So I'll take a chance and put this here. It's not about conspiracy, how it could have been done, why it might have been done or who might have done it....
Please, just the
physics. Critique this analysis, add to it, or just pick the one that you think is correct and why.... sort of an informal pole/discussion?
THE UNRESOLVED MYSTERY OF WTC 7
Images courtesy of KokomoJojo
Shyam Sunder, of the NIST, states free fall only happens when an object (or building) “...has no structural components below it.” He says despite the existence of structural components (mass) below it, WTC 7 went into free fall as if through air for eight stories, or 105 feet.
David Chandler, a retired physics teacher, states free fall only happens (to a building) when an "....external force removes the supporting structure." He says energy would have to to be added from some external source to remove structural components (mass) below it for free fall to occur as if through air for eight stories, or 105 feet.
Chart courtesy of KokomoJojo
They agree that WTC 7 fell at gravitational acceleration for 2.25 seconds, or 105 feet but....
There can be only one, they cannot both be true.... Or can they?
Is it
Chandler on the left, or
Sunder on the right?
My
schematic animated representations of both theories.
Not sure what you expect in terms of a response. your limitations in the OP almost restrict this to math based on facts that unfortunately we are not privy to and requires that we make certain presumptions. What are we supposed to presume for a starting point or is freefall the central issue and point to expand from? Additional clarification?
Nist only timed it for 18 floors. I timed the whole thing conservatively at 7 seconds and change. It freefell for well over 75% of its height. I did not use software like chandler however. (too much work, stop watch works fine for my purposes LOL)
otherwise an obvious target would be to investigate how, 2/3rds of the way to the right of the face you will see the light showing through. Same place you can see all the windows breaking on the real structure.
It begs the question how that narrow part of the building gave way to the extent that we see the light passing through it. Nist has not offered any explanation for it but the only way we can see light is if what was there blocking it is not longer there. So how did the failure of column 79 or whatever one they claim transfer to precisely 2/3rds of the way across the building and wipe that section out?
How strange thought I would get the original model and now I have differing nist models?
[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FuyZJl9YleY#t=26[/ame]
how odd in the video above he has 2 different nist models??????
so here are some physics and observations from chandler;
The clearest discrepancy is the deformation of the external structure in the model, which does not occur in the observed collapse. Mr. Chandler identifies a second glaring discrepancy, saying:
“One fact we do know about NIST’s model [software] is it does not allow for free fall. The best they could do is 5.4 seconds for the building to crumple down through 18 floors. Crumpling absorbs energy, and that makes free fall impossible. There’s nothing in the models we have been shown that even resemble a three-stage collapse with a free fall component. After all, as Shyam Sunder put it himself, ‘free fall happens only when there are no structural components below the falling section of the building.’ Any natural scenario is going to involve a progression of failures and these don’t happen instantaneously.”
Although
NIST’s model is false, based on its failure to reproduce the observed collapse, it cannot be
falsified because NIST did not release its modeling data.
Mr. Chandler explains:“NIST claims their computer model can account for the observed phenomena, so let’s look at NIST’s model – except we can’t. The software they used to do the modeling is available, but their model actually consists of all the numbers and measurements and assumptions together with any tweaks to the system they might have used to get it to come out the way they wanted. If that information were released, their results could be checked by anyone with the appropriate skills and software tools. But NIST has not released the numbers. All we have been shown are some of the selected animated outputs they were able to get their model to produce… The very fact that NIST has not released their model strongly suggests they don’t want their results checked. In other words, their results are intended to be taken strictly on faith.”
References
[ii] NIST NCSTAR 1-9A, “Global Structural Analysis of the Response of World Trade Center Building 7 to Fires and Debris Impact Damage,” Washington, DC. November 2008. p.111. http://wtc.nist.gov/NCSTAR1/NCSTAR1-9index.htm
