'What about building 7'?

[JayUtah]

You are right. You do repeatedly harp on this point. Unfortunately, you never present a case showing your point has any meaningful value.

You must have missed it. The case is that the collapse was not invariably free-fall. If it isn't then you can't say it is, and your case for that being suspicious evaporates by subversion of support (even if it didn't already also fail for other reasons). Other people manage to read and glean the argument. Why don't you?

...what possible significance could there be to a few plot points in the acceleration chart which show fractional deviations from freefall?

First, you are ignoring (once again) that the deviations are not just a statistical anomaly. You claimed they were, it was proven otherwise, and you have no answer so you just ignore it.

Second, your claim relies upon the apparent collapse speed being the product only of gravity, such as if all the underlying support were suddenly removed. It is that allegation of sudden removal that your claim rests upon entirely, because it is from that -- and that alone -- that you infer the use of magical explosives. However, if the data show that some members actually fell faster than gravity, it would prove that your theory is based on a simplistic formulation of the collapse mechanics. If your theory is simplistic, it means you can't assert your belief as the default. And without that indirection, your entire line of reasoning for explosives and controlled demolition fails.

You don't respond, but simply bide your time and post the same irrelevant points all over again.

I and others manage to see how they are relevant. In fact, everyone except you and a few other fanatics manage to see how they're relevant.

Let me be blunt. Your beliefs comprise a very, very tiny minority. Your claims simply aren't convincing to the vast number of people, and the near unanimous body of relevant experts. You can bemoan that fact all you want, but consider that we're not simply "biding our time" or repeating insignificance -- we're telling you why your claims are not credible. At this point you don't get to argue that they somehow are; they evidently are not. We're just giving you the reasons. Do with that as you will, but so far your approach seems to be to ignore as much of it as possible and continue pretending anything you and your colleagues do has any relevance at all in the real world.

 

[Miragememories]

A big problem with sound and relating it to visuals is distance... We know sound travels at about 1100 ft per sec and so that's 4 blocks or so. Standing at that distance... (outside the safety zone I believe) the sound would be heard a second after what caused it is seen. If you turn to see what you heard... at that distance it took place one second previously.

If you move the witness or the camera further back... the sound and the visuals are more out of sync.

We are aware of this at the July 4th fireworks where the sound and the lights are out of sync... lights then sound. It seems odd but that's because the sound travels so much slower and our proximity is more than 1000 feet from the pyrotechnic launcher.

Clearly ear witnesses would be confused by the out of sync of visual and the audio.

Well we know the witness was closer to WTC7 when it collapsed than he was when he was interviewed. We also know that the outside temperature was warmer than 68F.

He said he heard a sound comparable to a "clap of thunder."

Given, as you rightfully pointed out, that sound travels at ~1100 ft/sec at room temperature (68F) in dry air, when he looked at WTC7, whatever caused that initial "clap of thunder" was over by a second or less.

So now he is watching, rather than hearing, events occurring at the speed of light (186,000 mi./sec for LSSBB).

As he and his friend watched, they observed what appeared to be a shockwave rip through WTC7.

This was followed by all the windows busting out.

A second after this, the bottom floor caved out, followed by the building crashing all the way to the ground.

He ran north and within approximately 5 minutes of WTC7's collapse, encountered the Radio 1010 reporter who interviewed him.

 

[JayUtah]

Well we know the witness ...

I discussed your witness's testimony at length.

 

[DGM]

He said he heard a sound comparable to a "clap of thunder."

Given, as you rightfully pointed out, that sound travels at ~1100 ft/sec at room temperature (68F) in dry air, when he looked at WTC7, whatever caused that initial "clap of thunder" was over by a second or less.

So now he is watching, rather than hearing, events occurring at the speed of light (186,000 mi./sec for LSSBB).

As he and his friend watched, they observed what appeared to be a shockwave rip through WTC7.

This was followed by all the windows busting out.

A second after this, the bottom floor caved out, followed by the building crashing all the way to the ground.

Matches the NIST hypothesis exactly. Thanks for the eye-witness confirmation.

You should tell Tony Sz, He claims there was no effect on the building after the penthouses were seen collapsing.

 

[Georgio]

...the deviations are not just a statistical anomaly. You claimed they were, it was proven otherwise,

Can you provide a link to where it was proved that the deviations are not a statistical anomaly, and does that include them definitely not being a possible effect of one of the mathematical 'smoothing' processes? Could someone who is convinced that the deviations cannot be due to the smoothing process explain their reasoning in non-mathematical terminology? I couldn't even begin to understand the 'discussion of femr's video analysis' thread.

 

[LSSBB]

Well we know the witness was closer to WTC7 when it collapsed than he was when he was interviewed. We also know that the outside temperature was warmer than 68F.

He said he heard a sound comparable to a "clap of thunder."

Given, as you rightfully pointed out, that sound travels at ~1100 ft/sec at room temperature (68F) in dry air, when he looked at WTC7, whatever caused that initial "clap of thunder" was over by a second or less.

So now he is watching, rather than hearing, events occurring at the speed of light (186,000 mi./sec for LSSBB).

As he and his friend watched, they observed what appeared to be a shockwave rip through WTC7.

This was followed by all the windows busting out.

A second after this, the bottom floor caved out, followed by the building crashing all the way to the ground.

He ran north and within approximately 5 minutes of WTC7's collapse, encountered the Radio 1010 reporter who interviewed him.

Thanks, I know what the speed of light is. Kinda hard to get an Astrophysics degree without knowing that.

Keep running away from caughing up real evidence to support your claims. Maybe you'll get to 299,792 km/s. (I prefer metric.)

You do realize the inside of a building collapsing will create quite a spectacle. May even appear like a shockwave to a witness.

 

[JayUtah]

Can you provide a link to where it was proved that the deviations are not a statistical anomaly...

It was here in this forum. Use the search function.

 

[JayUtah]

You do realize the inside of a building collapsing will create quite a spectacle. May even appear like a shockwave to a witness.

And that collapse initiation might just sound like thunder -- which demolition explosives do not. And the resulting loss of overall structural integrity might deform the surviving structure just enough to break windows.

 

[thedopefishlives]

In my opinion, recasting the inconsequential WTC 7 as the new principal character was when it jumped the shark. When you have to justify why your suspicious outcome matters, you've lost any sort of reasonable argument. Trying to solve Kennedy's murder over and over again has some appeal because you don't have to justify why Kennedy's death was significant. But the squabble over WTC 7 is like trying to promote some random murder as necessarily conspiratorial because the victim was secretly someone very important, somehow.

The answer to that is clear. If you suddenly promote some inconsequential occurrence, you can say whatever you want about it with less fear of contradiction since the event's obscurity makes it hard for both sides to research. That gives conspiracists an upper hand since their arguments are ever only based on conjecture anyway. They aren't hampered by a relative lack of pertinent fact.

Hence the line from Horatius in my signature. When it comes to WTC7, that's really what it boils down to. Truthers are trying to make something out of nothing because to them, everything is something. It makes for an extremely easy tactic whereby they say to the mark, "But you don't KNOW about WTC7? Well, let me tell you all about how it was a controlled demolition! That's how we know 9/11 was an inside jobbity job!"

 

[LSSBB]

Hence the line from Horatius in my signature. When it comes to WTC7, that's really what it boils down to. Truthers are trying to make something out of nothing because to them, everything is something. It makes for an extremely easy tactic whereby they say to the mark, "But you don't KNOW about WTC7? Well, let me tell you all about how it was a controlled demolition! That's how we know 9/11 was an inside jobbity job!"

No, it's worse than that. As Jay has stated in the past, the purpose is to drag out the rhetoric. They then don't have to face the reality of their belief.

Like Bigfooters, they can always be on the hunt. Superiority and righteousness endorphins can keep flowing. Woo is Woo.

ETA: I'd like to add that distrust of the government is IMO a good thing. That is, until you get to the point of not finding anything, and start making up stupid crap to keep it going.

 

[ProBonoShill]

And that collapse initiation might just sound like thunder -- which demolition explosives do not. And the resulting loss of overall structural integrity might deform the surviving structure just enough to break windows.

What MM's witness is describing is a building collapsing due to fire and loss of structural strength, not as you pointed out a CD.

Once again MM debunks himself, it's almost like performance art.

 

[Miragememories]

Thanks, I know what the speed of light is. Kinda hard to get an Astrophysics degree without knowing that.

Keep running away from caughing up real evidence to support your claims. Maybe you'll get to 299,792 km/s. (I prefer metric.)

You do realize the inside of a building collapsing will create quite a spectacle.

May even appear like a shockwave to a witness.

The only spectacle I can see is the one you are making of yourself by refusing to explain your position.

Do all astrophysicists resort to a "because" kind of argument when debunking?

Are you now claiming that even the NIST know less than you because they published an acknowledgement that during its collapse, WTC7 had a period of freefall acceleration?

 

[DGM]

Are you now claiming that even the NIST know less than you because they published an acknowledgement that during its collapse, WTC7 had a period of freefall acceleration?

Arguing irrelevant details again?

How exactly does this support your belief? I have no problem with the building achieving free-fall (if it in-fact did). Why would this support your belief?

 

[LSSBB]

The only spectacle I can see is the one you are making of yourself by refusing to explain your position.

Do all astrophysicists resort to a "because" kind of argument when debunking?

Are you now claiming that even the NIST know less than you because they published an acknowledgement that during its collapse, WTC7 had a period of freefall acceleration?

Since NIST concluded that CD did not cause the collapse of WTC7, for you to hide behind their statement regarding free fall is pretty sad.

Show me a graph of the acceleration, prove your assertion.

 

[JayUtah]

Since NIST concluded that CD did not cause the collapse of WTC7, for you to hide behind their statement regarding free fall is pretty sad.

And dishonest, since the data report many speeds -- some of them free-fall and others not. To smugly declare that one has explained only the free-fall speeds by means of a farfetched theory, and ignore the rest as "irrelevant" is the epitome of closed-mindedness.

 

[LSSBB]

Arguing irrelevant details again?

How exactly does this support your belief? I have no problem with the building achieving free-fall (if it in-fact did). Why would this support your belief?

I don't have a problem with it getting to free fall either. I already showed MM how it could do that, and even go over free fall acceleration. Which it very well could have done, if you look at Pgimeno's graphs on the Femr2 thread.

 

[jaydeehess]

The only spectacle I can see is the one you are making of yourself by refusing to explain your position.

Do all astrophysicists resort to a "because" kind of argument when debunking?

Are you now claiming that even the NIST know less than you because they published an acknowledgement that during its collapse, WTC7 had a period of freefall acceleration?

Did someone say that no part of wtc7 reached 'g'?

 

[jaydeehess]

I turned around and saw the supersonic shockwave that caused the sound which prompted me to turn around.

Sure, nothing wrong with that.

 

[000063]

...Case in point, this hyper literal interpretation without the slightest skepticism or research into the circumstances has been a sticking point for truther arguments for years. ...

I don't think it can be called "hyper-literal" if they're also quote-mining out the bits that don't fit the narrative.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

What I was getting at was that a lot of the conspiracy nuts read those quote mined bits and believe those without skepticism. It's a fair point though... the quote mining is rampant as you point out.. probably as badly as the literal take on them. But even then, putting it into context usually doesn't change the person's position an iota.