Miami Tower Collapse Analysis - The Scientific Method

[Richard the G]

Many of you will have seen the Miami Beach Building Collapse this week on YouTube. https://youtu.be/GVGzzEMlCH4

Now if you use the AE911TRUTH Scientific Method to evaluate this collapse then you get the following:


Sudden Onset of Destruction at Base of Structure
Check

Straight Down, Symmetrical Footprint into base of Structure
Check

Mid-air pulverization of concrete
Check

Massive concrete blocks of concrete ejected across highway
Check

Freefall speed Through Path of Greatest Resistance
Check

Total Dismemberment of Structure
Check

Minimal Damage to Adjacent Structures
Check

Enormous Pyroclastic Like Clouds of Pulverized Concrete
Check

So with such a comprehensive scientific approach it must have been CD

Plus we also have the Plasco Tower and the São Paulo tower collapses due to fire. No wonder they only have a handful of misguided scientists supporting them.

 

[Oystein]

Many of you will have seen the Miami Beach Building Collapse this week on YouTube. https://youtu.be/GVGzzEMlCH4

Very cool, thanks!


Couple of nitpicks:

...
Freefall speed Through Path of Greatest Resistance
Check

Uhm - did you actually measure that some part of the structure accelerated at g for some time interval? I call bare assertion.

...
So with such a comprehensive scientific approach it must have been CD

It WAS a CD!

Of course you ably and fittingly mock AE's laundry list-

 

[Oystein]

Some early reporting and background from CBS Miami:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MNUvh7q9nEw



This includes video footage of the collapse from another angle, starting at 36 seconds.

Reporter says the building had a demolition permit, but not an implosion permit, and he expresses a few times his impression that this was an "implosion" (by which, I guess, he means "explosive demolition"). But obviously, no explosive charges go off. This building was being attackt by some mechanical hammering.

 

[Oystein]

Another (?) shot: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/world...-injured-as-building-collapses-in-miami-beach

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Injured guy is intubated, that's not good.

 

[Richard the G]

Very cool, thanks!


Couple of nitpicks:

Uhm - did you actually measure that some part of the structure accelerated at g for some time interval? I call bare assertion.


It WAS a CD!

Of course you ably and fittingly mock AE's laundry list-

Well it was nearly freefall. 64%

And it was not controlled demolition it was an accident. But it was a failure at the weakest part. And it did fall down and not out

 

[Brainster]

Well it was nearly freefall. 64%

And it was not controlled demolition it was an accident. But it was a failure at the weakest part.

And yet physics teaches us that the failure should occur at the strongest part.

And it did fall down and not out

And physics teaches us that it should fall up and out.

 

[Oystein]

Well it was nearly freefall. 64%

And it was not controlled demolition it was an accident. But it was a failure at the weakest part. And it did fall down and not out

You made the 64% up!!!

Well, it was a controlled demolition gone wrong (never intended to collapse, I presume). The building was undergoing a planned demolition.

 

[Dave Rogers]

From CNN:

A black sign amid the rubble, seen in the bottom left of the image below, says, "Watch it come down."

If that isn't proof of foreknowledge, I don't know what is.

Dave

 

[Richard the G]

You made the 64% up!!!

Well, it was a controlled demolition gone wrong (never intended to collapse, I presume). The building was undergoing a planned demolition.

Yes I did make up the 64%g ... a tried and tested Ae911truth approach

But unlike Ae911truth I think I can prove it.

If you look at the movie of the building collapse you can measure the movement from 5.5 seconds when it starts to 7 seconds when the top of the building disappears Assuming a 3m story height then a fall at g would give you the following

At 0 secs, 0 m
At 0.5 secs 1.2m
At 1.0 secs. 4.9m
At 1.5 secs 11.3 m. Or 3.5 storeys

Whereas at 64%g the fall would be as follows

At 0 secs, 0 m
At 0.5 secs 0.8m
At 1.0 secs. 3.1m
At 1.5 secs 7.1 m. Or 2.3 storeys

So I think it’s quite easy to demonstrate that it fell faster than 64% g or as Ae911truth would say....nearly freefall

 

[DGM]

Yes I did make up the 64%g ... a tried and tested Ae911truth approach

But unlike Ae911truth I think I can prove it.

If you look at the movie of the building collapse you can measure the movement from 5.5 seconds when it starts to 7 seconds when the top of the building disappears

"When it starts to move". How are you tracking this? I assume you are focusing in on a single pixel.

Was there a jolt?

 

[Richard the G]

"When it starts to move". How are you tracking this? I assume you are focusing in on a single pixel.

Was there a jolt?

No I measured the middle of the floor at the top of the building. Using the streetlight as a scaled constant. In 1.5 seconds it moves down about 3 storey or close to free fall

There was no initial jolt but at 1.5 seconds just before the cloud dust covers it the collapse slows down. So yes you can say there was a jolt of sorts

 

[carlitos]

Well it was nearly freefall. 64%

[beachnut mode] Nearly freefall is 64% - like running a 100 yard dash in 14 seconds is nearly world-class - fake knowledge absence of thinking I'm going to go make speaker cabinets with my grand-kids now [/beachnut mode]

 

[Jim_MDP]

I thought this started as a joke thread (rightly so IMO).

Is there an argument going on now? I'm confused.

 

[Imadeyouthink]

Well it was nearly freefall. 64%

And it was not controlled demolition it was an accident. But it was a failure at the weakest part. And it did fall down and not out

what do you believe how many seconds would it take to not collapse due to structure failure?

 

[Richard the G]

I thought this started as a joke thread (rightly so IMO).

Is there an argument going on now? I'm confused.

I don’t think there is much of an argument here, just pointing out that many of the events that happened at this collapse are the exactly the same as those claimed by Ae911truth that prove controlled demolition

For instance the simultaneous failure of 40 columns could not happen without explosives according to Ae911truth but it happened here.

Just sayin..

 

[Richard the G]

what do you believe how many seconds would it take to not collapse due to structure failure?

Not sure I understand the question. But if it didn’t collapse then I would expect it to last 50 years of 10 seconds.

 

[Spanx]

I hope that someone has collected some dust samples to find out the truth on this one.

 

[Georgio]

Because of the distance it all looks unreal and harmless until about 12 seconds into the video when a large piece of concrete comes hurtling towards the camera and bouncing on the road like a jagged cannonball. Absolutely terrifying.

 

[Redwood]

Bad news: https://wsvn.com/news/local/constru...i-beach-building-collapse-dies-from-injuries/