WTC7 and the NIST free fall failure

[twinstead]

If you say so. Do you imply that only CD can cause the described mechanism?

Do you? You're the one who claims there's something "suspicious" about the way the building fell. Don't you think the insurance companies should know about that? If there is something suspicious, maybe their investigators weren't as good as you are, huh?

 

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

For the 3rd time, smoke cannot emerge from unbroken windows but it should emerge from opened windows.

But it sure as hell can emerge from a big gapping hole where WTC1's exterior panels hit it.

Forgot about that hole, didn't ya? Oops!

 

[achimspok]

Here's a better way to evaluate the appearance of smoke emanating from the building.

I've oriented the pic of WTC 7's SE face the other way around. Gee, it looks almost identical to the pics of the SW face, but of course the no-smoker is claiming that this indicates smoke is coming from elsewhere than the building itself.

Not possible, is it? Either both pictures have smoke coming from the building, or neither do. You can't have it both ways, unless the argument is that you can't tell either way. But that's not his argument, is it?

[qimg]http://i900.photobucket.com/albums/ac206/alienentity1/wtcc-1.jpg[/qimg]

[qimg]http://i900.photobucket.com/albums/ac206/alienentity1/pic00049-1.png[/qimg]

Of course it looks almost identical. The east face has fire at 8 and 13 and looks like smoking up to the 30+ floors. That's the point. Thanks for confirmation.

 

[carlitos]

[[qimg]http://img560.imageshack.us/img560/4848/wtc7wakeeffect.gif[/qimg]

reminds me of something...

 

[Sabretooth]

For the 3rd time, smoke cannot emerge from unbroken windows but it should emerge from opened windows.

So wake effect is only valid if it backs up your nonsense, but not here?

It's painfully obvious that you're making stuff up as we move along...

 

[Sabretooth]

Read the OP.

I did...it's nothing but your backyard guesswork as to why NIST freefall data is wrong...

Still doesn't explain WTF you're getting at.

 

[Myriad]

Yes, that method should work. Have you heard of such building observations on 9/11?

Deputy Chief Peter Hayden, FDNY Division 1:

By now, this is going on into the afternoon, and we were concerned about additional collapse, not only of the Marriott, because there was a good portion of the Marriott still standing, but also we were pretty sure that 7 World Trade Center would collapse. Early on, we saw a bulge in the southwest corner between floors 10 and 13, and we had put a transit on that and we were pretty sure she was going to collapse. You actually could see there was a visible bulge, it ran up about three floors. It came down about 5 o'clock in the afternoon, but by about 2 o'clock in the afternoon we realized this thing was going to collapse.

(emphasis added)


That quote, for some reason, isn't included in the History Commons page on Hayden. Perhaps that's why you were unaware of it.

For the truther measurements of the building movements it would be fine to have 75° and a transit. Instead you have to use video resolution and radom vantage points. At a flat angle 1° leaning results in 0.9998 of the original height. It's a different problem.

No, it wouldn't be fine, because the Truther measurements have claimed to distinguish between tilting and the start of vertical drop (for instance of the antenna) with precise timing, which requires a 3D approach that has not been attempted. As with any measurement, we would expect an error range, but femr2 and Major_Tom claim video tracing resolutions of a small fraction of a pixel. That means it should be possible to get some useful results and, in any case, the results of a more limited analysis using the same data can only be less reliable.

Respectfully,
Myriad

 

[achimspok]

Here's the view that achimspok says was taken in the afternoon. There are several clues as to the origin of smoke -

In the foreground low down you can see a distinct source from WTC 6, and the rubble pile.

In the background is smoke coming from WTC 7. One of the obvious features that show which smoke is coming from 7 is the fact that the smoke plumes expand rapidly after they exit the buildings.

Yet we see exactly this effect from several points on 7, at least 2 distinct thick plumes which expand from the source, and one which even begins on the W face, possibly 2.

OMG, the fire at 22 went dead at noon. The fire at 18 (which do not expand from any source) never existed. It's maybe a little vortex in the foreground.

If the smoke was mixing from another building then being drawn to WTC 7 as alleged, you wouldn't get these pinpoint sources with immediate expansion - you'd have a better mixed, more homogenous blanket of smoke.

[qimg]http://img143.imageshack.us/img143/6830/wtc7southwest4vc6.jpg[/qimg]

Additionally, in this afternoon shot, there is mainly steam and lighter smoke coming from 6 and expanding over the debris piles to the SE, whereas the smoke from WTC 7 is still dense - as would be expected since the fires were not being fought - already the fires of WTC 6 have been successfully fought, as we can see.

[qimg]http://i900.photobucket.com/albums/ac206/alienentity1/0140v.jpg[/qimg]

Your afternoon shot was probably shot at 11am. The steam is smoke from WTC1 rubble. The smoke from WTC6 crater is behind the building.

yawn. I know you will post it again repeating that nonsense again and again and again...

 

[achimspok]

Do you? You're the one who claims there's something "suspicious" about the way the building fell. Don't you think the insurance companies should know about that? If there is something suspicious, maybe their investigators weren't as good as you are, huh?

