If they got that wrong, which I think they didn't by my reading
The NIST statement...
In Stage 2, the north face descended at gravitational acceleration, as exterior column buckling progressed and the columns provided negligible support to the upper portion of the north face. This freefall drop continued for approximately 8 stories (105 ft), the distance traveled between times t = 1.75 s and t = 4.0 s.
...is misleading if read literally, and the values stated are inaccurate.
The simplest of observations direct from the wording above:
a) They performed a primitive trace of a horizontal position on the roofline but then state behaviour applying to *the north face*. Wrong.
b) They apply *gravitational acceleration* for the duration of their stated time period (2.25s) when it is obvious that such a behaviour could never actually occur. Wrong. I have presented graphical data showing such a position to be wrong. A more accurate representation of the WTC7 acceleration profile (for the NW corner) is...
Note the amount of time that the red line is
ON the black line. That is the amount of time the NW corner descended
AT freefall.
then you're just proving wrong just a tiny bit of the NIST findings
Sure, but given the effect of those statements, making better data available is important IMO.
Or, as Stellafane put it, "just a tiny bit of nothingness".
No, Stellaphane was suggesting that presenting information which would tend to
support the notion of
"core failure beneath the East penthouse of WTC7 propogating upwards and followed by descent of such through the building" was a tiny bit of nothingness. Given that such behaviour is the
fundamental root of the NIST most probable cause of failure, the statement by Stellaphane is
ludicrous.
You will excuse me if I don't take that for granted given that you are not a qualified engineer nor willing to publish your claims for peer review.
You have absolutely no idea of my qualifications, and as Ozeco41 has suggested the repeated call for *peer review* is a red-herring borne from the inability of others to refute what I'm saying (which for these details
supports the collapse hypothesis for God's sake). If you disagree with any technical details or assertions,
prove them wrong.
My raw data is freely available, and generating your own really is not rocket science. Get busy !
femr2's claims have to be exposed as irrelevant because he has failed to prove them relevant
Nonsense. Simply that folk such as cmatrix continue to use the 2.25s NIST conclusion to make invalid assertions about instant and simultaneous structural failure is more than enough relevancy. Much more information can also be extracted from such detailed traces, such as capturing the earliest moments of motion over 100s in advance of release...
because his arguments have not passed any BS filter.
Argument from incredulity I'm afraid. What argument do you disagree with ? Be specific. Be detailed. Put data on the table. Stop hand-waving.
use that shift to cast doubts on the whole work and conclusions.
Ye gads man. In
what way does showing more accurate trace data which is better able to assist in understanding that there was no abrupt entry into *freefall* and a shorter period of near-to-over-g acceleration make you suggest the intention is to *cast doubt on the whole work and conclusions* ? Be specific. Be detailed. Stop hand waving.
ROFL. Paranoid much ?
That, of course, would be rendered invalid if their prove their merit by publishing those findings in a peer-reviewed journal and their claims can sustain a closer scrutiny by the engineering community. That is the way to prove the conclusions right, and not a discussion in an Internet forum.
ROFL. See red-herring statement above. Go grab the data. Apply whatever noise reduction treatements you please and generate velocity and acceleration profiles from it. If you are not even capable of doing that, you should not be continuing to make these foolish arguments from incredulity.
