I think what he's saying is that the Penthouse collapses but the total collapse of the building in general doesn't start until a few seconds later and for 2.28 seconds the collapse is indistinguishable from free fall....
I understand what he is saying. But there are several issues before we even get to what he is saying:
1) First please realise that some of us, me included, understand basic physics. And more advanced physics but basic will do for this issue; AND
2) We have been confronting Chandlers claims (and others such as Szamboti's) for several years minimum.
Bottom line is we have little patience left when yet another person comes presenting Chandler's material as if:
A) It is new; AND
B) It is true.
It is neither new nor true. And it is worse than simply "not true". It is deliberately written with the intention of deceiving people such as you by a person who must know that his claims are untrue. The misleading use of language in the first few seconds - emotive propaganda tricks and lies by innuendo - turn most of us honest people off watching. But forget that aspect for now - let's first deal with the outright untruths of fact and not the trickery of presentation.
So if you are genuinely interested in understanding aspects of the WTC7 collapse and what is right and what is wrong with Chandler's claims some members , me included, will walk you through the issues. Provided you for your part are prepared and able to enter into reasoned discussion. If you are not you are simply another trolling truther and I won't waste time with your delusions.
Now the underlying issue with this truther meme of 'David Chandler forced NIST to admit "free-fall"' is the presumption that free-fall means CD. It doesn't. And all truther claims based on free-fall including Chandler's fail at that starting point. When complicated structures such as steel framed buildings collapse it is not unexpected that some bits fall at accelerations which are large proportions of "G".
That happens for all the reasons truthers claim with the one big exception that it does not follow exclusively from CD. It is a consequence of the collapse mechanism and cares not whether that mechanism was "natural" or included some assistance from CD.
So put very simply free-fall means nothing. It certainly does not prove CD. So Chandler's and similar truther claims collapse like a house of cards before they even leave the starting line. But you may need to understand the physics or engineering that is involved before you accept that simple truth.
Now if you are prepared to work forward from that basis I am prepared to explain further. If not, no sweat to me, remain in your delusions that Chandler it saying something legit. He isn't but......
He is wrong in engineering basics. He is wrong in logic. And it is easy to prove.
Your call. If you remain committed to "Chandler is right" then none of us here can help you. Other members but not me will probably play games with your trolling. If they do remember it is your fault - you had the offer and rejected it.
Your call!
So, given that "line in the sand":
...NIST say that collapse starts at a point that Chandler identifies as frame 16 in his video when in fact it doesn't start until frame 40. They have to say frame 16 otherwise their 5.4 seconds of collapse will not fit.
See Part 3
Notice at 3.50 Chandler mentions the bottom 8 floors. It is interesting to note that NIST contracted out the analysis of the collapse of the building accept for the bottom eight floors.
It is the bottom eight floors of support that have been removed simultaneously to initiate the free fall we can clearly see in the video.
See the full lecture from David Chandler
The offer from me is to discuss why Chandler is wrong. No need to confuse it with whether or not NIST was wrong. So all the latter bits of quoted stuff
are irrelevant at this stage!
Over to you. This is probably the best offer you will get.
