Boston
Active Member
For the purposes of this thread I think it prudent to discuss what is visible rather than what is invisible. I can't help but notice that some people seem hell bent on arguing something they have no evidence for. For WTC 7 ( which will be the focal point of this thread ) we have a very clear rate of descent. It starts when we can see the four corners of the building collapse straight down and it ends as the building disappears behind obstructions in the film evidence.
I present the following two films as examples, one of how not to measure the rate of descent and one of how to measure that rate of descent. I'll ask that people stick to discussing what we can see as there is no other evidence available other than a few minor scraps of material and some dust samples. ( site was pretty darn thoroughly scrubbed before any investigation was conducted and before any mapping of the debris pile could occur. )
Video A
As you can see the clock starts when the first penthouse structure fails, keeps running till the second starts and is at least several seconds on, into the start of the corners descent. This is no way to judge the rate of descent of the overall structure. What NIST and these guys are doing is attempting to include an assumed collapse of the interior with the timing of the visible collapse. Thus artificially inflating the collapse time.
There is an admission that we can't know what was going on inside the building but the presenter then goes on to assume that "something" must be going on. This is not the scientific method in action. Using this logic, the collapse time could be started when the first fire blew out the first window.
Lets look at another video
Video B
In this video a known pair of measurements are used to define a distance in which multiple data points can be developed to establish an exact rate of acceleration. A far far better representation of the scientific method. Nothing invisible is argued, there are no ambiguities, just a solid group of measurements which establish a known acceleration for a known distance.
I think it important to compare these two methodologies and establish why any scientific investigation would consider taking such an important measurement by dry labbing, working back from an assumption and using that assumption to base ones data on. NIST "assumes" there was an internal collapse which "may" have started with the collapse of one section of the penthouse structure and then carried there time of collapse on from there.
Video B assumes nothing and takes the available data and discovers that the rate of descent was free fall for some significant period of time.
So the question becomes, "why would NIST dry lab there results ?
I present the following two films as examples, one of how not to measure the rate of descent and one of how to measure that rate of descent. I'll ask that people stick to discussing what we can see as there is no other evidence available other than a few minor scraps of material and some dust samples. ( site was pretty darn thoroughly scrubbed before any investigation was conducted and before any mapping of the debris pile could occur. )
Video A
As you can see the clock starts when the first penthouse structure fails, keeps running till the second starts and is at least several seconds on, into the start of the corners descent. This is no way to judge the rate of descent of the overall structure. What NIST and these guys are doing is attempting to include an assumed collapse of the interior with the timing of the visible collapse. Thus artificially inflating the collapse time.
There is an admission that we can't know what was going on inside the building but the presenter then goes on to assume that "something" must be going on. This is not the scientific method in action. Using this logic, the collapse time could be started when the first fire blew out the first window.
Lets look at another video
Video B
In this video a known pair of measurements are used to define a distance in which multiple data points can be developed to establish an exact rate of acceleration. A far far better representation of the scientific method. Nothing invisible is argued, there are no ambiguities, just a solid group of measurements which establish a known acceleration for a known distance.
I think it important to compare these two methodologies and establish why any scientific investigation would consider taking such an important measurement by dry labbing, working back from an assumption and using that assumption to base ones data on. NIST "assumes" there was an internal collapse which "may" have started with the collapse of one section of the penthouse structure and then carried there time of collapse on from there.
Video B assumes nothing and takes the available data and discovers that the rate of descent was free fall for some significant period of time.
So the question becomes, "why would NIST dry lab there results ?