WTC7 and the NIST free fall failure

alienentity said:
Yes, you can, and I did.
Click to expand...
Riiiiiight.

I'm sorry you cannot
Click to expand...
No need to be sorry. No matter what version of the Dan Rather clip you used, or how much video processing you applied to increase contrast between the roofline and the East Penthouse North wall there's no way to reliably determine the transition point, and I wouldn't touch that location with a barge pole. Utterly unreliable results. Utterly inaccurate placement accuracy. Utterly impossible to determine T0 accurately, which, as that's pretty darn critical to the entire timespan determination process...makes your results particularly easy to reject, which I shall now do.

but that doesn't affect the certainty that I did.
Click to expand...
Methinks thou doth protest too much :)

You did, honest you did. Honest. Lol.
 
GlennB said:
Wait until the E penhouse is gone, then choose a point? A fair bit of the roofline is then available for your perusal.
Click to expand...

:) Yeah, cool, but not much cop to determine the time at which that point on the roofline begins vertical descent...which was AlienEntity's purpose.
 
A W Smith said:
Faster? You really mean that? Please explain.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buckling
Click to expand...
Yes, I mean it. Should I copy the explanation from post #1?

I try it again because R.W.Fassbinder said: If it makes effort then it's always better.

Here it goes:
1) The center part of the core dropped. That part needed about 0.17 seconds to litarally fall at gravitational acceleration.

2) At the same time the perimeter wall (north face) started to bow inwards suggesting an intact floor system that pulled the wall towards the core.
That motion caused an optical illusion seen from the vantage point of "camera 3" because in the 2D video it looks like some bowing downwards.

3) Several frames later the bowed north face gave way and dropped. It reached immediately an acceleration of a little more than 9.81m/s² for a little less than a second.
Imho core-floors-perimeter acted like a spring system. In other words, the perimeter wall was accelerated by the already falling core (and the core was decelerated in the same way).
Of course the center of mass of the entire system didn't fall faster than free fall but the perimeter wall did for a short period of time.

4) the perimeter slowed down to 9.81m/s² and fell further as a unit with the core. That happens exactly in the moment when NIST's "stage 2 - free fall" started.
Hence, since I (and nobody else) have no problem to see that NIST must have measured free fall for "stage 2" the only possible conclusion for the measured deceleration is a "faster than free fall" drop of the north perimeter.

A secondary conclusion is that NIST interpreted the visible movement in the wrong way (besides other failures in their method).
 
Nuther question.

Couple of questions,
we agree that the shortest distance between two points is a straight line, Correct?

If we agree, Let us say the north wall of building seven represents a straight line between its north west and north east corners.

In your presentation you claim the dip which is apparent in the roof line is in fact the core pulling in the center of that north face. Correct?

Then why does the north east corner of that face head further east? Shouldn't the corners be drawn together?

bowingnorthface2.gif
 
femr2 said:
:) Yeah, cool, but not much cop to determine the time at which that point on the roofline begins vertical descent...which was AlienEntity's purpose.
Click to expand...

Why? The E Penthouse was gone some seconds before the roofline dropped.

As I understand it, it's the transition from 'dark pixel' to 'light pixel' that's at issue. As long as there's a clear boundary between roofline and sky somewhere near the centre then that'll do, no? After the E.P. has dropped fits this bill.

It seems that the o/p assumes this point was at the top of a penthouse structure. I can see no justification in the o/p for that assumption. The o/p merely presents us with some stills and graphics, all with the penthouses in place.
 
GlennB said:
Wait until the E penhouse is gone, then choose a point? A fair bit of the roofline is then available for your perusal.
Click to expand...
Good idea. Now you have a point. What's next?
You hardly see any row of windows to determine the only known elevation from the NIST report. The lower floors are obsuced by a huge building in the foreground. What do you want to measure without a distict point for the calibration of your result?

The Dan Rather view is good for watching "no downward bowing" of the north face. That's it.
 
femr2 said:
I assume you are aware that the NW corner descent rate exceeded G ?
Click to expand...

WTC Demolition http://femr2.ucoz.com/photo/4
Click to expand...
"WTC Demolition" Why do you have CD delusions?

Is the exceeded g due to hush-a-suck-a-boom-bomb set by MIB CD, or what? ... , fire induced collapse did it. G, or g? I assume you are aware it does not matter, WTC7 collapsed due to fires not fought. g, why is 911 truth obsessed with NIST? The collapse of WTC7 was less than g, took over 15 seconds; I assume you are aware.

Without evidence of CD, is bashing NIST with nonsense the only thing 911 truth can do? 911 truth needs to publish their claims, and try to form some conclusions, goals and objectives. With a solid 9 years of failure for CD guys too shy to own up to it, they may want to set some milestones and define goals instead of aimlessly wondering around obsessed with NIST.
 
A W Smith said:
Couple of questions,
we agree that the shortest distance between two points is a straight line, Correct?

If we agree, Let us say the north wall of building seven represents a straight line between its north west and north east corners.

In your presentation you claim the dip which is apparent in the roof line is in fact the core pulling in the center of that north face. Correct?

Then why does the north east corner of that face head further east? Shouldn't the corners be drawn together?

[qimg]http://img687.imageshack.us/img687/7150/bowingnorthface2.gif[/qimg]
Click to expand...

It didnt head further east. It headed further north while the middle of the wall headed south. It finally developed a kink just like folding a sheet of paper.
 
achimspok said:
Good idea. Now you have a point. What's next?
Click to expand...

What's next is that you concede that your point in the o/p :

achimspok said:
In other words, NIST did not measure the parapet wall! They measured the fall of the screenwall about 2 floor heights above the parapet wall.
Click to expand...

is unverified so far.
 
achimspok said:
It didnt head further east. It headed further north while the middle of the wall headed south. It finally developed a kink just like folding a sheet of paper.
Click to expand...

If it were heading north, it would be heading above your green line in your graphic and moving toward the upper left hand corner of the frame in that graphic, It does no appear to be doing that. Its heading easterly in the same orientation of the face.
 
Physicists Floored By Talented Graphic Artists

My strike

GlennB said:
...... it's the transition from 'dark pixel' to 'light(er) pixel' that's at issue. As long as there's a clear boundary between roofline and sky screenwall or sky somewhere near the centre then that'll do ......
Click to expand...

NIST Drop Measured From Parapet False Claims Screenhouse Gray Pixel Discoverers
Evidence All Towers CeeDeed Now Conclusive
Origins Of Universe Also In Doubt​
 
For God's sake get to the point! What exactly are you trying to prove because your first post is not an answer. Asking questions is not an answer. Why F'ing hell can't deniers ever be straight with their damn answers instead of bloating up their comments with fluff? How about answering questions instead of beating around the bush or pulling the name-calling and condescension? Why do you all profess to be more knowledgeable than people who have been doing such work for years, perhaps decades? What makes your calculations/analysis more credible than those teams that worked on on this study? Did you use all the evidence they did or did you just use that which proves your theory? Are you working from the base that NIST is wrong or are you actually working from the same base NIST did, namely why did 7 WTC collapse? You should be working from the latter not the former.

... and so forth.

So far everything you have typed has been a waste of time because it doesn't actually impact upon the NIST initiation model. (BTW i note that when you deniers talk about the freefall you always seem to leave out any consideration of centre of gravity.)
 
GlennB said:
What's next is that you concede that your point in the o/p :



is unverified so far.
Click to expand...
Are you saying NIST measured along this path from the roofline to the top of the windows of 29?
path2.png


I guess your "concede" is just a faux pas.
 
Last edited:
A W Smith said:
If it were heading north, it would be heading above your green line in your graphic and moving toward the upper left hand corner of the frame in that graphic, It does no appear to be doing that. Its heading easterly in the same orientation of the face.
Click to expand...
No. If it would - hypothetically - head easterly while bowing - hypothetically - downwards while in fact the NW corner is almost static ... what do you think how much the roofline would stretch towards east and ground? 5-6 meters or so?
nokink.gif

My very own problem is, I cannot see any stretching of the wall nor do I see any downward bowing.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom