Search results

This is similar to pondering why you never quit beating your wife: A loaded question. I have said it many times, I will say it again: The building never collapses "close to free fall". Even if you consider that the vaguery of the phrase "close to" gives you wiggle room. At all times, the...

The ratio is correct (if the forced end is fixed and moves neither up nor down), but @Mendel didn't indicate merely a ratio. He indicated precise numbers. 1g and 2g, with g being a constant the value of which we know with good precision. 9.805 m/s^2 is the best number I have for New York City -...

You understand that correctly. That some "technical sense" is staring you in the face and comes with a clear and onbious violation of the simplest definition of "free fall". An object is in free fall if and only if the only external force acting on it is gravity. Since the ladder most...

No. Nonsense. There are of course claims that are perfectly true even while there is no evidence available. For example: all the witnesses to my birth are dead already. No camera recorded my birth. Suppose there was a fire at the local registry of births and my birth certificate was lost. And...

The numbers you put there are wrong. The center point of the rod (which would be its center of gravity) most definitely is at <g. The far end is at g < a < 2g. I don't recall the correct values or formulas, but a factor 1/3 features somewhere. Is the loose at at 1 1/3 of g? something like that...

If you define resistance as a force opposite tho the downward motion of something, there IS resistance to the top rung: To PART of the top rung! Whenever the top rung (or any rung) is "tugged" down one end, the other end of that rung experiences an UPward force that resists and slows its...

It's bunk if it is false. If it is true, but the evidence has been deleted, then it is unprovable for the time being. Not bunk. I do remember the same evidence that @econ41 remembers: It had been presented and linked to in a couple of fora, but one or two of those fora have gone out of...

I love it! Do I interpret this correctly, The top contour is the West Penthouse, it starts dropping parabola-like at about 128 px from the left edge, disappears behind the roofline, starting a new parabola? We can see the other stories, the tops and bottoms of rows of windows, hold a ruler...

No. Never. Do you understand that you need to distinguish between "exhibits freefall acceleration" and "is in free fall"? Like, you know, a drag car might accelerate at freefall acceleration while not falling at all, let alone "freely"? That the valve of a wheel on a car that drives on a flat...

To be fair, that could be an artifact of the sampling method and frequency. Let me construct an example, where I tweek values and units a bit, just to make things numerically easy. Let's say the video camera snaps a pic 5 times per second. Let's say g = 10 m/s^2 Let's say descent starts at t =...

Thomas, you quote Chandler: https://www.ae911truth.org/evidence/technical-articles/articles-by-ae911truth/101-free-fall-and-building-7-on-9-11 Questions (I would not mind if @Mendel also tried to answer, and we compare answers then ): Is the building ever in "2.25 seconds of absolute free...

No. Not at all. YOu failed to grasp the core message. What I try to explain - but you either completely fail to understand or consciously ignore - is a very fundamental considerastion: That the basic Laws of Conversation in physics - Conversation of Energy, Conversation of Momentum - apply only...

If you mean to say that this sentence by NIST is wrong, then yes, we are on the same page. Provided your reason for saying so is that you understand and admit that WTC7 was not at any time, not even during the short time interval when a point on the roofline was observed to move at about g...

No. Need counter-examples to debunk this global claim? I have (at least) 2 such counter-examples. Can you guess who I am thinking of? And my advise is for you to NOT employ "loose sense" of language if you really want to understand and overcome your confusion.

No, it does not matter at all. whether the rungs are horizontal or at some (small) angle away from horizontal. What matters is that only one side of the rung hits resistance. You could get the same effect with a ladder of horizontal rungs, but instead of a flat ground, it falls onto a couple of...

FALSE, and the opposite is true. False, because I can give you a counter-example to this global claim: I Oystein, dispute it. Worse: NIST does not actually go quite as far as claiming that (quoting your turn of phrase, Henkka) "WTC 7 was in free fall". What the #32 FAQ talks about is made...

Where do you all of sudden pull this "I want to model total progressive collapse at near-free-fall acceleration" nonsense from?!? Nothing on 9/11 underwent "total progressive collapse at near-free-fall acceleration". Nothing.

No, absolutely not. Unless the "skeptic" has made holy vow with themselves to persist in doing their modelling wrong. At most, the "skeptic" might be "entitled" to make their own counter(?)-point using a FALLING (not "standing"!!!) and NON-RIGID ladder. For at the time some around-g...

Great care must be taken to clarify that at no point ever was WTC7 in a "freefall phase", not even a "near-freefall phase", nor did WTC7 ever fall at (nearly, equal, or even greater than) "freefall-equivalent acceleration". Only a SMALL PART of WTC7 (part of the North wall) exhibited, for a...

Neither WTC7 nor the model ladder falls at or above g at any time. Parts of WTC7 move at slightly >g. Parts of the ladder move at slightly >g. Other parts of WTC7 are very drastically decelerated. Other parts of the ladder are very drastically decelerated. Therefore, "the building" as well as...