He did his analysis based on the speed of the collapse of wtc7 which was 6.5 seconds. This is undisputed. Again, his analysis points to the exact timed symetrical failure of each floor's horizontal steel column to fail in succession from the ground up in a precise manner to create a scenario where the top floor is able to fall all the way to the ground without meeting reistance defies the laws of physics. The only way to achieve this is the science of controlled demolition. If you dispute this, you are disputing the laws of physics.
No, 6.5 seconds IS disputed. Note the mention of seismographic evidence. The same sies evidence shows no demolition charges going off either. Therefore, the laws of physics haven't been violated, since as the video shows, the "resistance" given by the interior support structure that the guy says should have slowed the collapse is shown to be an erroneous hypothesis, cuz the interior parts have already collapsed by the time the typical CTer 7 second video begins. http://www.debunking911.com/pull.htm This evidence supports the NIST contention that the building collapse progressed from the penthouse out as columns were weakened by the fires. The slow sinking of the penthouses, indicating the internal collapse of the building behind the visible north wall, took 8.2 seconds according to a NIST preliminary report. Seismograph trace of the collapse of WTC 7 indicates that parts of the building were hitting the ground for 18 seconds. This means the collapse took at least 18 seconds, of which only the last approximately 15 seconds are visible in videos: 8 seconds for the penthouses and 7 seconds for the north wall to come down. This video shows the lies of the Cters when they only show the last 7 seconds of the collapse. <object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/CLHwvwJCmgk"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/CLHwvwJCmgk" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed></object>
You just proved my point, yes 7 (6.5 to be exact) seconds for the top of the MAIN building structure to collapse vertically to the ground. The penthouse is an attachment at the top of the MAIN building structure. After the penthouse has collapsed (8 seconds) it doesn't change the fact that the MAIN building structure takes 6.5 (you say 7) seconds for the top of the MAIN structure to collapse to the floor. Now we both agree on that, you just wrote it! So 7 seconds for the top of the MAIN building structure to collapse vertically to the ground. This violates Newtonââ¬â¢s Law of Conservation of Momentum that would require that as the stationary inertia of each floor is overcome by being hit by the floors about, the mass (weight) increases and the free-fall speed decreases. This 7 second fall is only made possible by the resistance at each level from the ground up being very close to zero at the time the above floor collapses on it. Even if Newtonââ¬â¢s Law is ignored, your theory would have us believe that the top floor of the MAIN building structure collapsed upon itself crushing all 59 massive columns on each floor while maintaining a free-fall speed as if the thousands of tons of supporting structural-steel framework underneath didnââ¬â¢t exist. Now answer the question Haroki. How is this possible?
Huh? I said that 6.5 seconds IS disputed. It is shown that the ENTIRE collapse took more than 6.5 seconds. More like 13-15, nobody is able to give an exact time since it is obscured. You're also ignoring the fact that when, as you agree, the penthouses - which were supported by interior columns - collapsed through the roof, that THAT is concrete evidence that the interior columns were no longer doing their job. Namely, not supporting the structure. So yes, the resistance is "very close to zero at the time the above floor collapses on it." This the main point: Therefore, as I said before, when your expert says that the "resistance" that should have been provided by these columns should have been sufficent to slow the collapse, his hypothesis is incorrect, since these interior columns have collapsed. The conclusion is that he needs to redo his math. Because yes, it fell that fast, "as if the thousands of tons of structural steel didn't exist" because while they existed, they weren't giving the "resistance" needed to validate your expert's hypothesis since they had already collapsed - internally, as shown by the penthouses's collapse into the interior of the building. If anything, they were just another load that the remaining, fire weakened columns needed to support. Capiche? And where did you get the notion that as "mass (weight) increases and the free-fall speed decreases" idea is correct?. Think this through with me - if you were to drop something heavy, like say a bowling ball from a roof, and an EXACTLY same sized (which would give the same air resistance during the fall) volleyball at the same time, which would hit the ground first? Perhaps you need to do a little studying: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity
So you deny that you stated that the North Wall takes 7 seconds to come down? I agree with you the North wall took 7 seconds to collapse to the ground. Again, this is only possible if each floor meets no resistance from the one below. With colums around the perimiter (they were evenly distrubuted thoughout the building) how is this possible? You are saying that radom fires can cause exact and precise failure at the precise point of the supporting column of each floor in a symetrical fashion throught the building? How could this be? This defies the law of conservation of momentum as i have pointed out.
Glad you agree about the 340yd thing. It was a stupid mistake that any researcher should have looked into. Look at the diagram again - 340yds would have put 7 on the other side of 45 Park Place...... But to answer your question, I don't have a source to debunk/answer your Q, since the 340 yd assertion was such a ridiculous one that I'm sure noone has bothered to look into it. Or rather like me, every time one reads it, they end up spitting their coffee onto their keyboard... 6 was only 10 stories, not much of an impediment.... However, after reviewing all the videos that I can on the subject ( with sound, of course ) I have noted one thing - that under REAL controlled demolition, one always hears scores of demo charges going off just as the building collapses. I even watched one where the demo charges were audible while being filmed at great distance WHILE INSIDE A HELICOPTER. Now that's some big charges. No matter what the situation, one always hears them, and this is under the circumstances where the demolition crew spends weeks/months removing structural supports that will enable the demo guys to use LESS explosives to achieve their goal. Something, were it to have happened at the WTC, would result in 1 and 2 not being able to survive a plane impact. Therefore, one assumes that if 1,2, and 7 WERE brought down, that they were unprepared. This would make HUUUGE demo charges necessary to cut the columns as believed by CTerz. But in all the videos I've seen, and heard...... nothing. Can you explain this?
No the Main building structure (north wall as you put it) takes 6.5 seconds to fall to the ground. This can be seen on any CNN, FOX, BBC footage, as well as in your's. 47 steel columns were disturbuted thoughout the building, not just under th penthouse ... hell what do you think was holding up the perimiter of the building! But yes, the main columns were blown out first by thermite, this is the only way to get a building to collapse ino on itself. That's a fact! Again, the perimiter steel supports were in place and should have provided resistance after central columns were blown out. So sorry Haroki, but thousands of tons of concrete and steel just don't "get out of the way" unless they are exploded out of the way. The floor demolished from the ground up, you can see this is as the top floor are still intact as they approach the ground. As each floor from the basement up collapses there are less floors above it bearing down so yes what i said was correct. The force (weight) from above was decreasing and this shoudl have resulted in a deceleration, not the acceleration taht can be seen in any of the footage. Your question has nothing to do with it. However assuming that the volleyball occurs no extra aerodynamic drag they should fall at the same speed. Force = gravity * mass The force of gravity is greater on the bowling ball than on the volley ball, proportional to their mass. This means that if the bowling ball has twice the mass of the volleyball it will be pulled toward the earth with twice the force. However, as the acceleration is proportional to the force divided by the mass. This means that the bowling ball will be accelerated twice as slowly as the volleyball given the same force. So in order for the bowling ball to move at the same rate as the vollleyball, the bowling ball must be submitted to twice the force. And this is exactly what the force of gravity does. I have a question for you. Take the top floor of building 7 and drop it from the same height as the original building 7, how long to hit the floor? Roughly 6 seconds. Now what happens if we put steel structures and concrete below that top floor and drop it again, how long? Well considerably longer than 6 seconds, how about "it aint going anywhere fast"! Capiche? Actually, you still don't answer why building 7 met no resistance even round the perimeters to fall in 7 seconds. I think you need to do some studying of the FACTS yourself Haroki. Heard of probabilities? what are the odds that all the fireproofing fell off in just the right places, even far from the point of impact? Without much test data, let's say it's one in a thousand. And what are the odds that the office furnishings converged to supply highly directed and (somehow) forced-oxygen fires at very precise points on the remaining columns? Is it another one in a thousand? What is the chance that those points would then all soften in unison, and give way perfectly, so that the highly dubious "progressive global collapse" theory could be born? I wouldn't even care to guess. But finally, with well over a hundred fires in tall buildings through history, what are the chances that the first, second and third incidents of fire-induced collapse would all occur on the same day? Let's say it's one in a million. Considering just these few points we're looking at a one in a trillion chance, using generous estimates and not really considering the third building (no plane, no jet fuel, different construction [for WTC 7]). Please, no more High School physics question, try to focus on the issues, you keep weaseling out of answering the question.
Testimonies of FDYN and NYPD officers who heard explosions coming from wtc1and wtc2 good enough for you: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0N2VjxCHBcs Building 7 was evacuated and blocked off up an hour before it was "pulled" by the FDYN.
Haroki, I notice that you have never commented on the FACT that Silverstein admitted the controlled demolition of building 7 in an interview. Also, why did John Kerry then corroborate this and agree in an interview that building 7 was brought down for reasons of safety? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b5JVYTxjmdc