Split Thread 7WTC - controlled demolition or fire and damage induced collapse?

Christopher7 said:
Ya mean the lawyer who couldn't find his way downstairs?

He said the same thing Mr. Jennings said on 9/11. "There was an explosion and we were trapped on the 8th floor". This is the only thing they agree on. Statements made years later to the contrary cannot be considered reliable.
Click to expand...

So then you agree that the firefighters who describe the intensity of the fires in WTC7 that day are the most reliable?

Of course, you can not answer the other questions, just like your silly FFA + WTC7 = CD when you have admitted that CDs do not reach FFA.
 
Christopher7 said:
The evidence was destroyed.
Click to expand...
What evidence? All I've seen in last 50 pages is you repeating NIST says FFA and therefore, IYO, that means CD.
If a normal CD does not achieve FFA, what makes WTC7 any different?
If there isn't any evidence of a CD, then how can you possibly come to this conclusion?

Christopher7 said:
We have: WTC 7 + FFA = CD
Simple and easy to understand. [Unless you are in denial]
Click to expand...
No. The easy thing to understand is the hundreds of experts in engineering and fire science that all agree the damage from WTC1 and the uncontrolled fires weakened the supporting structure of WTC7 caused the collapse.
The only thing simple to understand here is the fact that you cannot operate in reality and absolutely refuse to concede when you’re obviously incorrect in your hypothesis.

Christopher7 said:
I present evidence all the time. Y'all deny it. :D
Click to expand...
Repeating the phrase “FFA = CD” is not evidence, it’s an opinion…and a poor one at that.
Numerous folks here have asked you to show us another CD that achieves FFA and you have ignored every one of them. So either present some real evidence or get your trolling motor out of the water.
 
Gamolon said:
Here is Chandler's question that was read to Shyam in the video.
Christopher7,
Can you please explain Chandler's statement above that NIST contradicts the 100ft (2 sec) free fall drop on the northwest corner by stating the time of the viewable roof line drop took 40% longer than free fall.
Click to expand...
David can explain himself better than I.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v3mudruFzNw

I watched the video and I see 5.4 sec. In order for the entire roof line collapse to be considered a free fall descent, the roof line would have to have dropped out of sight in 3.9 seconds.
Click to expand...
The 5.4 seconds is fraudulent.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iXTlaqXsm4k

How is NIST's 40% slower than free fall contradicting the fact that there was 2 sec of free fall incorporated into that 5.4 sec collapse?
Click to expand...
They did not mention the 2.25 seconds of FFA.

You said yourself that 2 sec of free fall does not make the entire collapse free fall.
Click to expand...
Correct, only it's 2.25 seconds and ~ 100 feet. It's the 100 feet of FFA that proves their model does not fit the observed collapse. The NIST model does not have a period of FFA because there is always structural resistance as columns buckle.
 
carlitos said:
Is this FFA = CD one of those 'laws of physics' referenced above? It's new to me, and I have actually gone skydiving.
Click to expand...

I'm just trying to understand Christopher7's actual argument/claim.

Chandler states in his question in the video to Shyam that NIST's report contradicts the 2 sec free fall by saying that the TOTAL time of the viewable collapse was 40% longer then what it would have taken the roof line to drop out of view had it BEEN at free fall.

If it WAS at free fall, it would have taken 3.9 secs. The video shows 5.4 secs. 40% longer right? How does this claim directly contradict that there was 2 secs of supposed free fall?
 
FFA this FF that... It's mental masturbation... Where does this crap address the cause of the collapse? Nowhere. They have failed to eliminate well-known failure mechanisms that don't require explosives, they don't want to, they can't fathom it. They need to either provide a rational for why well known failure mechanisms cannot explain the collapse and then show physical proof that links the cause of the failures to the end result, or they need to drop the argument and hang out with the other crazies... If they can't then they're wasting my time
 
Christopher7 said:
Gamolon said:
Here is Chandler's question that was read to Shyam in the video.


Christopher7,

Can you please explain Chandler's statement above that NIST contradicts the 100ft (2 sec) free fall drop on the northwest corner by stating the time of the viewable roof line drop took 40% longer than free fall.
Click to expand...
David can explain himself better than I.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v3mudruFzNw
Click to expand...

Does this mean you don't understand what he saying that you can't put it into your own words?

You're defending Chandler and using his videos and evidence so please explain how you interpret what he is saying as YOU understand it.

It's quite simple. Chandler is saying that NIST's statement that the fall of the roof line taking 40% longer (5.4 secs instead of 3.9 for actual free fall) contradicts the 2.25 secs of free fall for 100 feet.

Since you are linking his videos and quoting him, you seem tho have a good understanding yourself of what he is talking about coupled with the fact that you agree with him. I mean, you wouldn't agree with something unless you actually understood it right?

So how does NIST's claim contradict the 2.25 secs of free fall?
 
Christopher7 said:
Gamolon said:
How is NIST's 40% slower than free fall contradicting the fact that there was 2 sec of free fall incorporated into that 5.4 sec collapse?
Click to expand...

They did not mention the 2.25 seconds of FFA.
Click to expand...

I guess you're not understanding the question.

How does NIST's claim of 40% slower than free fall CONTRADICT that there was 2.25 secs of free fall integrated into the viewable roof line collapse?

