NIST Denies Access to WTC7 Data

cmatrix said:
All four corners however, were in immediate free fall.
Click to expand...


No published data set shows immediate transition of the corners from stationary to free fall, not even Chandler's. Your claim is therefore based on unpublished (and therefore unscrutinized and hence unreliable) data, or is simply false.

And even if it were true, you have admitted that falling (e.g. bowing of the roof line) did begin before the free fall period, hence there was GPE being converted during that time, that was available to buckle the structure. As is of course already well known, since the interior of the building had begun several seconds before.

Respectfully,
Myriad
 
cmatrix said:
No all the data shows free fall began immediately. ...
Click to expand...

This statement is FALSE.

NIST's data doesn't show this.
Chandler's data doesn't show this.
Femr2's data doesn't show this.

Is there any other data that you are aware of and I am not?

I claim the opposite:

NONE of the data shows free fall began immediately.
This should be easy for you to disprove if you have ANY data that shows free fall began immediately. You only need a data set with three data points of (t, h), where t is a time, and h is a the relative height of some corner. h1 and h2 should be the same (corner starts at rest), and h3 should be different (corner has started to fall).
If 2(h2-h3)/(t3-t2)2 = 9.8 m/s2 (or near), you will have proven your point.
 
cmatrix said:
Ah so NIST said the minor damage to WTC 7 added no significant bearing on the collapse. It collapsed with or without the damage. IOW NIST stated that the damage to WTC 7 was minor and was not responsible for its collapse. Which is just what I said and you believe I'm wrong. Oookaaay...

So when will you present the science, and engineering reports, and more facts that show fires caused WTC 7 to collapse? It's certainly not from NIST who are unable to explain the free fall period. None of the debunksters here have been able to either.

"The ATF, FBI, and other state, national, and local LE agencies picked through EVERY piece of the rubble BY HAND."

IOW you have absolutely no proof that not a single beam from the WTC towers showed this type of damage. All you have is faith-based belief. How do you know that the ATF, FBI, and other state, national, and local LE agencies examined every piece of the rubble and found no thermate-consistent damage? How do you know they are not lying? Because they told you? You believe everything you're told on faith? That explains a lot.

"Wrong. And wrong. But hey, arguments from personal ignorance will get you far...."

Well completely unsupported arguments from personal pomposity will not get you anywhere.

How have you determined that thermate reaction displays could not be hidden? Argument from incredulity? What would happen if you say put a Nomex mat around the device?
Click to expand...

Nomex would burn at that temperature.

Occam's razor and all............
 
cmatrix said:
I don't call insults, pompous pronouncements, misrepresentations and 30 post rambling discussions due to your equivocation of the different definitions of the word "available" explanations.

If I was so wrong about these elementary high-school principles you could easily explain why. That you choose insults instead explains why you don't.
Click to expand...

Have you seen this yet?

Myriad said:
Well, I'll try once more, because the error is extremely simple and obvious.


All the data shows that the fall began before the free fall period. Which means that before the free fall, during the non-free fall, converted GPE was available to do work such as bucking the columns. The fact that the fall did not become free fall immediately proves that it definitely was doing work on something during that time.

Respectfully,
Myriad
Click to expand...



Why don't you listen?
 
cmatrix said:
No all the data shows free fall began immediately. NIST deviously chose a measurement point in the middle of the building instead of a corner. The roof bowed first explaining the non-free fall period you refer to. All four corners however, were in immediate free fall. This means GPE took out the supports when no GPE could have been available. Clearly the crackpot NIST theory violates the laws of physics.
Click to expand...

Care to back this up with facts?

Didn't Chandler also agree that it was only a portion of the N face?
 
Myriad said:
No published data set shows immediate transition of the corners from stationary to free fall, not even Chandler's. Your claim is therefore based on unpublished (and therefore unscrutinized and hence unreliable) data, or is simply false.

And even if it were true, you have admitted that falling (e.g. bowing of the roof line) did begin before the free fall period, hence there was GPE being converted during that time, that was available to buckle the structure. As is of course already well known, since the interior of the building had begun several seconds before.

Respectfully,
Myriad
Click to expand...

So let's analyze Chandler's work at http://911speakout.org/Freefall.pdf

This data is just as published as NIST's is.

In the first 1/5 seconds the building does appear to be in free fall. During this time there is no GPE available to buckle structure. Yet somehow all resistance is removed at this time. However, for the next whole 2/5 (.4) seconds it does fall at constant velocity. Bear in mind that in this initial 3/5 (.6) seconds transition to free fall period the building has fallen only .6 meters (2 whole feet!). So according to the crackpot NIST theory, eight entire stories of supporting structure (including several core columns) buckled simultaneously over eight stories in .6 seconds while only falling 2 feet. That's not a progressive collapse. That's a miracle in a faith-based psychotic delusion.
 
cmatrix said:
So let's analyze Chandler's work at http://911speakout.org/Freefall.pdf

This data is just as published as NIST's is.

In the first 1/5 seconds the building does appear to be in free fall. During this time there is no GPE available to buckle structure. Yet somehow all resistance is removed at this time. However, for the next whole 2/5 (.4) seconds it does fall at constant velocity. Bear in mind that in this initial 3/5 (.6) seconds transition to free fall period the building has fallen only .6 meters (2 whole feet!). So according to the crackpot NIST theory, eight entire stories of supporting structure (including several core columns) buckled simultaneously over eight stories in .6 seconds while only falling 2 feet. That's not a progressive collapse. That's a miracle in a faith-based psychotic delusion.
Click to expand...

I don't often ask this, but in your case I have to wonder. What are your qualifications in making the above assessment of Chandler's work?

ETA - You are in BC, no? Maybe you studied engineering at the Whistler Polytechnic Institute?
 
Last edited:
cmatrix said:
So let's analyze Chandler's work at http://911speakout.org/Freefall.pdf

This data is just as published as NIST's is.

In the first 1/5 seconds the building does appear to be in free fall.
Click to expand...


Doesn't appear that way to me.

If only there were some way to determine which of us is interpreting what "appears" to be the acceleration in the first 1/5 seconds correctly. Using, like, numbers and math or something, so your claims could proceed beyond idle and unconvincing speculation. Oh well.

Respectfully,
Myriad
 
Myriad said:
Doesn't appear that way to me.

If only there were some way to determine which of us is interpreting what "appears" to be the acceleration in the first 1/5 seconds correctly. Using, like, numbers and math or something, so your claims could proceed beyond idle and unconvincing speculation. Oh well.

Respectfully,
Myriad
Click to expand...

Isn't math and such just a big conspiracy anyway? :D
 
triforcharity said:
I don't think you understand how Nomex works.

It wouldn't hide it for long.
Click to expand...

All it would take is a few seconds. Anyway, how about a Pyreflect Blanket that can handle 1650°C for 1 minute. Steel melts around 1370 degrees C.
 
cmatrix said:
All it would take is a few seconds. Anyway, how about a Pyreflect Blanket that can handle 1650°C for 1 minute. Steel melts around 1370 degrees C.
Click to expand...

Max short term exposure is 1,000 Deg. F. This refers to direct exposure. Not radiant heat, which is easier to resist against.

Performance lab tested at 3000°F (1650°C) for 1 minute, Pyreflect™ fire blanket reflects at least 90% of radiant heat energy.
Click to expand...

From here http://www.adlinsulflex.com/fire-blankets/pyreflect-blanket

Yeah, go back and try again. Maybe we could get some of the tiles from the Space Shuttle to wrap around these giant contraptions......:rolleyes:

Did you mean to say SilicaFlex?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom