that other people perceive your irrationality, your bluster, your intentionally annoying demeanor.

You've provided example after example of your insincerity.
You don't care about the arguments you make. They are disposable.
You don't care about the personality that you present. You seem perfectly content with universal disdain. It's virtually "Bob-ish".

I know that you are an active promoter of Alex Jones, InfoWars & Prison Planet on your website.

There you state clearly, in extra large type:
"Support Alex Jones
Alex Jones of infowars.com is an invaluable resource. Listen to Alex at www.infowars.com/listen I dare anyone to listen to him for 2 weeks
Consider financially helping Alex."
http://www.thefoodishorrible.com/aspx/templates/blank.aspx/msgid/342160

Is that what this is all about? Is there some profit motive at work? Do you have some sort of reciprocal financial arrangement with Jones? I'm curious because I've not seen you miss ONE DAY of posting this nonsense in over 2 years.

Is this your job? Is all of this simply an exercise in "stirring the pot", in churning newbies, to keep this topic hot? To bring in the hits?

Is all this about cash?

I really am struggling to understand the impenetrable here. C'mon, help a guy out.

Tom.

 

[bill smith]

You know, bill, I am struggliing to figure out what your game is.
I cannot imagine how you keep score. Or what you think is a win.

You say things.
You say things that are laughably, blatantly, obviously wrong.
You say things that are self contradictory.
You point out your own contradictions.

You make a fool of yourself. And you really, sincerely don't seem to care in the slightest.

I really, sincerely don't understand.
___

Yesterday, we talked at length about Chandler's video analysis & a tiny bit about the free video measurement software (Physics ToolKit, "PTK") that he used.

You invoke PTK as software that forced NIST to revise their conclusions. And then claim that NIST is withholding their raw data.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=4910959#post4910959


I pointed out that NIST published all of their raw data. And told you exactly where to find it.



Knowing nothing software or computer modeling, you then confused the freeware video analysis program (PTK) for a $100K FEA modeling program (LS-DYNA). And, as a freebie, you accused me of lying.



I explained to you each program's purpose, and which data I know NIST has released, and which I believe they have not released.


.
.
And now you come back with this gem...

.
I stated clearly, "no, I do not believe that NIST has released their model. I could be wrong."

And from my statement, you assert that I am "trying to create the perception that NIST have in fact released the numerical data".

Breath taking in its self-contradictory stupid, bill.
But wait, there's more. You're on a roll...

You then cite the very quote which proves you to be lying...?!!!

.
You cite, you highlight, the very sentence which proves that you are lying.
This level of wanton credibility-suicide boggles the rational mind, bill.
__

But you're still not quite done.

You've got a few more gallons of gas to pour on yourself. A few more matches to strike...
So you wrap up this whole self-immolation by accusing me of lying. Twice more, for good measure.


__

You've been very clear about your motives and the tactics that you choose to employ. In case there was any lingering doubt, just yesterday, you laid it out explicitly after being busted for posting your "silent explosives video". Another assertion that you knew to be a lie.



I cannot imagine how you think that other people perceive your irrationality, your bluster, your intentionally annoying demeanor.

You've provided example after example of your insincerity.
You don't care about the arguments you make. They are disposable.
You don't care about the personality that you present. You seem perfectly content with universal disdain. It's virtually "Bob-ish".

I know that you are an active promoter of Alex Jones, InfoWars & Prison Planet on your website.

There you state clearly, in extra large type:
"Support Alex Jones
Alex Jones of infowars.com is an invaluable resource. Listen to Alex at www.infowars.com/listen I dare anyone to listen to him for 2 weeks
Consider financially helping Alex."
http://www.thefoodishorrible.com/aspx/templates/blank.aspx/msgid/342160

Is that what this is all about? Is there some profit motive at work? Do you have some sort of reciprocal financial arrangement with Jones? I'm curious because I've not seen you miss ONE DAY of posting this nonsense in over 2 years.

Is this your job? Is all of this simply an exercise in "stirring the pot", in churning newbies, to keep this topic hot? To bring in the hits?

Is all this about cash?

I really am struggling to understand the impenetrable here. C'mon, help a guy out.

Tom.

Just to cut through the verbiage T let me ask you a plain question that will clarify what I want to clarify.

Has NIST released into the public domain the exact numerical values that they programmed their computer model of the collapse of WTC7with ?

Without these exact numbrs their model cannot be independently verified. Without independent verification NIST is effectively asking us to take their conclusions on trust. We will not do so of course.

That's not my website. I would NEVER use an appalling shade of yellow like that.

 

[newton3376]

You know, bill, I am struggliing to figure out what your game is.
I cannot imagine how you keep score. Or what you think is a win.

You say things.
You say things that are laughably, blatantly, obviously wrong.
You say things that are self contradictory.
You point out your own contradictions.

You make a fool of yourself. And you really, sincerely don't seem to care in the slightest.

I really, sincerely don't understand.
___

Yesterday, we talked at length about Chandler's video analysis & a tiny bit about the free video measurement software (Physics ToolKit, "PTK") that he used.

You invoke PTK as software that forced NIST to revise their conclusions. And then claim that NIST is withholding their raw data.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=4910959#post4910959


I pointed out that NIST published all of their raw data. And told you exactly where to find it.



Knowing nothing software or computer modeling, you then confused the freeware video analysis program (PTK) for a $100K FEA modeling program (LS-DYNA). And, as a freebie, you accused me of lying.



I explained to you each program's purpose, and which data I know NIST has released, and which I believe they have not released.


.
.
And now you come back with this gem...

.
I stated clearly, "no, I do not believe that NIST has released their model. I could be wrong."

And from my statement, you assert that I am "trying to create the perception that NIST have in fact released the numerical data".

Breath taking in its self-contradictory stupid, bill.
But wait, there's more. You're on a roll...

You then cite the very quote which proves you to be lying...?!!!

.
You cite, you highlight, the very sentence which proves that you are lying.
This level of wanton credibility-suicide boggles the rational mind, bill.
__

But you're still not quite done.

You've got a few more gallons of gas to pour on yourself. A few more matches to strike...
So you wrap up this whole self-immolation by accusing me of lying. Twice more, for good measure.


__

You've been very clear about your motives and the tactics that you choose to employ. In case there was any lingering doubt, just yesterday, you laid it out explicitly after being busted for posting your "silent explosives video". Another assertion that you knew to be a lie.



I cannot imagine how you think that other people perceive your irrationality, your bluster, your intentionally annoying demeanor.

You've provided example after example of your insincerity.
You don't care about the arguments you make. They are disposable.
You don't care about the personality that you present. You seem perfectly content with universal disdain. It's virtually "Bob-ish".

I know that you are an active promoter of Alex Jones, InfoWars & Prison Planet on your website.

There you state clearly, in extra large type:
"Support Alex Jones
Alex Jones of infowars.com is an invaluable resource. Listen to Alex at www.infowars.com/listen I dare anyone to listen to him for 2 weeks
Consider financially helping Alex."
http://www.thefoodishorrible.com/aspx/templates/blank.aspx/msgid/342160

Is that what this is all about? Is there some profit motive at work? Do you have some sort of reciprocal financial arrangement with Jones? I'm curious because I've not seen you miss ONE DAY of posting this nonsense in over 2 years.

Is this your job? Is all of this simply an exercise in "stirring the pot", in churning newbies, to keep this topic hot? To bring in the hits?

Is all this about cash?

I really am struggling to understand the impenetrable here. C'mon, help a guy out.

Tom.

Sometimes I can't get through your posts....too freaking funny....good job pointing out the obvious mistakes that Bill is making....when I wasn't sitting here LMAO I thought you made a good case.....

"You've got a few more gallons of gas to pour on yourself. A few more matches to strike..."

Classic...

 

[newton3376]

Without these exact numbrs their model cannot be independently verified. Without independent verification NIST is effectively asking us to take their conclusions on trust. We will not do so of course.

But you'll trust the conclusions of someone who thinks the reason no sounds of CD were picked up by the audio equipment on 9-11 was because they were using "highly directional microphones"?

Incredible....

 

[TruthersLie]

Actaully Tfk, what most annoyed me about David Chandlers little visit is when he replies to your very indepth smackdown.

he starts off by telling YOU to go and get the NIST DRAFT out of the trash and to read it, instead of saying "Oops, i am using the DRAFT report, I'll look at the FINAL report, thanks."

And then his attempts to be snarky, but notice that on your GRADING of his efforts, he doesn't counter anything before #8... I guess he fully agrees with 1-7 or he just can't reply because he is out of his depth.

Of course, I also love how he completely ignored the post about the demolitions of a building in Las Vegas which had 36,000 feet of DET cord... (and it was what? 30 stories?) So we should have over 100,000 feet of det cord... 20 miles of the stuff in EACH tower....

 

[Myriad]

Myriad:

I enjoyed that post. It gave me a giggle. Far to few posts here are gigglesome.

More please, Myriad.

Thanks, but I hope my serious point doesn't get overlooked just because I tried to make the post a bit entertaining too.

The point being, there is nothing surprising or contradictory about a portion of a structure undergoing purely gravitational progressive collapse accelerating downward faster than g. That portion is attached to other portions that began falling earlier, so it's being acted upon by tension on those attachments transferring momentum from already-moving masses, as well as by gravity.

The same "impossible" acceleration can be observed for, for instance, the 50th floor of either wtc tower, or the 2nd floor of the Bazac-Vitry demolition. A floor is just sitting there stationary, then bam! it gets hit by the falling mass from above that started falling earlier and had time to accelerate to significant velocity, and instants later it's moving at the speed of that falling mass. That's much faster acceleration than g, without contradicting any physical laws. The "near freefall speed" wtc7 wall is the same, except the collapse progression is horizontal instead of vertical, so the wall gets tugged instead of pushed by the adjacent already-falling mass.

Respectfully,
Myriad

 

[bill smith]

But you'll trust the conclusions of someone who thinks the reason no sounds of CD were picked up by the audio equipment on 9-11 was because they were using "highly directional microphones"?

Incredible....

I'ts not an area I usually explore but you must admit that there are HUNDREDS of reports of explosions. I can probably find the videos if you need them. Yet those explosions do not appear for the most part on the sudio tracks of the videos.

Very strange you say ? It must hve been some other noise. But where are the noises that the people MISTOOK for explosions then ? They are not there on tape either despite many hundreds of eyewitness reports. Could there have been something about the audio ? Or could the hundreds of eyewitnesses not have heard anything at all ?