WTC 7 Freefall

[wildbilln864]

A video by David Chandler showing the free fall of WTC #7.

&context=C3ecfdd3ADOEgsToPDskIel9cg-n61LNbttve0uPQo

[Bolo Boffin]

1. Fully in line with NIST Final Report explanation.

Nice of Chandler to independantly confirm the veracity of the NIST modeling.

[wildbilln864]

2. I think you're confused again. ...nt

[Bolo Boffin]

3. Nope.

The NIST explanation has around eight floors failing just before the outer part of the building falls. That matches perfectly with the measured time of the "freefall" time.

[wildbilln864]

4. Freefall!

Thanks for your admission!

[OnTheOtherHand]

5. quoting from the Final Report:

In Stage 2, the north face descended at gravitational acceleration, as the buckled columns provided negligible support to the upper portion of the north face. This free fall drop continued for approximately 8 stories or 32.0 m (105 ft), the distance traveled between times t = 1.75 s and t = 4.0 s....

As noted above, the collapse time was approximately 40 percent longer than that of free fall for the first 18 stories of descent. The detailed analysis shows that this increase in time is due primarily to Stage 1. The three stages of collapse progression described above are consistent with the results of the global collapse analyses discussed in Chapter 12 of NIST NCSTAR 1-9.

NCSTAR 1A, p. 45 (PDF p. 87)

So, as Bolo said, Chandler's analysis is consistent with the NIST Final Report explanation. It isn't a matter of "admission."

To be fair to Chandler, he was reacting to an earlier draft of the report, which didn't analyze the three stages. From that, apparently, Chandler decided that NIST was trying to cover up the existence of Stage 2 -- not that NIST had any means to cover up the existence of Stage 2.

[wildbilln864]

6. again, free....

fall!

[Bolo Boffin]

7. Sufficiently explained without controlled demolition.

Furthermore, controlled demolition doesn't fit the evidence.

[wildbilln864]

8. yes it does! nt

[Bolo Boffin]

9. No, it doesn't.

No large explosive sounds associated with the collapse, for one. Any explosive device large enough to exploit the weak point in column 79 would have been heard for a mile. Nothing.

Thermite devices have never been shown to be effective enough, either.

[Ace Acme]

13. Where is the sound of 47 concrete floors falling on each other?

Would you claim that lack of audio evidence of that means it didn't happen?

Mr. Chandler claims he has audio evidence of explosions. I haven't investigated it.

Thermite devices have certainly been shown to be effective enough. Jonathan Cole can cut a substantial steel girder with 2 pounds of thermite.

&feature=share&list=UUCU5Ac7Vd7cqPk074nnKSTw

[Bolo Boffin]

15. They're drowned out by the deafening silence of explosives not exploding.

Seriously, the thermite hypothesis has to have the 47 floors falling into each other, too. So now you're going to explain why you can't find that sound either?

Is Jonathon Cole going to explain how the devices got into the pre-fab column sections? Were they in there the whole time? That seems unlikely.

And the "evaporated steel" mystery? Solved.

http://ae911truth.info/wordpress/ae911truths-case/thermite/fema-steel/

[Ace Acme]

18. The most reasonable explanation for the lack of sound of 47 floors falling on each other

is that they didn't. Occam and all that.

[Bolo Boffin]

19. Ah, well, this should be interesting.

What do you think happened if the 47 floors didn't hit each other during the collapse? They had to go somewhere as the building fell down. If not down and into each other, where?

[Ace Acme]

20. Obviously they hit each other during the collapse.

There is no audio supporting the notion that they hit each other in the alleged invisible collapse before the visible collapse began.

[OnTheOtherHand]

11. perhaps you need to reread the posts

Bolo pointed out that the video was "fully in line" with the NIST Final Report's explanation, and you replied, "I think you're confused again." We've been waiting for you to try to back that up.

[Ace Acme]

14. Bolo got it backward.

NIST's report is "in line" with Mr. Chandler's corrections to the draft report.

Chandler forced them to admit to the 100 feet of free fall. At the same time, NIST removed from their draft report every instance of the claim that their analysis was "consistent with physicval principles".

[Bolo Boffin]

16. Chandler forced nothing. He validated the work of the NIST Report.

http://ae911truth.info/wordpress/topten/proving-nist-right/

[Ace Acme]

17. Chandler forced them to admit the 100 feet of freefall.

Before that, Shyam Sunder had denied it was possible, saying (quite rightly) that would mean there was absolutely no structural support in the lower part of the structure.

Chandler informed them of his findings of freefall collapse, and they were forced to admit that was true. At the same time they removed from their draft report every instance of the claim that their analysis was "consistent with physical principles".

Do try to keep up with events of 2008.

[LARED]

10. I hear if you say Free Fall three times

and spin round in between each time you say it, it proves demolition.

Try it out.

[Ace Acme]

21. I hear that was NIST's methodology to achieve their invisible buckling in WTC7. nt

[antitsa]

12. Collapse video looks like a Controlled Demolition. No debate about that. nt