regardless, it is impossible to achieve a Constant Acceleration w/o a constant outside force acting on the object- especially when its going through the path of greatest resistance(support beams). And combined w/ the obvious sounds of explosions heard throughout the day, it would b plain silly to assume that no explosives were actually used to bring down quite magnificently the wtc7 building in that fashion
Full disclosure: I made a mistake labeling several of the stills in this video, the times are incorrect. Also, I really do not know the floor height. I looked on the Emporis Database and found 173.74 meters as the roof height. Problems: not all floors are the same height. The first several floors are not really floors and we don't know how high they were.
NIST appears to have the blueprints, but I cannot find them. Can anyone else?
You are probably right about not all floors being the same height. I think there were 2 levels of 2 floors like the decks in the WTC, plus 1 more taking up the 2nd and 3rd floors, but had no thick black window showing this from the outside. I think they are called promenades(?). Plus, did WTC7 have a 13th floor? My guess is no. Did plans change as they were building it? All questions that need to be answered b4 a correct calculation can be made.
3 QUESTIONS 911 TRUTHERS DON'T WANT YOU TO ASK THEM:
911 TWOOFER # 1: "A steel building has never collapsed due to fire." What happened to the Windsor Tower in Madrid in 2005?
If flight 77 was a missile and not a plane, what knocked down the pole lights outside the Pentagon?
Since demolition experts estimated it would take over 100 men 4-6 months to place explosives in WTC 1, 2, & 7, how come no one witnessed any strange construction activity, wires, or boxes?
To answer Q1: The Windsor Tower did nothing remotely like WTC7. A few parts of it dropped, but not at free fall acceleration and not simultaneously. Q2: an aircraft hit the Pentagon.
Q3: Government covert services can afford demolition specialists who know more than civilian demolition contractors and face fewer safety regulations!
Remember, the original "official story" of WTC7 was demolished for safety.
Then, they went with the lame "fire collapse" excuse. Why? see next
(cont) The original "official story" was "demolished for safety" as we hear from the construction workers on the CNN video as they walk away from the building.
"Keep your eye on that building; it'll be coming down" and "the building's gonna blow up". I think Giuliani is such a sissy he had a panic attack and changed the story to the lame "fire collapse". HE would swallow "fire collapse" but men of action cannot. A "chick flick" can mistake an AK47 for an M16 but not an action flick.
The Windsor Tower in Madrid did not completely collapse.
The Pentagon claims cannot be considered as being pertinent to the investigation at the WTC.
Danny Jowenko, a controlled demolition expert has chimed in with a much different estimate.
Your distracting comments have no bearing whatsoever on the fact of measurable rate of freefall acceleration of WTC7. NIST itself blessed this in its final report after calling it "impossible" just a couple months before the report's release.
@ctcole77 Well, you're being nasty like a little girlie boy who needs her piano keys pounded; I'll be glad to help! I'm guessing YOU wouldn't mind if a movie got the AK and M16 confused!
I said the Windsor Tower did not collapse anything like WTC7. Indeed, it did not. You might be right about the concrete but the fact remains, Windsor Tower did not collapse ANYTHING like WTC7.
I did answer Question 2; maybe if you read R E A L S L O W you can see it.
You want to know the truth, like how you went about making this. I said Skeptic in my very 1st post, this video is done well in some ways. You use reference points that would work out much better than Chandler's methods if measured correctly. Since you counted 1 too many floors, and since you claim 7 fell 6m in 1 second, that proves you started the fall a little late. That's what I said from the start. If u started the timer a little earlier and subtracted 1 fl your calculations would be better
Emporis database, Tishman, and another architecture site. WTC was 174 meters from the top of the penthouse according to all of those sources. To me the penthouse looks like 5-7 meters. 47 floors in WTC, and floors are usually 11-12 feet per. I doubt 7 WTC had a 13th floor, so that's why I added 3 meters to avg. out the diff between my measurement of the penthouse and Emporis data. Most modern buildings in NYC don't have a 13th floor, so a 47 story building is usually only 46.
OK, thanks. This is a huge question. I don't think we know the answer with the certainty we need.
11 feet versus 13 feet per floor is important. It looks like NIST has made the same mistake, if indeed it is a mistake, since they acknowledged 2.25 seconds of free fall acceleration. After this exchange, I went back to check. I found that I mislabeled the time of some of my stills. This entire project needs to be repeated, by me and others!
NIST did careless work - most likely because they didn't expect it to be so scrutinized. They even got the width of the building incorrect. I know that area like the back of my hand and knew without checking it couldn't be 101m wide - the block itself probably was barely 100m. I know there was a good sized sidewalk so how is that possible?
My guess is 11.8ft/fl but only a guess. In short intervals early in fall, less than 1 second measuring velocity could be severely affected even if off by 1m
hold on, 47 stories is 47 stories - distance does not really change especially when u r measuring the relative distance in the stills. ie. U can obviously count the number of floors dropped quite accurately using the windows to serve as relative points of distance for the collapse. Knowing that the windows each represent a floor(doesn't matter what # they may have been since they remain relative to the top roof), we can easily calculate the distance of each floor & thus the fall
@JSSTyger Tell me if you saw a VW microbus zoom down a hill and crash into a parked 18 wheeler and the resulting destruction left no single bit larger than a football, what would you think? this is NORMAL, this is supposed to happen as it did? EVERYBODY has some capacity to THINK ....
@Charlie666XZ o hey the emperor's not naked, lol if its an empress i think she still has her toy still hanging on & thats gotta count for something... jk jk. hahaha
Skeptic121: "If I were you I would be embarrassed to claim a building dropped faster than g. Was there a giant bungee cord pulling it down? "
Translation: I am embarrassed.
Skeptic121: Total Drop: 1.25 floors Elapsed Time: 0.96 sec
Translation: 7 fell at a rate greater than g after 1 second of the fall. Therefore 7 had other forces acting upon it other than gravity in the 1st second of collapse according to my data, making free fall an impossibility by definition, and the laws of physics.
Do not be confused by average acceleration and "instantaneous acceleration." Cops use radar to measure "instantaneous speed", which gets you a ticket. You can't say "95 miles an hour? I left the house an hour ago and I only went 30 miles!" Yes, your AVERAGE speed was 30mph, but your instantaneous speed was calculated by radar in a tiny fraction of a second.
Acceleration, the change in velocity with time, is harder to measure but the concept still applies.
I never once mentioned avg V nor did it factor in my equations. You, not I, claim 7 was in free fall for 4 seconds. Any object in free fall for 4 seconds with an initial velocity of 0 must have a velocity of exactly 87.7 mph. Newtonian Law.
Fisticuffs, my insignificant little video is pretty irrelevant now that NIST has acknowledged a 2.25 second, 25 meter interval of free fall.
Isaac Newton would tell us we don't have to time the entire event to measure acceleration. Theoretically, you can measure acceleration with THREE position measurements over an infinitesimal interval. It is true that the ACCURACY of your measured acceleration will be better as your interval is longer. However, acceleration changes, as WTC's did.
That's not what you said in this video. According to your data you claim 7 fell at a constant rate of acceleration of -9.8 m/s/s for 3.5 seconds, and not much slower for the next .5 seconds. If I take the data from your chart over the first 4 seconds and do the math our graphs look nothing alike. Your graph defies physics.
Here's another example of the inaccuracy of measurement. Stop the video at 1:13 "Time Zero". The rooflines of 101 Barclay and 7 are parallel. Count up exactly 18 floors. at 4.04, the building hasn't quite reached 101 Barclay. I'm sure you started your stopwatch at the most convenient point to support your theory. Even with me giving you this leeway, it has now fallen at a rate less than 8 m/s/s according to your data.
I tried to make it clear, and so did NIST and David Chandler, that WTC7 collapsed at free fall for only PART of its descent: about 2.25 sec = 25 meters. After falling 25 meters, the relatively intact part of the falling building hit the ground, causing upward force against the falling mass. So...how was 25 meters of vertical steel support suddenly removed? Simultaneous buckling due to fire or some technique of inside sabotage, you decide!
at 4.04 in your video, 7 has fallen 18.25 stories, not 19.25. That's 217 feet, or 66 meters. Before you argue this fact, keep in mind 7 WTC has not yet passed 101 Barclay (the white building). 101 Barclay still stands today at 99m. The roof of WTC 7 stood at 170m.
It's about 4 meters from passing 101 Barclay.
According to your math, 7 is now traveling 87.7 mph. (impossible)
Let's go to the video tape. At "Time Zero" the reference point is just above the 35th floor. Yet when floor roof hits your reference point, you claim it has fallen 13.25 floors in 3.2 seconds. Ok, the problem with that is, there are only 12 floors above the 35th floor. Count them out at the "Time Zero" still. Still this is moot and I will explain it mathematically later. So you have already made 3 fundamental errors, and you're off by almost 4 meters in your math. a 10% margin of error.
let's talk physics then since you challenged me. let's talk basic math. You claim .96 seconds into the fall it had traveled 1.25 floors. Judging by your calculations, I'm gonna guess you measured floors as 13.5 ft each. Wrong. they were 11.8. But let's say you're right.. According to you, 1 second into descent it's traveled 6 meters, over 20% faster than g. Already you've proven 7 was not in a free fall as it applies to physics. Do you want me to explain why or should I save you the embarassment
I am not claiming that, YOU ARE. The only way the building could have fallen more than 4.9m in the 1st second would be if the middle of the building, which fell first, pulled down on the NW corner/west face, which you are measuring. If that is the case, 7 was never in free fall as applied to physics. You claim after .96 seconds, 7 has falled 1.25 floors. That's more than 6m, over 20% more than Newtonian Mechanics allow.
To suppose the facade fell faster than g you have to claim the falling interior mass jerked the facade down. On the one hand you have to argue the facade was NOT strongly connected to the interior, so it did not drop along WITH the interior. On the other hand, you have to argue there was a strong enough connection that the interior could pull the facade down faster than g.
Can you draw a plausible diagram of such a mechanism? It might be worth your own video.
No because I really don't know how it was built. I disagree with everyone including NIST. From all the math I have done, it's my opinion if free fall occurs most likely, it's when the building disappears from view. I did so much math for mostly every single interval people have noted. I did some on my own and found intervals as high as -9m/s/s. However, if you increase the time by .1 seconds, it could plummet to 7m/s/s. It is very hard to truly calculate because of the camera position
skeptic, I use real math, not the physics tool kit which allows you to plug in any time or measure to make it fit your theory.
I told Chandler his measurements were wrong so he made a new video, when his first video if calibrated correctly shows a slower than -9.8m/s/s descent. So he conveniently changed the start of the collapse and "free fall" time. I did the math for both his videos, and my own math on my own measurements, sent him all of my work and he hasn't said a thing since
Please forgive me for using your exact data points and applying them to real math. I'm also sorry for proviing mathematically that free fall was never achieved at point in your video, no matter where or when you measure the interval. If you can reply where exactly in your video -9.8m/s/s occured, please do so I can do the math for you. Tell me at what time in your video does it take place and when it ends. tell me something like: "from .98 seconds to 3.04 the building was in free fall"
This is sort of like David Chandler's 1st video. He calibrated the width in the video that showed the east side covered by smoke. He mistakenly measured the width as 100m from the SE side. His findings were 9.8m/s/s. When someone told him that the building's east side was obstructed by smoke, he had to recalibrate using "more accurate measures". He did a new video using different measures because if he used the width in the video minus the east side, it comes up noticeably slower than freefall.
In this video, it takes just under 5 seconds to hit his reference point. If you look in other videos, the NW corner he references is falling when the windows on the east side break. The building is already descending slowly 1 second into this video, and reaches. When you time it correctly its much slower than -9.8 m/s/s. Otherwise, the video is well made
yes i was a physics major for 2 yrs. when i talk of free fall i speak as it applies to physics, not in layman's terms like you and the skydiving community.
How do you forget that building 7 collapsed? And please tell what explosives were used since they seemed to have no sound on 9/11. Why do you use a concrete building to demonstrate the behavior of steel buildings?
And why don't you count in the penthouse caving in when calculating the collapse time for building 7, since that's when the collapse starts? So it was a progressive collapse since it does start slowly.
Ask random people how many skyscrapers collapsed on 9/11/2001; most say two.
We can measure acceleration frame by frame, which I tried to do. Acceleration changes. It was near free fall for only 2.25 seconds, or 25 meters, between seven and eight floors. I explained why; if you disagree, feel free to explain.
The Landmark Tower had a steel skeleton. I don't know about the Bouwkunde but I included it because debunkers use it.
In any case, a building drops at free fall ONLY with ZERO support.
Yes. If some "event" took out 99% of the vertical support from all over the base of WTC7, it would drop at free fall, within the error of our measurement.
"In any case, a building drops at free fall ONLY with ZERO support. "
very true. However, any object, including a building can accelerate faster than -9/8m/s/s with a force other than gravity pushing down on it, something like a mechanical penthouse. regardless, it never reaches that acceleration
...In this manner, I would assume that the other two trusses, placed relatively near each other, would buckle under the new weight, and the rest of the building, internal and external, would fall roughly at freefall speed, since the collapse is from top to bottom.
Of course, I'm no expert, but wouldn't that place collapse time at around 13 seconds?
A few seconds of internal collapse; its finale being the top of the East Penthouse, then 8 seconds of apparent inactivity, followed by the rest?
I would put your scenario under the "brittle supports" alternative. You propose that the two remaining trusses lost all their strength very quickly once overloaded. To account for free fall acceleration one must propose that a 25 meter vertical segment of the remaining two trusses "snapped" quickly instead of bending and/or being crushed. For example, glass and tool steel cannot bend very much before breaking.
Wouldn't Building 7 have to be supported on mainly the three major trusses, which started from the seventh floor to the roof? It would then make sense that the East Penthouse collapsed 8 seconds before the rest of the building (Truss 1 ran from seventh floor to the East Penthouse).
If this is the case, the collapse would have to start from the point where the fires were seen (roughly the seventh floor) internally, taking a few seconds to reach the top of the East Penthouse...
Since you study physics in Germany, you understand the implications of free fall acceleration. In addition to controlled demolition I can think of two other theoretically possible explanations. First, extremely brittle supports that shattered like glass when overloaded. Second "knee joints" that folded with little resistance once bent. I do not consider these explanations likely, but I want to consider all possibilities. Can you think of any others?
Free fall means extremely low resistance to collapse. That it happened evenly for several several seconds implies ALL of the support, 20+ stories' worth, basically vanished simultaneously. (Actually they cut as many as they can then blow the rest.)You don't get that in a fire.
If a single beam retained any strength at all, no freefall...and no perfectly square roof line.
A beautiful job of demolition...most of them are less picture-perfect than what we see here.
@shyland2 Roughly 8 floors of WTC7 provided no observable resistance.
"In Stage 2, the north face descended at gravitational acceleration, as the buckled columns provided negligible support to the upper portion of the north face. This free fall drop continued for approximately *8 stories or 32.0 m (105 ft)*, the distance traveled between times t = 1.75 s and t = 4.0 s." Source: The final version of NIST's Report on WTC7 - wtc.nist.gov/NCSTAR1/PDF/NCSTAR%201A.pdf (p. 45 / p. 87 PDF)
Being a physicist i wondered all these years how WTC1+2 collapsed without much resistance. But after i saw WTC7 collaps i knew me fears have a foundation in reality.
The Bush administration LIHOP and blew them with nano thermite to be shure it would be impressive.
The thermite reaction was discovered in 1893 by a chemist named Goldschmidt. There is plenty of data published on it. Go ahead and look it up. Tell me how and why I am wrong.
sigh to apply it to "melt" the steel you would have had to open up the wwalls and apply tons of even the new "superthermites" that includes the "sulphur" truthers always bring up . it is a powder not littel bombs like in the movies. do you think the janitors and the maintanance people and tons of employees would not have bitched about the open walls and interupted power and plumbing BEFORE 9-11 this would have taken thousands of collaberators NOT POSSIBLE
Evidence in the form of an anecdote or hearsay is called anecdotal if there is doubt about its veracity: the evidence itself is considered untrustworthy or untrue. that is why a utube video of kids playing with thermite does not mean shit
saying Watch any thermite video and tell me if it is a "substantially instantaneous release of gas and heat" is like saying watch a kid use a firecracker and tell my TNT works
Well, the firecracker actually DOES show a "substantially instantaneous release of gas and heat". In fact, the gas expands at greater than the speed of sound. That's why it makes a bang!
He found an obviously manufactured material in several samples sent to him by people who have publicly identified themselves and where they collected the WTC dust.
In addition, the USGS and the RJ Lee Company found thermite reaction products in the WTC dust. They found iron (not steel) microspheres identical to those made by buring thermite. The samples were all taken before the cleanup.
That it would have taken time and effort to pack thermite or thermate into the hollow columns of WTC7? I agree! Down in the electrical facility that comprised the first five floors of WTC7 "workers" could have toiled unseen by those in the public areas of WTC7.
Niels Harrit proved nothing his THEORY about super thermite is a joke and has been rejected by all but one fringe journel. sorry nice try i still win and BTW richard no fair trying to give up in a personal messge when you know your beat dumbass
and thermate STILL would have had to been applyd to the internal beams and set off in order and the building down from the top down 9impossible to do in a aflaming building
The composition by weight of Thermate-TH3 (in military use) is 68.7% thermite, 29.0% barium nitrate, 2.0% sulfur and 0.3% binder (such as PBAN). As both thermite and thermate are notoriously difficult to ignite, initiating the reaction normally requires trained human supervision and sometimes persistent effort.
"both thermite and thermate are notoriously difficult to ignite, initiating the reaction normally requires trained human supervision and sometimes persistent effort."
So how do the teenagers ignite it in the hundreds of YouTube videos?
enormous quantities of thermite would have to be applied to the structural columns to damage them. how would they have snuck that into the buidling? any i do not give a fuck what videos you watch those are FACTS they are not disputable
ThermATE is thermite plus sulfur. The thermite heats the sulfur up to a plasma, which cuts through steel like a hot knife through butter.
How do we know? Burning thermite is yellow-orange, whereas burning thermATE produces a brilliant white energetic flame. Sulfur plasma is brilliant white; you can see it in the lamps used in sports arenas. Google sulfur plasma lamps.
See thermate burning: watch?v=8OM5j01fqfs
contrast it with any of the hundreds of thermITE videos.
thermite can create extremely high temperatures focused on a very small area instantly while not technicly an explosive is USED in conjunction with one and is still considered sabotoge fool
Any explosive chemical compound, mixture, or device, the primary or common purpose of which is to produce an explosion; i.e., with substantially instantaneous release of gas and heat,
I have USED it when i was in the combat eng yep 12 bravo i may not be a geek but i have blown plenty of bridges i was not always a tanker you think you know me but you do not
In fact the whole reason you have not used your face or name is because you know if anyone (like the school district that you work for) will KNOW your a nutjob and get rid of you or at the very least your workmates will laugh at you. haha
I explained to you that I have many Jewish colleagues and customers who equate ANY questioning of 9/11 with an attack on Israel.
They don't know any more about 9/11 than you or I do, but they worry that rogue elements in the Israeli services might have been involved, if only as observers. Naturally, they worry that if that story comes out, people will blame Jews. I disagree: people understand the difference between rogue elements in the Israeli government and the Jewish people.
and skeptic how much of a fucktard do you have to be to see two giant planes crash into a building and think Nahhh it was secret bush spies what a moron you are
i should be more specific there was nothing found by any credible source pointing towards any sabtoge of any kind now start talking about the engine from the plane not matching i dare you
He studied one of the few pieces of WTC7 debris that was not recycled. He found evaporated steel surrounded by iron sulfide (NOT sulfate). Prof. Barnett did not use the word "thermate" but just left this phenomenon unexplained. His career has benefited from that decision!
The NY Times called that evaporated steel the greatest mystery of 9/11.
New York Times, November 29, 2001. By JAMES GLANZ
There ARE unexplained facts of 9/11, no tin foil needed.
O btw if you want I can prove your theory wrong as well. IF they did put explosives they would have had to have tons of accsess to plant hundreds of pounds of prescion explosives so why did'nt anyone notice the crews installing it at nigh Oppps sucks when I used to be in demo and planted bombs so i know what i am talking about I win again
You are making an effort to write better; good job. USE THE SPELL CHECK; that's what it's for! The word is "precision".... "didn't" has an apostrophe between the "n" and "t". It is in place of the "o" in "did not"...got it?
Surprise: I agree with you. Explosives did not bring down WTC7.
It was thermite and thermate, which are not explosive. ThermATE is thermITE plus sulfur, which is heated to the plasma state. The sulfur plasma evaporates steel.
Thermite is NOT an explosive. It does not go BANG. Watch any of the hundreds of teenagers' thermite videos here on YouTube.
The only way you get a BANG out of thermite is something called a "phreatomagmatic" explosion, which means something with a lower melting point gets into the reaction and vaporizes very rapidly. Some kids burned thermite on a block of ice and got a bang. That does not make thermite explosive. Sorry.
nice try that is not the defintion of an explosive as commonly used AND dumbass many things can be made into explosives (flour) by introducing the right catalist or an initiating charge yawn your so wrong there civie
I am Ret because i was shot dumbass check my page Duhhhh there is whole video tard and I Still am laughing at you because YOUR the nutjob only crazy people believe in this shit
skeptic121 Still hiding your face and identity because your afraid people will find out your nuts and put you away? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH or is it beacause your tinfoilhat makes you look fat?
hey maybee I can get a job now that I am ret from the miltary loading people into FEMA death camps at gunpoint i wonder if the NWO pays dental? (o0) AHAHAHAHAHHAAHHAAHAH your all so silly here get your tinfiol hats on!
Since I did graduate from UPenn and Uof C, let me help you out. English words do not take an apostrophe to indicate plural. The so-called "grocers' apostrophe" as in "Jersey Tomato's " is incorrect but nevertheless widely used.
The plural of most nouns ending in -y is -ies. The plural of sky is skies.
I love how people think correcting my lazy non spell corrected posts mean their argument is valid. sorry your still a nutjob .... only crazy people believe this hence your crazy... thats right I said hence
Ahhhh the REAL truth comes out your one of those anti jew wackos. I do not believe you went to college and actually got a degree because no intelligent person holds these beliefs. you must be embarresed by your belifes because your hiding your identity. your a tinfiolhat ¬hing you say matters because no-one will care once you spout your silly notions of the world.
You are obviously trying to write better; good job.
Hint: the dotted red line under a word you just typed means it is misspelled. "Embarrassed" is a difficult word to spell.
Please note: I said and believe nothing negative about Jews or Judaism. I mentioned ROGUE ELEMENTS in the Israeli and the American government. Israelis themselves talk about this subject endlessly. I read Haaretz and the Jerusalem Post. BTW, the Jewish Daily Forward published the story of the "dancing Israelis"
I will tell you what when you show your face and name and your college's i will care what you think yawn you fail ahh i am bored with this anyway no-one cares about this sillyness anyway "9-11 an inside job" hahah no-one will ever investigate this that matters get over your self
If you are bored you are welcome to go away and not come back.
You asked about my "college's" ... UPenn and U of Chicago.
"you fail.." Nobody who writes as badly as you do will ever do anything BUT fail.
I don't use my own voice or show my face because I do business with men who worry that ANY questioning of 9/11 will bring unwanted attention to Israel. Of course the people of Israel are guilty of nothing even if rogue elements of their government helped Dick Cheney.
Ahhhh the REAL truth comes out your one of those anti jew wackos. I do not believe you went to college and actually got a degree because no intelligent person holds these beliefs. you must be embarresed by your belifes because your hiding your identity. your a tinfiolhat ¬hing you say matters because no-one will care once you spout your silly notions of the world.
part 3. Asking for people to accept this as true unless disproven is just as rediculous. this is the position the, "truther movement," is asking thinking people to accept. It just does not matter how much evidence is placed before you, you will not accept it. I'll give your nonsense some thought, when you pray to fuzzy purple bunnies.
part 2, Thirdly, those detonations that were not heard prior to the collapse, are in fact a very important non-event. The building was also not evacuated for months in advance for the prep work. There is no way to set a building up for controlled demolition and keep it a secret. Fourth, it is up to the accuser to prove accusations and not the defendant for a good reason. If, for example, I stated that the universe was created by fuzzy purple bunnies, It would be rediculous.
"So....do you believe it was been proven that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction?"
This is a red herring.
"Or that Osama and 19 Arab clowns did 9/11? "
I think this has been reasonably proven, more than any other theory... but really, as far as this conversation is concerned, it doesn't really matter, you're just sidetracking the topic from WTC 7.
Skeptic, as I only have 500 characters, this will take several posts. Firstly, I am not an engineer, but I know plenty of them. Not a single one, anywhere agrees with the controlle demolition scenario. Secondly, the charges in controlled demolitions are very carefully timed, as this actually enables the engineers to plan where the debris field will land and how the building actually falls, ie, no mountains of stuff where it will be inconvenient to clean up later
I guess the truly funny thing is, he has no clue how his statements sound to actual engineers. A controlled demolition involves months of preparation on an abondened building. Drilling holes for dynamite every linear inch along the support, miles of detonation chord, kryton switches, etc. Of all of the buildings which collapsed, #7 looked the most like a controlled demolition, but it was not close enough for anyone in the business. That is what everyone I know is saying.
There were no loud explosions. It was not announced in advance. Other than that...what?
The device you call a "kryton" is actually a "krytron". The letter R appears twice. It is used to detonate A-bombs. For A-bombs, the timing must be precise, within a few nanoseconds, but not for CDs. Krytrons could be used but are not necessary for a CD. "Chord" is term from music and geometry. You meant "cord".
Lets not forget the fact that there are ZERO explosions, like that of a controlled demolition, going off, as the building collapses. There is no multitude of flashing lights from internal explosions. "Truthers" ignore this fact, all together.. and point to the sounds of explosions at other points in the day. Again.. no explosions going off while the building is falling. Explain.
There were none of the loud explosions that we hear in most controlled demolitions.
"Explain."
Take a look at a small thermate device cutting a rebar:
watch?v=Wn-MCCZ3O1M
There are many thermITE videos on YouTube but only a few thermATE videos. Here is one video of thermATE:
watch?v=8OM5j01fqfs
ThermATE cuts steel like a hot knife through butter because of sulfur, which is heated to a plasma state then acts as a plasma cutter. The white flame in thermATE is sulfur plasma.
If it was brought down by thermate and/or thermite, that was unprecedented. If indeed it was brought down by fire and debris damage, that was also unprecedented.
Either way, we have nothing to compare it to, which is probably why there is so much debate.
Marcoddy, Just because you claim to be a civil engineer does not make it so. It is obvious from your writing, you are barely past middle school. as for the name calling, your nutso theory needs to be proven, and not the opposite. I did not posit any theories, you did. Your belief that our elected officials would knowingly kill their own families and friends can only be described as a disease. NIST did an investigation, I choose to believe actual engneers, and not you.
To both sides: insults are not arguments. Does anyone change his mind because of insults? "Gee, he called me stupid; I must be wrong!"
Some on both sides try to reason backwards: "GWB was a bad guy so he did 9/11" or "GWB wouldn't kill people so WTC7 couldn't have dropped at free fall acceleration."
NIST acknowledged free fall acceleration AFTER David Chandler called them on it.
Conclusion: 2.25 seconds or 25 meters of free fall is evidence for a CD but NOT for who did it.
Johnwiseman17, don't mind marcoddy. He's a traveling carny act. A conman. He's offering 1000 dollars to anyone that can debunk his false claims on another thread. He thinks that from watching these youtube videos, he's now an engineer, and he's running around spreading this OBVIOUS lie about him being an engineer, everywhere he goes.
If you're too stupid to understand basic physics, then go watch some Bill O'Reilly.
Behave mister? They get banned? just Who the fuck do you think you're talking to?
How you gonna ban a video exactly Mr Youtube...?
9/11 was an inside job, now stop your stupid childish commenting, learn how to spell, go get some crayons and some paper & knock yourself out (before someone else does)
Why is it always the kids who missed science class from grade school on up who subscribe to these idiotic theories. I notice that your video of the freefall of WTC 7 only shows the north side of the building. Why not show the Southern side where we can see that there was a huge gash of over 25% missing of floors 1 through 18 missing. The fact that this building stood until 5:20 pm is a testament to its engineers. these severly compromised columns could easily have failed at the same time.
RE: "the giant fucking planes crashing into the building...." I saw the planes too, but I did not notice them fucking. I don't believe the planes took down WTC7 by themselves. Oh, and WTC7 was not hit by a plane, a minor detail I'm sure.
I do not believe "WE DID IT TO OURSELVES." I certainly was not involved, nor was anyone I know. Rogue elements in our government were involved, I believe.
Who is bitter about his life? This is still a great country!
As a person who has worked with explosives I am telling you this proves nothing. It
proves that yes, PERHAPS the buildings could have been taken down in this manner. However the giant fucking planes crashing into the buildings proves otherwise! Plus we have people who were calling from the planes telling us who did it! your a fucking TARD IF YOU BELIEVE WE DID IT TO OURSELVES! If your sooo bitter about your life you need to believe in this shit drink a gallon of bleach! TY
interesting to note that even if the collapse of wtc 7 was because of structual failure, why would the exterior walls fall at free fall? all of the weight of any exterior wall on any building is directed straight down.
Unfortunately.... no plane crashed into building 7.
Before you call the truth "absurd" because of what it implies... why not base your belief on FACT - building 7 CANNOT have free-falled (NIST CONFIRMED 2.25seconds) via damage and fire.
This is scientific FACT.... once you understand that... THEN the other questions come... who did it?
Don't start with the answer and work backwards.... this is the OPPOSITE of science
Many conspiracy theories play into the hands of those who wish to see Palin elected in 2012 (& then WW3 declaration: 2013).
Repugnican tactics re Dubya were to deliberately infect collections of Bushisms with the sayings of Quayle & other idiots - not to make Bush look worse, but so they could then debunk those quotes & get the whole lot - including the genuine ones - disbelieved. Fortunately, this failed, as Dubya produced an unending stream of insanities.
It is an insult to our Engineering community to believe these towers were constructed so weakly that fires and some localized destruction could bring them down
Tower 1? WTF none of the corner columns were even severed!!!
Tower 2? The angular momentum was halted just after initiation, indicating big time tension on the far side. There was NO GD COMPRESSIVE PRESSURE ON THE FAR SIDE!!
WTC 7? Thermal expansion...not likely! Teeny tiny fires on the north, west, and east faces...so...LOL
They were not small fires. Small fires dont continue to burn for 8 hours. Why do you continue to babble about WTC7? It was well known that it was going to collapse that day because fire were allowed to burn uncontrolled, not to mention the damage done to a building with A symetrical construction(WTC 7) from the north tower. THERE WAS NO LOSS OF LIFE IN THE WTC 7 COLLAPSE.....As you know and LOVE to take out of context..the operation to extinguish the fires was "pulled". Your argument is WEAK!
"the damage done to a building with A symetrical construction(WTC 7)"
I'd like to respond, but I'm not sure what you mean! Hint: the dotted red lines under the words mean they are misspelled. It's not usually a problem, but in this case I don't know if you mean "a symmetrical construction" or "asymmetrical construction"....Hint: the latter is a correct description of WTC7. Indeed, it is a powerful argument against a symmetrical and simultaneous collapse of the facade due to fire.
So...just to clarify, it is not the collapse of WTC7 that I "continue to babble about." It is the manner of the collapse. If WTC7 had suffered a partial or progressive collapse there would be no controversy. Then there is the issue of free fall acceleration (and please don't say "free fall speed"). BTW, did you watch the video you are commenting on?
I invite anyone to compare the quality of LHO's writing with mine. I asked for alternative explanations of the collapse. I asked for comments on the free fall issue and the simultaneous (within a half second) collapse of the facade.
When I get dismissive one-liners with personal insults I will delete them.
If anyone wants a definition of "anti-intellectual" just read the comments of "LHOdidntdoit"
His argument is "WTC7 fell because it fell and you don't need to know any more about it than that" In short, "Move along, nothing to see." Or "Shut up," he explained.
Its only been well "established" by NIST. What exactly does the fire department thinking its going to collapse have a gd thing to do with the manner in which it collapsed.
And your link is a BBC video which I will not even look at because
1) The BBC contorted Barry Jennings eye witness account on WTC 7 so it fit the official story and they made a documentary.
2) The BBC reported the collapse 23 minutes before it even happened.
Its pretty obvious who's pulling the BBC's strings.
Maybe I will watch the video.I find it hilarious that an engineer can predict the time of collapse which is on the order of hours away.There are way to many variables involved which would be beyond ANYONE'S expertise to quantify and analyze- with reliability- on the spot.
I'd like to know who the engineer was.
And Mark Lezao(sp), the demo expert in that vid, is a proven liar
He claims windows would need to be blown out when they don't...and claims the noises have to be loud...they don't.
His name is Mark Loizeaux, president of Controlled Demolition, Inc. Pronounced "Low Ah Zo" with the accent on the second syllable. The company depends on the government for permission to do its job and for some of its business, including the ground zero cleanup. I suppose he believes he has to support the official story. Danny Jowenko, a Dutch demolition contractor, can say WTC7 was an obvious controlled demolition because he doesn't depend on the US government.
I know I'm right. I've got my EI license, BS in Civil Engineernig and have been working in comm. bldg construction for the last four years. If I take a test I could get a PE. I know physics. I know mechanics of structures. They don't.
JSSTyger - I'm a physicist, and I'm virulently ANTI- NeoCon, & if there was 1 chance in a thousand that the NeoCons did this (as distinct from just being negligent, slow, lazy & the USA, through its international illegalities, simply begging for a revenge attack), I'd be digging & digging for clues.
But they didn't do it. Do check out my channel page, Thanks.
Check out the vids by femr2 who is a rabid troofer (moronic non-scientist) & who has banned me because he can't argue with me.
I am interested, as an intellectual exercise, in alternative explanations for the 2.3 seconds of free fall acceleration that NIST now admits. I have read one: a design like the human leg, with ankle, knee, and hip analogs, such that displacing the "knees" would allow the "hips" to fall to the "ankles" at near free fall acceleration. I would like as many other hypothetical explanations as I can collect.
Macroevolution & continental drift inertia both seem utterly improbable if our thinking is based on our day to day experiences with physics & nature. This is because we observe things at the 0.1s, 1 day, 1y, maybe 50y level. Processes that take billions of yrs are outside of our predictive experience re time. But macroev.& c.drift are facts.
Here, the dimension outside our experience is with MASS / INERTIA and not time. Bldgs are very, very massive
Folks, I am beginning to understand why David Chandler disabled comments on his video.
Could someone include the word ACCELERATION in your comments? I would like to read some clear hypothetical explanations why WTC7 fell at close to 9.8m/s^2 for 2 to 3 seconds. If you could explain why the north and west facade fell straight (for most of the collapse) and simultaneously (within 0.5 sec - NIST)you get thumbs up!
Full disclosure: I believe it was a CD but I want to read other explanations.
The official story is that the steel melts and BENDS.
BENDS = RESISTANCE = NO FREE FALL .
But there was free fall as NIST kindly explained.
End of story.
zenoist2 1 year ago
regardless, it is impossible to achieve a Constant Acceleration w/o a constant outside force acting on the object- especially when its going through the path of greatest resistance(support beams). And combined w/ the obvious sounds of explosions heard throughout the day, it would b plain silly to assume that no explosives were actually used to bring down quite magnificently the wtc7 building in that fashion
imbrd 1 year ago
Full disclosure: I made a mistake labeling several of the stills in this video, the times are incorrect. Also, I really do not know the floor height. I looked on the Emporis Database and found 173.74 meters as the roof height. Problems: not all floors are the same height. The first several floors are not really floors and we don't know how high they were.
NIST appears to have the blueprints, but I cannot find them. Can anyone else?
Thanks!
Skeptic121 1 year ago
You are probably right about not all floors being the same height. I think there were 2 levels of 2 floors like the decks in the WTC, plus 1 more taking up the 2nd and 3rd floors, but had no thick black window showing this from the outside. I think they are called promenades(?). Plus, did WTC7 have a 13th floor? My guess is no. Did plans change as they were building it? All questions that need to be answered b4 a correct calculation can be made.
Flisticuffs 1 year ago
3 QUESTIONS 911 TRUTHERS DON'T WANT YOU TO ASK THEM:
911 TWOOFER # 1: "A steel building has never collapsed due to fire." What happened to the Windsor Tower in Madrid in 2005?
If flight 77 was a missile and not a plane, what knocked down the pole lights outside the Pentagon?
Since demolition experts estimated it would take over 100 men 4-6 months to place explosives in WTC 1, 2, & 7, how come no one witnessed any strange construction activity, wires, or boxes?
ctcole77 1 year ago
@ctcole77
To answer Q1: The Windsor Tower did nothing remotely like WTC7. A few parts of it dropped, but not at free fall acceleration and not simultaneously. Q2: an aircraft hit the Pentagon.
Q3: Government covert services can afford demolition specialists who know more than civilian demolition contractors and face fewer safety regulations!
Remember, the original "official story" of WTC7 was demolished for safety.
Then, they went with the lame "fire collapse" excuse. Why? see next
Skeptic121 1 year ago
(cont) The original "official story" was "demolished for safety" as we hear from the construction workers on the CNN video as they walk away from the building.
"Keep your eye on that building; it'll be coming down" and "the building's gonna blow up". I think Giuliani is such a sissy he had a panic attack and changed the story to the lame "fire collapse". HE would swallow "fire collapse" but men of action cannot. A "chick flick" can mistake an AK47 for an M16 but not an action flick.
Skeptic121 1 year ago
@ctcole77
The Windsor Tower in Madrid did not completely collapse.
The Pentagon claims cannot be considered as being pertinent to the investigation at the WTC.
Danny Jowenko, a controlled demolition expert has chimed in with a much different estimate.
Your distracting comments have no bearing whatsoever on the fact of measurable rate of freefall acceleration of WTC7. NIST itself blessed this in its final report after calling it "impossible" just a couple months before the report's release.
SciMethod 1 year ago
@Skeptic121
WRONG!
The steel in the Windsor Tower DID FAIL DUE TO FIRE.
Only the parts that were constructed out of reinfiorced concrete survived the fire - which is why the building didn't collapse.
But the fact remains that the structural steel did fail in the Wndsor Tower.
You didn't even answer question 2.
So NatGeo is a "govt. covert witness"?
Blame it on the new wookie order?
Is that how you answer questions that refute your magical theories?
911 TRUTH = STRAWMAN
ctcole77 1 year ago
@ctcole77 Well, you're being nasty like a little girlie boy who needs her piano keys pounded; I'll be glad to help! I'm guessing YOU wouldn't mind if a movie got the AK and M16 confused!
I said the Windsor Tower did not collapse anything like WTC7. Indeed, it did not. You might be right about the concrete but the fact remains, Windsor Tower did not collapse ANYTHING like WTC7.
I did answer Question 2; maybe if you read R E A L S L O W you can see it.
I'd love to meet you in person...
Skeptic121 1 year ago
@Skeptic121
We'd all love to meet COINTELPRO agents in prison.
Elivyndyr 6 months ago
You want to know the truth, like how you went about making this. I said Skeptic in my very 1st post, this video is done well in some ways. You use reference points that would work out much better than Chandler's methods if measured correctly. Since you counted 1 too many floors, and since you claim 7 fell 6m in 1 second, that proves you started the fall a little late. That's what I said from the start. If u started the timer a little earlier and subtracted 1 fl your calculations would be better
Flisticuffs 1 year ago
OK, could you please tell me where you got the floor height for WTC7. Maybe I made a mistake.
Skeptic121 1 year ago
Emporis database, Tishman, and another architecture site. WTC was 174 meters from the top of the penthouse according to all of those sources. To me the penthouse looks like 5-7 meters. 47 floors in WTC, and floors are usually 11-12 feet per. I doubt 7 WTC had a 13th floor, so that's why I added 3 meters to avg. out the diff between my measurement of the penthouse and Emporis data. Most modern buildings in NYC don't have a 13th floor, so a 47 story building is usually only 46.
Flisticuffs 1 year ago
@Flisticuffs
OK, thanks. This is a huge question. I don't think we know the answer with the certainty we need.
11 feet versus 13 feet per floor is important. It looks like NIST has made the same mistake, if indeed it is a mistake, since they acknowledged 2.25 seconds of free fall acceleration. After this exchange, I went back to check. I found that I mislabeled the time of some of my stills. This entire project needs to be repeated, by me and others!
Please...the more the better.
Skeptic121 1 year ago
NIST did careless work - most likely because they didn't expect it to be so scrutinized. They even got the width of the building incorrect. I know that area like the back of my hand and knew without checking it couldn't be 101m wide - the block itself probably was barely 100m. I know there was a good sized sidewalk so how is that possible?
My guess is 11.8ft/fl but only a guess. In short intervals early in fall, less than 1 second measuring velocity could be severely affected even if off by 1m
Flisticuffs 1 year ago
hold on, 47 stories is 47 stories - distance does not really change especially when u r measuring the relative distance in the stills. ie. U can obviously count the number of floors dropped quite accurately using the windows to serve as relative points of distance for the collapse. Knowing that the windows each represent a floor(doesn't matter what # they may have been since they remain relative to the top roof), we can easily calculate the distance of each floor & thus the fall
imbrd 1 year ago
If only everybody held a degree in physics...
Then we'd actually be able to get somewhere. I've got english majors telling me I'm full of chit.
JSSTyger 1 year ago
@JSSTyger Tell me if you saw a VW microbus zoom down a hill and crash into a parked 18 wheeler and the resulting destruction left no single bit larger than a football, what would you think? this is NORMAL, this is supposed to happen as it did? EVERYBODY has some capacity to THINK ....
A! bust the emperor for INDECENT EXPOSURE!
Charlie666XZ 1 year ago
@Charlie666XZ
No I would not expect all debris to be smashed to a size smaller than a football.
JSSTyger 1 year ago
@JSSTyger Ok, now what is the single largest bit of ANYTHING found at ground zero? A desk, a chair, a file cabinet ... or?
The total destruction of THREE steel framed buildings on 9/11
(and considering the speed of the destruction...)
Was an UN-NATURAL ACT
Clearly the emperor is NAKED!
Charlie666XZ 1 year ago
@Charlie666XZ
I'm not sure you know what side I'm on.
JSSTyger 1 year ago
@Charlie666XZ o hey the emperor's not naked, lol if its an empress i think she still has her toy still hanging on & thats gotta count for something... jk jk. hahaha
imbrd 1 year ago
@JSSTyger lol whats a chit
imbrd 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Skeptic121: "If I were you I would be embarrassed to claim a building dropped faster than g. Was there a giant bungee cord pulling it down? "
Translation: I am embarrassed.
Skeptic121: Total Drop: 1.25 floors Elapsed Time: 0.96 sec
Translation: 7 fell at a rate greater than g after 1 second of the fall. Therefore 7 had other forces acting upon it other than gravity in the 1st second of collapse according to my data, making free fall an impossibility by definition, and the laws of physics.
Flisticuffs 1 year ago
Do not be confused by average acceleration and "instantaneous acceleration." Cops use radar to measure "instantaneous speed", which gets you a ticket. You can't say "95 miles an hour? I left the house an hour ago and I only went 30 miles!" Yes, your AVERAGE speed was 30mph, but your instantaneous speed was calculated by radar in a tiny fraction of a second.
Acceleration, the change in velocity with time, is harder to measure but the concept still applies.
Skeptic121 1 year ago
I never once mentioned avg V nor did it factor in my equations. You, not I, claim 7 was in free fall for 4 seconds. Any object in free fall for 4 seconds with an initial velocity of 0 must have a velocity of exactly 87.7 mph. Newtonian Law.
Flisticuffs 1 year ago
Fisticuffs, my insignificant little video is pretty irrelevant now that NIST has acknowledged a 2.25 second, 25 meter interval of free fall.
Isaac Newton would tell us we don't have to time the entire event to measure acceleration. Theoretically, you can measure acceleration with THREE position measurements over an infinitesimal interval. It is true that the ACCURACY of your measured acceleration will be better as your interval is longer. However, acceleration changes, as WTC's did.
Skeptic121 1 year ago
That's not what you said in this video. According to your data you claim 7 fell at a constant rate of acceleration of -9.8 m/s/s for 3.5 seconds, and not much slower for the next .5 seconds. If I take the data from your chart over the first 4 seconds and do the math our graphs look nothing alike. Your graph defies physics.
Flisticuffs 1 year ago
Here's another example of the inaccuracy of measurement. Stop the video at 1:13 "Time Zero". The rooflines of 101 Barclay and 7 are parallel. Count up exactly 18 floors. at 4.04, the building hasn't quite reached 101 Barclay. I'm sure you started your stopwatch at the most convenient point to support your theory. Even with me giving you this leeway, it has now fallen at a rate less than 8 m/s/s according to your data.
Flisticuffs 1 year ago
I tried to make it clear, and so did NIST and David Chandler, that WTC7 collapsed at free fall for only PART of its descent: about 2.25 sec = 25 meters. After falling 25 meters, the relatively intact part of the falling building hit the ground, causing upward force against the falling mass. So...how was 25 meters of vertical steel support suddenly removed? Simultaneous buckling due to fire or some technique of inside sabotage, you decide!
Skeptic121 1 year ago
at 4.04 in your video, 7 has fallen 18.25 stories, not 19.25. That's 217 feet, or 66 meters. Before you argue this fact, keep in mind 7 WTC has not yet passed 101 Barclay (the white building). 101 Barclay still stands today at 99m. The roof of WTC 7 stood at 170m.
It's about 4 meters from passing 101 Barclay.
According to your math, 7 is now traveling 87.7 mph. (impossible)
The math as per your own data:
t=4.04
v=32.6 m/s
vi=0
a=8.01m/s/s
delta= 66m
at 4.04, 7 WTC is only 39% into its descent
Flisticuffs 1 year ago
Let's go to the video tape. At "Time Zero" the reference point is just above the 35th floor. Yet when floor roof hits your reference point, you claim it has fallen 13.25 floors in 3.2 seconds. Ok, the problem with that is, there are only 12 floors above the 35th floor. Count them out at the "Time Zero" still. Still this is moot and I will explain it mathematically later. So you have already made 3 fundamental errors, and you're off by almost 4 meters in your math. a 10% margin of error.
Flisticuffs 1 year ago
let's talk physics then since you challenged me. let's talk basic math. You claim .96 seconds into the fall it had traveled 1.25 floors. Judging by your calculations, I'm gonna guess you measured floors as 13.5 ft each. Wrong. they were 11.8. But let's say you're right.. According to you, 1 second into descent it's traveled 6 meters, over 20% faster than g. Already you've proven 7 was not in a free fall as it applies to physics. Do you want me to explain why or should I save you the embarassment
Flisticuffs 1 year ago
If I were you I would be embarrassed to claim a building dropped faster than g. Was there a giant bungee cord pulling it down?
Skeptic121 1 year ago
I am not claiming that, YOU ARE. The only way the building could have fallen more than 4.9m in the 1st second would be if the middle of the building, which fell first, pulled down on the NW corner/west face, which you are measuring. If that is the case, 7 was never in free fall as applied to physics. You claim after .96 seconds, 7 has falled 1.25 floors. That's more than 6m, over 20% more than Newtonian Mechanics allow.
Flisticuffs 1 year ago
To suppose the facade fell faster than g you have to claim the falling interior mass jerked the facade down. On the one hand you have to argue the facade was NOT strongly connected to the interior, so it did not drop along WITH the interior. On the other hand, you have to argue there was a strong enough connection that the interior could pull the facade down faster than g.
Can you draw a plausible diagram of such a mechanism? It might be worth your own video.
Skeptic121 1 year ago
No because I really don't know how it was built. I disagree with everyone including NIST. From all the math I have done, it's my opinion if free fall occurs most likely, it's when the building disappears from view. I did so much math for mostly every single interval people have noted. I did some on my own and found intervals as high as -9m/s/s. However, if you increase the time by .1 seconds, it could plummet to 7m/s/s. It is very hard to truly calculate because of the camera position
Flisticuffs 1 year ago
skeptic, I use real math, not the physics tool kit which allows you to plug in any time or measure to make it fit your theory.
I told Chandler his measurements were wrong so he made a new video, when his first video if calibrated correctly shows a slower than -9.8m/s/s descent. So he conveniently changed the start of the collapse and "free fall" time. I did the math for both his videos, and my own math on my own measurements, sent him all of my work and he hasn't said a thing since
Flisticuffs 1 year ago
Did you watch my video? I did not use physics toolkit.
Skeptic121 1 year ago
Please forgive me for using your exact data points and applying them to real math. I'm also sorry for proviing mathematically that free fall was never achieved at point in your video, no matter where or when you measure the interval. If you can reply where exactly in your video -9.8m/s/s occured, please do so I can do the math for you. Tell me at what time in your video does it take place and when it ends. tell me something like: "from .98 seconds to 3.04 the building was in free fall"
Flisticuffs 1 year ago
This is sort of like David Chandler's 1st video. He calibrated the width in the video that showed the east side covered by smoke. He mistakenly measured the width as 100m from the SE side. His findings were 9.8m/s/s. When someone told him that the building's east side was obstructed by smoke, he had to recalibrate using "more accurate measures". He did a new video using different measures because if he used the width in the video minus the east side, it comes up noticeably slower than freefall.
Flisticuffs 1 year ago
Flisticuffs: you have made an admirable number of mistakes in 500 characters! This is going to take a while to fix...
Skeptic121 1 year ago
In this video, it takes just under 5 seconds to hit his reference point. If you look in other videos, the NW corner he references is falling when the windows on the east side break. The building is already descending slowly 1 second into this video, and reaches. When you time it correctly its much slower than -9.8 m/s/s. Otherwise, the video is well made
Flisticuffs 1 year ago
Flisticuffs: could you help us both?
Be honest, did you ever have physics in HS or college? I want to answer your points but I need to know where to start...
Thanx!
Skeptic121 1 year ago
yes i was a physics major for 2 yrs. when i talk of free fall i speak as it applies to physics, not in layman's terms like you and the skydiving community.
Flisticuffs 1 year ago
How do you forget that building 7 collapsed? And please tell what explosives were used since they seemed to have no sound on 9/11. Why do you use a concrete building to demonstrate the behavior of steel buildings?
And why don't you count in the penthouse caving in when calculating the collapse time for building 7, since that's when the collapse starts? So it was a progressive collapse since it does start slowly.
Inside job that one.
I/
V
/watch?v=QEhNLzN_q5k
Weirdo10o4 2 years ago
Ask random people how many skyscrapers collapsed on 9/11/2001; most say two.
We can measure acceleration frame by frame, which I tried to do. Acceleration changes. It was near free fall for only 2.25 seconds, or 25 meters, between seven and eight floors. I explained why; if you disagree, feel free to explain.
The Landmark Tower had a steel skeleton. I don't know about the Bouwkunde but I included it because debunkers use it.
In any case, a building drops at free fall ONLY with ZERO support.
Skeptic121 2 years ago
Try "when it's massive enough to make the little resistance appear nonexistent".
Weirdo10o4 2 years ago
@Weirdo10o4
"when it's massive enough"
Yes. If some "event" took out 99% of the vertical support from all over the base of WTC7, it would drop at free fall, within the error of our measurement.
Skeptic121 2 years ago
"In any case, a building drops at free fall ONLY with ZERO support. "
very true. However, any object, including a building can accelerate faster than -9/8m/s/s with a force other than gravity pushing down on it, something like a mechanical penthouse. regardless, it never reaches that acceleration
Flisticuffs 1 year ago
...In this manner, I would assume that the other two trusses, placed relatively near each other, would buckle under the new weight, and the rest of the building, internal and external, would fall roughly at freefall speed, since the collapse is from top to bottom.
Of course, I'm no expert, but wouldn't that place collapse time at around 13 seconds?
A few seconds of internal collapse; its finale being the top of the East Penthouse, then 8 seconds of apparent inactivity, followed by the rest?
javjasdjkfsdvbnjakdb 2 years ago
javjasdjkfsdvbnjakdb
I would put your scenario under the "brittle supports" alternative. You propose that the two remaining trusses lost all their strength very quickly once overloaded. To account for free fall acceleration one must propose that a 25 meter vertical segment of the remaining two trusses "snapped" quickly instead of bending and/or being crushed. For example, glass and tool steel cannot bend very much before breaking.
Thanks!
Skeptic121 2 years ago
Wouldn't Building 7 have to be supported on mainly the three major trusses, which started from the seventh floor to the roof? It would then make sense that the East Penthouse collapsed 8 seconds before the rest of the building (Truss 1 ran from seventh floor to the East Penthouse).
If this is the case, the collapse would have to start from the point where the fires were seen (roughly the seventh floor) internally, taking a few seconds to reach the top of the East Penthouse...
javjasdjkfsdvbnjakdb 2 years ago
pcuimac
Thanks for your comments!
Since you study physics in Germany, you understand the implications of free fall acceleration. In addition to controlled demolition I can think of two other theoretically possible explanations. First, extremely brittle supports that shattered like glass when overloaded. Second "knee joints" that folded with little resistance once bent. I do not consider these explanations likely, but I want to consider all possibilities. Can you think of any others?
Skeptic121 2 years ago
You're not getting it.
Free fall means extremely low resistance to collapse. That it happened evenly for several several seconds implies ALL of the support, 20+ stories' worth, basically vanished simultaneously. (Actually they cut as many as they can then blow the rest.)You don't get that in a fire.
If a single beam retained any strength at all, no freefall...and no perfectly square roof line.
A beautiful job of demolition...most of them are less picture-perfect than what we see here.
shyland2 2 years ago 3
@shyland2 Roughly 8 floors of WTC7 provided no observable resistance.
"In Stage 2, the north face descended at gravitational acceleration, as the buckled columns provided negligible support to the upper portion of the north face. This free fall drop continued for approximately *8 stories or 32.0 m (105 ft)*, the distance traveled between times t = 1.75 s and t = 4.0 s." Source: The final version of NIST's Report on WTC7 - wtc.nist.gov/NCSTAR1/PDF/NCSTAR%201A.pdf (p. 45 / p. 87 PDF)
SciMethod 1 year ago
Being a physicist i wondered all these years how WTC1+2 collapsed without much resistance. But after i saw WTC7 collaps i knew me fears have a foundation in reality.
The Bush administration LIHOP and blew them with nano thermite to be shure it would be impressive.
pcuimac 2 years ago
Yes, WTC7 matches a demolition and does not match a fire-induced collapse.
proudfootz 2 years ago 4
Mike,
The thermite reaction was discovered in 1893 by a chemist named Goldschmidt. There is plenty of data published on it. Go ahead and look it up. Tell me how and why I am wrong.
Skeptic121 2 years ago
sigh to apply it to "melt" the steel you would have had to open up the wwalls and apply tons of even the new "superthermites" that includes the "sulphur" truthers always bring up . it is a powder not littel bombs like in the movies. do you think the janitors and the maintanance people and tons of employees would not have bitched about the open walls and interupted power and plumbing BEFORE 9-11 this would have taken thousands of collaberators NOT POSSIBLE
mikesternberg 2 years ago
Evidence in the form of an anecdote or hearsay is called anecdotal if there is doubt about its veracity: the evidence itself is considered untrustworthy or untrue. that is why a utube video of kids playing with thermite does not mean shit
mikesternberg 2 years ago
Comment removed
mikesternberg 2 years ago
saying Watch any thermite video and tell me if it is a "substantially instantaneous release of gas and heat" is like saying watch a kid use a firecracker and tell my TNT works
mikesternberg 2 years ago
Well, the firecracker actually DOES show a "substantially instantaneous release of gas and heat". In fact, the gas expands at greater than the speed of sound. That's why it makes a bang!
Skeptic121 2 years ago
and BTW that danish guy had no chain of evidence and it is ajust a theory about the thermite a debunked one at that
mikesternberg 2 years ago
"that Danish guy" is a professor of chemistry.
He found an obviously manufactured material in several samples sent to him by people who have publicly identified themselves and where they collected the WTC dust.
In addition, the USGS and the RJ Lee Company found thermite reaction products in the WTC dust. They found iron (not steel) microspheres identical to those made by buring thermite. The samples were all taken before the cleanup.
Skeptic121 2 years ago
still no chain of evidence and only ONE set of 8 danish scientist have proposed that. and it was refuted upon further examination sorry you fail
mikesternberg 2 years ago
i hate you for making me do math dammit hence tons and tons to take down the building I WIN!
mikesternberg 2 years ago
Mike,
What are you trying to prove?
That it would have taken time and effort to pack thermite or thermate into the hollow columns of WTC7? I agree! Down in the electrical facility that comprised the first five floors of WTC7 "workers" could have toiled unseen by those in the public areas of WTC7.
Skeptic121 2 years ago
54 grams of Al is equivalent to 20.5 cc of Al.
160g of Fe2O3 is equivalent to 30.5 cc of Fe2O3Therefore, 51 cc of fully dense powder of 20.5 cc Al and 30.5 cc Fe2O3 weighs (54+160) g = 214 g.
A volume of 1000 cc would weigh (1000/51)*214 = 4.2 kg
For a powder packing density of 50%, the powder would weigh:
0.5*4.2 kg = 2.1 kg = 4.8 lb
mikesternberg 2 years ago
Stoichiometric thermite requires 2 moles of Al per 1 mole of Fe2O3
2Al + Fe2O3 = Al2O3 + 2Fe
2 moles of Al weigh 54 g
1 mole of Fe2O3 weighs 160 g
density of Al=2.64 g/cc
density of Fe2O3=5.24 g/cc
mikesternberg 2 years ago
Niels Harrit proved nothing his THEORY about super thermite is a joke and has been rejected by all but one fringe journel. sorry nice try i still win and BTW richard no fair trying to give up in a personal messge when you know your beat dumbass
mikesternberg 2 years ago
So tell us where Neils Harrit is wrong?
Maybe you see a problem with his SEM-XEDS data that no one else has seen?
I wanted to give you an out because your writing is so embarrassing to the literate community.
Skeptic121 2 years ago
and thermate STILL would have had to been applyd to the internal beams and set off in order and the building down from the top down 9impossible to do in a aflaming building
mikesternberg 2 years ago
"impossible to do in a aflaming building "
I never said WTC7 was rigged while "aflaming"
or on fire as we civilians say.
Skeptic121 2 years ago
The composition by weight of Thermate-TH3 (in military use) is 68.7% thermite, 29.0% barium nitrate, 2.0% sulfur and 0.3% binder (such as PBAN). As both thermite and thermate are notoriously difficult to ignite, initiating the reaction normally requires trained human supervision and sometimes persistent effort.
mikesternberg 2 years ago
"both thermite and thermate are notoriously difficult to ignite, initiating the reaction normally requires trained human supervision and sometimes persistent effort."
So how do the teenagers ignite it in the hundreds of YouTube videos?
Skeptic121 2 years ago
enormous quantities of thermite would have to be applied to the structural columns to damage them. how would they have snuck that into the buidling? any i do not give a fuck what videos you watch those are FACTS they are not disputable
mikesternberg 2 years ago
thermite produces the heat something the gas Nice parsesing of my words but the funny thing is there was NO themite FOUND dumbass
mikesternberg 2 years ago
Mike,
ThermATE is thermite plus sulfur. The thermite heats the sulfur up to a plasma, which cuts through steel like a hot knife through butter.
How do we know? Burning thermite is yellow-orange, whereas burning thermATE produces a brilliant white energetic flame. Sulfur plasma is brilliant white; you can see it in the lamps used in sports arenas. Google sulfur plasma lamps.
See thermate burning: watch?v=8OM5j01fqfs
contrast it with any of the hundreds of thermITE videos.
Skeptic121 2 years ago
thermite can create extremely high temperatures focused on a very small area instantly while not technicly an explosive is USED in conjunction with one and is still considered sabotoge fool
mikesternberg 2 years ago
Any explosive chemical compound, mixture, or device, the primary or common purpose of which is to produce an explosion; i.e., with substantially instantaneous release of gas and heat,
mikesternberg 2 years ago
Mike,
Watch any thermite video and tell me if it is a "substantially instantaneous release of gas and heat"
Skeptic121 2 years ago
I have USED it when i was in the combat eng yep 12 bravo i may not be a geek but i have blown plenty of bridges i was not always a tanker you think you know me but you do not
mikesternberg 2 years ago
In fact the whole reason you have not used your face or name is because you know if anyone (like the school district that you work for) will KNOW your a nutjob and get rid of you or at the very least your workmates will laugh at you. haha
mikesternberg 2 years ago
I explained to you that I have many Jewish colleagues and customers who equate ANY questioning of 9/11 with an attack on Israel.
They don't know any more about 9/11 than you or I do, but they worry that rogue elements in the Israeli services might have been involved, if only as observers. Naturally, they worry that if that story comes out, people will blame Jews. I disagree: people understand the difference between rogue elements in the Israeli government and the Jewish people.
Got it?
Skeptic121 2 years ago
and skeptic how much of a fucktard do you have to be to see two giant planes crash into a building and think Nahhh it was secret bush spies what a moron you are
mikesternberg 2 years ago
Mike,
Hate to burst your bubble, but no plane hit WTC7.
Niels Harrit, a Danish chemistry professor, and his collaborators did find unreacted thermite and thermite reaction products in the WTC dust.
Go ahead and call Prof. Harrit a "fucktard" or a moron if it makes you feel better. You REALLY deserved not to make E5.
Skeptic121 2 years ago
i should be more specific there was nothing found by any credible source pointing towards any sabtoge of any kind now start talking about the engine from the plane not matching i dare you
mikesternberg 2 years ago
Google Prof. Jonathan Barnett
He studied one of the few pieces of WTC7 debris that was not recycled. He found evaporated steel surrounded by iron sulfide (NOT sulfate). Prof. Barnett did not use the word "thermate" but just left this phenomenon unexplained. His career has benefited from that decision!
The NY Times called that evaporated steel the greatest mystery of 9/11.
New York Times, November 29, 2001. By JAMES GLANZ
There ARE unexplained facts of 9/11, no tin foil needed.
Skeptic121 2 years ago
O btw if you want I can prove your theory wrong as well. IF they did put explosives they would have had to have tons of accsess to plant hundreds of pounds of prescion explosives so why did'nt anyone notice the crews installing it at nigh Oppps sucks when I used to be in demo and planted bombs so i know what i am talking about I win again
mikesternberg 2 years ago
Mike,
You are making an effort to write better; good job. USE THE SPELL CHECK; that's what it's for! The word is "precision".... "didn't" has an apostrophe between the "n" and "t". It is in place of the "o" in "did not"...got it?
Surprise: I agree with you. Explosives did not bring down WTC7.
It was thermite and thermate, which are not explosive. ThermATE is thermITE plus sulfur, which is heated to the plasma state. The sulfur plasma evaporates steel.
Skeptic121 2 years ago
sorry there was NO thermite found and yes that is classified as an explosive dumbass nice try will your truther lie
and btw correcting my spelling when i am not useing spell check or even making an effort to use correct grammer does not mean your not wrong
mikesternberg 2 years ago
Thermite is NOT an explosive. It does not go BANG. Watch any of the hundreds of teenagers' thermite videos here on YouTube.
The only way you get a BANG out of thermite is something called a "phreatomagmatic" explosion, which means something with a lower melting point gets into the reaction and vaporizes very rapidly. Some kids burned thermite on a block of ice and got a bang. That does not make thermite explosive. Sorry.
Skeptic121 2 years ago
nice try that is not the defintion of an explosive as commonly used AND dumbass many things can be made into explosives (flour) by introducing the right catalist or an initiating charge yawn your so wrong there civie
mikesternberg 2 years ago
You are retired from the military because you were passed over twice for promotion to E5.
Anyone who reads your drivel will understand why.
Skeptic121 2 years ago
I am Ret because i was shot dumbass check my page Duhhhh there is whole video tard and I Still am laughing at you because YOUR the nutjob only crazy people believe in this shit
mikesternberg 2 years ago
You would never have made E5.
Skeptic121 2 years ago
skeptic121 Still hiding your face and identity because your afraid people will find out your nuts and put you away? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH or is it beacause your tinfoilhat makes you look fat?
mikesternberg 2 years ago
I choose not to be widely known for my opinions, if only for business reasons.
Skeptic121 2 years ago
hey maybee I can get a job now that I am ret from the miltary loading people into FEMA death camps at gunpoint i wonder if the NWO pays dental? (o0) AHAHAHAHAHHAAHHAAHAH your all so silly here get your tinfiol hats on!
mikesternberg 2 years ago
Are you afraid of FEMA too aahhaahahahahahaahahah what a fucktard you must be scanning the sky's for black copters AHAHAHAHA
mikesternberg 2 years ago
Mike,
Since I did graduate from UPenn and Uof C, let me help you out. English words do not take an apostrophe to indicate plural. The so-called "grocers' apostrophe" as in "Jersey Tomato's " is incorrect but nevertheless widely used.
The plural of most nouns ending in -y is -ies. The plural of sky is skies.
No, I am not afraid of FEMA.
Skeptic121 2 years ago
I love how people think correcting my lazy non spell corrected posts mean their argument is valid. sorry your still a nutjob .... only crazy people believe this hence your crazy... thats right I said hence
mikesternberg 2 years ago
Ahhhh the REAL truth comes out your one of those anti jew wackos. I do not believe you went to college and actually got a degree because no intelligent person holds these beliefs. you must be embarresed by your belifes because your hiding your identity. your a tinfiolhat ¬hing you say matters because no-one will care once you spout your silly notions of the world.
mikesternberg 2 years ago
Mike,
You are obviously trying to write better; good job.
Hint: the dotted red line under a word you just typed means it is misspelled. "Embarrassed" is a difficult word to spell.
Please note: I said and believe nothing negative about Jews or Judaism. I mentioned ROGUE ELEMENTS in the Israeli and the American government. Israelis themselves talk about this subject endlessly. I read Haaretz and the Jerusalem Post. BTW, the Jewish Daily Forward published the story of the "dancing Israelis"
Skeptic121 2 years ago
and it fell due vibrations fool this has already been disproven, BTW why are you hiding your voice lol like anyone cares who you are
mikesternberg 2 years ago
"and it fell due vibrations fool this has already been disproven"
Mike, buddy, we need to talk seriously for a moment. Are you drunk? It's 10AM in the east, dude. You need to join AA.
If you are not drunk then you have worse problems. As comedian Ron White says "You can't fix stupid..."
Skeptic121 2 years ago
I will tell you what when you show your face and name and your college's i will care what you think yawn you fail ahh i am bored with this anyway no-one cares about this sillyness anyway "9-11 an inside job" hahah no-one will ever investigate this that matters get over your self
mikesternberg 2 years ago
Mike,
If you are bored you are welcome to go away and not come back.
You asked about my "college's" ... UPenn and U of Chicago.
"you fail.." Nobody who writes as badly as you do will ever do anything BUT fail.
I don't use my own voice or show my face because I do business with men who worry that ANY questioning of 9/11 will bring unwanted attention to Israel. Of course the people of Israel are guilty of nothing even if rogue elements of their government helped Dick Cheney.
Skeptic121 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Ahhhh the REAL truth comes out your one of those anti jew wackos. I do not believe you went to college and actually got a degree because no intelligent person holds these beliefs. you must be embarresed by your belifes because your hiding your identity. your a tinfiolhat ¬hing you say matters because no-one will care once you spout your silly notions of the world.
mikesternberg 2 years ago
part 3. Asking for people to accept this as true unless disproven is just as rediculous. this is the position the, "truther movement," is asking thinking people to accept. It just does not matter how much evidence is placed before you, you will not accept it. I'll give your nonsense some thought, when you pray to fuzzy purple bunnies.
johnwiseman17 2 years ago
I never asked anyone to "accept this as true unless disproven".
I said what I think and explained why. If you disagree, fine. If you can explain the 25 meters of free fall acceleration, even better!
Skeptic121 2 years ago
part 2, Thirdly, those detonations that were not heard prior to the collapse, are in fact a very important non-event. The building was also not evacuated for months in advance for the prep work. There is no way to set a building up for controlled demolition and keep it a secret. Fourth, it is up to the accuser to prove accusations and not the defendant for a good reason. If, for example, I stated that the universe was created by fuzzy purple bunnies, It would be rediculous.
johnwiseman17 2 years ago
"it is up to the accuser to prove accusations"
So....do you believe it was been proven that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction?
Or that Osama and 19 Arab clowns did 9/11?
Skeptic121 2 years ago
"So....do you believe it was been proven that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction?"
This is a red herring.
"Or that Osama and 19 Arab clowns did 9/11? "
I think this has been reasonably proven, more than any other theory... but really, as far as this conversation is concerned, it doesn't really matter, you're just sidetracking the topic from WTC 7.
Gangularis 2 years ago
Skeptic, as I only have 500 characters, this will take several posts. Firstly, I am not an engineer, but I know plenty of them. Not a single one, anywhere agrees with the controlle demolition scenario. Secondly, the charges in controlled demolitions are very carefully timed, as this actually enables the engineers to plan where the debris field will land and how the building actually falls, ie, no mountains of stuff where it will be inconvenient to clean up later
johnwiseman17 2 years ago
Do you mean that "not a single one [engineer] anywhere agrees with the controlled demolition..." or that not a single one YOU KNOW agrees?
Skeptic121 2 years ago
"Do you mean that "not a single one [engineer] anywhere agrees with the controlled demolition..." or that not a single one YOU KNOW agrees?"
please tell me you don't believe the ae911truth movement is full of legit engineers, because it's not.
Gangularis 2 years ago
ae911truth has some good engineers and some bad ones
Skeptic121 2 years ago
ae911truth has a large chunk of people that aren't engineers, in any way, shape, or form..that are supposedly signed supporters of the group.
Gangularis 2 years ago
Gangularis,
I guess the truly funny thing is, he has no clue how his statements sound to actual engineers. A controlled demolition involves months of preparation on an abondened building. Drilling holes for dynamite every linear inch along the support, miles of detonation chord, kryton switches, etc. Of all of the buildings which collapsed, #7 looked the most like a controlled demolition, but it was not close enough for anyone in the business. That is what everyone I know is saying.
johnwiseman17 2 years ago
How was WTC7 different from a typical CD?
There were no loud explosions. It was not announced in advance. Other than that...what?
The device you call a "kryton" is actually a "krytron". The letter R appears twice. It is used to detonate A-bombs. For A-bombs, the timing must be precise, within a few nanoseconds, but not for CDs. Krytrons could be used but are not necessary for a CD. "Chord" is term from music and geometry. You meant "cord".
If you "pull rank" on education... be prepared!
Skeptic121 2 years ago
Or just google:
"Jonathan Barnett" + "limited metallurgical examination"
Skeptic121 2 years ago
Jonathan Barnett studied one of the few surviving pieces of WTC7 debris.
Prof. Barnett said he could not explain the evaporated steel that he observed in the samples he was asked to study.
He did report that the surviving steel, next to the evaporated "swiss cheese" holes, contained iron sulfide, expected in steel cut by sulfur plasma.
See wtc (dot) nist (dot) gov/media/AppendixC-fema403_apc(dot) pdf
Skeptic121 2 years ago
Lets not forget the fact that there are ZERO explosions, like that of a controlled demolition, going off, as the building collapses. There is no multitude of flashing lights from internal explosions. "Truthers" ignore this fact, all together.. and point to the sounds of explosions at other points in the day. Again.. no explosions going off while the building is falling. Explain.
Gangularis 2 years ago
There were none of the loud explosions that we hear in most controlled demolitions.
"Explain."
Take a look at a small thermate device cutting a rebar:
watch?v=Wn-MCCZ3O1M
There are many thermITE videos on YouTube but only a few thermATE videos. Here is one video of thermATE:
watch?v=8OM5j01fqfs
ThermATE cuts steel like a hot knife through butter because of sulfur, which is heated to a plasma state then acts as a plasma cutter. The white flame in thermATE is sulfur plasma.
Skeptic121 2 years ago
Can you show me a video of a controlled demolition that does not involve explosions, and flashes of light?
Gangularis 2 years ago
No. What happened to WTC7 was unprecedented.
If it was brought down by thermate and/or thermite, that was unprecedented. If indeed it was brought down by fire and debris damage, that was also unprecedented.
Either way, we have nothing to compare it to, which is probably why there is so much debate.
Skeptic121 2 years ago
Marcoddy, Just because you claim to be a civil engineer does not make it so. It is obvious from your writing, you are barely past middle school. as for the name calling, your nutso theory needs to be proven, and not the opposite. I did not posit any theories, you did. Your belief that our elected officials would knowingly kill their own families and friends can only be described as a disease. NIST did an investigation, I choose to believe actual engneers, and not you.
johnwiseman17 2 years ago
To both sides: insults are not arguments. Does anyone change his mind because of insults? "Gee, he called me stupid; I must be wrong!"
Some on both sides try to reason backwards: "GWB was a bad guy so he did 9/11" or "GWB wouldn't kill people so WTC7 couldn't have dropped at free fall acceleration."
NIST acknowledged free fall acceleration AFTER David Chandler called them on it.
Conclusion: 2.25 seconds or 25 meters of free fall is evidence for a CD but NOT for who did it.
Skeptic121 2 years ago
Johnwiseman17, don't mind marcoddy. He's a traveling carny act. A conman. He's offering 1000 dollars to anyone that can debunk his false claims on another thread. He thinks that from watching these youtube videos, he's now an engineer, and he's running around spreading this OBVIOUS lie about him being an engineer, everywhere he goes.
Gangularis 2 years ago
Listen up son.
If you're too stupid to understand basic physics, then go watch some Bill O'Reilly.
Behave mister? They get banned? just Who the fuck do you think you're talking to?
How you gonna ban a video exactly Mr Youtube...?
9/11 was an inside job, now stop your stupid childish commenting, learn how to spell, go get some crayons and some paper & knock yourself out (before someone else does)
marcoddy 2 years ago
Ghanem1234 wrote:
"dont make me agressiv "
BRING IT ON
Skeptic121 2 years ago
Why is it always the kids who missed science class from grade school on up who subscribe to these idiotic theories. I notice that your video of the freefall of WTC 7 only shows the north side of the building. Why not show the Southern side where we can see that there was a huge gash of over 25% missing of floors 1 through 18 missing. The fact that this building stood until 5:20 pm is a testament to its engineers. these severly compromised columns could easily have failed at the same time.
johnwiseman17 2 years ago
johnwiseman,
I never missed a math or science class in my life. I defy you to find a mistake in my reasoning or David Chandler's.
If you have a video of the collapse from the south please give me a link.
Do you want to support your last sentence with references (or anything at all)?
Thanks!
Skeptic121 2 years ago
Show us this evidence then columbo.
9/11 was an inside job. And I am a Civil/Structural engineer.
Regardless of ANY damage you claim... ALL columns cannot simultaneously lose 100% of their strength.
Go back to high school dick head.
marcoddy 2 years ago
Mike,
Thanks for the duplicate comments.
RE: "the giant fucking planes crashing into the building...." I saw the planes too, but I did not notice them fucking. I don't believe the planes took down WTC7 by themselves. Oh, and WTC7 was not hit by a plane, a minor detail I'm sure.
I do not believe "WE DID IT TO OURSELVES." I certainly was not involved, nor was anyone I know. Rogue elements in our government were involved, I believe.
Who is bitter about his life? This is still a great country!
Skeptic121 2 years ago
As a person who has worked with explosives I am telling you this proves nothing. It
proves that yes, PERHAPS the buildings could have been taken down in this manner. However the giant fucking planes crashing into the buildings proves otherwise! Plus we have people who were calling from the planes telling us who did it! your a fucking TARD IF YOU BELIEVE WE DID IT TO OURSELVES! If your sooo bitter about your life you need to believe in this shit drink a gallon of bleach! TY
mikesternberg 2 years ago
interesting to note that even if the collapse of wtc 7 was because of structual failure, why would the exterior walls fall at free fall? all of the weight of any exterior wall on any building is directed straight down.
vengencefrom1979 2 years ago
Unfortunately.... no plane crashed into building 7.
Before you call the truth "absurd" because of what it implies... why not base your belief on FACT - building 7 CANNOT have free-falled (NIST CONFIRMED 2.25seconds) via damage and fire.
This is scientific FACT.... once you understand that... THEN the other questions come... who did it?
Don't start with the answer and work backwards.... this is the OPPOSITE of science
marcoddy 2 years ago
Many conspiracy theories play into the hands of those who wish to see Palin elected in 2012 (& then WW3 declaration: 2013).
Repugnican tactics re Dubya were to deliberately infect collections of Bushisms with the sayings of Quayle & other idiots - not to make Bush look worse, but so they could then debunk those quotes & get the whole lot - including the genuine ones - disbelieved. Fortunately, this failed, as Dubya produced an unending stream of insanities.
Believe me, I want CHENEY&Co HANGED.
GurnSi 2 years ago
9/11 was an inside job... scientific fact,.
Fuck the politics and focus on TRUTH. It's what everyone needs now. Let's cut the bullshit and find who REALLY did this...
marcoddy 2 years ago
It is an insult to our Engineering community to believe these towers were constructed so weakly that fires and some localized destruction could bring them down
Tower 1? WTF none of the corner columns were even severed!!!
Tower 2? The angular momentum was halted just after initiation, indicating big time tension on the far side. There was NO GD COMPRESSIVE PRESSURE ON THE FAR SIDE!!
WTC 7? Thermal expansion...not likely! Teeny tiny fires on the north, west, and east faces...so...LOL
JSSTyger 3 years ago
They were not small fires. Small fires dont continue to burn for 8 hours. Why do you continue to babble about WTC7? It was well known that it was going to collapse that day because fire were allowed to burn uncontrolled, not to mention the damage done to a building with A symetrical construction(WTC 7) from the north tower. THERE WAS NO LOSS OF LIFE IN THE WTC 7 COLLAPSE.....As you know and LOVE to take out of context..the operation to extinguish the fires was "pulled". Your argument is WEAK!
gidsum29 3 years ago
"the damage done to a building with A symetrical construction(WTC 7)"
I'd like to respond, but I'm not sure what you mean! Hint: the dotted red lines under the words mean they are misspelled. It's not usually a problem, but in this case I don't know if you mean "a symmetrical construction" or "asymmetrical construction"....Hint: the latter is a correct description of WTC7. Indeed, it is a powerful argument against a symmetrical and simultaneous collapse of the facade due to fire.
Skeptic121 3 years ago
So...just to clarify, it is not the collapse of WTC7 that I "continue to babble about." It is the manner of the collapse. If WTC7 had suffered a partial or progressive collapse there would be no controversy. Then there is the issue of free fall acceleration (and please don't say "free fall speed"). BTW, did you watch the video you are commenting on?
Skeptic121 3 years ago
Its funny that when you have a REAL argument with a "twoofer" they automatically turn into a spelling teacher.
gidsum29 3 years ago
Sorry, but I did not notice a real argument about my video in your post. I don't think you watched it.
Skeptic121 3 years ago
they are allover, but its still not too late..
nfexp 3 years ago
I invite anyone to compare the quality of LHO's writing with mine. I asked for alternative explanations of the collapse. I asked for comments on the free fall issue and the simultaneous (within a half second) collapse of the facade.
When I get dismissive one-liners with personal insults I will delete them.
Skeptic121 3 years ago
I will remove all comments with personal insults.
Skeptic121 3 years ago
Second point being the STRUCTURE was weakened then heated to the point of failure.
The speed of the fall it precipitates speaks for itself.
Add that to the 100% lack of CD materials or evidence from the site and it adds up to COLLAPSE.
GET OVER IT.
LHOdidntdoit 3 years ago 2
"the speed of the fall it precipitates speaks for itself"
You are babbling nonsense. You are not contributing to an intellectual discussion. You are disrupting the discussion. You are blocked.
Skeptic121 3 years ago
If anyone wants a definition of "anti-intellectual" just read the comments of "LHOdidntdoit"
His argument is "WTC7 fell because it fell and you don't need to know any more about it than that" In short, "Move along, nothing to see." Or "Shut up," he explained.
The man must be UTTERLY devoid of curiosity.
Unfortunately, there are all too many like him.
Skeptic121 3 years ago
And you're sending me this talking about me in the third person why?
You misinterpret my arguments entirely.
It has been well established that the bldg was ripped a new asshole when 1 fell on it.
NO less than 29 FDNY attesting to it's danger of collapse.
One Chief Hayden even going so far as to quote an engr on the time it would stand if the fires were not fought.
The engrs estimate of collapse time, 5 hrs, was only off by a 20 mins.
See the BBC doc portion here:
watch?v=sjP8m6CC8Vk
LHOdidntdoit 3 years ago
Its only been well "established" by NIST. What exactly does the fire department thinking its going to collapse have a gd thing to do with the manner in which it collapsed.
And your link is a BBC video which I will not even look at because
1) The BBC contorted Barry Jennings eye witness account on WTC 7 so it fit the official story and they made a documentary.
2) The BBC reported the collapse 23 minutes before it even happened.
Its pretty obvious who's pulling the BBC's strings.
JSSTyger 3 years ago
Maybe I will watch the video.I find it hilarious that an engineer can predict the time of collapse which is on the order of hours away.There are way to many variables involved which would be beyond ANYONE'S expertise to quantify and analyze- with reliability- on the spot.
I'd like to know who the engineer was.
And Mark Lezao(sp), the demo expert in that vid, is a proven liar
He claims windows would need to be blown out when they don't...and claims the noises have to be loud...they don't.
JSSTyger 3 years ago
His name is Mark Loizeaux, president of Controlled Demolition, Inc. Pronounced "Low Ah Zo" with the accent on the second syllable. The company depends on the government for permission to do its job and for some of its business, including the ground zero cleanup. I suppose he believes he has to support the official story. Danny Jowenko, a Dutch demolition contractor, can say WTC7 was an obvious controlled demolition because he doesn't depend on the US government.
Skeptic121 3 years ago
JSSTyger - you are right.
The people who make these nonsensical vids are either:
Fraudsters
or
Idiots
or
Paid Prostitutes for the NeoCons, to distract public attention from the real war crimes they perpetrated for which they should be tried & hanged.
GurnSi 2 years ago
I know I'm right. I've got my EI license, BS in Civil Engineernig and have been working in comm. bldg construction for the last four years. If I take a test I could get a PE. I know physics. I know mechanics of structures. They don't.
JSSTyger 2 years ago
JSSTyger - I'm a physicist, and I'm virulently ANTI- NeoCon, & if there was 1 chance in a thousand that the NeoCons did this (as distinct from just being negligent, slow, lazy & the USA, through its international illegalities, simply begging for a revenge attack), I'd be digging & digging for clues.
But they didn't do it. Do check out my channel page, Thanks.
Check out the vids by femr2 who is a rabid troofer (moronic non-scientist) & who has banned me because he can't argue with me.
GurnSi 2 years ago
You can't be serious that planes knocked those buildings down.
JSSTyger 2 years ago
Deadly serious.
Who's paying you to say otherwise? The NeoCons?
Or you are not being paid? Even worse, then! ;D
GurnSi 2 years ago
Hello GurnSi,
Welcome fellow anti-neocon !
I am interested, as an intellectual exercise, in alternative explanations for the 2.3 seconds of free fall acceleration that NIST now admits. I have read one: a design like the human leg, with ankle, knee, and hip analogs, such that displacing the "knees" would allow the "hips" to fall to the "ankles" at near free fall acceleration. I would like as many other hypothetical explanations as I can collect.
Thanks!
Skeptic121 2 years ago
Space/time is limited, so here's one analogy.
Macroevolution & continental drift inertia both seem utterly improbable if our thinking is based on our day to day experiences with physics & nature. This is because we observe things at the 0.1s, 1 day, 1y, maybe 50y level. Processes that take billions of yrs are outside of our predictive experience re time. But macroev.& c.drift are facts.
Here, the dimension outside our experience is with MASS / INERTIA and not time. Bldgs are very, very massive
GurnSi 2 years ago
please....
peterene 2 years ago
"please...." what, AmeriTard? Please give you a brain?
GurnSi 2 years ago
Folks, I am beginning to understand why David Chandler disabled comments on his video.
Could someone include the word ACCELERATION in your comments? I would like to read some clear hypothetical explanations why WTC7 fell at close to 9.8m/s^2 for 2 to 3 seconds. If you could explain why the north and west facade fell straight (for most of the collapse) and simultaneously (within 0.5 sec - NIST)you get thumbs up!
Full disclosure: I believe it was a CD but I want to read other explanations.
Thanks!
Skeptic121 3 years ago