Well well, certainly doesn't take long for this thread to regress right back to name calling does it?Originally Posted by mashman
Ta
Well well, certainly doesn't take long for this thread to regress right back to name calling does it?
Aio ki te Aorangi
Awwwwwwwwwwwwww
I didn't think!!! I experimented!!!
Hardsnore Biker
The building 7 myths should have been put to bed by now. There are numerous holes in those vids. Starting with the facts that the centre of building 7 collapsed first. The east penthouse collapses into the centre of building about 5 seconds before. To the question of the free fall speed the connections from the centre collapse to the outer frame pulled down on the exterior of the building causing it to fall faster than would otherwise be expected with a symetrical collapse.
Here is a good vid that talks to part of it. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=60A86cg16KQ
Forum whore
Except that he starts his timer at the first moment of movement in the middle of the building.
Measuring the rate of fall requires using one single datum point as David Chandler used at the very corner of the right side of the building.
Hardsnore Biker
Nope, the middle of the building's first visible collapse is at the east penthouse, and that starts about 11 seconds. Something to consider here is that given that it wasn't on fire, then the collapse below it must have started some time even before that.
His timing is from the black facade at the top centre, and he used the same vid as NIST. So it is not surprising that his and NIST's 5.4 seconds pretty much align.
The Chandler guys timings are from an alternate distant shot that does not show that part of the collapse, not that Chandler mentions that in his vid. The key point here is that Chandler's vid shot doesn't show the other part of the collapse, visible in the NIST vid. This clearly doesn't make NIST wrong.
As an analogy, there are several vid clips that do NOT show the second plane going into the second tower. Clearly if we look only at that those clips, then was a conspiracy and there was no second plane. EDIT: now that I think of it there was one, remember the hologram conspiracy on the 2nd plane
He was not saying that when you measure a spot on the external wall (visible from another angle) as per the Chandler guy, that it didn't fall at g. One of the key arguements in Chandler's series of vids was the collapse time was less than the 5.4 NIST estimate. Opps wrong.
He, as is the Engineering community (with a capital E), are looking at as much of the evidence as they can (not just one clip) and there are simple and plauisable explanations for the way that building 7 failed. Most of them have the centre of the building collapsing first.
The NIST is like any bunch of humans, they make mistakes. Clearly they did, but that is not proof that there was a controlled demo of the building.
Forum whore
Measuring the collapse time is only measuring how long a whole process takes.
Measuring the fall rate requires taking one single point and timing from the moment that single point starts moving downwards.
The movement in the middle of the building (i.e. the start of the collapse) has nothing to do with calculating the fall rate.
Hardsnore Biker
You've missed the point I'm trying to make.
And you've got the physics wrong. They weren't measuring the rate, they were measuing the accleration or change in rate. Both him and NIST (see 2nd graph) got similar results for that part of the fall.
Chandler says the 5.4 is bollocks when he uses just one video clip that cleary shows a different time. One sample is never good science. See my point regarding some vids that didn't have the second plane.
Getting back to the "facts" that Chandler forwards, he is saying is that the NIST 5.4 secs was bollocks when he views only his video. Clearly when the same vid that NIST used is examined, the bollocks appear to have moved to now be inside Chandler's mouth. That video does show 5.4 seconds so "they" weren't lying.
Chandler's point that "they" are lying, ergo a cover up, ergo a controlled demo, ergo a conspiracy, equals a big fat Fail.
There are simple and plausible mechanisms that explain that part of the structural fail that are supported by the evidence.
When all available vids / evidence are examined, not selective, Chandler's rethorical questions are shown to be selective and false. Move on there is nothing to see here.
Forum whore
Why would anyone use a point somewhere along the front parapet when the point that Chandler used is at the very corner - a point so precise you could stick a pin into the exact spot.
From the time that precise spot starts to move downward until it disappears from view is not 5.4 seconds.
The mathematics show that that precise point moves almost exactly at freefall.
Here's another one for you to look at.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ml_n5gJgQ_U
Hardsnore Biker
OK, so you understand that they used:
- two different videos
- of two different points on the building
- that started collapsing at different times
- and got two different results?
Chandler's vid is NOT the same vid that DOES show 5.4 seconds. That does NOT make the 5.4 seconds wrong in the NIST report.
To your why question:
- The vid that NIST used shows a slow initial collapse starting from that point. So they say thats when the collapse started.
I have no idea why no-one is pointing out that they are all ignoring the even earlier collapse into the centre of the building of the east penthouse.
No-one is arguing against the rate of accleration for the mid part of the collapse in Chandler's video.
Edit: I watched the vid. What is the point?
Forum whore
To my question why:
- They used that point because it was easier to fudge the figures by doing so.
They initially claimed that the building fell at 40% slower than freefall but then had to change their story when the mathematics were pointed out to them. They could only make their initial claim by using a point where movement is first noticed some time before the corner of the building started dropping.
The three videos I posted earlier show one very nervous NIST 'specialist' when being questioned on their methods of calculating the rate of fall.
Forum whore
The point is that the videos show conclusively that the building fell at almost exactly freefall.
A building pancaking one floor at a time would not have fallen that fast.
Hardcore Biker
The 'evidence' you supply here is from some Anonymous contributor saying by his calculations the hole and the damage was consistent with a large aircraft, not a 757, hitting the building. His analysis of photographs after the fires had died down etc.
Why not just look at the photographs of the small neat hole recorded before fire and firemen blocked the view and before the building collapsed?
Note the unbroken glass in the windows where the engines should have hit.
Atheism and Religion are but two sides of the same coin.
One prefers to use its head, while the other relies on tales.
Loud and Uncouth
Goodness gracious!
The vitriol fair flowed last night after I vacated the site!
Never mind, as you were...
Winding up drongos, foil hat wearers and over sensitive KBers for over 14,000 posts...........
" Life is not a rehearsal, it's as happy or miserable as you want to make it"
Hardcore Biker
The dude you keep quoting does contradict himself a lot.
for example
'April Gallop, who was working in the Pentagon on 9/11, has also been quoted as confirming the presence of these missile':
and a few lines down.
'... no past or current Pentagon employee has clearly confirmed their existence'.
Also makes lots of assertions without supporting evidence and deductions that are strange to say the least.
'... in the last part Gallop appears to be talking about using fighters, not missiles, which won’t “guide” the incoming aircraft anywhere'.
Well Dah????? What a brilliant deduction.
Atheism and Religion are but two sides of the same coin.
One prefers to use its head, while the other relies on tales.
Hardsnore Biker
You're the only one fudging now. These are just two of a number of videos from different angles and they clearly show different start times.
When you look at the measurement point on drongo's vid it clearly takes a shorter time. The other takes longer. So what, that doesn't mean that either is wrong, it simply means the obvious that different parts of the building started falling at different times.
Yeah they fucked up there, as clearly part of the building, for part of the collapse, does fall at g.
You're not getting it are you? Drongo's vid from the corner takes less than 5.4 seconds. Fine agree, that is what that part of the buidling took. I'm not, and I've seen no-one else arguing the contuary.
THE POINT HERE IS that the other vid, which I see that you are starting to conceed shows another part of the building that DOES start falling earlier.
So, he was nervous. I'm sure I would be too.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks