Only thing I'll say for now is that I'm not trying to create a diversion with my example, but to just provide an example that the government has been known to possess technology that most people think "can't" exist, and that a nanothermite variant could be such a technology. Regardless, I must give your argument some consideration.
Anyway, I'll have to go over everything else you bring up when I have the time. In the meantime, take care.
This video fails..as NIST does.. to explain how fires can cause the roof of the building to fall straight down at free fall speeds AT ANY PART OF ITS DESCENT.. let alone for almost 3 seconds.
@bluerap04 LOL, no actually NIST does explain, in far greater detail than any 9/11 truther has explained any counter-theory. However, truthers handwave it away and pretend there is no explanation....
So much for 'truth'..... when it's presented to you, you reject it.
Now, would you like to know a little about what NIST said about it?
Would you like to know why no truther, in 10 years, has created a model which shows how explosives, silently, could bring the building down that way?
@AlienEntity1 First of all, the building was not brought down silently. You might want to check out Chandler's video on all the footage of explosions heard. Wait, I know what your going to say: "herp derp, those people only thought they heard explosions." That's your opinion.
Second of all, any video you watch of WTC7's collapse displays characteristics of a building that has its support structures COMPLETELY destroyed during its descent, hence allowing it to collapse even at free fall speeds.
@bluerap04 Derp derp indeed. Look at ALL the undoctored videos of the WTC 7 collapse.
All of them. Listen to the sounds. What do you hear?
A rumble, that's it.
Chandler's heavily doctored video CLAIMS, very unscientifically, to show the phantom explosions. But has he really proved it, or just given you an excuse to maintain your beliefs?
Chandler is neither an audio expert, demolitions expert or forensic scientist. He's a complete amateur in those fields - but you believe.
@bluerap04 Oh bullshit. LOL, why is it that ANY cheap camcorder can capture the sounds of real explosive CD's from thousands of feet away, but NONE caught that kind of sound on 9/11 when WTC 7 fell?
Answer:
a) there were no such explosions
b) derp derp, it must've been silent explosives, or defective cameras!! yeah, that's it!!
I created a video just for you watch?v=5tNhnTBzSyQ
Remember, both collapses recorded from the same distance.... Chandler debunked again!!
@AlienEntity1 And yes, please do show me the NIST's explanation of the free fall that the building exhibited. Please prove to me how fires can destroy the insides of a building, leave the complete outer wall standing while doing so, then suddenly drop the shell of a 47 story building straight down in less than 10 seconds.
You will ignore and deny this, but you claimed they did not explain, and you were wrong.
'NCSTAR 1-9, p 612 Chapter 14 Global Collapse, it states:
The exterior columns buckled at the lower floors (between floors 7 and 14) due to load redistribution to the exterior columns from the downward movement of the building core. The entire building above the buckled-column region then moved downward in a single unit, as observed, completing the global collapse sequence.'
'As the int col buckled at the lower floors and the corresponding upper col sections began to move downward, the ext colbuckled inward at the lower flrs as a result of flr pull-in forces caused by the dwnwrd mvemnt of the building core. The floor connections to the columns had not yet failed in this region, as there were no fires observed on the West side of Floors 19 through 14 at any time during the day, so the floors were intact and able to pull the exterior columns inward.'
@bluerap04 ps NOT ONE SINGLE TRUTHER HAS, IN 10 YEARS, CREATED AN ENGINEERING MODEL, PUBLISHED AN ENGINEERING PAPER IN AN ESTABLISHED ENGINEERING JOURNAL, OR PROVIDED A SCHEMATIC FOR HOW EXPLOSIVES COULD HAVE BEEN USED TO CREATE THE EXACT COLLAPSE OF WTC 7.
So think - apply your criticisms to yourself - your 'movement' has utterly failed to do anything but complain, make vague assertions and allegations.
You've proved NOTHING. Look in the mirror for a change. Stop pointing fingers.
@AlienEntity1 Thank for you replies, book quotes, videos, etc.
The book quotes appears to be a description of what is also in the video of the computer model that NIST provided (which mysteriously stops before showing the ENTIRE collapse). That video, and your quotes, fail to explain why the building exhibited free fall speeds when collapsing. Even if you say it didn't fall at that rate, that didn't stop NIST from graphing the collapse with 2.5 seconds of free fall (or close to) built into it.
@bluerap04 No, it doesn't fail to explain it, you fail to understand the physics, and there's nothing I can do to help you.
btw, real CD's don't fall at freefall, so the whole issue is a red herring anyway (which is exactly why people like Chandler cling to it like a liferaft).
Try meeting the burden of proof - show a CD that falls at freefall like WTC 7. You can't.
You are essentially asking for the impossible - for us to disprove something that doesn't exist....
@bluerap04 The reason the facade fell as it did IS fully explained in the 2008 report. you haven't read the report, but then hardly any 9/11 Truthers have - it won't give you the euphoric high of thinking you've discovered a giant conspiracy, but it will give you actual knowledge. Ultimately the latter is more satisfying.
I'll explain it in a nutshell, and you'll probably keep denying that you've had it explained....
The floor systems connected to critical columns failed due to thermal expansion.
Several floors collapsed, between floor 7 and 14, roughly.
A long span of column 79 was left unsupported. It buckled, and started an internal progressive collapse from E to W.
Once the internal implosion progressed far enough W, it pulled inward on the exterior columns thru the intact floor connections (which were not damaged by fire)
@bluerap04 This inward pulling happened very quickly, rapidly increasing loads on the exterior moment frame. This caused a rapid buckling of the entire facade, not simultaneous, but very quick and quite uniform.
The facade began to collapse, first <G as the buckling happened
Then briefly at G after buckling
Then <G as resistance was again encountered.
No explosions were recorded during this time. No squibs were seen at this time. It was entirely a natural collapse, not planned.
@bluerap04 Truthers make the fundamental mistake of believing, without scientific grounds, that THE ONLY way such a complex collapse could occur would be by design.
But they NEVER are able to explain, in engineering terms, why this is so.
They NEVER explain exactly how and where explosives would have been placed
They never accept the burden of proof, to support their claims.
Their claims are not scientific, but political in nature. They believe in CD first, then look for rationale.
@bluerap04 Once again, another of my videos showing how vastly different the collapse of WTC 7 was to ANY known controlled demolition.
watch?v=E8yUR-sM4lU
Please, try to find a controlled demolition which falls at freefall speed. Go ahead, make my day. (You can't, btw)
That's what happens when you decide to believe in a bunch of urban legends - you become a sucker. Not my fault, and only you can get yourself out of the nonsense you believe in. It's up to you.
@AlienEntity1 Next, I admit the demolition of the towers is in some ways different than what we're used to seeing/hearing. However, remember how much more technologically advanced than we thought possible the stealth bomber was when the gov. first made it public? We can't be sure what the gov has.. From wikipedia: nanosized thermitic materials are being researched by the U.S. military with the aim of developing new types of bombs that are several times more powerful than conventional explosives.
@bluerap04 Another logical fallacy - just because you can imagine something doesn't mean it's real. You essentially are making a magic-thinking point - 'I cannot understand it, or I don't know everything, therefore God or Magic explosives must've done it'.
You're giving up on critical thinking entirely. Just say "i don't know', and leave it at that.
But pretending to know something you don't is not honest.
@AlienEntity1 Third, any "lack of evidence" you may present DOES NOT negate the fact that un-ignited nanothermite was found in the dust samples! How is it that such a highly complex chemical is "randomly" found spread around there, in abundant supply?
Anyway I hope this can remain civil. I know your used to dealing with knuckle-heads, but so am I when I bring this stuff up.
@bluerap04 You're starting to move the goalposts. There is simply NO evidence of explosions as the building falls. So it doesn't matter what magic materials are posited. And FYI the Jones/Harrit paper claims, without proper grounds, that there is thermitic material.
However they are incorrect for several reasons including:
1) The amount of Al and Fe in the chips is far too small to chemically produce a thermitic reaction
2) The energy released far exceeds real nanothermite
Real nanothermite cannot produce anything close to the ED that the red/grey chips do in DSC. Tillotson et al. publish about 1.5 KJ per G, for example. The reason has to do with
a) the fact that the chemical limit for thermite is 4.5 KJ, and 3 of 4 Jones samples exceed this.
b) Nanothermite has even less ED due to the fine particles oxidizing and being less chemically efficient.
Something else produced that energy. Not thermitic reactions.
Also, just because you don't agree that "magical" explosive technology was used, doesn't mean they don't exist. Top notched scientists thought that the tech used to construct the stealth bomber was "too magical" to exist before the gov. made it public.
Quote: Nanoenergetic thermite materials release energy much faster than conventional energetic materials and have various potential military applications such as [...] explosives. They are likely to become the next-generation explosive materials.
@bluerap04 Again, you do not address the actual issue. You are introducing a diversion - the stealth bomber, as some kind of evidence for your claim of magic technology which you claim was used.
That won't work. There is nothing about the collapse which is relevant to the stealth bomber - it is an artifice you are using as a distraction from your complete lack of evidence.
You are essentially saying 'people have been wrong in the past, therefore they are wrong now'.
@bluerap04 Also, you do not understand the chemistry arguments regarding nanothermite.
It is not the speed of release which proves a thermitic reaction - it is the chemical components that either exist in the chips, or in this case don't exist.
Without sufficient chemical components these chips are NOT ANY KIND OF THERMITE!! It doesn't matter whether thermite is real or whether it's fast and hot, that's irrelevant to the question of the chips chemical makeup.
@bluerap04 Not to mention that the new Millette study has shown that the Al in the red/grey chips is NOT elemental, meaning it cannot chemically produce a thermitic reaction.
Jones/Harrit did not do the necessary tests to show elemental Al, they merely assumed it - incorrectly.
So the truther position falls apart for a variety of reasons. It is just not scientifically proven, nor sound, nor true.
Warning, this is NOT rocket science, if you are smarter than a 5th grader, you can get this easily. The fact is that 2.25 sec of free fall acceleration means that ALL of the resistance under the falling bit had to have been removed and ALL at the same time. This just happened to be the result of chaotic fires, ... Right & I'm the Easter Bunny!
@phr0gpheatherz Hmm, strawman alert!! Apparently none of the PhD engineers who studied the collapsed and modeled it using sophisticated, state of the art software are smarter than a 5th grader.
Newsflash - you no longer need to spend years at engineering school. Everything can be learned instantly by watching youtube videos. No university degree is needed to engineer tall buildings; no training, no experience.
That's in the alternate Truther universe, of course. Fantasyland..
@AlienEntity1 at no time did I state that you could build high-rise structures with only a 5th grade education, HOWEVER, given the nature of the events of 9/11/2001
+ the lame excuses sorts of explanations given by the taxpayer funded bodies who were supposed to produce scientific reports on the subject, one does NOT need any sort of advanced education to understand - 9/11/2001= FALSE FLAG.
@phr0gpheatherz Your comments make absolutely no sense. You are babbling without reasonable cause about things you do not understand.
You don't offer an intelligent critique of the scientific reports, just a rather lame attempt to dismiss them, all the while proclaiming that you don't need an advanced education to understand..
I beg to differ. Any boob can make grandiose claims, that's not enough to prove any point. Bare assertions are all you bring to the table... seen it b4.
@AlienEntity1 Lame argument from the NIST, they claim that the destruction of WTC7 could not have been a Controlled Demolition because an explosive charge of RDX sufficient to completely sever one major structural member in the building would have to be so loud as to be heard all the way to New Jersey. HOWEVER a single charge of RDX is NOT the only way it could have been done and so the NIST seeks to dismiss the Controlled Demolition argument by limiting the scope....
@phr0gpheatherz LOL, I'll tell you what's lame - people like you who INSIST that explosives were used, yet following the truther myth that the exterior columns were cut.....there were NO EXPLOSIONS and NO VISIBLE SIGNS of explosions on the exterior at the moment it started to fall.
So the theory is actually dead. It's a dumb and ignorant idea. THAT'S what's lame, that you're repeating such a dumb idea.
@phr0gpheatherz No explosive CD in history occurred w/out visible and audilble explosions as the building starts to fall.
Look, you won't find one. Because it doesn't exist. Yet that's precisely what you truthers are arguing for - the utterly impossible.
Maybe in an alternate universe this stuff makes some sense, but not in this one. 10 years and all you guys have are a collection of lame urban legends.
@phr0gpheatherz lemme guess...it was ultra secret super duper nano thermite right? And the 100's of 1000's of pounds needed were hidden inside the building by a team of uber stealthy NWO ninja's huh? ROFL.
What a clown. NIST admitted freefall speed in their final report. How could Building 7 fall at a speed indistinguishable from free fall for 2.25 seconds?
Many thousands of tons of concrete and steel and other materials were turned to dust in seconds. That alone proves demolition. I worked construction 32 years and sawed enough steel and broke enough concrete to know that concrete doesn't crush itself, and steel doesn't melt itself. Ever. Nor will they float all over a city if you drop them.
Not without some tremendous extra force involved.
I am 100% convinced the buildings were exploded. I'd stake my life on it.
@Dulcimerea Whoa. There is ZERO empirical evidence that steel was turned to dust. NADA. You're just repeating the Urban Legend is all. Y U believe it is beyond me.
btw, there is no empirical evidence for melted steel either. However, in many cases eyewitnesses report seeing melted steel in average fires. I can supply you many quotes to prove this point beyond a shadow of doubt. So reports of molten steel unfortunately are not proof - not scientific evidence, anyway.
@Dulcimerea 'I am 100% convinced the buildings were exploded. I'd stake my life on it.'
Yeah, people will do that for all sorts of silly reasons. Remember the 'Heaven's Gate' cult, which killed themselves to meet up with the Hale-Bop comet a few years ago?
Don't waste your life believing in nonsense, unless you don't mind wasting it, and you don't care about truth. That's my advice.
If this was a progressive collapse throughout then why do you have dust puffs showing at the right of the building on every floor simultainiously then it falls at freefall speed at that point. You cant claim a progressive collapse, falls at freefall speed. I thought of your measurement point when I watched David Chandler but then relised that the building when it all goes falls at freefall speed, if progressive collapse, it would have been uneven in the falling. This was a planned demolition.
@benjyboba I appreciate that you're trying to understand the collapse, but the problem is you don't know enough about either CD or collapses to grasp it at this point. First off, there were NOT dust puffs on every floor simultaneously, I disagree.
But it's a FACT that the internal collapse was progressive, from E to W and took roughly 8 seconds before the facade started to implode. It's not a fact up for dispute except by truthers who don't pay attention to this.
@AlienEntity1There were not dust puffs on everyfloor I disagree, Actually spend an evening searching for wtc 7 and you will find the video where you can clearly see them all. They all happen together so its imposbile to be a collapse. Gravity or freefall speed can be affected by many factors, for example. When the air is cold, at low altitudes it becomes more dense. This is why we can't give passific numbers only aproximate. if collapsed internally. Then we would have had fire out of the windows
@benjyboba Real CD's, as David Chandler discovered (when he finally did some research... talk about putting the cart before the horse!) do NOT generally fall at freefall speed!!!!!
So freefall is NOT a meaningful indicator of CD or no CD. The particular part of the facade collapse (north wall) in question had 3 phases:
1) below freefall
2) at freefall
3) below freefall
This corresponds very well with buckling of columns, negligible resistance, then resistance. Nothing mysterious.
They didn't change the report. The free fall chart was included in the NCSTAR 1-9 release candidate, nearly two years before DavidRChandler "Discovered" it in 2007.
They just didn't realize it was some kind of gonzo proof of demolition, since demolition almost never falls at free fall, as david discovered from Vegas com.
This analysis may fool many people but what AlienEntity has done is to pull the same trick as NIST and has included a lot of time before the collapse got going and added this to the total time and said there you go - longer than freefall. What Chandler did was to study the collapse velocity throughout the collapse time and found that for a significant portion of the collapse the speed was essentially freefall. So not debunked at all but just more disinformation to cover up what happened.
@Zooney1 Hmmm, if Chandler wants the truth, why does he ignore the entire collapse, and especially ignore the E-W progression of collapse?
It would be neat if you could post a comment on his videos, but he doesn't allow that. Oh no, dissent is not allowed in his world - his word is absolute. Go ahead and try to comment on one of his videos! LOL
Not only that, but Chandler only measures a tiny point on one part of the building. Fact is, movement was not uniform along the visible wall.
Well you are right that he has disabled comments. However I think his methodology and critique of the NIST explanation is sound. What is important is to chart the speed of the collapse progression as David has done and not to estimate total time of collapse by adding ambiguous amounts of time from the start when the collapse was just starting. Also since the roof line falls symmetrically then it is reasonable to take the right hand corner of the building as the reference for measurements
@Zooney1 Except that it has nothing to do with the reasons that the bulding collapsed, and Chandler hasn't got a frigging clue what he's talking about.
He's not an engineer, either. It shows by his many false assumptions.
He is not an engineer himself but many of his colleagues are in AE911truth and so he has a wealth of expert engineering and architect back up and reference.
@Zooney1 That is an empty argument from authority, as Chandler alone has appointed himself as an expert in demolitions, nanotechnology, structural engineering and fire science - he really has no business doing that, and IMO the only reason truthers give him any credence is because they're desperate to believe in this Urban Legend of controlled demolition.
None of his colleagues have stepped up to publish peer-reviewed papers in engineering journals in support of his ideas. Not a single one!
@Zooney1 'However I think his methodology and critique of the NIST explanation is sound.' Well, you think wrong.
David's methodology for determining the start time is arbitrary, he doesn't EVER provide data on margin of error in any of his work (which is very unprofessional and unscientific).
NIST picked another spot to measure, and gave the precise parameters for the measurements in NCSTAR 1-9. Including margin of error.
My analysis corroborates NIST. That's all there is to it.
Well the point about defining a start time is that since the start time is difficult to determine from the videos the margin for error is great. NIST's analysis relies on setting an artificially early start time for the collapse to get to their magic 5.4 total time - of being longer than freefall. By tracking the actual velocity of the fall with time David was able to show that freefall did take place and this was in fact conceeded in the final NIST report.
@Zooney1 'start time is difficult to determine from the videos the margin for error is great.' That makes sense. What follows does not: 'artificially early start time'
You've admitted already that it is difficult to determine, and in fact the wall does not move as a single unit, so it's literally moot. Chandler is arbitrary, but I don't call his point 'artificial', it's just ONE possible reference, not the only one.
You and he behave as if it's the only valid one, but it's not.
@Zooney1 In the paragraph second half you conflate 'freefall' with the start time of collapse. Actually both Chandler and NIST corroborate fairly tightly 3 different stages of global collapse of the facade.
1) Stage one, slower than freefall (columns buckling)
2) Stage 2, roughly freefall
3) Stage 3, slower than freefall
You seem to be oblivious to this fact - that the acceleration was NOT at freefall except for a minor portion of even the facade collapse - forget about the internal collapse!
NIST did not perform the analysis in a honest way - they simply took 2 points in the collapse sequence and measured the time between the two at 5.4 seconds then said hey this is 40% longer than freefall. However when the collapse sequence is measured in stages, frame by frame, then the freefall element becomes obvious as does the artificially early start time for NIST measurements. Numerous eye witnesses saw and heard sequential cracking explosions before the collapses.
@Zooney1 OK, you're crossing the line into complete disrespect and you don't know what you're talking about.
I PERSONALLY MEASURED IT SEVERAL TIMES and reached the same conclusion, using FRAME BY FRAME analysis.
The eyewitness claims are moot - in EVERY youtube video of real CD's you can hear the loud explosions, no problem. This JUST DIDN'T HAPPEN with WTC 7. Didn't happen. There is no real evidence for explosive CD, and you haven't presented any.
What have you measured several times? Reached what conclusion? Why on earth did NIST initially not do the frame by frame analysis? They have no reason not to make public their input parameters for their modelling work so that others could ....... ahem learn from their work. They have been asked by engineers to release this information and will not. Why is this? Why do you defend all of NIST's behaviour?
@Zooney1 Geez, go thru this video and part II, dude!!!! What do you think I measured? LOL
NIST DID a frame-by-frame analysis, I wish you truthers would actually read the report before trying to critique it!!
Again, you cannot provide any evidence that NIST has not shared this info with engineering schools or universities, those institutions which might pay for the licensing and so forth. Your point is based on very incomplete info to say the least.
Well if you had plotted the frame by frame sequence you would have proved freefall of the NW corner of the building just as Chandler did. Of course NIST's graph in their final report also indicated freefall as their stage 2 process. However they omitted talking about the significance of this. Their model did not predict freefall at any stage of the collapse and any reasonable person knows that witholding the computer modelling parameters is not not a reasonable action.
@Zooney1 I would change the phrase to say any paranoid conspiracy theorist would read way too much into NIST's withholding of some of the data, and that it doesn't matter either way.
Conspiracy theorists have zero hard evidence of controlled demolition. They have not met any reasonable burden of proof in support of their claims, and as such their claims are unproven.
Until that changes, 9/11 Truth is nothing more than a collection of Urban Legends.
The only crazy conspiracy theory is the official one that you chose to support for what ever reason. On the actual day of Sept 11 2001 there was ample evidence of sequential explosions prior to the wtc collapses and it was only as the pancaking theory was repeatedly fed out via the media that this idea started to take hold. Reporters and TV commentators were all mentioning explosives and bombs in the buildings. NIST did not analyse the dust for exotic accelerants, period.
@Zooney1 There is no evidence of sequential explosions. That's complete nonsense and it diminishes you to even mention it.
I'm sorry that vague and unsupported allegations are all that you have after ten years; it must be frustrating.
None of you truthers can face the fact that there was zero evidence of cutter charges (required by truther hypotheses) on any of the steel. Zero. Nada.
There were in fact bomb sniffing dogs at the towers, no detection happened. There is no evidence. Period.
You are plain wrong. NY Firefighters reported sequential explosions and their immediate impression was that there were just like the explosions used to take down buildings. Were these professionals paranoid conspiracists perchance?
@Zooney1 So? FDNY Chief Nigro, in consultation with engineers and firefighters, determined that WTC 7 was probably going to collapse from the fires.
This is a consensus, not just a quick snap impression by panicked people witnessing a collapse.
None of America's top demolition experts agrees or corroborates those particular observations that you cite. No audio data corroborates it either, no video data. So it really does not amount to much.
These were covert demolitions using novel means - they had to be - but NIST only looked for signs of conventional demolition techniques not the actual techniques based on nanothermite.
I see that you only publish my comments once you have attempted to rebut them so that you always have the last say - very fair indeed! I see you have avoided the issue of freefall of WTC7 once again and chosen to only look at averaging the speed over an artificially extended time - same trick as NIST
@Zooney1 Sure, sure, a novel and never-before-seen demolition technique which just happens to look exactly like a fire-induced collapse, to teams of competent engineers who studied it, but is easy to spot for untrained internet sleuths known as 'truthers'.
Nice piece of science fiction.
Dude, don't flatter yourself. I check the comments once or twice a day and can only approve them at that point. Yes, I also rebut them at that time. Get over yourself. Sheesh.
"just happens to look exactly like a fire-induced collapse"
Please provide links to any videos of fire induced collapses of high rise steel framed buildings that look anything like the rapid and total collapses of WTC1, 2 and 7.
@Zooney1 Truthers claim that the collapses were designed to fool experts, leaving only the great unwashed conspiracists to 'see' the truth. ie that the collapses were engineered to look like fire-induced collapses, by using incendiaries instead of explosives (Jones and Harrit claims).
Where have you been for 5 years? This is a central claim made thousands of times on the internet by truthers.
In fact, special 'quiet' explosives were a central idea for a long time although the idea is fading.
@Zooney1 I've already demonstrated the absurdity of the claim many times, but to reiterate, truthers claim that the exterior columns of WTC 7 were simultaneously destroyed with explosives, yet:
NONE OF THE VIDEO OR STILL SHOTS TAKEN AT THE TIME OF COLLAPSE SHOW THE REQUISITE RING OF EXPLOSIVE SQUIBS ON THE EXTERIOR COLUMNS!!!!!!
ie, the hypothesis FAILS completely. it did not happen.
"Again, you cannot provide any evidence that NIST has not shared this info with engineering schools or universities, those institutions which might pay for the licensing and so forth"
That trick is known as asking someone to prove a negative. I'll turn this round: You prove to me that they have shared the data with anyone. "License fees for their input parameters" - Oh please!.
Let's go with your suggestion for one moment regarding NIST having released their modelling parameters to engineering schools who might have paid fees. Ae you suggesting that the fact NIST had done this would have been kept a secret from all the acrhitects and engineers in the truth movement with all their massive network of contacts in academia?
That is a most absurd proposition as is the suggestion that NIST would charge a free for release of their input parameters.
@Zooney1 Truthers engage in more hypothetical speculation than realists/skeptics, and the problem is they don't differentiate adequately between speculation and fact.
You started out by claiming that NIST hadn't released their data, which is NOT TRUE. But I didn't call you on it because it is wrong, but doesn't really matter.
Your research is so superficial, it is absurd. you haven't even read the report.
@Zooney1 LOL, there is no secret. If you'd read the contracts you'd know that you could contact Dr. John Fisher of Lehigh University, Pennsylvania, and Computer Aided Engineerinf Associates Inc., of Woodbury, Connecticut, and query them about the software and data inputs.
After all, they designed the FEA of WTC 7 for NIST. I wonder if Lehigh U engineering students have access to this model that their professor designed??
Hmm, I guess you could always ask, instead of relying on rumors :)
@Zooney1 As soon as you give me all of NASA's data on the space shuttle missions. Or give me all the documents in the Federal case against Moussaoui. Your choice.
You could also give me all the forensic data collected at the Pentagon. I'll swap you when you have it ready.
Perhaps you would like to explain why iron rich microspheres are a characteristic of all WTC dust samples and why such microspheres form post ignition of the red chips (also found in all the dust samples) during DSC analysis? Are you suggesting that standard primer paints are in fact a form of nanothermite?
@Zooney1 Easy - such microspheres are found in all common dust in most cities in the world, for a start. They're found in wood fires (the trace iron in the wood produces them) As to post-ignition, they're not: FH Couannier took some WTC dust samples and did DSC tests, his did NOT produce any iron-rich microspheres.
In other words, the Jones/Harrit paper has NOT been reproduced by an independent scientist anywhere in the world.
Standard primer paint is not nanothermite, nor are the chips.
Er Alien are we not getting somewhat desperate now? Our good friend Fred Henri Couannier told your friends on the JR forum that that he was convinced that someone had replaced chips he had originally received, with new ones that would not reproduce the results he was looking for. Your reliable source of refuting scientific evidence eh??
@Zooney1 You mean, since he's a committed conspiracy theorist, he refused to accept that his WTC dust samples were legit because they didn't produce the results he was looking for?
Yes, he's a nutbar - he believes that some kind of directed energy weapon disassociated the atoms of the steel and concrete and caused the collapses.
He's crazy, yes he is. Confirmed.
But HE was not able to produce iron-rich microspheres - that's a fact. Not even a committed truther could.
@Zooney1 Actually you're paraphrasing him incorrectly, IIRC. In my recollection he mused that the samples could have been tampered with, part of his rationalization for the failure of his results to corroborate the Jones/Harrit paper.
Can you provide a quote please? It would help to back up your allegation.
@Zooney1 FH Counnier 'That is why I tend to think today that the samples are authentic, which means that all theses thermite or nano thermite may be borked and probably have been put forward to mislead'
ie he thinks his samples were real and not faked, but that Jones/Harrit have faked their results. There you go. You were wrong.
@Zooney1 FH Counnier 'That is why I tend to think today that the samples are authentic, which means that all theses thermite or nano thermite may be borked and probably have been put forward to mislead'
ie he thinks his samples were real and not faked, but that Jones/Harrit have faked their results. There you go. You were wrong.
@Zooney1 FH Counnier 'That is why I tend to think today that the samples are authentic, which means that all theses thermite or nano thermite may be borked and probably have been put forward to mislead'
ie he thinks his samples were real and not faked, but that Jones/Harrit have faked their results. There you go. You were wrong.
@Zooney1 FH Counnier 'That is why I tend to think today that the samples are authentic, which means that all theses thermite or nano thermite may be borked and probably have been put forward to mislead'
ie he thinks his samples were real and not faked, but that Jones/Harrit have faked their results. There you go. You were wrong.
@Zooney1 FH Counnier 'That is why I tend to think today that the samples are authentic, which means that all theses thermite or nano thermite may be borked and probably have been put forward to mislead' he thinks his samples were real and not faked, but that Jones/Harrit have faked their results. There you go. You were wrong.
@Zooney1 FH Counnier 'That is why I tend to think today that the samples are authentic,' he thinks his samples were real and not faked, but that Jones/Harrit have faked their results. There you go. You were wrong.
@Zooney1 Counnier 'That is why I tend to think today that the samples are authentic,' he thinks his samples were real and not faked, but that Jones/Harrit have faked their results. There you go. You were wrong.
Er Alien, are we not getting somewhat desperate now? Our good friend Fred Henri Couannier told your friends on the JR forum that that he was convinced that someone had replaced chips he had originally received, with new ones that would not reproduce the results he was looking for. So your choice for rebuttal of a peer reviewed paper is the work of some french nutter who isn't even sure if the samples he used are bona fida. Oh please!
@Zooney1 Incorrect. He believes his samples are real, and that Jones faked his results.
No, I'm simply pointing out that the paper has not been corroborated by anybody. According to standard science, this means it has not been established.
You continue to misrepresent and misunderstand most major points. No surprise...
@Zooney1 As to your 'silly' comment, look in the mirror. Please get me all the computer data from NASA space shuttle flights - if you can't, it means that NASA is committing fraud and has not released this data to the public. They are hiding something, clearly. Perhaps the moon landings were hoaxes and NASA has been covering it up all these years?
btw, you're desperately evading the reality that the Jones/Harrit chips cannot be any kind of nanothermite, chemically speaking. Not possible.
@Zooney1 Further to the canard of the 'iron-rich microspheres', Physicist Dave Thomas of NMSR has recently shown that by igniting ordinary steel wool with a lighter, one can indeed produce iron microspheres (as confirmed by XEDS).
But his results are even more shocking - the microspheres are PURE iron, not a eutectic admixture (which lowers the melting point even further).
Richard Gage falsely claims that these can ONLY be produced by thermitic processes. FALSE!!!
In terms of the moon landing issue I am pretty open minded about that one. I have stood beside the Saturn 5 rocket and it is the most impressive piece of engineering I have ever seen. However the need to show success in putting a man on the moon during the cold war was great as were the challenges. Whilst the take off was spectacular, could the actual landings have been staged? Yes. Were they - I have looked at both sides of the argument and I'm not sure on that one.
@Zooney1 That is very revealing. Imagine the conspiracy required to keep rival scientific bodies (Russian, Chinese, European, Indian) and the thousands of PhD physicists etc from exposing the fraud! How could you manage to keep them all quiet?
Probably the same way you keep the National Academy of Sciences from pointing out that the earth is flat, not round - by paying them all off, threatening their families or just killing them, I guess.
@Zooney1 The problem with the thinking process you're engaging is that you seem to believe the blatantly pseudo-scientific claims of conspiracy theorists rather uncritically, but disbelieve anything the 'government' declares - reflexively.
Nevermind there are literally thousands of qualified scientists who've either worked directly to produce the mainstream consensus or agree with it, as well as every major engineering school in the developed world.
I am going to stop posting now because I see your agenda is simply to support NIST and the official position come what may. The recent open 4 day hearing of 911 evidence in Toronto is very informative for those wanting to know the real story of 911 from all angles. presented to a panel of unbiassed experts. Search for 911 Toronto on YouTube. Regards.
@Zooney1 You can join all the JFK and MoonLanding Hoax believers, muttering about dark conspiracies for decades and producing zero tangible results. Go ahead, see if I care.
9/11 Conspiracy theories alleging controlled demolition are nothing but modern Urban Legends, and that's all there is to it. Truthers ignore mountains of forensic, scientific and valid data and evidence which establish that fires brought the towers down - and believe myths and rumors which are nothing but speculation
@Zooney1 Besides, witnesses hear explosions in all sorts of contexts which don't involve high explosives.
watch?v=dizurbqG50U
The kind of explosives alleged by truthers are extremely loud, we're talking 120 or 130db at 1000 ft. There is no possible way that NONE of the video cameras in the vicinity would not have picked up these loud explosions as the building collapsed.... HAD THEY OCCURRED. But clearly there were no loud explosions, that should be obvious to all but the blind and deaf.
@Zooney1 Expressed as a straight proportion, the remnants of the structure (remembering that much of the mass was already collapsing internally for several seconds prior) fell slower than freefall for roughly 1/2 the facade descent that could be viewed in that one clip.
So instead of proclaiming that 'it fell at freefall' as if it fell ENTIRELY at that speed (thus misleading many people) it is more accurate and truthful to say that out of about 15 seconds, about 2.25s were at freefall.
@Zooney1 Not only is the total collapse time at least 15 seconds (using seismic data and video evidence) but this means that the OBSERVED period at freefall comprised only about 15% of the total, and occurred about midway during the collapse.
The baseline is that no real CD in history has ever behaved this way. Nobody can find one, believe me, or we'd hear of it!!!! Not only that, but no CD in history has happened without clear video and audio evidence capturing the explosions at collapse.
@Zooney1 So it follows that the entire hypothesis put forward by Chandler et al. is unsound and unscientific, for many reasons but not least which because there is
1) no valid scientific argument being put forward - nothing out of CD literature, nothing out of structural engineering
2) no evidence of explosives being used, video, audio or forensic (ie samples of cut steel). The failure modes of the steel were due to shear and buckling, nothing else.
@Zooney1 Oh I do, I do. But for some reason if Chandler says 'there were nanothermite rockets' or 'The upper block of the towers only exerted 1/3 of their weight on the structure below' NOBODY in trutherdom questions him.
In fact AE911Truth continues to parade Chandler as their leading theoretician in many of these areas, yet he's uniquely unqualified to be leading the research. This is highly unprofessional, IMO and discredits any validity that AE911Truth has scientifically and technically
@Zooney1 I've also done a recent video showing how, as the W mechanical penthouses begin to descend into the building, the entire facade bows and flexes. This is definitely collapse, yet it's well before Chandler's arbitrary start time.
He doesn't even attempt to calculate the buckling portion of the column failures, he has no clue. Good thing he only taught high school physics....
Also from a human behaviour perspective just look at John Gross's body language when he is questioned about 911- I have never seen anyone leak so many classic signs of lying :the twitching, the writhing, the nose touching, the grasping for his bottle of water. This is not the behaviour of a professional investigator sure of his ground. To me it is clear that the poor guy is battling severe cognitive dissonance caused by having to maintain a position that he knows is false.
@Zooney1 Thank god people like you don't have any power, you'd be sending people to the electric chair for looking the wrong way, against your prejudices.
Gross isn't lying, anyway, tell me what possible lie you think he's making, and how you can prove it's a lie, or STFU.
And no I wouldn't send anyone to the electric chair - please don't assume my ethics. However there does need to be a legitimate investigation rather than a cover up.
I think Gross is lying about the speed of collapse and he is using a simple and phoney measurement technique of measuring speed of fall from only 2 points when the actual speed at all stages of the collapse can be tracked and measured very simply as David has done.
@Zooney1 Bully for you. You have no evidence, just as I thought. Just another mean-spirited and paranoid person who thinks they have clairvoyant powers.
Don't accuse people of lying if you can't prove it. It just makes you an asshole.
@Zooney1 Add to that that Femr2 has measured the acceleration differently than Chandler and come up with acceleration >G! Yes, that's FASTER than freefall, for about 1 second.
That has nothing to do with explosives, and everything to do with a pre-existing internal collapse, causing the centre of gravity of the building to be in motion and leverage creating the facade to fall quickly.
Remember - FASTER than freefall for about 1 second. Explosives don't do that.
Well I haven't seen the "faster than freefall analysis" however would this not make gravity collapse even less likely? You still have to have essentially zero resistance from structural components for this to occur on a building that was actually strengthened by adding steelwork post its construction.
@Zooney1 You don't understand that the interior structure was collapsing for almost 8 seconds before the facade came down. Mass, moving downwards, pulling the facade very quickly.
Do you get it now? You might want to discuss with a structural engineer who has studied building collapses for a living. Or just read the professional reports from such people...
If the interior structure fell before the external structure it would have pulled the outer structure inwards - in fact this did occur to some extent and is the way buildings are imploded by CD anyway . The west corner of the building however which is a supporting wall is falling straight down at freefall for at least 100 feet. This can only occur if their is no support below as Sunder actually confirmed - hence their absolute need to deny freefall
@Zooney1 You're mixing your examples, not surprisingly. Firstly, you haven't read NCSTAR 1-9, else you'd know precisely what the leading engineering theory is regarding the collapse.
You're pulling a hypothetical idea out without any literature to back up your claim. I don't buy it.
You truthers don't seem to understand that you don't get to define reality. It's a fact, not a theory, that the interior collapsed first. Seismic data alone prove this.
@Zooney1 Again, it doesn't matter what aspect of reality you are in denial of. Most of us, esp scientists, are not fooled by this kind of specious reasoning.
Seismic records prove that collapse was occurring. Nobody can refute that.
The building oscillated, measured very precisely by NIST. That again proves internal collapse - what the hell else would it be???? That's why truthers assiduously avoid these hard facts, and countless others.
@Zooney1 Sunder is often misquoted. Bravo, you've bought the quotemine without the context. Sunder was perfectly clear that there WAS resistance. It's a fact - there WAS resistance. Not for 100% of the time, that's the part truthers don't get - columns buckled, then offered negligible resistance.
It's all in NSCSTAR 1-9 but you probably don't really care what competent engineers who've studied the collapse think, nor what the data is.
Even by tweaking their computer simulation, NIST were unable to simulate freefall collapse speed and they also continue to be unwilling to share with the scientific community what their input variables were - why do you suppose this is AlienEntity1? What is behind their need to keep this a secret when building safety (according to their story) is at stake?
@Zooney1 First, the FEA is not able to exactly reproduce random events, by definition - they are random. The models dictate that, as the simulation progresses, the randomness will change the outcome. So it literally means that you cannot exactly duplicate EVERY process, for the entire collapse, as it ACTUALLY happened. But you CAN reproduce the conditions, and demonstrate how it COULD collapse.
That's what they did, successfully. All their inputs were documented in the report, every detail.
@Zooney1 You do realize that your argument is weakened by the fact that the model does not duplicate every part of the collapse? It shows that the data were left to operate without an artificial agenda to create a cartoon of it.
Just as the hypothesis that Bush did 9/11 to attack Iraq but paradoxically the hijackers were mostly Saudi, not Iraqi, the truther claim of fakery suffers the same paradox - it doesn't fit a conspiracy at all. Or a very, very crappy attempt at a conspiracy, at any rate!
Aha I see your game - you selectively block comments that you are unable to counter and always have the last say - far worse behaviour than just blocking all comments as Chandler does.
@Zooney1 It's no game, you're incorrect. Comments are posted by approval, which allows me to weed out the vulgar personal attacks, spam etc...
You are also completely incorrect that it is somehow 'worse' to allow comments with approval rather than no comments. If you like it so much, go lurk on Chandler's channel and discuss with others... oh, you can't...
I see, it seems that I've been badly mistaken. If I think about it in the new way of thinking we have nowadays,(war is peace, ignorance is strength etc) it all seems very eassy to grasp.
@MrRobtwothirds Exactly. The Orwellian phrase 'Freefall Speed = CD' is repeated mindlessly by gullible truthers, as is 'WTC 7 fell in 6.5 seconds', another Big Lie from Richard Gage and his minions.
Of course one can't prove a negative absolutely, but can go a long why to doing so, for instance I can prove I wasn't in Australia yesterday by proving a positive of where I was.
Anyway what I'm looking for is consistency with natural principals, ie Newton's Laws
I'll keep waiting, after all NIST has come up with many "revised" theories that make the previous theory nonsense, for example the pancaking of the towers.
I guess I'll just have to wait til a theory that makes sense to me comes along.
@MrRobtwothirds Precisely, you're actually capable of proving where you WERE, possibly by showing a receipt of a local purchase, or by citing a person you met at a particular location. What you're doing is providing positive proof of something.
What truthers cannot do is provide any real positive proof to support their claims - there is simply no hard evidence of demolition or demolition explosives, only allegations.
But we can provide positive proof of fire-induced failure of buildings.
@AlienEntity1 theres plenty of video evidence showing the official 911 story is crap, like people waving from the impact holes when the building is officially s hot it should be melting all around them.
@zenoist2 Be careful bandying such strong claims, especially in this case. Firstly, NOBODY but truthers say that the tower should be so hot it should melt. Nobody. Not NIST, not FEMA, no engineering schools, no peer-reviewed engineering papers.
So none of that is 'official' in any way.
Secondly, the woman seen in the picture 'waving' was Edna Cintron. She jumped to her death shortly after. Ask yourself why and you will quickly realize that it was unbearable. You cannot see heat easily without IR
@zenoist2 Because the wind was blowing SE it was blowing the smoke away, but that doesn't mean that it wasn't very hot. So it can be very misleading to look at a picture or video and declare, as you have, that somehow there wasn't sufficient heat to either:
a) Cause people to jump to their death
b) Weaken the steel to the point where it failed and caused collapse.
Did you know that due to 'viscoplastic buckling' steel can fail below 250 C depending on load? Scientifically proven fact.
@MrRobtwothirds To continue about expansion and failure of steel, it's a scientific fact, and an observed fact at GZ:
WTC 5 suffered 4 floors of internal structural collapse due to fire. According to analysis published in Structure Magazine, it was the thermal expansion which caused girders to detach from their seats and fail.
So we already have proven (remember positive proof?) examples where steel structure failed solely due to fire on 9/11. This is simple fact.
If the evidence that it was not CD was anything like realisticly believable I would try to believe it, but it requires a bigger leap of faith than I can muster.
I think of the people who have lost their jobs because they can't work out how it was not CT, and they have more motive and knowledge than I.
If there was empirical evidence that proves it was not a demolition it would be a relief.
But as NIST doubts its own theories, it is unlikely to convince anyone else
@MrRobtwothirds You're almost there - what you need to do is, instead of trying to prove a negative (which is impossible, btw) is put the burden of proof on the claimants - 'is there empirical evidence that proves it WAS a demolition?'
Answer - NO! There is NO empirical evidence that there was CD. There are many allegations, but no real evidence.
If you think otherwise, list the 'evidence', and its basis in standard, peer-reviewed science (ie engineering papers in engineering journals etc).
@zenoist2 In this case PART of the structure collapsed internally, leaving another PART intact for a few seconds. The whole building did not fall simultaneously, but progressively, E to W, inward to outward.
Since the collapsing core structure was moving downwards, it was able to
a) remove structure
b) destabilize and initiate collapse of the exterior columns - which eventually buckled then fell with essentially no resistance for about 2 seconds until resistance was again encountered.
@zenoist2 ps, there's no comprehensive explanation as to how explosives could have created this effect, especially since there's no evidence of cutter charges on the exterior or interior columns or structure - this lack of evidence extends to
@alienentity, sorry for my sloppy use of terminology, I don't contest your correction. There is some generalized finite element analysis of the actual ongong "collapse", and 2, raw data is the crux of achieving input figures. I'm happy to agree to differ as to the crucial matter of the freefall acceleration, I think it is hugely significant at whatever stage it occurred, and I can't find any explanation that makes sense without CD-I would be happy to reconsider any realistic suggestions.
@MrRobtwothirds Firstly CD must be eliminated as a possible cause because there just isn't any real evidence that would be required.
1) There were no explosions or squbs around the perimeter at the moment of collapse. Required by CD theory but not there.
2) There were no audio recordings that captured any explosions at the time of collapse - no matter where the videos were taken. No explosive CD could happen without any evidence of that kind.
@MrRobtwothirds As far as an explanation for freefall, it's not a simple subject, but I think it is possible for sincere people to grasp it.
To start with, consider that the centre of gravity of the building was moving downwards as the internal collapse progressed (about 7 seconds b4 the facade fell). Much of the structure was being destroyed and was falling, but part of it was still connected to the exterior moment frame.
@MrRobtwothirds How fast did the exterior remnants fall? According to data analysis from Femr2, for about 1 second parts of the wall fell FASTER than freefall!
This is only possible if internal mass was acting on the exterior (ie it was collapsing already, as part of a multi-stage failure).
Explosives cannot make this happen, and they don't in real demolitions. They just don't.
"I can't deal with the complexity of the collapse" apparently. I'm in the same situation as NIST who not only don't even try to deal with the actual collapse mechanism of the Towers, but keep secret the input figures they use for WTC 7.
At least they are honest as to why, it is because it could "endanger public safety". I think we can all agree that if the truth about 911 became public knowledge it would indeed cause quite a public stir.
only an expert in psychology could explain why.....
@MrRobtwothirds This is just not true. NIST DID deal with the collapse mechanism of the towers, in exquisite detail. They didn't carry the collapse past initiation, and nobody else has, since it's far too complex to model (perhaps that will change with improving technology).
They did NOT, contrary to your claim, keep the input figures for the model of WTC 7 secret. That is false. They published the figures in the report in detail. They did not release all the raw data however, that is true.
If I were measuring I'd start the time of onset of collapse as the day the building was completed.
Using these figures we can see that the collapse occured over nearly thirty years, even a twoofer can understand that is very slow-in fact it is hardly a collapse, more a gradual subsidence.
Seriously though, the time of onset is irrelevent, what counts is the period of actual freefall, at whatever time into the collapse it started.
@MrRobtwothirds LOL, in other words, you can't deal with the complexity of the collapse, so just ignore it. Yeah, that's a great way to understand things... NOT!
This analysis is lame. Take timings from wherever you like but the fact remains that a significant part of the building spent a significant time in free-fall. Even the graph in the NIST report shows a stage of free-fall so I don't know what your problem is. Now, if you really want to debunk Chandler, explain how such a large portion of the building can fall in on itself unimpeded for so long.
@MrTRICKYmf Chandler accuses NIST of fraud. That's a very serious charge. Yet his only grounds are a very debatable nitpick, which I show to be unfounded by my measurements. That's the video.
The concept of 'freefall' is not meaningful when truthers like Chandler ignore everything else which lead to it!! ie they don't account for the 7 seconds of internal collapse prior to the buckling of exterior columns.
That's just the tip of the iceberg. There were no explosions at the time of collapse!
@AlienEntity1 The timing from first section giving way, to complete collapse is irrelevant. The fact remains that virtually the entire outer framework of the building (whatever inner collapses had already taken place) fell at free fall-speed.
Thanks for debating.
Only thing I'll say for now is that I'm not trying to create a diversion with my example, but to just provide an example that the government has been known to possess technology that most people think "can't" exist, and that a nanothermite variant could be such a technology. Regardless, I must give your argument some consideration.
Anyway, I'll have to go over everything else you bring up when I have the time. In the meantime, take care.
bluerap04 22 hours ago
This video fails..as NIST does.. to explain how fires can cause the roof of the building to fall straight down at free fall speeds AT ANY PART OF ITS DESCENT.. let alone for almost 3 seconds.
bluerap04 4 days ago
@bluerap04 LOL, no actually NIST does explain, in far greater detail than any 9/11 truther has explained any counter-theory. However, truthers handwave it away and pretend there is no explanation....
So much for 'truth'..... when it's presented to you, you reject it.
Now, would you like to know a little about what NIST said about it?
Would you like to know why no truther, in 10 years, has created a model which shows how explosives, silently, could bring the building down that way?
AlienEntity1 2 days ago
@AlienEntity1 First of all, the building was not brought down silently. You might want to check out Chandler's video on all the footage of explosions heard. Wait, I know what your going to say: "herp derp, those people only thought they heard explosions." That's your opinion.
Second of all, any video you watch of WTC7's collapse displays characteristics of a building that has its support structures COMPLETELY destroyed during its descent, hence allowing it to collapse even at free fall speeds.
bluerap04 1 day ago
@bluerap04 Derp derp indeed. Look at ALL the undoctored videos of the WTC 7 collapse.
All of them. Listen to the sounds. What do you hear?
A rumble, that's it.
Chandler's heavily doctored video CLAIMS, very unscientifically, to show the phantom explosions. But has he really proved it, or just given you an excuse to maintain your beliefs?
Chandler is neither an audio expert, demolitions expert or forensic scientist. He's a complete amateur in those fields - but you believe.
AlienEntity1 1 day ago
@bluerap04 Oh bullshit. LOL, why is it that ANY cheap camcorder can capture the sounds of real explosive CD's from thousands of feet away, but NONE caught that kind of sound on 9/11 when WTC 7 fell?
Answer:
a) there were no such explosions
b) derp derp, it must've been silent explosives, or defective cameras!! yeah, that's it!!
I created a video just for you watch?v=5tNhnTBzSyQ
Remember, both collapses recorded from the same distance.... Chandler debunked again!!
AlienEntity1 1 day ago
@AlienEntity1 And yes, please do show me the NIST's explanation of the free fall that the building exhibited. Please prove to me how fires can destroy the insides of a building, leave the complete outer wall standing while doing so, then suddenly drop the shell of a 47 story building straight down in less than 10 seconds.
bluerap04 1 day ago
You will ignore and deny this, but you claimed they did not explain, and you were wrong.
'NCSTAR 1-9, p 612 Chapter 14 Global Collapse, it states:
The exterior columns buckled at the lower floors (between floors 7 and 14) due to load redistribution to the exterior columns from the downward movement of the building core. The entire building above the buckled-column region then moved downward in a single unit, as observed, completing the global collapse sequence.'
AlienEntity1 1 day ago
'p 606
'As the int col buckled at the lower floors and the corresponding upper col sections began to move downward, the ext colbuckled inward at the lower flrs as a result of flr pull-in forces caused by the dwnwrd mvemnt of the building core. The floor connections to the columns had not yet failed in this region, as there were no fires observed on the West side of Floors 19 through 14 at any time during the day, so the floors were intact and able to pull the exterior columns inward.'
AlienEntity1 1 day ago
@bluerap04 ps NOT ONE SINGLE TRUTHER HAS, IN 10 YEARS, CREATED AN ENGINEERING MODEL, PUBLISHED AN ENGINEERING PAPER IN AN ESTABLISHED ENGINEERING JOURNAL, OR PROVIDED A SCHEMATIC FOR HOW EXPLOSIVES COULD HAVE BEEN USED TO CREATE THE EXACT COLLAPSE OF WTC 7.
So think - apply your criticisms to yourself - your 'movement' has utterly failed to do anything but complain, make vague assertions and allegations.
You've proved NOTHING. Look in the mirror for a change. Stop pointing fingers.
AlienEntity1 1 day ago
@bluerap04 Your utter lack of logic prevents you from seeing a simple truth as this:
If, as you claim, ALL the exterior columns were cut with explosives simultaneously, then
WHY IS THERE ABSOLUTELY NO VIDEO OR PHOTOGRAPHIC EVIDENCE TO SHOW THIS?
There are dozens of photos and videos taken as the building collapses, NONE show any of this evidence, which would be DEMANDED by your claims.
No flashes, no loud bangs, NOTHING. You fail utterly to support your claims with evidence.
AlienEntity1 1 day ago
@AlienEntity1 Thank for you replies, book quotes, videos, etc.
The book quotes appears to be a description of what is also in the video of the computer model that NIST provided (which mysteriously stops before showing the ENTIRE collapse). That video, and your quotes, fail to explain why the building exhibited free fall speeds when collapsing. Even if you say it didn't fall at that rate, that didn't stop NIST from graphing the collapse with 2.5 seconds of free fall (or close to) built into it.
bluerap04 1 day ago
@bluerap04 No, it doesn't fail to explain it, you fail to understand the physics, and there's nothing I can do to help you.
btw, real CD's don't fall at freefall, so the whole issue is a red herring anyway (which is exactly why people like Chandler cling to it like a liferaft).
Try meeting the burden of proof - show a CD that falls at freefall like WTC 7. You can't.
You are essentially asking for the impossible - for us to disprove something that doesn't exist....
AlienEntity1 22 hours ago
@bluerap04 The reason the facade fell as it did IS fully explained in the 2008 report. you haven't read the report, but then hardly any 9/11 Truthers have - it won't give you the euphoric high of thinking you've discovered a giant conspiracy, but it will give you actual knowledge. Ultimately the latter is more satisfying.
I'll explain it in a nutshell, and you'll probably keep denying that you've had it explained....
AlienEntity1 22 hours ago
@bluerap04 Quick explanation:
The floor systems connected to critical columns failed due to thermal expansion.
Several floors collapsed, between floor 7 and 14, roughly.
A long span of column 79 was left unsupported. It buckled, and started an internal progressive collapse from E to W.
Once the internal implosion progressed far enough W, it pulled inward on the exterior columns thru the intact floor connections (which were not damaged by fire)
Continued
AlienEntity1 22 hours ago
@bluerap04 This inward pulling happened very quickly, rapidly increasing loads on the exterior moment frame. This caused a rapid buckling of the entire facade, not simultaneous, but very quick and quite uniform.
The facade began to collapse, first <G as the buckling happened
Then briefly at G after buckling
Then <G as resistance was again encountered.
No explosions were recorded during this time. No squibs were seen at this time. It was entirely a natural collapse, not planned.
AlienEntity1 22 hours ago
@bluerap04 Truthers make the fundamental mistake of believing, without scientific grounds, that THE ONLY way such a complex collapse could occur would be by design.
But they NEVER are able to explain, in engineering terms, why this is so.
They NEVER explain exactly how and where explosives would have been placed
They never accept the burden of proof, to support their claims.
Their claims are not scientific, but political in nature. They believe in CD first, then look for rationale.
AlienEntity1 22 hours ago
@bluerap04 Once again, another of my videos showing how vastly different the collapse of WTC 7 was to ANY known controlled demolition.
watch?v=E8yUR-sM4lU
Please, try to find a controlled demolition which falls at freefall speed. Go ahead, make my day. (You can't, btw)
That's what happens when you decide to believe in a bunch of urban legends - you become a sucker. Not my fault, and only you can get yourself out of the nonsense you believe in. It's up to you.
AlienEntity1 1 day ago
@AlienEntity1 Next, I admit the demolition of the towers is in some ways different than what we're used to seeing/hearing. However, remember how much more technologically advanced than we thought possible the stealth bomber was when the gov. first made it public? We can't be sure what the gov has.. From wikipedia: nanosized thermitic materials are being researched by the U.S. military with the aim of developing new types of bombs that are several times more powerful than conventional explosives.
bluerap04 1 day ago
@bluerap04 Another logical fallacy - just because you can imagine something doesn't mean it's real. You essentially are making a magic-thinking point - 'I cannot understand it, or I don't know everything, therefore God or Magic explosives must've done it'.
You're giving up on critical thinking entirely. Just say "i don't know', and leave it at that.
But pretending to know something you don't is not honest.
AlienEntity1 22 hours ago
@AlienEntity1 Third, any "lack of evidence" you may present DOES NOT negate the fact that un-ignited nanothermite was found in the dust samples! How is it that such a highly complex chemical is "randomly" found spread around there, in abundant supply?
Anyway I hope this can remain civil. I know your used to dealing with knuckle-heads, but so am I when I bring this stuff up.
bluerap04 1 day ago
@bluerap04 You're starting to move the goalposts. There is simply NO evidence of explosions as the building falls. So it doesn't matter what magic materials are posited. And FYI the Jones/Harrit paper claims, without proper grounds, that there is thermitic material.
However they are incorrect for several reasons including:
1) The amount of Al and Fe in the chips is far too small to chemically produce a thermitic reaction
2) The energy released far exceeds real nanothermite
AlienEntity1 1 day ago in playlist 9/11 debunking
@bluerap04 Continued (sorry)
Real nanothermite cannot produce anything close to the ED that the red/grey chips do in DSC. Tillotson et al. publish about 1.5 KJ per G, for example. The reason has to do with
a) the fact that the chemical limit for thermite is 4.5 KJ, and 3 of 4 Jones samples exceed this.
b) Nanothermite has even less ED due to the fine particles oxidizing and being less chemically efficient.
Something else produced that energy. Not thermitic reactions.
AlienEntity1 1 day ago in playlist 9/11 debunking
Also, just because you don't agree that "magical" explosive technology was used, doesn't mean they don't exist. Top notched scientists thought that the tech used to construct the stealth bomber was "too magical" to exist before the gov. made it public.
Quote: Nanoenergetic thermite materials release energy much faster than conventional energetic materials and have various potential military applications such as [...] explosives. They are likely to become the next-generation explosive materials.
bluerap04 23 hours ago
@bluerap04 Again, you do not address the actual issue. You are introducing a diversion - the stealth bomber, as some kind of evidence for your claim of magic technology which you claim was used.
That won't work. There is nothing about the collapse which is relevant to the stealth bomber - it is an artifice you are using as a distraction from your complete lack of evidence.
You are essentially saying 'people have been wrong in the past, therefore they are wrong now'.
Logical fallacy
AlienEntity1 22 hours ago
@bluerap04 Also, you do not understand the chemistry arguments regarding nanothermite.
It is not the speed of release which proves a thermitic reaction - it is the chemical components that either exist in the chips, or in this case don't exist.
Without sufficient chemical components these chips are NOT ANY KIND OF THERMITE!! It doesn't matter whether thermite is real or whether it's fast and hot, that's irrelevant to the question of the chips chemical makeup.
They're not thermite.
AlienEntity1 22 hours ago
@bluerap04 The government also has nuclear weapons. But the chips are not made of sufficiently radioactive materials to produce fission or fusion.
Therefore they are not nuclear devices.
They are not thermite, due to the lack of necessary chemistry.
They ARE chemically identical to LaClede primer paiint, give or take a little chromium.
They have Iron Oxide pigment and epoxide resin.
So does primer paint... coincidence????? Really????
AlienEntity1 22 hours ago
@bluerap04 Not to mention that the new Millette study has shown that the Al in the red/grey chips is NOT elemental, meaning it cannot chemically produce a thermitic reaction.
Jones/Harrit did not do the necessary tests to show elemental Al, they merely assumed it - incorrectly.
So the truther position falls apart for a variety of reasons. It is just not scientifically proven, nor sound, nor true.
AlienEntity1 1 day ago in playlist 9/11 debunking
Warning, this is NOT rocket science, if you are smarter than a 5th grader, you can get this easily. The fact is that 2.25 sec of free fall acceleration means that ALL of the resistance under the falling bit had to have been removed and ALL at the same time. This just happened to be the result of chaotic fires, ... Right & I'm the Easter Bunny!
phr0gpheatherz 3 weeks ago
@phr0gpheatherz Hmm, strawman alert!! Apparently none of the PhD engineers who studied the collapsed and modeled it using sophisticated, state of the art software are smarter than a 5th grader.
Newsflash - you no longer need to spend years at engineering school. Everything can be learned instantly by watching youtube videos. No university degree is needed to engineer tall buildings; no training, no experience.
That's in the alternate Truther universe, of course. Fantasyland..
AlienEntity1 3 weeks ago
@AlienEntity1 at no time did I state that you could build high-rise structures with only a 5th grade education, HOWEVER, given the nature of the events of 9/11/2001
+ the lame excuses sorts of explanations given by the taxpayer funded bodies who were supposed to produce scientific reports on the subject, one does NOT need any sort of advanced education to understand - 9/11/2001= FALSE FLAG.
phr0gpheatherz 3 weeks ago
@phr0gpheatherz Your comments make absolutely no sense. You are babbling without reasonable cause about things you do not understand.
You don't offer an intelligent critique of the scientific reports, just a rather lame attempt to dismiss them, all the while proclaiming that you don't need an advanced education to understand..
I beg to differ. Any boob can make grandiose claims, that's not enough to prove any point. Bare assertions are all you bring to the table... seen it b4.
AlienEntity1 3 weeks ago
@AlienEntity1 Lame argument from the NIST, they claim that the destruction of WTC7 could not have been a Controlled Demolition because an explosive charge of RDX sufficient to completely sever one major structural member in the building would have to be so loud as to be heard all the way to New Jersey. HOWEVER a single charge of RDX is NOT the only way it could have been done and so the NIST seeks to dismiss the Controlled Demolition argument by limiting the scope....
phr0gpheatherz 3 weeks ago
@phr0gpheatherz LOL, I'll tell you what's lame - people like you who INSIST that explosives were used, yet following the truther myth that the exterior columns were cut.....there were NO EXPLOSIONS and NO VISIBLE SIGNS of explosions on the exterior at the moment it started to fall.
So the theory is actually dead. It's a dumb and ignorant idea. THAT'S what's lame, that you're repeating such a dumb idea.
AlienEntity1 3 weeks ago
@phr0gpheatherz No explosive CD in history occurred w/out visible and audilble explosions as the building starts to fall.
Look, you won't find one. Because it doesn't exist. Yet that's precisely what you truthers are arguing for - the utterly impossible.
Maybe in an alternate universe this stuff makes some sense, but not in this one. 10 years and all you guys have are a collection of lame urban legends.
AlienEntity1 3 weeks ago
@phr0gpheatherz lemme guess...it was ultra secret super duper nano thermite right? And the 100's of 1000's of pounds needed were hidden inside the building by a team of uber stealthy NWO ninja's huh? ROFL.
Oz1976 3 weeks ago
What a clown. NIST admitted freefall speed in their final report. How could Building 7 fall at a speed indistinguishable from free fall for 2.25 seconds?
lotilover 4 weeks ago
@lotilover Not simple, which is why truthers fail to grasp it. No doubt you will fail as well, and will fall back on your simpleminded slogan.
The interior structure began to collapse roughly 7 seconds prior to pulling the facade down with it. So,
1) A lot of structure was broken, and accelerating downward already
2) The building was no longer intact, but was disintegrating
3) Eventually the exterior columns buckled, and a brief period of freefall followed, but not for long.
AlienEntity1 4 weeks ago
@lotilover No explosions of any kind are recorded on any videos taken as the building collapse begins -
Not prior to the E Penthouse falling inside the builidng
Not as the facade descends.
No controlled demolition can do that. Not possible.
Nor was any evidence of cutter charges (required for truther hypotheses) found on any of the steel.
A clown indeed. That would be you. ;)
AlienEntity1 4 weeks ago
Many thousands of tons of concrete and steel and other materials were turned to dust in seconds. That alone proves demolition. I worked construction 32 years and sawed enough steel and broke enough concrete to know that concrete doesn't crush itself, and steel doesn't melt itself. Ever. Nor will they float all over a city if you drop them.
Not without some tremendous extra force involved.
I am 100% convinced the buildings were exploded. I'd stake my life on it.
Dulcimerea 1 month ago
@Dulcimerea Whoa. There is ZERO empirical evidence that steel was turned to dust. NADA. You're just repeating the Urban Legend is all. Y U believe it is beyond me.
btw, there is no empirical evidence for melted steel either. However, in many cases eyewitnesses report seeing melted steel in average fires. I can supply you many quotes to prove this point beyond a shadow of doubt. So reports of molten steel unfortunately are not proof - not scientific evidence, anyway.
AlienEntity1 1 month ago
@Dulcimerea 'I am 100% convinced the buildings were exploded. I'd stake my life on it.'
Yeah, people will do that for all sorts of silly reasons. Remember the 'Heaven's Gate' cult, which killed themselves to meet up with the Hale-Bop comet a few years ago?
Don't waste your life believing in nonsense, unless you don't mind wasting it, and you don't care about truth. That's my advice.
cheers
AE
AlienEntity1 1 month ago
@Dulcimerea ps I like your avatar pic. Is that you playing? :)
AlienEntity1 1 month ago
@Dulcimerea how do you explain the free standing spire here that sudenly goes in to the ground, turns into dust. watch?v=dzm2wfiXdW4
benjyboba 1 month ago
If this was a progressive collapse throughout then why do you have dust puffs showing at the right of the building on every floor simultainiously then it falls at freefall speed at that point. You cant claim a progressive collapse, falls at freefall speed. I thought of your measurement point when I watched David Chandler but then relised that the building when it all goes falls at freefall speed, if progressive collapse, it would have been uneven in the falling. This was a planned demolition.
benjyboba 2 months ago
@benjyboba I appreciate that you're trying to understand the collapse, but the problem is you don't know enough about either CD or collapses to grasp it at this point. First off, there were NOT dust puffs on every floor simultaneously, I disagree.
But it's a FACT that the internal collapse was progressive, from E to W and took roughly 8 seconds before the facade started to implode. It's not a fact up for dispute except by truthers who don't pay attention to this.
But it gets worse.
AlienEntity1 2 months ago
@AlienEntity1There were not dust puffs on everyfloor I disagree, Actually spend an evening searching for wtc 7 and you will find the video where you can clearly see them all. They all happen together so its imposbile to be a collapse. Gravity or freefall speed can be affected by many factors, for example. When the air is cold, at low altitudes it becomes more dense. This is why we can't give passific numbers only aproximate. if collapsed internally. Then we would have had fire out of the windows
benjyboba 2 months ago
@benjyboba Sorry, dude, you're just plain wrong. Next...
AlienEntity1 1 month ago
@benjyboba Real CD's, as David Chandler discovered (when he finally did some research... talk about putting the cart before the horse!) do NOT generally fall at freefall speed!!!!!
So freefall is NOT a meaningful indicator of CD or no CD. The particular part of the facade collapse (north wall) in question had 3 phases:
1) below freefall
2) at freefall
3) below freefall
This corresponds very well with buckling of columns, negligible resistance, then resistance. Nothing mysterious.
AlienEntity1 2 months ago
You should contact NIST because they changed the report and AGREED WTC7 fell at free fall speed.
FreedumbFighter28 2 months ago
@FreedumbFighter28
Well, at least you got the dumb part right.
They didn't change the report. The free fall chart was included in the NCSTAR 1-9 release candidate, nearly two years before DavidRChandler "Discovered" it in 2007.
They just didn't realize it was some kind of gonzo proof of demolition, since demolition almost never falls at free fall, as david discovered from Vegas com.
Merlin5by5 2 months ago
This analysis may fool many people but what AlienEntity has done is to pull the same trick as NIST and has included a lot of time before the collapse got going and added this to the total time and said there you go - longer than freefall. What Chandler did was to study the collapse velocity throughout the collapse time and found that for a significant portion of the collapse the speed was essentially freefall. So not debunked at all but just more disinformation to cover up what happened.
Zooney1 3 months ago
@Zooney1 Hmmm, if Chandler wants the truth, why does he ignore the entire collapse, and especially ignore the E-W progression of collapse?
It would be neat if you could post a comment on his videos, but he doesn't allow that. Oh no, dissent is not allowed in his world - his word is absolute. Go ahead and try to comment on one of his videos! LOL
Not only that, but Chandler only measures a tiny point on one part of the building. Fact is, movement was not uniform along the visible wall.
AlienEntity1 3 months ago
@Alien
Well you are right that he has disabled comments. However I think his methodology and critique of the NIST explanation is sound. What is important is to chart the speed of the collapse progression as David has done and not to estimate total time of collapse by adding ambiguous amounts of time from the start when the collapse was just starting. Also since the roof line falls symmetrically then it is reasonable to take the right hand corner of the building as the reference for measurements
Zooney1 3 months ago
@Zooney1 Except that it has nothing to do with the reasons that the bulding collapsed, and Chandler hasn't got a frigging clue what he's talking about.
He's not an engineer, either. It shows by his many false assumptions.
AlienEntity1 3 months ago
@AlienEntity1
He is not an engineer himself but many of his colleagues are in AE911truth and so he has a wealth of expert engineering and architect back up and reference.
Zooney1 3 months ago
@Zooney1 That is an empty argument from authority, as Chandler alone has appointed himself as an expert in demolitions, nanotechnology, structural engineering and fire science - he really has no business doing that, and IMO the only reason truthers give him any credence is because they're desperate to believe in this Urban Legend of controlled demolition.
None of his colleagues have stepped up to publish peer-reviewed papers in engineering journals in support of his ideas. Not a single one!
AlienEntity1 3 months ago
@Zooney1 'However I think his methodology and critique of the NIST explanation is sound.' Well, you think wrong.
David's methodology for determining the start time is arbitrary, he doesn't EVER provide data on margin of error in any of his work (which is very unprofessional and unscientific).
NIST picked another spot to measure, and gave the precise parameters for the measurements in NCSTAR 1-9. Including margin of error.
My analysis corroborates NIST. That's all there is to it.
AlienEntity1 3 months ago
@AlienEntity1
Well the point about defining a start time is that since the start time is difficult to determine from the videos the margin for error is great. NIST's analysis relies on setting an artificially early start time for the collapse to get to their magic 5.4 total time - of being longer than freefall. By tracking the actual velocity of the fall with time David was able to show that freefall did take place and this was in fact conceeded in the final NIST report.
Zooney1 3 months ago
@Zooney1 'start time is difficult to determine from the videos the margin for error is great.' That makes sense. What follows does not: 'artificially early start time'
You've admitted already that it is difficult to determine, and in fact the wall does not move as a single unit, so it's literally moot. Chandler is arbitrary, but I don't call his point 'artificial', it's just ONE possible reference, not the only one.
You and he behave as if it's the only valid one, but it's not.
AlienEntity1 3 months ago
@Zooney1 In the paragraph second half you conflate 'freefall' with the start time of collapse. Actually both Chandler and NIST corroborate fairly tightly 3 different stages of global collapse of the facade.
1) Stage one, slower than freefall (columns buckling)
2) Stage 2, roughly freefall
3) Stage 3, slower than freefall
You seem to be oblivious to this fact - that the acceleration was NOT at freefall except for a minor portion of even the facade collapse - forget about the internal collapse!
AlienEntity1 3 months ago
@AlienEntity1
NIST did not perform the analysis in a honest way - they simply took 2 points in the collapse sequence and measured the time between the two at 5.4 seconds then said hey this is 40% longer than freefall. However when the collapse sequence is measured in stages, frame by frame, then the freefall element becomes obvious as does the artificially early start time for NIST measurements. Numerous eye witnesses saw and heard sequential cracking explosions before the collapses.
Zooney1 3 months ago
@Zooney1 OK, you're crossing the line into complete disrespect and you don't know what you're talking about.
I PERSONALLY MEASURED IT SEVERAL TIMES and reached the same conclusion, using FRAME BY FRAME analysis.
The eyewitness claims are moot - in EVERY youtube video of real CD's you can hear the loud explosions, no problem. This JUST DIDN'T HAPPEN with WTC 7. Didn't happen. There is no real evidence for explosive CD, and you haven't presented any.
AlienEntity1 3 months ago
@AlienEntity1
What have you measured several times? Reached what conclusion? Why on earth did NIST initially not do the frame by frame analysis? They have no reason not to make public their input parameters for their modelling work so that others could ....... ahem learn from their work. They have been asked by engineers to release this information and will not. Why is this? Why do you defend all of NIST's behaviour?
Zooney1 3 months ago
@Zooney1 Geez, go thru this video and part II, dude!!!! What do you think I measured? LOL
NIST DID a frame-by-frame analysis, I wish you truthers would actually read the report before trying to critique it!!
Again, you cannot provide any evidence that NIST has not shared this info with engineering schools or universities, those institutions which might pay for the licensing and so forth. Your point is based on very incomplete info to say the least.
watch?v=VyhMTOdRnRo No explosions....hmm
AlienEntity1 3 months ago
@AlienEntity1
Well if you had plotted the frame by frame sequence you would have proved freefall of the NW corner of the building just as Chandler did. Of course NIST's graph in their final report also indicated freefall as their stage 2 process. However they omitted talking about the significance of this. Their model did not predict freefall at any stage of the collapse and any reasonable person knows that witholding the computer modelling parameters is not not a reasonable action.
Zooney1 3 months ago
@Zooney1 I would change the phrase to say any paranoid conspiracy theorist would read way too much into NIST's withholding of some of the data, and that it doesn't matter either way.
Conspiracy theorists have zero hard evidence of controlled demolition. They have not met any reasonable burden of proof in support of their claims, and as such their claims are unproven.
Until that changes, 9/11 Truth is nothing more than a collection of Urban Legends.
AlienEntity1 3 months ago
@AlienEntity1
The only crazy conspiracy theory is the official one that you chose to support for what ever reason. On the actual day of Sept 11 2001 there was ample evidence of sequential explosions prior to the wtc collapses and it was only as the pancaking theory was repeatedly fed out via the media that this idea started to take hold. Reporters and TV commentators were all mentioning explosives and bombs in the buildings. NIST did not analyse the dust for exotic accelerants, period.
Zooney1 3 months ago
@Zooney1 There is no evidence of sequential explosions. That's complete nonsense and it diminishes you to even mention it.
I'm sorry that vague and unsupported allegations are all that you have after ten years; it must be frustrating.
None of you truthers can face the fact that there was zero evidence of cutter charges (required by truther hypotheses) on any of the steel. Zero. Nada.
There were in fact bomb sniffing dogs at the towers, no detection happened. There is no evidence. Period.
AlienEntity1 3 months ago
@AlienEntity1
You are plain wrong. NY Firefighters reported sequential explosions and their immediate impression was that there were just like the explosions used to take down buildings. Were these professionals paranoid conspiracists perchance?
Zooney1 3 months ago
@Zooney1 So? FDNY Chief Nigro, in consultation with engineers and firefighters, determined that WTC 7 was probably going to collapse from the fires.
This is a consensus, not just a quick snap impression by panicked people witnessing a collapse.
None of America's top demolition experts agrees or corroborates those particular observations that you cite. No audio data corroborates it either, no video data. So it really does not amount to much.
There's no forensic evidence of CD either.
AlienEntity1 3 months ago
@Alien
These were covert demolitions using novel means - they had to be - but NIST only looked for signs of conventional demolition techniques not the actual techniques based on nanothermite.
I see that you only publish my comments once you have attempted to rebut them so that you always have the last say - very fair indeed! I see you have avoided the issue of freefall of WTC7 once again and chosen to only look at averaging the speed over an artificially extended time - same trick as NIST
Zooney1 3 months ago
@Zooney1 Sure, sure, a novel and never-before-seen demolition technique which just happens to look exactly like a fire-induced collapse, to teams of competent engineers who studied it, but is easy to spot for untrained internet sleuths known as 'truthers'.
Nice piece of science fiction.
Dude, don't flatter yourself. I check the comments once or twice a day and can only approve them at that point. Yes, I also rebut them at that time. Get over yourself. Sheesh.
Your self-importance is ridiculous.
AlienEntity1 3 months ago
@AlienEntity1
You state:
"just happens to look exactly like a fire-induced collapse"
Please provide links to any videos of fire induced collapses of high rise steel framed buildings that look anything like the rapid and total collapses of WTC1, 2 and 7.
Thankyou
Zooney1 3 months ago
@Zooney1 It's your argument, not mine. Truthers argue that the collapses look exactly like controlled demolitions.
That's not our claim, it's yours! LOL
I'm simply repeating your own claims to show how absurd they are, and you are silly enough to ask ME for proof!! LMAO.
No, YOU provide the evidence to support your claims, that's how burden of proof works. But you can't, can you? LOL
AlienEntity1 3 months ago
@Zooney1 Truthers claim that the collapses were designed to fool experts, leaving only the great unwashed conspiracists to 'see' the truth. ie that the collapses were engineered to look like fire-induced collapses, by using incendiaries instead of explosives (Jones and Harrit claims).
Where have you been for 5 years? This is a central claim made thousands of times on the internet by truthers.
In fact, special 'quiet' explosives were a central idea for a long time although the idea is fading.
AlienEntity1 3 months ago
@Zooney1 I've already demonstrated the absurdity of the claim many times, but to reiterate, truthers claim that the exterior columns of WTC 7 were simultaneously destroyed with explosives, yet:
NONE OF THE VIDEO OR STILL SHOTS TAKEN AT THE TIME OF COLLAPSE SHOW THE REQUISITE RING OF EXPLOSIVE SQUIBS ON THE EXTERIOR COLUMNS!!!!!!
ie, the hypothesis FAILS completely. it did not happen.
Oh, the irony.
AlienEntity1 3 months ago
@AlienEntity1
You state:
"Again, you cannot provide any evidence that NIST has not shared this info with engineering schools or universities, those institutions which might pay for the licensing and so forth"
That trick is known as asking someone to prove a negative. I'll turn this round: You prove to me that they have shared the data with anyone. "License fees for their input parameters" - Oh please!.
Zooney1 3 months ago
@Zooney1 Stalemate. You make a claim, but you cannot prove it. Typical.
AlienEntity1 3 months ago
@AlienEntity1
Let's go with your suggestion for one moment regarding NIST having released their modelling parameters to engineering schools who might have paid fees. Ae you suggesting that the fact NIST had done this would have been kept a secret from all the acrhitects and engineers in the truth movement with all their massive network of contacts in academia?
That is a most absurd proposition as is the suggestion that NIST would charge a free for release of their input parameters.
Zooney1 3 months ago
@Zooney1 Truthers engage in more hypothetical speculation than realists/skeptics, and the problem is they don't differentiate adequately between speculation and fact.
You started out by claiming that NIST hadn't released their data, which is NOT TRUE. But I didn't call you on it because it is wrong, but doesn't really matter.
Your research is so superficial, it is absurd. you haven't even read the report.
AlienEntity1 3 months ago
@Zooney1 LOL, there is no secret. If you'd read the contracts you'd know that you could contact Dr. John Fisher of Lehigh University, Pennsylvania, and Computer Aided Engineerinf Associates Inc., of Woodbury, Connecticut, and query them about the software and data inputs.
After all, they designed the FEA of WTC 7 for NIST. I wonder if Lehigh U engineering students have access to this model that their professor designed??
Hmm, I guess you could always ask, instead of relying on rumors :)
AlienEntity1 3 months ago
@AlienEntity1
If you know the input parameters please publish them.
Zooney1 3 months ago
@Zooney1 As soon as you give me all of NASA's data on the space shuttle missions. Or give me all the documents in the Federal case against Moussaoui. Your choice.
You could also give me all the forensic data collected at the Pentagon. I'll swap you when you have it ready.
Talk soon, bye now!
AlienEntity1 3 months ago
@AlienEntity1
Well you are just being silly now.
Perhaps you would like to explain why iron rich microspheres are a characteristic of all WTC dust samples and why such microspheres form post ignition of the red chips (also found in all the dust samples) during DSC analysis? Are you suggesting that standard primer paints are in fact a form of nanothermite?
Zooney1 3 months ago
@Zooney1 Easy - such microspheres are found in all common dust in most cities in the world, for a start. They're found in wood fires (the trace iron in the wood produces them) As to post-ignition, they're not: FH Couannier took some WTC dust samples and did DSC tests, his did NOT produce any iron-rich microspheres.
In other words, the Jones/Harrit paper has NOT been reproduced by an independent scientist anywhere in the world.
Standard primer paint is not nanothermite, nor are the chips.
AlienEntity1 3 months ago
@AlienEntity1
Er Alien are we not getting somewhat desperate now? Our good friend Fred Henri Couannier told your friends on the JR forum that that he was convinced that someone had replaced chips he had originally received, with new ones that would not reproduce the results he was looking for. Your reliable source of refuting scientific evidence eh??
Zooney1 3 months ago
@Zooney1 You mean, since he's a committed conspiracy theorist, he refused to accept that his WTC dust samples were legit because they didn't produce the results he was looking for?
Yes, he's a nutbar - he believes that some kind of directed energy weapon disassociated the atoms of the steel and concrete and caused the collapses.
He's crazy, yes he is. Confirmed.
But HE was not able to produce iron-rich microspheres - that's a fact. Not even a committed truther could.
AlienEntity1 3 months ago
@Zooney1 Actually you're paraphrasing him incorrectly, IIRC. In my recollection he mused that the samples could have been tampered with, part of his rationalization for the failure of his results to corroborate the Jones/Harrit paper.
Can you provide a quote please? It would help to back up your allegation.
AlienEntity1 3 months ago
@Zooney1 FH Counnier 'That is why I tend to think today that the samples are authentic, which means that all theses thermite or nano thermite may be borked and probably have been put forward to mislead'
ie he thinks his samples were real and not faked, but that Jones/Harrit have faked their results. There you go. You were wrong.
AlienEntity1 3 months ago
@Zooney1 FH Counnier 'That is why I tend to think today that the samples are authentic, which means that all theses thermite or nano thermite may be borked and probably have been put forward to mislead'
ie he thinks his samples were real and not faked, but that Jones/Harrit have faked their results. There you go. You were wrong.
AlienEntity1 3 months ago
@Zooney1 FH Counnier 'That is why I tend to think today that the samples are authentic, which means that all theses thermite or nano thermite may be borked and probably have been put forward to mislead'
ie he thinks his samples were real and not faked, but that Jones/Harrit have faked their results. There you go. You were wrong.
AlienEntity1 3 months ago
@Zooney1 FH Counnier 'That is why I tend to think today that the samples are authentic, which means that all theses thermite or nano thermite may be borked and probably have been put forward to mislead'
ie he thinks his samples were real and not faked, but that Jones/Harrit have faked their results. There you go. You were wrong.
AlienEntity1 3 months ago
@Zooney1 FH Counnier 'That is why I tend to think today that the samples are authentic, which means that all theses thermite or nano thermite may be borked and probably have been put forward to mislead' he thinks his samples were real and not faked, but that Jones/Harrit have faked their results. There you go. You were wrong.
AlienEntity1 3 months ago
@Zooney1 FH Counnier 'That is why I tend to think today that the samples are authentic,' he thinks his samples were real and not faked, but that Jones/Harrit have faked their results. There you go. You were wrong.
AlienEntity1 3 months ago
@Zooney1 Counnier 'That is why I tend to think today that the samples are authentic,' he thinks his samples were real and not faked, but that Jones/Harrit have faked their results. There you go. You were wrong.
AlienEntity1 3 months ago
@Zooney1 Counnier That is why I tend to think today that the samples are authentic'
he thinks his samples were real and not faked, but that Jones/Harrit have faked their results. There you go. You were wrong.
AlienEntity1 3 months ago
Er Alien, are we not getting somewhat desperate now? Our good friend Fred Henri Couannier told your friends on the JR forum that that he was convinced that someone had replaced chips he had originally received, with new ones that would not reproduce the results he was looking for. So your choice for rebuttal of a peer reviewed paper is the work of some french nutter who isn't even sure if the samples he used are bona fida. Oh please!
Zooney1 3 months ago
@Zooney1 Incorrect. He believes his samples are real, and that Jones faked his results.
No, I'm simply pointing out that the paper has not been corroborated by anybody. According to standard science, this means it has not been established.
You continue to misrepresent and misunderstand most major points. No surprise...
AlienEntity1 3 months ago
@Zooney1 As to your 'silly' comment, look in the mirror. Please get me all the computer data from NASA space shuttle flights - if you can't, it means that NASA is committing fraud and has not released this data to the public. They are hiding something, clearly. Perhaps the moon landings were hoaxes and NASA has been covering it up all these years?
btw, you're desperately evading the reality that the Jones/Harrit chips cannot be any kind of nanothermite, chemically speaking. Not possible.
AlienEntity1 3 months ago
@Zooney1 Further to the canard of the 'iron-rich microspheres', Physicist Dave Thomas of NMSR has recently shown that by igniting ordinary steel wool with a lighter, one can indeed produce iron microspheres (as confirmed by XEDS).
But his results are even more shocking - the microspheres are PURE iron, not a eutectic admixture (which lowers the melting point even further).
Richard Gage falsely claims that these can ONLY be produced by thermitic processes. FALSE!!!
He lies - but you believe
AlienEntity1 3 months ago
@AlienEntity1
In terms of the moon landing issue I am pretty open minded about that one. I have stood beside the Saturn 5 rocket and it is the most impressive piece of engineering I have ever seen. However the need to show success in putting a man on the moon during the cold war was great as were the challenges. Whilst the take off was spectacular, could the actual landings have been staged? Yes. Were they - I have looked at both sides of the argument and I'm not sure on that one.
Zooney1 3 months ago
@Zooney1 That is very revealing. Imagine the conspiracy required to keep rival scientific bodies (Russian, Chinese, European, Indian) and the thousands of PhD physicists etc from exposing the fraud! How could you manage to keep them all quiet?
Probably the same way you keep the National Academy of Sciences from pointing out that the earth is flat, not round - by paying them all off, threatening their families or just killing them, I guess.
AlienEntity1 3 months ago
@Zooney1 The problem with the thinking process you're engaging is that you seem to believe the blatantly pseudo-scientific claims of conspiracy theorists rather uncritically, but disbelieve anything the 'government' declares - reflexively.
Nevermind there are literally thousands of qualified scientists who've either worked directly to produce the mainstream consensus or agree with it, as well as every major engineering school in the developed world.
You deny all of them credence.
AlienEntity1 3 months ago
Alien,
I am going to stop posting now because I see your agenda is simply to support NIST and the official position come what may. The recent open 4 day hearing of 911 evidence in Toronto is very informative for those wanting to know the real story of 911 from all angles. presented to a panel of unbiassed experts. Search for 911 Toronto on YouTube. Regards.
Zooney1 3 months ago
@Zooney1 You can join all the JFK and MoonLanding Hoax believers, muttering about dark conspiracies for decades and producing zero tangible results. Go ahead, see if I care.
9/11 Conspiracy theories alleging controlled demolition are nothing but modern Urban Legends, and that's all there is to it. Truthers ignore mountains of forensic, scientific and valid data and evidence which establish that fires brought the towers down - and believe myths and rumors which are nothing but speculation
AlienEntity1 3 months ago
@Zooney1 Besides, witnesses hear explosions in all sorts of contexts which don't involve high explosives.
watch?v=dizurbqG50U
The kind of explosives alleged by truthers are extremely loud, we're talking 120 or 130db at 1000 ft. There is no possible way that NONE of the video cameras in the vicinity would not have picked up these loud explosions as the building collapsed.... HAD THEY OCCURRED. But clearly there were no loud explosions, that should be obvious to all but the blind and deaf.
AlienEntity1 3 months ago
@Zooney1 Expressed as a straight proportion, the remnants of the structure (remembering that much of the mass was already collapsing internally for several seconds prior) fell slower than freefall for roughly 1/2 the facade descent that could be viewed in that one clip.
So instead of proclaiming that 'it fell at freefall' as if it fell ENTIRELY at that speed (thus misleading many people) it is more accurate and truthful to say that out of about 15 seconds, about 2.25s were at freefall.
AlienEntity1 3 months ago
@Zooney1 Not only is the total collapse time at least 15 seconds (using seismic data and video evidence) but this means that the OBSERVED period at freefall comprised only about 15% of the total, and occurred about midway during the collapse.
The baseline is that no real CD in history has ever behaved this way. Nobody can find one, believe me, or we'd hear of it!!!! Not only that, but no CD in history has happened without clear video and audio evidence capturing the explosions at collapse.
AlienEntity1 3 months ago
@Zooney1 So it follows that the entire hypothesis put forward by Chandler et al. is unsound and unscientific, for many reasons but not least which because there is
1) no valid scientific argument being put forward - nothing out of CD literature, nothing out of structural engineering
2) no evidence of explosives being used, video, audio or forensic (ie samples of cut steel). The failure modes of the steel were due to shear and buckling, nothing else.
There's no real evidence to support CD
AlienEntity1 3 months ago
@AlienEntity1
Don't knock him because he is a high school physics teacher by the way. Knock his hypotheses instead.
Zooney1 3 months ago
@Zooney1 Oh I do, I do. But for some reason if Chandler says 'there were nanothermite rockets' or 'The upper block of the towers only exerted 1/3 of their weight on the structure below' NOBODY in trutherdom questions him.
In fact AE911Truth continues to parade Chandler as their leading theoretician in many of these areas, yet he's uniquely unqualified to be leading the research. This is highly unprofessional, IMO and discredits any validity that AE911Truth has scientifically and technically
AlienEntity1 3 months ago
@Zooney1 I've also done a recent video showing how, as the W mechanical penthouses begin to descend into the building, the entire facade bows and flexes. This is definitely collapse, yet it's well before Chandler's arbitrary start time.
He doesn't even attempt to calculate the buckling portion of the column failures, he has no clue. Good thing he only taught high school physics....
watch?v=0HNMcWk5WpY
AlienEntity1 3 months ago
@AlienEntity1
Also from a human behaviour perspective just look at John Gross's body language when he is questioned about 911- I have never seen anyone leak so many classic signs of lying :the twitching, the writhing, the nose touching, the grasping for his bottle of water. This is not the behaviour of a professional investigator sure of his ground. To me it is clear that the poor guy is battling severe cognitive dissonance caused by having to maintain a position that he knows is false.
Zooney1 3 months ago
@Zooney1 Thank god people like you don't have any power, you'd be sending people to the electric chair for looking the wrong way, against your prejudices.
Gross isn't lying, anyway, tell me what possible lie you think he's making, and how you can prove it's a lie, or STFU.
AlienEntity1 3 months ago
@AlienEntity1
And no I wouldn't send anyone to the electric chair - please don't assume my ethics. However there does need to be a legitimate investigation rather than a cover up.
I think Gross is lying about the speed of collapse and he is using a simple and phoney measurement technique of measuring speed of fall from only 2 points when the actual speed at all stages of the collapse can be tracked and measured very simply as David has done.
Zooney1 3 months ago
@Zooney1 Bully for you. You have no evidence, just as I thought. Just another mean-spirited and paranoid person who thinks they have clairvoyant powers.
Don't accuse people of lying if you can't prove it. It just makes you an asshole.
AlienEntity1 3 months ago
@Zooney1 Add to that that Femr2 has measured the acceleration differently than Chandler and come up with acceleration >G! Yes, that's FASTER than freefall, for about 1 second.
That has nothing to do with explosives, and everything to do with a pre-existing internal collapse, causing the centre of gravity of the building to be in motion and leverage creating the facade to fall quickly.
Remember - FASTER than freefall for about 1 second. Explosives don't do that.
AlienEntity1 3 months ago
@AlienEntity1
Well I haven't seen the "faster than freefall analysis" however would this not make gravity collapse even less likely? You still have to have essentially zero resistance from structural components for this to occur on a building that was actually strengthened by adding steelwork post its construction.
Zooney1 3 months ago
@Zooney1 You don't understand that the interior structure was collapsing for almost 8 seconds before the facade came down. Mass, moving downwards, pulling the facade very quickly.
Do you get it now? You might want to discuss with a structural engineer who has studied building collapses for a living. Or just read the professional reports from such people...
AlienEntity1 3 months ago
@AlienEntity1
If the interior structure fell before the external structure it would have pulled the outer structure inwards - in fact this did occur to some extent and is the way buildings are imploded by CD anyway . The west corner of the building however which is a supporting wall is falling straight down at freefall for at least 100 feet. This can only occur if their is no support below as Sunder actually confirmed - hence their absolute need to deny freefall
Zooney1 3 months ago
@Zooney1 You're mixing your examples, not surprisingly. Firstly, you haven't read NCSTAR 1-9, else you'd know precisely what the leading engineering theory is regarding the collapse.
You're pulling a hypothetical idea out without any literature to back up your claim. I don't buy it.
You truthers don't seem to understand that you don't get to define reality. It's a fact, not a theory, that the interior collapsed first. Seismic data alone prove this.
Get in line with reality, to start.
AlienEntity1 3 months ago
@Zooney1 Again, it doesn't matter what aspect of reality you are in denial of. Most of us, esp scientists, are not fooled by this kind of specious reasoning.
Seismic records prove that collapse was occurring. Nobody can refute that.
The building oscillated, measured very precisely by NIST. That again proves internal collapse - what the hell else would it be???? That's why truthers assiduously avoid these hard facts, and countless others.
AlienEntity1 3 months ago
@Zooney1 Sunder is often misquoted. Bravo, you've bought the quotemine without the context. Sunder was perfectly clear that there WAS resistance. It's a fact - there WAS resistance. Not for 100% of the time, that's the part truthers don't get - columns buckled, then offered negligible resistance.
It's all in NSCSTAR 1-9 but you probably don't really care what competent engineers who've studied the collapse think, nor what the data is.
AlienEntity1 3 months ago
@AlienEntity1
Even by tweaking their computer simulation, NIST were unable to simulate freefall collapse speed and they also continue to be unwilling to share with the scientific community what their input variables were - why do you suppose this is AlienEntity1? What is behind their need to keep this a secret when building safety (according to their story) is at stake?
Zooney1 3 months ago
@Zooney1 First, the FEA is not able to exactly reproduce random events, by definition - they are random. The models dictate that, as the simulation progresses, the randomness will change the outcome. So it literally means that you cannot exactly duplicate EVERY process, for the entire collapse, as it ACTUALLY happened. But you CAN reproduce the conditions, and demonstrate how it COULD collapse.
That's what they did, successfully. All their inputs were documented in the report, every detail.
AlienEntity1 3 months ago
@Zooney1 NASA doesn't share every bit of data it has, FBI doesn't share every bit of info, with the general public.
It's not normal for an entire set of data to be released to the public. A lot of data has been released however. NOt all of it.
You are also supposing that universities and engineering schools do not have access to this data. Please give a citation to prove this.
If NIST were faking it, they'd just make an exact duplicate which mimicked the event. Clearly they didn't do that.
AlienEntity1 3 months ago
@Zooney1 You do realize that your argument is weakened by the fact that the model does not duplicate every part of the collapse? It shows that the data were left to operate without an artificial agenda to create a cartoon of it.
Just as the hypothesis that Bush did 9/11 to attack Iraq but paradoxically the hijackers were mostly Saudi, not Iraqi, the truther claim of fakery suffers the same paradox - it doesn't fit a conspiracy at all. Or a very, very crappy attempt at a conspiracy, at any rate!
AlienEntity1 3 months ago
@AlienEntity1
Aha I see your game - you selectively block comments that you are unable to counter and always have the last say - far worse behaviour than just blocking all comments as Chandler does.
Zooney1 3 months ago
@Zooney1 It's no game, you're incorrect. Comments are posted by approval, which allows me to weed out the vulgar personal attacks, spam etc...
You are also completely incorrect that it is somehow 'worse' to allow comments with approval rather than no comments. If you like it so much, go lurk on Chandler's channel and discuss with others... oh, you can't...
AlienEntity1 3 months ago
I see, it seems that I've been badly mistaken. If I think about it in the new way of thinking we have nowadays,(war is peace, ignorance is strength etc) it all seems very eassy to grasp.
MrRobtwothirds 3 months ago
@MrRobtwothirds Exactly. The Orwellian phrase 'Freefall Speed = CD' is repeated mindlessly by gullible truthers, as is 'WTC 7 fell in 6.5 seconds', another Big Lie from Richard Gage and his minions.
AlienEntity1 3 months ago
Of course one can't prove a negative absolutely, but can go a long why to doing so, for instance I can prove I wasn't in Australia yesterday by proving a positive of where I was.
Anyway what I'm looking for is consistency with natural principals, ie Newton's Laws
I'll keep waiting, after all NIST has come up with many "revised" theories that make the previous theory nonsense, for example the pancaking of the towers.
I guess I'll just have to wait til a theory that makes sense to me comes along.
MrRobtwothirds 3 months ago
@MrRobtwothirds Precisely, you're actually capable of proving where you WERE, possibly by showing a receipt of a local purchase, or by citing a person you met at a particular location. What you're doing is providing positive proof of something.
What truthers cannot do is provide any real positive proof to support their claims - there is simply no hard evidence of demolition or demolition explosives, only allegations.
But we can provide positive proof of fire-induced failure of buildings.
AlienEntity1 3 months ago
@AlienEntity1 theres plenty of video evidence showing the official 911 story is crap, like people waving from the impact holes when the building is officially s hot it should be melting all around them.
zenoist2 3 months ago
@zenoist2 Be careful bandying such strong claims, especially in this case. Firstly, NOBODY but truthers say that the tower should be so hot it should melt. Nobody. Not NIST, not FEMA, no engineering schools, no peer-reviewed engineering papers.
So none of that is 'official' in any way.
Secondly, the woman seen in the picture 'waving' was Edna Cintron. She jumped to her death shortly after. Ask yourself why and you will quickly realize that it was unbearable. You cannot see heat easily without IR
AlienEntity1 3 months ago
@zenoist2 Because the wind was blowing SE it was blowing the smoke away, but that doesn't mean that it wasn't very hot. So it can be very misleading to look at a picture or video and declare, as you have, that somehow there wasn't sufficient heat to either:
a) Cause people to jump to their death
b) Weaken the steel to the point where it failed and caused collapse.
Did you know that due to 'viscoplastic buckling' steel can fail below 250 C depending on load? Scientifically proven fact.
AlienEntity1 3 months ago
@MrRobtwothirds Positive proof which supports the fire-collapse theory:
1) Large fires in all affected buildings. Verified fact.
2) Significant structural damage from plane impacts in towers. Verified fact.
3) Failure modes of steel examined are shear and buckling, positively identifying mechanism of collapse.
4) Scientific proof that steel weakens at temperatures as low as 250 C, and can fail under loads at those temps.
5) Empirical proof that steel expands when heated, and can fail.
AlienEntity1 3 months ago
@MrRobtwothirds To continue about expansion and failure of steel, it's a scientific fact, and an observed fact at GZ:
WTC 5 suffered 4 floors of internal structural collapse due to fire. According to analysis published in Structure Magazine, it was the thermal expansion which caused girders to detach from their seats and fail.
So we already have proven (remember positive proof?) examples where steel structure failed solely due to fire on 9/11. This is simple fact.
AlienEntity1 3 months ago
I wish that was true.
If the evidence that it was not CD was anything like realisticly believable I would try to believe it, but it requires a bigger leap of faith than I can muster.
I think of the people who have lost their jobs because they can't work out how it was not CT, and they have more motive and knowledge than I.
If there was empirical evidence that proves it was not a demolition it would be a relief.
But as NIST doubts its own theories, it is unlikely to convince anyone else
MrRobtwothirds 3 months ago
@MrRobtwothirds You're almost there - what you need to do is, instead of trying to prove a negative (which is impossible, btw) is put the burden of proof on the claimants - 'is there empirical evidence that proves it WAS a demolition?'
Answer - NO! There is NO empirical evidence that there was CD. There are many allegations, but no real evidence.
If you think otherwise, list the 'evidence', and its basis in standard, peer-reviewed science (ie engineering papers in engineering journals etc).
AlienEntity1 3 months ago
How does free fall acceleration collapse occur purely from fire or rubble damage?
Free fall is proven and in the official report.
zenoist2 3 months ago
@zenoist2 In this case PART of the structure collapsed internally, leaving another PART intact for a few seconds. The whole building did not fall simultaneously, but progressively, E to W, inward to outward.
Since the collapsing core structure was moving downwards, it was able to
a) remove structure
b) destabilize and initiate collapse of the exterior columns - which eventually buckled then fell with essentially no resistance for about 2 seconds until resistance was again encountered.
AlienEntity1 3 months ago
@zenoist2 ps, there's no comprehensive explanation as to how explosives could have created this effect, especially since there's no evidence of cutter charges on the exterior or interior columns or structure - this lack of evidence extends to
a) Audio
b) Video
c) steel examined after collapse
AlienEntity1 3 months ago
@alienentity, sorry for my sloppy use of terminology, I don't contest your correction. There is some generalized finite element analysis of the actual ongong "collapse", and 2, raw data is the crux of achieving input figures. I'm happy to agree to differ as to the crucial matter of the freefall acceleration, I think it is hugely significant at whatever stage it occurred, and I can't find any explanation that makes sense without CD-I would be happy to reconsider any realistic suggestions.
MrRobtwothirds 3 months ago
@MrRobtwothirds Firstly CD must be eliminated as a possible cause because there just isn't any real evidence that would be required.
1) There were no explosions or squbs around the perimeter at the moment of collapse. Required by CD theory but not there.
2) There were no audio recordings that captured any explosions at the time of collapse - no matter where the videos were taken. No explosive CD could happen without any evidence of that kind.
Ergo, the theory is falsified already.
AlienEntity1 3 months ago in playlist 9/11 debunking
@MrRobtwothirds As far as an explanation for freefall, it's not a simple subject, but I think it is possible for sincere people to grasp it.
To start with, consider that the centre of gravity of the building was moving downwards as the internal collapse progressed (about 7 seconds b4 the facade fell). Much of the structure was being destroyed and was falling, but part of it was still connected to the exterior moment frame.
continued
AlienEntity1 3 months ago in playlist 9/11 debunking
@MrRobtwothirds How fast did the exterior remnants fall? According to data analysis from Femr2, for about 1 second parts of the wall fell FASTER than freefall!
This is only possible if internal mass was acting on the exterior (ie it was collapsing already, as part of a multi-stage failure).
Explosives cannot make this happen, and they don't in real demolitions. They just don't.
AlienEntity1 3 months ago in playlist 9/11 debunking
"I can't deal with the complexity of the collapse" apparently. I'm in the same situation as NIST who not only don't even try to deal with the actual collapse mechanism of the Towers, but keep secret the input figures they use for WTC 7.
At least they are honest as to why, it is because it could "endanger public safety". I think we can all agree that if the truth about 911 became public knowledge it would indeed cause quite a public stir.
only an expert in psychology could explain why.....
MrRobtwothirds 3 months ago
@MrRobtwothirds This is just not true. NIST DID deal with the collapse mechanism of the towers, in exquisite detail. They didn't carry the collapse past initiation, and nobody else has, since it's far too complex to model (perhaps that will change with improving technology).
They did NOT, contrary to your claim, keep the input figures for the model of WTC 7 secret. That is false. They published the figures in the report in detail. They did not release all the raw data however, that is true.
AlienEntity1 3 months ago
@MrRobtwothirds But in conclusion you are grossly misrepresenting what NIST did. No wonder you truthers get it so wrong, so much of the time!
AlienEntity1 3 months ago
If I were measuring I'd start the time of onset of collapse as the day the building was completed.
Using these figures we can see that the collapse occured over nearly thirty years, even a twoofer can understand that is very slow-in fact it is hardly a collapse, more a gradual subsidence.
Seriously though, the time of onset is irrelevent, what counts is the period of actual freefall, at whatever time into the collapse it started.
MrRobtwothirds 3 months ago
@MrRobtwothirds LOL, in other words, you can't deal with the complexity of the collapse, so just ignore it. Yeah, that's a great way to understand things... NOT!
AlienEntity1 3 months ago
This analysis is lame. Take timings from wherever you like but the fact remains that a significant part of the building spent a significant time in free-fall. Even the graph in the NIST report shows a stage of free-fall so I don't know what your problem is. Now, if you really want to debunk Chandler, explain how such a large portion of the building can fall in on itself unimpeded for so long.
MrTRICKYmf 4 months ago
@MrTRICKYmf Chandler accuses NIST of fraud. That's a very serious charge. Yet his only grounds are a very debatable nitpick, which I show to be unfounded by my measurements. That's the video.
The concept of 'freefall' is not meaningful when truthers like Chandler ignore everything else which lead to it!! ie they don't account for the 7 seconds of internal collapse prior to the buckling of exterior columns.
That's just the tip of the iceberg. There were no explosions at the time of collapse!
AlienEntity1 3 months ago
@AlienEntity1 The timing from first section giving way, to complete collapse is irrelevant. The fact remains that virtually the entire outer framework of the building (whatever inner collapses had already taken place) fell at free fall-speed.