Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
...people are nutcases when they totally disregard facts like the first 8 seconds of the collapse.
...people are nutcases when they totally disregard facts like the first 8 seconds of the collapse.
...and the 2.25 seconds worth of free-fall.
Wait a sec'; that would make you a nutcase, wouldn't it, Ollie?
You need to let this sink into your thick skull: the building could've taken a week to completely collapse and that still wouldn't account for NIST'S admission of a physically impossible period of free-fall.
...people are nutcases when they totally disregard facts like the first 8 seconds of the collapse.
...and the 2.25 seconds worth of free-fall.
Wait a sec'; that would make you a nutcase, wouldn't it, Ollie?
You need to let this sink into your thick skull: the building could've taken a week to completely collapse and that still wouldn't account for NIST'S admission of a physically impossible period of free-fall.
But they can account for the fact that no evidence of controlled demo was found.
Now whatcha got?
I keep thinking have I seen where NIST admitted that the building was in freefall? Or just maybe the facade. ...
...Even granting the ridiculous notion that the building's "entire facade" could somehow remain standing intact as all of the internal structural beams were taken out 'progressively' like a trail of fallen dominoes (as opposed to simultaneously by some other means), the interacting materials in the façade itself would necessarily slow its descent, because concrete doesn't pulverize concrete without creating resistance either. ...
...And are people smart enough to know the difference.
[. . .] The approach taken by NIST is summarized in Section 3.6 of the final summary report, NCSTAR 1A (released Nov. 20, 2008; available at WTC Disaster Study) and detailed in Section 12.5.3 of NIST NCSTAR 1-9 (available at WTC Disaster Study).
The analyses of the video (both the estimation of the instant the roofline began to descend and the calculated velocity and acceleration of a point on the roofline) revealed three distinct stages characterizing the 5.4 seconds of collapse:
- Stage 1 (0 to 1.75 seconds): acceleration less than that of gravity (i.e., slower than free fall).
- Stage 2 (1.75 to 4.0 seconds): gravitational acceleration (free fall)
- Stage 3 (4.0 to 5.4 seconds): decreased acceleration, again less than that of gravity
This analysis showed that the 40 percent longer descent time—compared to the 3.9 second free fall time—was due primarily to Stage 1, which corresponded to the buckling of the exterior columns in the lower stories of the north face. During Stage 2, the north face descended essentially in free fall, indicating negligible support from the structure below. This is consistent with the structural analysis model which showed the exterior columns buckling and losing their capacity to support the loads from the structure above. In Stage 3, the acceleration decreased as the upper portion of the north face encountered increased resistance from the collapsed structure and the debris pile below.
So if (and that's a big if) the roof line (Because that is all they are revering to here, the visable roof line)
did not fall at freefall for 2.25 seconds then all your fellow CT'rs are wrong.
Yet I am told time and again that they have timed it....
So NIST says a point on the roof line fell at free fall for 2.25 seconds and they do not address the 8 seconds before that point moved in your paragraph or in relation to that point moving.....
I don't even know what you are trying to prove anymore.....
As I have tried to make you understand we are talking about a single point, actually a single pixel on the roof line....
To further clarify the descent of the north face, NIST recorded the downward displacement of a point near the center of the roofline from first movement until the north face was no longer visible in the video. Numerical analyses were conducted to calculate the velocity and acceleration of the roofline point from the time-dependent displacement data. The instant at which vertical motion of the roofline first occurred was determined by tracking the numerical value of the brightness of a pixel (a single element in the video image) at the roofline. This pixel became brighter as the roofline began to descend because the color of the pixel started to change from that of the building façade to the lighter color of the sky.
The approach taken by NIST is summarized in NIST NCSTAR Report 1A, Section 3.6, and detailed in NIST NCSTAR Report 1-9, Section 12.5.3.
The analyses of the video (both the estimation of the instant the roofline began to descend and the calculated velocity and acceleration of a point on the roofline) revealed three distinct stages characterizing the 5.4 seconds of collapse:
Stage 1 (0 to 1.75 seconds): acceleration less than that of gravity (i.e., slower than free fall).
Stage 2 (1.75 to 4.0 seconds): gravitational acceleration (free fall)
Stage 3 (4.0 to 5.4 seconds): decreased acceleration, again less than that of gravity
FAQs - NIST WTC 7 Investigation
In that video the guy was sort of saying the building fell faster than free fall....
...Now what is your argument again?
I know you are bright enough to know these facts so what's the purpose of this thread? Trolling perhaps?
I know you are bright enough to know these facts so what's the purpose of this thread? Trolling perhaps?
what makes you believe a conspiracy theorist is dealing in reality?