Suspicious? May be. It was different than described.

 

[achimspok]

But it sure as hell can emerge from a big gapping hole where WTC1's exterior panels hit it.

Forgot about that hole, didn't ya? Oops!

Go back and read.

 

[achimspok]

reminds me of something...[qimg]http://img546.imageshack.us/img546/6558/2z7r1n9.gif[/qimg]

me too

 

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

Go back and read.

Read what? You rambling on like an idiot about the smoke & think that it's something "not of this world"?!

I know you tend to shy away from photographic evidence, but to keep going on & on about something this stupid is a waste of thread space.

Not only is the smoke pouring out of broken windows, it's also coming from the hole in the facade that WTC1 created when it collapsed.

Give it up already!

 

[achimspok]

So wake effect is only valid if it backs up your nonsense, but not here?

It's painfully obvious that you're making stuff up as we move along...

What? Do you know what we talking about? No. It's painfully obvious that you post your opinion about you don't know what.

Little help:
windows between 40...30 along the SW corner mostly unbroken.
windows at 11,12,13 S broken.

 

[RedIbis]

That quote, for some reason, isn't included in the History Commons page on Hayden. Perhaps that's why you were unaware of it.

You don't really expect them to quote in entirety every article that they list? They did provide the link and source of Hayden's comments:

According to Deputy Chief Peter Hayden, there is a bulge in the southwest corner of the building between floors 10 and 13. [Firehouse Magazine, 9/2/2002]

 

[LightningTeg]

I don't want to link the article a 3rd time but you can go back. Prior to WTC2 collapse no one believed in any collapse but 7 was completely evacuated, no?

Why did people need to believe that the building was going collapse in order to evacuate? Is the obvious terrorist attack on the 2 skyscraper next you not enough reason to GTFO?

At approximately 9:32am, after a report of a third aircraft heading into the city, a second order was given in the OEM office to evacuate the WTC7. A number of personnel stayed in the OEM office and continued to work. Again, at approximately 9:44am, following the news that the pentagon had been attacked, a deputy OEM commissioner verbally ordered the complete evacuation of WTC7.

Where does it say "Because of the threat that WTC 2 might collapse, WTC 7 was evacauted"...?

And what exactly is your main point here? Not WTC7 smoke = no big fires in WTC7 = not a structural failure = CD?

 

[twinstead]

Suspicious? May be. It was different than described.

So you'd think the insurance companies would be all over that, right? Something's just not right, huh?

 

[achimspok]

Deputy Chief Peter Hayden, FDNY Division 1:

(emphasis added)


That quote, for some reason, isn't included in the History Commons page on Hayden. Perhaps that's why you were unaware of it.

No, I read it before but I didn't know that theodolit = transit.
I really wondered about the bulge in the SW corner between 10-13 because that part of the building is missing.

No, it wouldn't be fine, because the Truther measurements have claimed to distinguish between tilting and the start of vertical drop (for instance of the antenna) with precise timing, which requires a 3D approach that has not been attempted. As with any measurement, we would expect an error range, but femr2 and Major_Tom claim video tracing resolutions of a small fraction of a pixel. That means it should be possible to get some useful results and, in any case, the results of a more limited analysis using the same data can only be less reliable.

Respectfully,
Myriad

The 3D approach is exactly how it was done. There is the Sauret video from N, the NBC-V video from NE and another video from West Street synchronized, measured, calculated. The tracing technique is indeed pretty precise. It is used e.g. in Hollywood to track film footage and print 3D objects in the image. It tracks areas of pixels to reach a resolution of the movement well below pixel size.
Of course a triangulation with transits would be much more precise but these data are not available.

 

[achimspok]

Read what? You rambling on like an idiot about the smoke & think that it's something "not of this world"?!

I know you tend to shy away from photographic evidence, but to keep going on & on about something this stupid is a waste of thread space.

Not only is the smoke pouring out of broken windows, it's also coming from the hole in the facade that WTC1 created when it collapsed.

Give it up already!

Of course, smoke is pouring out of the debris that hit the building. Of course, smoke is pouring out of windows. The question is , which windows and when.

 

[achimspok]

So you'd think the insurance companies would be all over that, right? Something's just not right, huh?

It has nothing to do with the insurance companies. That just came up with the question if a decision like pulling back the rescue workers should base on the expertise of some unknown Jim.

Something's not right, right. "Stage 1" is missing.

 

[Sabretooth]

What? Do you know what we talking about? No. It's painfully obvious that you post your opinion about you don't know what.

Little help:
windows between 40...30 along the SW corner mostly unbroken.
windows at 11,12,13 S broken.

You implied the fires in WTC6, an 8-story building, were causing a wake effect of smoke the reached the 47-story height of WTC7.

Couldn't possibly be caused by the fires throughout WTC7, right? Even though, as you obviously stated, fires were readily visible through the windows on floors 11, 12, 13, etc...

Anyway...again...are you going to get to your point anytime soon?