But the main roof of the building went instantly into free fall from a stable position.
Stage one is contrived to fit their (NIST's) 5.4 second model
LMAO.
So, it is unmistakeable that you have absolutely no clue what you are talking about.
1. The curve that you cite PROVES that the building did NOT go into instant free fall. The curve proves that the building does exactly the opposite of what you claim.
2. There is absolutely zero reason to depend on anything that NIST says on this issue. Anybody can do the measurement for themselves.
3. The measurements (done competently) prove that what you say about the Stage 1 data being "contrived" is also unquestionably, pathetically wrong.
It fell in free fall for the equivalent of 8 floors.
Uhh, nope. Sorry. It did not.
It fell APPROXIMATELY at free fall acceleration for that length of time.
A more careful examination of the data, analyzed correctly, shows that it fell "AT freefall acceleration" for ZERO sustained interval of time. Instead it passed thru 1G 4 times.
The bottom eight floors had been taken away by explosives.
Silent explosives, eh??
I'm sure that you can provide any evidence for such a thing.
Stage 3 is understandable because even after 104 feet of free fall the structure would hit resistance of floors already collapsed and air resistance which increases with the speed of the fall. (Drag)
So we can add "drag" into the concepts that you don't understand in the slightest.
The drag on any/all components produced an absolutely negligible, insignificant force on any components. Therefore drag forces had insignificant effects on the acceleration of fall time of the parts of the building that you mistakenly think are the whole building.
Notice it says VELOCITY COMPUTED NUMERICALLY for the black dots i.e. Not by observation
LMAO. You really don't have a clue what is going on in any of this analysis, do you??
It's pretty amusing to see you write a bunch of abject, laughably incorrect crappola with such assertiveness and confidence.
The fact that your claims are all wrong makes it all the more delicious...
Chandler's observed analysis
Like you, Chandler is an abject, incompetent amateur.
You may notice that a collapsing building, with thousands of interconnected parts bears no resemblance to "a ball falling in a vacuum". Or even one falling in air.
You see, it turns out that simple, remedial physics (the only kind that they teach in high school) has pretty close to nothing to do with structural engineering (the field of expertise necessary to understand the complex interactions of a collapsing structure).
A competent physics teacher would know that the fundamental assumption built into the equations that Chandler used is the assumption of a "falling isolated body". In other words, a body with no forces other than gravity acting on it. In further words, a body with nothing else touching it, & thereby exerting forces upon it.
A competent physics teacher would immediately recognize that the structure of a collapsing building completely violates this cornerstone assumption, rendering his conclusions, based upon erroneous assumption, invalid.
A competent, educated person in ANY technical field would have possessed the humility to understand that he was dicking around outside of his field of expertise, and would have taken his (fatally flawed) analysis to competent experts in the pertinent field & gotten their opinions before humiliating themselves in public.
Chandler wasn't even this competent. Even after all of the above was pointed out to him (by me, amongst many others) early in his delusional postings on this matter.
It's not surprising in the slightest that you find his work so compelling.
After all, you are exactly as incompetent an amateur as Chandler is.
Prove me wrong. Explain to me where you got your structural engineering degree & how many decades you've been practicing...
