WT7: Silverstein vs the Official Gov't Report

[Capstone]

...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.

 

[SAYIT]

...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 a controlled demo was found.
Now whatcha got?

 

[Capstone]

...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 have all I need to prove my claims in here and elsewhere.

 

[SFC Ollie]

I keep thinking have I seen where NIST admitted that the building was in freefall? Or just maybe the facade.

And are people smart enough to know the difference.

 

[Capstone]

I keep thinking have I seen where NIST admitted that the building was in freefall? Or just maybe the facade. ...

What exactly do you imagine the façade was made of, Ollie? -- Non-physical building materials, I suppose?

I've already addressed this point at least a couple of times, but here we go again:

...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.

In terms of the applicability of the laws of physics, there is no difference. Interacting building materials of any stripe would've necessarily created resistance to the downward motion.

How many times and in how many ways does this non-controversial physical principle need to be repeated before it finially sinks in for you?

It's like talking to a wall.

 

[SFC Ollie]

It's the Ct'ers who supposedly measured this free fall. Ask them what they were measuring.

I still haven't seen in the NIST report any mention of free fall, Of course i can't be expected to remember every thing I've read.....

SO someone refresh my memory here...

 

[Capstone]

And again, David Chandler's analysis at 40:11 in the video from this post is based on and uses NIST's own stage 2 chart (complete with its red regression line that confirms gravitational acceleration during that stage).

 

[Capstone]

As detailed in the Q&A section here:

[. . .] 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.

4.0 - 1.75 = 2.25 seconds of freefall. The assertion that this was "consistent with the structural analysis model which showed the exterior columns buckling and losing their capacity to support the loads from the structure above" is misleading by virtue of omitting any consideration for the interaction of the building materials that composed the bearing walls themselves (I.E. the 4 sides of the so-called "facade") ...and is thereby NOT consistent with universally accepted physical principles.

 

[SFC Ollie]

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.....

 

[Capstone]

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.....

That's because you've badly misinterpreted the information from the NIST Q@A segment.

NIST's 3-stage video analysis involves a period of 5.4 seconds purportedly starting "the instant the roofline began to descend" to where, paraphrasing John Gross, "it disappeared from view between surrounding buildings", which covered a descent of approximately 29 floors.


Along with David Chandler's frame by frame analysis, which beautifully exposes NIST's 5.4 second period as fraudulent, Gross's description can be seen and heard in the following video from 0.59 to 1:41.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fvy7w139Hkc]WTC7: NIST Finally Admits Freefall (Part II) by David Chandler - YouTube[/ame]

Chandler's exposure of the fraud is incidental in relation to Gross's description, by which I mean we can hypothetically disregard it and grant JG's description as valid for the purposes of our discussion.

The freefall period would then involve the conjoined roofline's descent over an approximate area of 8 floors in the 2nd stage of a 3-stage progressive collapse, during which the interacting building materials of the bearing walls provided zero physical resistance to the downward motion.

In other words: a physical impossibility.

I don't know how to spell it out for you any more clearly...

 

[SFC Ollie]

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

 

[Capstone]

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

Didn't you notice that the latter half of your copy and paste job is virtually identical to part of the Q&A segment I quoted from NIST's website, Ollie?

As for the first part, that "pixel" descended through all 3 stages of the 5.4 second sequence, including stage 2's period of freefall!

Measuring "the downward displacement of a point near the center of the roofline" is tantamount to tracking that position on the relatively intact roofline from point A (the onset of descent) to point B (that position's and the rest of the roofline's disappearance from view). In terms of my earlier description, it's a distinction without a difference.

 

[Capstone]

Another relevant video (keep your eyes on the center of that roofline now)...

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pP4_8s-2Gmc]Clocking WTC7 - YouTube[/ame]

 

[SFC Ollie]

In that video the guy was sort of saying the building fell faster than free fall....

Now what is your argument again?

 

[Capstone]

In that video the guy was sort of saying the building fell faster than free fall....

No, what he's saying, in effect, is that the building was actually in freefall for longer than the 2.25 seconds admitted by NIST.

Personally, I'm perfectly happy with the 2.25 seconds, because, as I've pointed out numerous times in this thread, the perceived magnitude of a physical impossibility is extraneous to its classification as a physical impossibility.

...Now what is your argument again?

Let me put it into a neat little package for you:

• A) Newton's Third Law of Motion entails that interacting materials create resistance as a consequence of their interaction.
• B) By definition, a "Progressive Collapse" entails the interaction of various kinds of building materials from start to finish (from the internal steel to the external concrete).
• C) Any period of freefall (read: zero resistance to the downward motion) during a proposed Progressive Collapse would thereby violate the terms of both A and B, the latter by virtue of the former.

SO, because of its conclusion that Building 7's demise constituted a "fire-induced progressive collapse" (despite its concession of freefall), NIST would have us believe that the laws of physics were violated on 9/11.

Because of the above, denying the legitimacy of the NIST Report is not only perfectly reasonable but called for...

 

[SFC Ollie]

LOL. And still we don't address the invisible 8 seconds...

NIST Is a lot closer to truth than any of the CT loons.......

 

[Capstone]

Jeebus H. Fucking Cripes.

I give up.

 

[jillian]

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?

 

[SAYIT]

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?

They deal from a reality of their own making.

 

[SFC Ollie]

Did I just win the Internets? A truther gave up?