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

Gamolon said:
Can you tell me why Mr. Chandler used this next video of the collapse of WTC7 to compare NIST's actual wording in their report and how they got their collpase time of 5.4 seconds?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4k6GMddY-lQ
Click to expand...
No, but but have performed a lot of video tracing, and so...

The *Dan Rather* viewpoint does not suffer from as much perspective distortion as the NIST Cam#3 footage, which simplifies scaling metrics (conversion from pixel based positional movement to real world units)

btw - That's a particularly poor version of that view. This one is much better...
Download

The viewpoint also minimises the possibility of mistaking North-South *flexing* movement as vertical movement.

Note that the roofline at the point suggested by NIST is not discernable in either viewpoint.

On the down side, even the better quality version I've linked above does not have the detail present in the Cam#3 footage.

I see downward movement of the northwest corner at :01 and then the roof line disappears at :06.

5 secs. I cannot get more granular to get the .4 seconds.
Click to expand...
See... This thread.
 
Christopher7 said:
We agree that FFA means an object with no support, in this case, no support for ~100 feet. This means all the support has been removed on 7 to 8 floors.
...
You think of reasons why it can't be explosives but you cannot think of another cause. Your inability to figure out how it was done with explosives does not preclude explosives.
Click to expand...



Here's another cause. We even have a nice short animation for it.


Video: Why the Building (WTC7) Fell (3:40 minutes)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PK_iBYSqEsc​

It shows how the visible short period of near-free fall happened and it answers your fixation on the timing of the collapse of the exterior walls.

Watch the video and tell us why it's wrong, chris.
 
Chuck Guiteau said:
<snip the many humorous and accurate observations>
I mean, if you’re right, they’ve already managed to cover their tracks exceedingly well and they’re obviously ruthless enough to suborn, intimidate, or whack out a few fringe journalists and amateur investigators, so why aren’t you in one of the top secret re-education camps in Kansas, or occupying a shallow grave at Area 51?
Click to expand...

Last I heard Area 51 was going to be used for the FEMA concentration camps, so the shallow graves are going to be elsewhere.
I suspect the NWO minions have already liquidated the real 9/11 truthers and replaced them with identical doubles who spout obvious nonsense - throws everyone off the scent that way.:cool:

Welcome, btw.
 
alienentity said:
Last I heard Area 51 was going to be used for the FEMA concentration camps, so the shallow graves are going to be elsewhere.
I suspect the NWO minions have already liquidated the real 9/11 truthers and replaced them with identical doubles who spout obvious nonsense - throws everyone off the scent that way.:cool:

Welcome, btw.
Click to expand...
It's a very big place. They have plenty of room right next to where they buried all those aliens that were autopsied.
Then again, they could use Area 69. With Cranial Rectal Inversion Syndrome so prevalent amongst Truthers, it would be easy enough to link them like pretzels and double the "parking space".
 
Don't forget that in the truther world those involved in the conspiracy were willing to murder 6000 people in full view of the world. Offing a few 'truthers' wouldn't make them blink an eye if they thought they were on to something.
 
Christopher7 said:
The part where they did not all do this at the same time over 8 floors as can be seen in the 16 second frame. The folding up [but not breaking apart] of the lower floors is not symmetrical nor could it be. In the 16 second frame, the exterior walls are providing resistance.

Once again,
[FONT=&quot]a free fall time would be an object that has no structural components below it[/FONT]"

This is axiomatic. A 12 year old can understand it. He did not say buckling structure, he said no structural components.

[qimg]http://a.imageshack.us/img830/7267/nistwtc7modelvideo14s16.jpg[/qimg]

[qimg]http://a.imageshack.us/img171/1667/vidgifcompars.jpg[/qimg]
Click to expand...

Once again, I am not interested in the estimation of a 12 year old. I am interested in somewhat higher level discussion. Once again though if you choose to adhere to a simplistic understanding of the physics involved you will arrive at simplistic conclusions.
In much the same way Creationists use the simplistic explanation "God did it all" to arrive at the simplistic conclusion that the world we live in is only 10,000 years old.

Also once again, in the last picture (1-2 seconds into global collapse) I cannot see ANY exterior columns offering any structural support whatsoever. Those exterior columns are offering as much resistance to acelleration of the upper section as a teeter-totter does when the kid at the top jumps off. The main source of 'resistance' to free fall is , in my estimation, that their mass has to be acellerated by the faster, falling upper section and the final snapping of any connections that may still be surviving to some degree. Those connections though, in that picture, are twisted and/or stretched so much that they are all but severed already.
 
Last edited:
Captain_Swoop said:
Don't forget that in the truther world those involved in the conspiracy were willing to murder 6000 people in full view of the world. Offing a few 'truthers' wouldn't make them blink an eye if they thought they were on to something.
Click to expand...

They are protected 'by what they know' obviously. Having promulgated their knowledge they cannot be offed, it would be suspicious. However should one suffer death by Swine flu, another contract AIDS, one or two get hit by a bus, train, semi-trailer or drunk driver, or even be riding in a Toyota that suddenly and at the most inoportune moment, lose its brakes,,,,,,,,
 
jaydeehess said:
They are protected 'by what they know' obviously. Having promulgated their knowledge they cannot be offed, it would be suspicious. However should one suffer death by Swine flu, another contract AIDS, one or two get hit by a bus, train, semi-trailer or drunk driver, or even be riding in a Toyota that suddenly and at the most inoportune moment, lose its brakes,,,,,,,,
Click to expand...

That reminds me...I just got a new Toyota keyboard! This thing is awesoooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
 
jaydeehess said:
Also once again, in the last picture (1-2 seconds into global collapse) I cannot see ANY exterior columns offering any structural support whatsoever. Those exterior columns are offering as much resistance to acelleration of the upper section as a teeter-totter does when the kid at the top jumps off. The main source of 'resistance' to free fall is , in my estimation, that their mass has to be acellerated by the faster, falling upper section and the final snapping of any connections that may still be surviving to some degree. Those connections though, in that picture, are twisted and/or stretched so much that they are all but severed already.
Click to expand...
Wrong. The exterior frame is still providing resistance as it buckles asymmetrically well into the FFA. It is not breaking apart. Furthermore, all 58 columns could not instantaneously stop providing any support at all. But that is what the analysis shows.

graphcompare.jpg
 
Christopher7 said:
Wrong. The exterior frame is still providing resistance as it buckles asymmetrically well into the FFA. It is not breaking apart. Furthermore, all 58 columns could not instantaneously stop providing any support at all. But that is what the analysis shows.

[qimg]http://a.imageshack.us/img34/5822/graphcompare.jpg[/qimg]
Click to expand...

Instantaneous? I don't see where your data shows that. Not to mention that it doesn't prove CD.

How many swings are you going to take on this?
 
sabretooth47 said:
Instantaneous? I don't see where your data shows that. Not to mention that it doesn't prove CD.

How many swings are you going to take on this?
Click to expand...

He's already on strike 17, and the pitcher hasn't even came out to the mound yet, let alone thrown the first pitch!
 
sabretooth47 said:
Instantaneous? I don't see where your data shows that. Not to mention that it doesn't prove CD.

How many swings are you going to take on this?
Click to expand...

You beat me to it. I see , even in Chandler's desparately flawed forensic analysis, a period of at least 1.5 seconds during which the structure was already moving at much less than FFA. One final structural member gives up the ghost and the transfer of load to others simply immediatly overloads most, if not all of the remaining members (gravity does afterall act upon objects with at least the speed of light)

Chris' insistence that the exterior frame, all of which is bent in various directions to at least 30 degrees, is still offering any measureable structural support (which he insists on referring to as 'resistance') would be laughable if it were not for the fact that he isn't the only one who believes it. That makes it just sad.
 
Last edited:
The funny thing is that Chandler's graph indicates a short period of upward acelleration between 1.5 and about 1.75 seconds which occurs AFTER the building starts moving downward.
It also indicates a period of faster than free fall acelleration.
Chris makes no attempt to explain these but does insist that free fall acelleration proves controlled demolition. One would think that if this leap of logic is proper then there would be a corressponding one to explain the upward acelleration and the faster than free fall acelleration.
 
jaydeehess said:
The funny thing is that Chandler's graph indicates a short period of upward acelleration between 1.5 and about 1.75 seconds which occurs AFTER the building starts moving downward.
It also indicates a period of faster than free fall acelleration.
Chris makes no attempt to explain these but does insist that free fall acelleration proves controlled demolition. One would think that if this leap of logic is proper then there would be a corressponding one to explain the upward acelleration and the faster than free fall acelleration.
Click to expand...

Taking the graph point by point, there are also 3 intervals of 0.25 secs each where the slope indicates less than FFA, therefore resistance (in his terms of course. In reality the measurements just can't be that accurate).

Yet Chris's entire CD case depends on zero resistance, and therefore it fails by his own definitions. He debunks himself perfectly.

Basically Chris7 doesn't 'do' science and it's a waste of time arguing with him.
 
Christopher7 said:
Wrong. The exterior frame is still providing resistance as it buckles asymmetrically well into the FFA. It is not breaking apart. Furthermore, all 58 columns could not instantaneously stop providing any support at all. But that is what the analysis shows.

[qimg]http://a.imageshack.us/img34/5822/graphcompare.jpg[/qimg]
Click to expand...

Wow, I guess you never even looked at Chandlers graph compared to NISTs graph. They're virtually the same thing if you superimpose them onto 1 another.

So what does Chandlers graph have to do with NISTs graph, other than being the same, that concludes with NISTs results that WTC7 wasn't a CD?
 
Christopher7 said:
The exterior frame is still providing resistance as it buckles asymmetrically well into the FFA.
Click to expand...


Really? How much?

Even the air provide some resistance.

Christopher7 said:
It is not breaking apart.
Click to expand...


So, do you concluded it provided significant resistance just because it did not break apart?

Do you know difference between stable (isostatic/hyperstatic) and unstable (hypostatic) structure? Have you already studied something like "structural analysis" or "structures theory"?

Christopher7 said:
Furthermore, all 58 columns could not instantaneously stop providing any support at all.
Click to expand...


Are you sure?

First of all, what do you understand by "instantaneously"?

For example, considere two events, event A and event B. If event B occurs 0.15 seconds after event A, can you say both events have ocurred at the same time?
 
alienentity said:
Last I heard Area 51 was going to be used for the FEMA concentration camps, so the shallow graves are going to be elsewhere.
I suspect the NWO minions have already liquidated the real 9/11 truthers and replaced them with identical doubles who spout obvious nonsense - throws everyone off the scent that way.:cool:

Welcome, btw.
Click to expand...
No doubt your busy at work preparing another shock 'n awe video about
all the possibilities.

MM
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom