"The NIST's Stage 1 does not suggest that WTC7 was standing still. It was falling but its acceleration had not yet reached that of gravity. I have read much debate regarding the legitimacy of the NIST's Stage 1 calculation, but I include it because they still acknowledge freefall in their Stage 2.
"I addressed that, as you may have noticed. The time is too long for explosives and too short for thermite."
"The simultaneous demolition occurring on the lower structural columns was not represented by 8 storeys of instantly vaporized steel. The NIST's Stage 1 <g acceleration, indicates their belief that the WTC7 collapse had not reached freefall for the first 1.75 seconds into its global collapse."
"It is not a belief, but a measurement. WTC7 did not reach freefall until 1.75 seconds after the starting point NIST chose for their measurement, and at the time its acceleration reached freefall it had already fallen a significant distance."
Well I chose the word
belief because there is some debate about how and where the NIST took their measurements. Regardless, we are in agreement that WTC7 did, very soon after, achieve freefall.
"Clearly during that first 1.75 second period, there was a uniform removal of support across the complete WTC7 cross-section but structural resistance was not quite zero."
"This is completely incorrect. Firstly, we know from the deformation of the building as it fell - in particular, the kink in the north face clearly visible in the photographs posted in this thread - that the removal of support was not uniform, but rather that it occurred significantly sooner near the centre of the face and significantly later near the east and west ends. The kink alone proves conclusively that the removal of support was not, in fact, simultaneous; rather, it was sequential across the face, exactly as would be expected from a laterally progressing structural failure due to overloading. Secondly, the structural resistance can be determined directly from the rate of acceleration, and it is entirely misleading to describe its value as "not quite zero" over this entire period. It decreased smoothly, and more or less monotonically, from a value equal to the weight of the structure above it to a value insignificantly different from zero over the 1.75 seconds of phase 1."
Wow. Completely incorrect. Like all the structural support for my statement is missing?
So we are going to go into nitpick, or diamond cutting mode now are we?
I agree there was a kink, but too qualify my comment about uniformity as
"completely incorrect", I would expect an irregularity in the roofline much more pronounced than the kink. A "roofline kink" is a classic indicator of a controlled demolition by implosion I might add.
Since, as you know I believe that the collapse of WTC7 was the result of an implosion-based controlled demolition, of course I expect the core to fail first. That is after all, how implosions are designed.
I never presented any acceleration numbers, so I see no point in quibbling over your hand waving numbers which, after all is said and done, represent a less than freefall acceleration for NIST's Stage 1.
"After 1.75 seconds of near freefall acceleration, zero resistance was achieved and WTC7 achieved the NIST's Stage 2, freefall acceleration for their estimated 2.25 seconds, followed by a Stage 3 de-acceleration, deceleration less than freefall for 1.4 seconds (resistance from the growing debris pile)."
"And this is both incorrect and, in places, close to scientific illiteracy. The initial 1.75 seconds was not at near freefall acceleration, but at a varying acceleration increasing steadily from zero to freefall. The duration of the final stage of the collapse is not accurately known, as far as I'm aware, but I've seen no indication that the building decelerated in its final stages; in fact, if it had decelerated, it would have been the most extraordinary event observed at any point in the day. I presume you mean that its acceleration decreased to a value less than 1G; clearly you're confusing your second and third derivatives, as I would expect from someone with not even the most basic understanding of Newtonian dynamics.
Since your beliefs about the collapse progression of WTC7 are so extraordinarily inaccurate, it would of course be no surprise that your conclusions were similarly inaccurate even if they proceeded from your premises. But, of course, they don't; you're just making up fantasies, without any basis in fact whatsoever."
Wow. Now you are accusing me of bordering on scientific illiteracy.
Regarding
"near freefall acceleration", given the potential for inaccuracies in the NIST video derived measurements, I thought near freefall was an acceptable compromise given that Stage 1 could very well have been less than 1.75 seconds.
I suppose it was useful of you to tell the world that at global collapse T=0, acceleration was also initially zero. Brilliant elucidation there Dave.
How your declaration that acceleration steadily increased from zero to freefall, varies significantly in meaning from my statement;
"After 1.75 seconds of near freefall acceleration, zero resistance was achieved", as in freefall acceleration.
If it makes you feel better, I will concede that Stage 1 acceleration was a variable and that Stage 2 acceleration was a constant.
And yes, in my haste I made a shocking typo,
de-acceleration, should have read as deceleration. I'm sorry about all the confusion that must have generated. It is difficult maintaining the high standards of writing proficiency that are maintained here in JREF (cough cough).
So Dave, in a nutshell, you have again revealed your intellectual dishonesty by quibbling over the small stuff while ignoring the big picture.
For you apparently, The Official Story is akin to a religious belief.
It is pointless to argue about beliefs founded on faith or incredulity.
And before you argue that my belief that 9/11 was an inside job is akin to a religious belief, you have to examine motive.
Your religion is far more popular and a lot less depressing than mine.
In all honesty, I really wish you could find the argument that would allow me to convert to your side.
MM
