- This topic has 245 replies, 1 voice, and was last updated 4 years, 7 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
You’re dismissing it as measurement error, right?
No. I’m dismissing your interpretation of Chandler’s data as nonsense. You isolated a tiny portion of time at the beginning of the fall, before meaningful measurement was possible, and saw what you wanted to see.
…. and thus providing Vronsky with another perfect example of Bayes Theorem in action.
^ this was intended to follow on from my comment at October 2, 2019 at 10:58.
Did you even bother looking for the horizontal twist?
Well the data points are plotted that way on Chandler’s graph, and he even plotted a line through them. And that’s how it appears in the UAF draft report. Here’s the citation again:
Report page 108, PDF page 120,
http://ine.uaf.edu/media/222439/uaf_wtc7_draft_report_09-03-2019.pdf
Oh and it’s not “at the beginning of the fall”; it’s several seconds after the penthouse fell through the roof.
Sorry, who is being selective with the data here?
Node, earlier you justly criticised Kempe for attempting to discredit the researcher rather than addressing the research, but now here you are reinforcing Vronsky’s character assassination of me. Well I’ll be damned.
You and Vronsky are both wrong, demonstrably so because the cause of WTC7’s collapse doesn’t particularly matter to my interpretation of the events at the WTC complex – I regard both emergency post-rigged demolition of WTC7, and let’s call it < href=”https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/forums/topic/engineering-prof-releases-draft-report-on-9-11-collapse-of-wtc-bldg-7-in-nyc/#post-47289″>decoy pre-rigged demolition of WTC7, as more likely than pre-rigged demolition of WTCs 1, 2 and 7.
Here, posted by A&E9/11″Truth”:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zRpCwKRnL1M
You can see the top left corner move towards the camera location immediately before accelerating descent. You can also see windows going dark, in contradiction of the UAF report’s claim – “Such differential movements in the exterior would be extremely likely to have caused window breakage, cracking of the façade, and exterior deformation, none of which were observed”
Here’s some video of WTC7 burning:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=679xhTZZyog
You can see that the fires were severe. There is smoke issuing all the way up; you can see it issuing directly from a window about the fortieth floor, contradicting the UAF draft’s claim that there were no fires above floor 30. At 10:30 you can see that WTC7 is bent, leaning to the left from the damaged area upwards – put a straight-edge against your screen to check.
“Oh and it’s not “at the beginning of the fall”; it’s several seconds after the penthouse fell through the roof.
Sorry, who is being selective with the data here?”I answered your question :
Could you please explain to me, as I asked above, how WTC7’s initial 0.5 seconds of descent at uniform velocity could possibly be consistent with collapse initiated by explosives?
I’ve got nothing further to say on this point. Others can judge who’s been selective.
I apologise for wording this incorrectly, and any confusion that may have caused. I should have written:
– “Could you please explain to me, as I asked above, how the initial 0.5 seconds of descent of WTC7’s roofline at uniform velocity could possibly be consistent with collapse initiated by explosives?”
Chandler’s data and graph do not begin until well into the collapse, the first clear sign of which was the collapse of the penthouse.
Good video thanks Clark – Has anyone tried to map the 7WTC fire locations to the occupants on those floors?
Look at what is still on the A&E9/11″Truth” site; Chandler’s
Downward Acceleration of the North Tower:https://www.ae911truth.org/evidence/videos/video/11-downward-acceleration-of-the-north-tower
This argument predicts that no structure that has successfully stood can undergo accelerating collapse. This is a site of architects and engineers; for them to continue to promote this they must be either incompetent or dishonest.
Here, Chandler sets out his reasoning regarding WTC7:
https://medium.com/@davidchandler_61838/free-fall-131a94a1be7e
He repeatedly uses “free-fall” and “g” interchangeably, but they are not remotely interchangeable. Free-fall is a physical condition ie. something that happens to a real object in the real world, whereas g is a rate of acceleration ie. an intellectual abstraction, with no physical existence. To equate one with the other is like saying “it’s a mile to the shop, and it’s a mile to the dump, therefore the shop is the dump”. Just because something accelerates at g does not mean that it is necessarily in free-fall. I could crush a banana against the floor at g, but it wouldn’t be in free-fall. Yet Chandler writes this (in Part 2):
– “In the case of WTC 7 the fact of an extended period of free fall has been established by direct observation and measurement. See Part 1 of this series. We can conclude that all of the potential energy was being converted into kinetic energy with nothing left over to do anything else”
No. Direct observation and measurement establish only acceleration of the roof-line at (pretty close to) g. To establish free-fall we’d have to observe the whole moving object, to establish that nothing else (such as the core) was exerting force upon it. But we can’t see the internals of the building, so we can’t assume free-fall. On the contrary, we should assume that the internal components are exerting forces upon the outer visible structure, and since we saw the penthouse collapse before the outer structure, we have excellent grounds to suspect that those forces are acting downwards.
Hello Mark, good to see you. I hope you are well.
There is very little about fire mapping in the UAF draft, however it does refer to the mapping done by NIST.
But I would guess that there is much less detail for WTC7 than for the Towers, because WTC7 was evacuated (apart from Jennings and Hess) whereas many reports were received from people in the Towers, including police and fire-fighters.
– “At 10:30 you can see that WTC7 is bent, leaning to the left from the damaged area upwards – put a straight-edge against your screen to check”
Have any of the FEMA, ARUP, NIST or UAF included included this lean in their assessments? UAF claim to have included damage to the building, but they were yet to publish their data when I checked their site two days ago. To account for it properly they’d have to perform another simulation, a preliminary one to generate estimates of the state of the building after WTC1’s collapse inflicted this damage.
This lean also has implications for any pre-rigged “controlled” demolition hypothesis. Truthers constantly repeat that it takes months of calculation, planning and preparation to get a demolition just right, but a lean like this would render all that inaccurate. I count 19 storeys in the leaning section.
“Has anyone tried to map the 7WTC fire locations to the occupants on those floors?”
According to the NIST report, the worst fires were on floors 7-13.
According to the published list of tenants, US secret services occupied floors 9 & 10.Modified Bayes theorem; note term P(C):
@ Clark October 3, 2019 at 00:50
This is not a reply to your comment above. I have read quite a few prior comments but not all, and one I noticed you claimed Silverstein was obliged to get insurance and to rebuild on the site. Let me clarify, it seems probable he was legally bound to insure the buildings, but the ‘Lucky’ part was he had two special clauses inserted into the insurance: that they be insured against terrorist attacks (and this was just weeks before 9/11!) and that he would have the right to rebuild on the site. He had those clauses specially inserted, they were far from obligatory.
Then he only paid one month’s mortgage payment; he was not liable to pay another penny after they were destroyed. So he got the Towers for peanuts. Very handy too, as the Towers were huge White Elephants, had never been profitable, much of their space was empty without renters, and they were virtually condemned, as they were chock full of asbestos.
The Port Authority had put out tenders to either get the asbestos removed, or to demolish the Towers; both had been prohibitively expensive. Silverstein must have known this, as he already owned WTC7, so why would he buy them? If the 9/11 destruction hadn’t occurred, ‘Lucky’ Larry Silverstein would have been in the merde. And if his wife hadn’t convinced him to go to the dentist (I think it was the dentist) he would have been in the Windows on the World and brown bread when 9/11 unfolded. Instead, he made a colossal killing (at least financially).Regarding Gelatin and the ‘B-Thing’, here is a very good article which links Gelatin to the Israeli ‘Art Student’ spies, and also explains that one of the Gelatin group’…has been identified as Hanan Serfaty, an Israeli military intelligence officer and bomb expert.
And it turned out to be Serfaty who was found to have moved nearly $200,000 around during the first quarter of 2001 and explained it away as the proceeds from successful art sales.
I wonder what Sherlock Holmes (or even Inspector Clouseau) would make of all this?Regarding the Israeli ‘Art Student’ spies, here’s some further info:
‘Censored Israeli Software Spying On US Am Docs Comverse Infosys Carl Cameron Dec 2001′(from Fox News!): https://archive.org/details/CensoredIsraeliSoftwareSpyingOnUSAmDocsComverseInfosysCarlCameronDec2001
Although Cameron didn’t get the sack, his career was irrevocably damaged.I’ve been aware of this for some time, but some of you may well be unaware:
‘New York Fire Commissioners Call for New 9/11 Investigation About “Pre-Planted Explosives”:
https://www.lewrockwell.com/2019/07/no_author/new-york-fire-commissioners-call-for-new-9-11-investigation-about-pre-planted-explosives/
The government will pull all the stops on getting both cases crushed, Firefighters and Lawyers, but at least it helps to bring the situation to some more people.
The Firemen and the Architects and Engineers agree that explosives and/or incendiaries were used in both Towers and WTC 7.I posted about this up-thread (September 19, 2019 at 13:42). I argued ….
“Everybody has an opinion on what happened on 9/11, but I suggest some opinions carry more weight than others. A New York fire department, the Franklin Square and Munson Fire District, were amongst first responders, lost 2 firefighters on the day and many more are suffering chronic health effects. In July 2019, all five commissioners of the fire dept approved a resolution to officially support a new investigation into the events of 9/11, claiming …..”
…. but gave up when Clark abandoned any pretense of reasonable debate by refusing to concede even that “the 5 fire commissioners have professional knowledge of fires and how they affect buildings.”
Clark then proceeded to deliberately and knowingly make this thread unusable by embedding trivial and irrelevant videos until the forum software couldn’t cope and lag times were measured in minutes. Last time I was here my browser crashed. I say “knowingly” because he warned somebody else about this technical problem in another forum. Doesn’t seem so bad now. Maybe the mods have fixed it.
Because I am being accused of deliberately sabotaging this thread, I have opened a new one, with a prominent warning not to post naked links, the cause of slow page response. Any of you dumb and paranoid conspiracy theorists could have opened a new thread, but it seems you prefer whinging to taking direct action; no surprises there, then.
Your new thread is here. MODS, I suggest you close this forum thread before it gets any longer and slower.
- The topic ‘Engineering Prof releases draft report on 9/11 collapse of WTC Bldg 7 in NYC’ is closed to new replies.