• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Merged Freefall is not evidence for Controlled Demolition

DGM said:
His limiting the scope of the discussion to the last few seconds of the collapse also plays to his leaning to propaganda over fact.
Click to expand...

Indeed limiting, discussion to two or three seconds of a collapse that took near seventeen seconds from first failure to final state is rather ,,,, let's call it 'disingenuous'.
 
Senenmut said:
dust? im not wtcdust now am I? maybe iron rich microspheres or something like that..... haha.....anyway, if one can turn 1 inch of steel (at connection points or to columns) to razor thin, and make columns buckle where you want them to buckle, then I think you are closer to the truth.

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_2854449b6c54b826e6.jpg[/qimg]

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_2854450f1b21e84975.jpg[/qimg]

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_2854450fd8c715f054.jpg[/qimg]
Click to expand...
What have these acid-eroded bit to do with anything?
 
I notice that that whackadoodle Chandler based his calculations on how fast a spot on the top of #7 was moving. I just wonder, though, if he is making a big mistake in assuming that the spot is moving straight down. As I see the simulations and the real-time videos, it appears to me that the spot was moving away from the camera. Would this not give the appearance that the spot was moving faster than it was?

I will allow those with better math skills than mine work on that.
 
leftysergeant said:
I notice that that whackadoodle Chandler based his calculations on how fast a spot on the top of #7 was moving. I just wonder, though, if he is making a big mistake in assuming that the spot is moving straight down. As I see the simulations and the real-time videos, it appears to me that the spot was moving away from the camera. Would this not give the appearance that the spot was moving faster than it was?

I will allow those with better math skills than mine work on that.
Click to expand...

That and other questions were all pretty much beaten to death in the femr2 video thread. Warning: some of it gets pretty technical, but the high points can be followed.
 
leftysergeant said:
I notice that that whackadoodle Chandler based his calculations on how fast a spot on the top of #7 was moving. I just wonder, though, if he is making a big mistake in assuming that the spot is moving straight down. As I see the simulations and the real-time videos, it appears to me that the spot was moving away from the camera. Would this not give the appearance that the spot was moving faster than it was?

I will allow those with better math skills than mine work on that.
Click to expand...

Chandler, NIST, femr - all show the very first NW perimeter corner motion at less than FFA, indicating resistance by this column line. Pictures show low down perimeter columns bent corroborating this. Column then breaks at splice, falls without support like Sunter said.
Chandler didn't know what he was looking at and skipped this non FFA period when making up FFA=CD
Had it been CD=FFA then the acceleration line would have been a straight line step function from 0 to G as others have said (LSSBB, tfk ) not a curve.
None of this bothers rabid truthers because they want to believe what politically pleases them, not what is verifiable.
 
Last edited:
LSSBB said:
No, I am not. If you want to bring a computer sim into it, be sure to spell out all assumptions and directly show why it disproves any elements of my OP.
Click to expand...

why do you think the sim did not show FF?
they spent thousands of computer hrs trying to make that building fall. do you think that you can stick your OP into the nist model with those thousands of connections and make it fall at FF for a period of time?
if so, why do you think they cant make that building fall at FF.
 
Senenmut said:
why do you think the sim did not show FF?
they spent thousands of computer hrs trying to make that building fall. do you think that you can stick your OP into the nist model with those thousands of connections and make it fall at FF for a period of time?
if so, why do you think they cant make that building fall at FF.
Click to expand...
What makes you say they can't?

Are you aware they didn't model the exterior facade? The model does however show why the building would have had a period of near free-fall.
 
Justin39640 said:
Um... those are pictures of steel after having been attacked by a corrosive. Do I have to post my pics again of steel battery cases that show the same sort of corrosion? (room temp, sulfuric acid attack)
Click to expand...

too bad the "slag" had to be at least 940Cish which is triple the boiling point of sulfuric acid.
 
Senenmut said:
dust? im not wtcdust now am I? maybe iron rich microspheres or something like that..... haha.....anyway, if one can turn 1 inch of steel (at connection points or to columns) to razor thin, and make columns buckle where you want them to buckle, then I think you are closer to the truth.

[URL]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_2854449b6c54b826e6.jpg[/URL]

[URL]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_2854450f1b21e84975.jpg[/URL]

[URL]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_2854450fd8c715f054.jpg[/URL]
Click to expand...

Senenmut said:
too bad the "slag" had to be at least 940Cish which is triple the boiling point of sulfuric acid.
Click to expand...

Too bad you are showing corrosion done in fire, at 1000C and less. Means the thermite claims are an idiotic lie. It also means only a few samples were found which showed corrosion. Means there was no inside job. Your fantasy failed. What will you do with 12 years of solid failure? What is next? Bigfoot?

Free-fall does not mean CD, and corrosion of steel mean no thermite. The steel you showed did not melt, it was corroded. How does that tie in to free-fall?

Oh, you think computer models failed to show FF. How would you know? Did you read the NIST report. After you posted the steel, it seems you don't read the reports that go with the steel. Why can't you understand models? You don't understand WTC 7 - not news.

It is silly to use the steel that was corroded to support your fantasy. Feel free to explain how it fits in your fantasy. Iron rich sphere found by Jones and his cronies were iron oxide, not a product of thermite - iron rich sphere are common in dust, and fires. 911 truth does not do reality.
 
Last edited:
LSSBB said:
Please explain why this is relevant.
Click to expand...

sunder "a free fall time would be an object that has no...uh... structural components below it."

cut the connections...ya know. cut that steel that was an inch thick or whatever thickness to paper thin.
the we can say just the opposite of what sunder had to say, "And that is not at all unusual because there was structural resistance that was provided in this particular case. And you had...you had a sequence of structural failures that had to take place and everything was not instantaneous."


we could then say "the connections were cut and there was no structural resistance provided in this particular case. and you didn't have....didn't have any structural failures that had to take place so it was instantaneous....and instantaneous free fall drop.

:D
 
beachnut said:
Too bad you are showing corrosion done in fire, at 1000C and less. Means the thermite claims are an idiotic lie. It also means only a few samples were found which showed corrosion. Means there was no inside job. Your fantasy failed. What will you do with 12 years of solid failure? What is next? Bigfoot?

Free-fall does not mean CD, and corrosion of steel mean no thermite. The steel you showed did not melt, it was corroded. How does that tie in to free-fall?

Oh, you think computer models failed to show FF. How would you know? Did you read the NIST report. After you posted the steel, it seems you don't read the reports that go with the steel. Why can't you understand models? You don't understand WTC 7 - not news.

It is silly to use the steel that was corroded to support your fantasy. Feel free to explain how it fits in your fantasy. Iron rich sphere found by Jones and his cronies were iron oxide, not a product of thermite - iron rich sphere are common in dust, and fires. 911 truth does not do reality.
Click to expand...

too bad your steel cant lay in 1000C fire and retain the microstructure you see in the sisson paper.
me in previous thread:
too bad that steel didnt lay in 1000C debris fires it lay for days, weeks, or even a month. NIST did studies on the steel at 625C for varying times up to just 2hrs. the microstructure changes drastically in just 2 hrs (ncstar 1-3C damage and failure modes page 299). the microstructure in sisson's paper did not change that much in fig 4,5,and 6 and the temp range for that microstrucure to occur was between 550-850C, not the 940C that it takes for the eutectic to become liquid and especially not the 1100C sisson uses in his experiment. FYI, there is slag ontop of the steel in fig 4. also consider that the figs 4,5,and 6 came from a piece of steel that showed signs of extreme wastage (fig 3).

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=8931954&highlight=debunked#post8931954
 
Senenmut said:
sunder "a free fall time would be an object that has no...uh... structural components below it."

cut the connections...ya know. cut that steel that was an inch thick or whatever thickness to paper thin.
the we can say just the opposite of what sunder had to say, "And that is not at all unusual because there was structural resistance that was provided in this particular case. And you had...you had a sequence of structural failures that had to take place and everything was not instantaneous."


we could then say "the connections were cut and there was no structural resistance provided in this particular case. and you didn't have....didn't have any structural failures that had to take place so it was instantaneous....and instantaneous free fall drop.

:D
Click to expand...
Whatever, I don't particularly care what Sunder says. I ain't married to NIST. That said, let me ask you just one thing. Answer it a best you can. You'll have to look at an acceleration graph to do so. Here is the question (and don't quote NIST and Chandler, they are not quite right at face value):

Exactly how long did the visible exterior fall with an acceleration exactly equal to g, in other words at free fall?
 
Senenmut said:
too bad your steel cant lay in 1000C fire and retain the microstructure you see in the sisson paper.
me in previous thread:
too bad that steel didnt lay in 1000C debris fires it lay for days, weeks, or even a month. NIST did studies on the steel at 625C for varying times up to just 2hrs. the microstructure changes drastically in just 2 hrs (ncstar 1-3C damage and failure modes page 299). the microstructure in sisson's paper did not change that much in fig 4,5,and 6 and the temp range for that microstrucure to occur was between 550-850C, not the 940C that it takes for the eutectic to become liquid and especially not the 1100C sisson uses in his experiment. FYI, there is slag ontop of the steel in fig 4. also consider that the figs 4,5,and 6 came from a piece of steel that showed signs of extreme wastage (fig 3).

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=8931954&highlight=debunked#post8931954
Click to expand...

Off topic.
 
Senenmut said:
too bad your steel cant lay in 1000C fire and retain the microstructure you see in the sisson paper.
me in previous thread:
too bad that steel didnt lay in 1000C debris fires it lay for days, weeks, or even a month. NIST did studies on the steel at 625C for varying times up to just 2hrs. the microstructure changes drastically in just 2 hrs (ncstar 1-3C damage and failure modes page 299). the microstructure in sisson's paper did not change that much in fig 4,5,and 6 and the temp range for that microstrucure to occur was between 550-850C, not the 940C that it takes for the eutectic to become liquid and especially not the 1100C sisson uses in his experiment. FYI, there is slag ontop of the steel in fig 4. also consider that the figs 4,5,and 6 came from a piece of steel that showed signs of extreme wastage (fig 3).

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=8931954&highlight=debunked#post8931954
Click to expand...

Not surprising you have no clue what you are talking about. You are not a chemical engineer.

You debunk thermite. Guess you like debunking the insane thermite claim, and you did.

You don't understand computer/engineering models, or free-fall. How does the steel help your inside job when it debunks thermite? What do engineering models have to do with free-fall, after the interior of the building has failed? You don't make sense, and that is one reason 911 truth has made zero progress for 12 years, and never will. It would be best if you avoid discussing the engineering models; it ruins your claims.

Bet you can't get the corroded steel on topic.
 
BasqueArch said:
"Chandler, NIST, femr - all show the very first NW perimeter corner motion at less than FFA, indicating resistance by this column line.

Pictures show low down perimeter columns bent corroborating this.

Column then breaks at splice, falls without support like Sunter said.

Chandler didn't know what he was looking at and skipped this non FFA period when making up FFA=CD

Had it been CD=FFA then the acceleration line would have been a straight line step function from 0 to G as others have said (LSSBB, tfk ) not a curve.

None of this bothers rabid truthers because they want to believe what politically pleases them, not what is verifiable."
Click to expand...


All people should be interested in the truth about 9/11, and in particular the truth behind the 8 story freefall shown in the WTC7 videos.

Doesn't playing a silly hand-waving game of; "gee WTC7 was falling like a brick, but I think we can prove it didn't attain FFA", bother you?

Verifiable scientific evidence has shown that the collapse of WTC7 is not plausibly explained by the final NIST report.

And whether or not WTC7 was plummeting to the earth at FFA or 0.99 FFA makes no real difference to the obvious significance of such a high speed building collapse.

During that portion of the collapse when WTC7 was dropping for 8 storeys, did you not try and visualize the pattern of support failure required to achieve a balanced high speed floor area collapse?

DROP-DROP-DROP-DROP-DROP-DROP-DROP-DROP

All the perimeter columns for complete floors amazingly 'snapping' at the same moment.

An incredible display of balanced-overloading, accidentally achieved by uncontrolled office furnishings fires?

There is a reason why prior to 9/11, no one had ever seen fire alone produce such a total high speed collapse of a steel-structured highrise.

The odds for such a thing happening are astronomically against.

MM
 
Miragememories said:
During that portion of the collapse when WTC7 was dropping for 8 storeys,
Click to expand...

The bolded part is your problem here.

Tell you what ... next time you're tempted to make such a post, make it more accurate, eh? Say "when the visible walls - those captured on video - were dropping for 8 storeys ...".

Deal?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom