WTC1 Linear Rate Ejecta Traversal

http://femr2.ucoz.com

Please watch in High Definition.

This clip shows a short portion of the demise of WTC 1.
A graph has been overlaid which plots the lowest position of the wave of destruction through the building at 10 frame intervals.

The resulting graph shows that the rate is LINEAR.

It is not speeding up, nor slowing down.

If you wish to validate the findings, please download the video (in HD) to confirm that the graph has been correctly rendered by starting at frame 110, and marking the vertical pixel location of the lowest point in the wave of destruction. Do the same for frame 120, 130, 140, ...

Enter the pixel locations into Excel and generate a line graph. It will approximate a straight line. It will not be curved (Which indicates acceleration/deceleration)

Think about the implications of a linear rate propogation of the wave of destruction.

Category:

Science & Technology

Tags:

• WTC
• LINEAR
• RATE
• DEMOLITION
• WAVE
• 911
• FREEFALL
• EJECTA
• WTC1

[phoenix16lynx]

again jsut because FEMA or NIST says something happened doesnt mean it did. i mean seriously they're not god they could not see through the smoke and tell what was going on. if the fuel didnt spill all at once then that means the fuel kept flowing out keeping the fires going keeping the metal hot. the metal hot not hot enough to just snap but enough to bend and weaken until finally the pressure of the bending metal does snap it and collapses that right there is physics you can test with a torch

[femr2]

I asked you to respect my wishes and investigate WTC 7 free-fall before commenting further, and you are still going round in circles, clutching at ill-conceived straws, with apparently little grasp of the technical nature of the discussion.

I've been patient enough with you.

Bye.

[femr2]

"again jsut because FEMA or NIST says something happened doesnt mean it did"

Couldn't agree with you more, the lying scumbags.

[femr2]

"they could not see through the smoke and tell what was going on"

Again, totally agree.

[mthai66]

I like the implication that we're better at building skyscrapers today than 40 years ago. Not hardly.

[mthai66]

"1/2 of a building "

1/3 of a building

[XPronger]

Great work, thanks.

911 was an inside job.

[bweazel]

Did you just compare a skyscraper to stacked wood blocks? No wonder you believe the OT.

[femr2]

That makes no sense at all. You must be getting tired. lol.

[phoenix16lynx]

i have no intentions of arguing that at all you brought it up.

[phoenix16lynx]

again you cant see inside if the external beams stood not burning at all does not mean all the innard ones did not. support beams all on one side are not going to hold. thats easily proved with a game of jenga.