You seem to understand it. So please explain it to me in your own words.
 
sabretooth47 said:
What evidence? All I've seen in last 50 pages is you repeating NIST says FFA and therefore, IYO, that means CD.
Click to expand...
I guess you missed this:
[FONT=&quot]"a free fall time would be an object that has no structural components below it . . . there was structural resistance that was provided in this particular case."[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]A building cannot fall at free fall acceleration and crush structural steel at the same time.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]The only way to get a building to fall at free fall acceleration is to remove all the supporting structure simultaneously with explosives. [/FONT]


If a normal CD does not achieve FFA, what makes WTC7 any different?
Click to expand...
It was overbuilt to allow for large parts of floors to be removed.
http://www.nytimes.com/1989/02/19/r...uilding-within-building-cost-200-million.html

No. The easy thing to understand is the hundreds of experts in engineering and fire science that all agree the damage from WTC1 and the uncontrolled fires weakened the supporting structure of WTC7 caused the collapse.
Click to expand...
You are behind the times. In the final report NIST stated that the debris damage had little to do with the collapse at the other end of the building. NCSTAR 1A pg xxxvii [pdf pg 39]

The fire that supposedly caused the collapse had gone out over an hour before the collapse. That was also covered earlier in this thread.

Numerous folks here have asked you to show us another CD that achieves FFA and you have ignored every one of them.
Click to expand...
Phobah. If you saw the questions then you saw my answer.
 
Christopher7 said:
[FONT=&quot]The only way to get a building to fall at free fall acceleration is to remove all the supporting structure simultaneously with explosives. [/FONT]
Click to expand...

I guess if you say it enough and add some formatting changes, it'll become true eventually. I'm assuming that's your plan?
 
Gamolon said:
I guess you're not understanding the question.

How does NIST's claim of 40% slower than free fall CONTRADICT that there was 2.25 secs of free fall integrated into the viewable roof line collapse?

You seem to understand it. So please explain it to me in your own words.
Click to expand...
It does not contradict FFA, it ignores it.
 
Christopher7 said:
It is impossible to ascertain the make and model from the video. Many mics look almost exactly the same.

Absurd question. Ashley is very obviously using a hand held mic.

Directional mics, designed to pick up what is directly in front of them a few inches away and little else, are essential for street interviews to minimize other sounds.
Click to expand...

Chris, I use, repair and order microphones for our TV station (OT: Ashleigh Banfeild actually worked here many many years ago before I got here)

Your description of how a mic picks up is absolute evidence that you do not know what you are talking about. It is simplistic and basically wrong.

Mic pick up patterns can REDUCE off center sound over much of the 360 degrees around it but there is only a very small portion of that circle at which sound reduction is greater than 10 db. A sound coming from any angle that is even 20 db greater than her voice stands a very very good chance of over-riding her voice. At 50 db greater sound pressure than her voice it will definately be picked up no matter what angle it comes in from or what pick up pattern her mic uses.

I already told you that ENG mics come with several basic pick up patterns. Look them up and pick one that does what you say Banfeild's was doing.
 
Miragememories said:
Based on your reasoning jaydeehess, it stands to reason that the reverse is also possible.

You accept as plausible that the sounds of building breakdowns from WTC 3,4,5,6 & 7, could easily be mistaken as explosive booms.

By that argument, explosive booms could just as easily have been dismissed as being the sounds of building breakdowns from WTC 3,4,5,6 & 7.

MM
Click to expand...

Sorry MM, you and your compatriots are attempting to state unequivocably that these sounds were those of explosives. However I point out that this is obviously not the only explanation for those sounds.
OTOH there is obvious and ample reasoning to presume that the sounds heard were of continuing faliures and partial collapses whereas the only reasoning for your senario of explosives is that you want them to be explosives because it fits your political world view prejudices more than the obvious senario.
 
Christopher7 said:
Gamolon said:
I guess you're not understanding the question.

How does NIST's claim of 40% slower than free fall CONTRADICT that there was 2.25 secs of free fall integrated into the viewable roof line collapse?

You seem to understand it. So please explain it to me in your own words.
Click to expand...
It does not contradict FFA, it ignores it.
Click to expand...

Can you please explain how claiming 40% of free fall IGNORES the 2.25 secs of supposed free fall? Are you saying that since the collapse HAD 2.25 secs of free fall incorporated into it, the percentage should be something different? That it should NOT be 5.4 secs for the roof line to disappear from view?

I don't get it. The videos I see show the roof line dropping out of view in 5.4 secs. Do you have a video that shows a different time?

:confused:
 
Christopher7 said:
The possibility that what Ashley reacted to was the sound of demolition charges.
Click to expand...
Christopher7 said:
Ashley's mic did pick up the sounds of the explosions.
Click to expand...
So now we're back to the "you can hear them, but magically, the microphone cannot" meme.

Did Ashley hear an explosion or not? If she heard an explosion, it would be clearly audible on the microphone. It wasn't audible on the microphone, so what can we assume?


Christopher7 said:
That's why she suddenly turned her head around and said "This is it".
Click to expand...
She said "this is it" because they knew it was likely to collapse.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U8950hcKZXw
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom