tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12633499007151284892024-02-19T10:46:16.708-05:009/11: Speak OutDaniel LaLibertehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01855884898451299505noreply@blogger.comBlogger12125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1263349900715128489.post-71674078889350988042010-07-04T14:05:00.000-04:002010-07-04T13:53:29.082-04:00North Tower ExplodingThis is a narration of a video clip of the North Tower of the World Trade Center which focuses on explosive ejections progressing in waves down the faces of the building under the canopy of falling debris. Observation is the foundation of science.<br />
<br />
<iframe allowtransparency="true" frameborder="0" height="480" scrolling="no" src="http://www.youtube.com/v/hSApOavkHg8" width="620"></iframe><br />
<br />
<a name='more'></a><br />
<b><span style="font-size: large;">North Tower Exploding</span></b><br />
<br />
<b>The starting point in science is <i>observation</i>.</b><br />
<br />
What you are seeing here is what happened to the North Tower of the World Trade Center, the second of three buildings to collapse on 9/11 2001. I use the word "collapse", but words can be deceptive.<br />
<br />
What do you really see happening here?<br />
<br />
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjNh9_3LNKFP7TWDGG-G6EEtbxf3zx4i4uUy5pWzhXL8N5LwKOUCRaRdB4p35R6JLOGfh3cV7cQInX0CwwEiufvlNWGwcQ-vy5Q3Va9Nst88LdU1Rh4ZUyyKqAXDtZP_y9X0WaNPKMVOUlA/s1600/CornerExplosions2.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="301" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjNh9_3LNKFP7TWDGG-G6EEtbxf3zx4i4uUy5pWzhXL8N5LwKOUCRaRdB4p35R6JLOGfh3cV7cQInX0CwwEiufvlNWGwcQ-vy5Q3Va9Nst88LdU1Rh4ZUyyKqAXDtZP_y9X0WaNPKMVOUlA/s400/CornerExplosions2.png" width="400" /></a>There's a tremendous amount of falling debris, but under the canopy of debris, do you see the <b>rapid sequence of explosive ejections</b> of material? Some of the jets have been clocked at over a hundred miles per hour. I will call them explosions because it's hard to find other words that describe what we are seeing here.<br />
<br />
The explosions are not isolated and few. They are continuous and widespread. They move progressively down the faces of the building <b>keeping pace with falling debris</b>. Perhaps you can imagine a natural cause, but I can't.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiCJNB800Qra8wc_RiZEejoMiIt6Bv8EiyuGkNSdKiL4ZjkdXSGOyk7SRQ05TLy1NXkbi7TObGk5qRCx1BzNyXCidFSY3L5hqf58yjLu0Hb3xIs2tFjS8WpLs626d6Df1CearXuKUwvbIzM/s1600/Squibs.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="302" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiCJNB800Qra8wc_RiZEejoMiIt6Bv8EiyuGkNSdKiL4ZjkdXSGOyk7SRQ05TLy1NXkbi7TObGk5qRCx1BzNyXCidFSY3L5hqf58yjLu0Hb3xIs2tFjS8WpLs626d6Df1CearXuKUwvbIzM/s400/Squibs.png" width="400" /></a></div>Notice that the explosions are occurring on <b>multiple floors at once</b>, over a wide zone, not in a floor-by-floor sequence that might be explained by pancaking collapse.<br />
<br />
Notice there are <b>explosions far below the point of collapse</b>. Some are isolated and focused; these are often referred to as squibs, and are commonly seen in controlled demolitions.<br />
<br />
However, this is <b>not a standard controlled demolition</b>. The building is being progressively destroyed from the top down by waves of explosions creating a huge debris field.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhBFkzA9s6pXT3_hFX_WzqKqDqJT4k0gcs4Beq71FHcqp8TAfNjRua-pYq-BuhazEGjlIVmNRlYKjRVzAXD2QILgdu0lAbq-V4JPxVbPXxf0IYg5p0nmYijFxhOthTNpvgSsyVa24BroMNF/s1600/WavesOfExplosions.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="300" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhBFkzA9s6pXT3_hFX_WzqKqDqJT4k0gcs4Beq71FHcqp8TAfNjRua-pYq-BuhazEGjlIVmNRlYKjRVzAXD2QILgdu0lAbq-V4JPxVbPXxf0IYg5p0nmYijFxhOthTNpvgSsyVa24BroMNF/s400/WavesOfExplosions.png" width="400" /></a></div>The destruction is in waves, not just in one wave. Most obvious is a rapid sequence of explosions near the visible corner of the building. But simultaneously, we can see <b>another wave of explosions much further down</b> the face of the building under the canopy of falling debris. Notice that both waves of explosions progress down the face of the building nearly keeping pace with falling debris just a few feet away.<br />
<br />
Slabs of concrete did not fall to the ground and smash to dust. There is almost no concrete in the rubble pile. Notice that the concrete is being forcefully ejected outwards from the sides of the building, already pulverized to dust.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgxglPi6XILdVXl7YeegfVO_qHBQe_5U2q9e2bt0oQlUEGSc15arQ4Vu4VlANVuoOLjY0TDtfXUvufqulO7YXheuAGwoGKrVfm2SqKmOQHj0FoTYAcF70rwN3LY0yBK2gP5UVWIzuxDWMoF/s1600/SectionsHurled.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="300" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgxglPi6XILdVXl7YeegfVO_qHBQe_5U2q9e2bt0oQlUEGSc15arQ4Vu4VlANVuoOLjY0TDtfXUvufqulO7YXheuAGwoGKrVfm2SqKmOQHj0FoTYAcF70rwN3LY0yBK2gP5UVWIzuxDWMoF/s400/SectionsHurled.png" width="400" /></a></div>Notice that embedded in the dust clouds are huge girders and <b>entire sections of steel framing that are being hurled out of the building</b>. The horizontal speed of some of the girders has been clocked at over 70 miles per hour. Some of these girders impale themselves in the sides of neighboring buildings. Some landed as much as two football fields away from the base of the tower.<br />
<br />
What could hurl heavy girders with such force and give them such speed? Some people have suggested that the weight of the tower crushing down on the girders cause them to flex and they sprung sideways by a spring action. But we are not seeing isolated jumping girders. We're seeing a <b>major fraction of the mass of the building</b>, steel, concrete, office furniture, and the remains of human beings <b>reduced to small pieces of rubble and fine dust</b>, and being <b>explosively ejected in all directions</b>.<br />
<br />
Bone fragments are found on the roofs of adjacent buildings. The bones were not crushed in the falling mass or they would have been trapped in the debris pile. They were pulverized along with everything else and blown out in all directions.<br />
<br />
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh-BO5Sc6Kb1u-t4WRlaEfTpnvIUcSFtqOzkBvOBWC4uDAwxuW7Eylc-Ykwj3PgoEK2s8eB7p7BxTIpkcAW5qrWVdZrbrrttcIIT_H-2loLFsVrRqm78aaLYdNv-Ad5xc0D-jeGTZWcPCPd/s1600/WhatTopSection.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="300" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh-BO5Sc6Kb1u-t4WRlaEfTpnvIUcSFtqOzkBvOBWC4uDAwxuW7Eylc-Ykwj3PgoEK2s8eB7p7BxTIpkcAW5qrWVdZrbrrttcIIT_H-2loLFsVrRqm78aaLYdNv-Ad5xc0D-jeGTZWcPCPd/s400/WhatTopSection.png" width="400" /></a>The NIST investigators have claimed that the top section of the building above the plane impact point came down like a pile driver crushing the undamaged lower section of the building all the way to the ground. The top section of the building is, however, noticeably absent; <b>there is nothing above the ring of explosions</b> except for a fountain of debris.<br />
<br />
<b>Can you see a pile driver?</b><br />
<br />
It does not appear that the building is being crushed by anything. The waves of destruction and explosive ejections of material are occurring over a wide zone that continues all the way to the top of what remains of the building.<br />
<br />
The scientists at <b>NIST did not model the collapse</b> of the towers. Their analysis was gravely flawed in many ways, but the biggest flaw was that the scope of their investigation was artificially limited. They took their <b>analysis only to the point of initiation of collapse</b> as though all that followed was inevitable and needed no explanation.<br />
<br />
The scope of their investigation was artificially limited to what might have happened or could have happened to <i>begin</i> the collapse. What they explicitly did not take into account is what <i>actually </i>happened. By limiting their investigation to the natural precursors of collapse, plane damage and the fire, they <b>ruled out from the start any possibility of discovering evidence of planned demolition</b>. In other words, anything that occurred during the collapse itself, such as the evidence you're seeing here, was explicitly scripted out of the investigation.<br />
<br />
Any analytical model of the collapse, no matter how simple or how sophisticated, is a bad model and bad science if it does not come back full circle to explain the actual observations.<br />
<br />
<b>What do you see?</b>Daniel LaLibertehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01855884898451299505noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1263349900715128489.post-27042986619294603452010-07-03T22:43:00.000-04:002010-07-04T13:54:41.030-04:00WTC7 in Freefall: No Longer ControversialThis video tracks the motion of the NW corner of Building 7 of the World Trade Center on 9/11 2001. For a period of ~2.5 seconds. This means it was falling through itself for over 100 feet with zero resistance, an impossibility in any natural scenario. This period of freefall is solid evidence that explosives had to be used to bring the building down. In the final draft for public comment (August 2008) NIST denied that WTC7 fell at freefall. In the final report in Nov 2008 they reversed themselves and admitted freefall, but denied its obvious significance.<br />
<br />
<iframe allowtransparency="true" frameborder="0" height="480" scrolling="no" src="http://www.youtube.com/v/rVCDpL4Ax7I" width="620"></iframe><br />
<br />
<a name='more'></a><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><b>WTC7 in Freefall: No Longer Controversial</b></span><br />
<br />
This is a revised analysis of the downward acceleration of the World Trade Center, Building 7, which collapsed in a manner suggestive of controlled demolition on September 11, 2001.<br />
<br />
My earlier analysis, which is posted on YouTube under my own name, was based on the best information I had at the time, but I now have been able to improve on my results using new information available in the recently released NIST Final Report on Building 7. Despite the accurate data available to NIST, their final report makes dishonest claims about the rate of fall of the building. I'll come back to the NIST report at the end of this video.<br />
<br />
In my earlier video analysis, I used the width of the building, which is known to be one hundred meters, to calibrate the scale of the image. In this remake, I used the vertical spacing of the windows visible as horizontal streaks on the face the building. From this, I was able to identify the 29th floor which is listed in the NIST document as having a height of 683 feet, 6 inches, measuring from some baseline which they don't specify. They have the blueprints; I don't. But I take this measurement to be reliable. <br />
<br />
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhoOw5uR7XhQLm8NMuPE3s3WOoV2BtKrvzLjTFjqXw3WYivhMq_bSSaqm29jjibNYOZsS_T583nVKYIu3-WAfBoCfe31WEjOcTMOncqq3wHboKINOZVL8s8MZNZMv9lXEMHTAExMRLCIxJ5/s1600/WTC7-VideoAnalysisPoints.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhoOw5uR7XhQLm8NMuPE3s3WOoV2BtKrvzLjTFjqXw3WYivhMq_bSSaqm29jjibNYOZsS_T583nVKYIu3-WAfBoCfe31WEjOcTMOncqq3wHboKINOZVL8s8MZNZMv9lXEMHTAExMRLCIxJ5/s320/WTC7-VideoAnalysisPoints.jpg" /></a>The other measurement they give is the height of the roof line, which they state is 925 feet, 4 inches above their baseline. The difference of these two heights, converted to meters, is the basis for the calibration of this video.<br />
<br />
The actual measurements were done exactly as before. The cursor was placed on the corner of the building and marks were placed frame by frame. The built-in functions of the <a href="http://www.physicstoolkit.com/">Physics ToolKit</a> software capture the positions and times of these marks in a data table from which it computes and displays various kinds of graphs. <br />
<br />
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg3KNMF_ono4sjp2IOaIN_Zooggr8q7NGrc4LG8praNlbgqm2MPRYmNxzD8uLy5JkXowksYof3HbiBTcjlzsIZ3LpWvBrFlMuH3frJLnhyphenhyphenztvJ9pmwhPOlxD23pFxrS8_5DZyq-uytkKVRN/s1600/WTC7-VideoAnalysis.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg3KNMF_ono4sjp2IOaIN_Zooggr8q7NGrc4LG8praNlbgqm2MPRYmNxzD8uLy5JkXowksYof3HbiBTcjlzsIZ3LpWvBrFlMuH3frJLnhyphenhyphenztvJ9pmwhPOlxD23pFxrS8_5DZyq-uytkKVRN/s320/WTC7-VideoAnalysis.jpg" /></a>I'm here plotting velocity as a function of time. The slope of this kind of graph gives the acceleration. Notice that the data hovers close to zero for nearly a second and then it drops precipitously. From the moment of the drop, the slope of the line appears essentially constant for about 2.5 seconds. By marking two data points, the program can compute the best straight line to fit the data for the linear portion of the graph. The slope of the line is the acceleration.<br />
<br />
Down here at the bottom, the computed acceleration is shown, -9.885 meters per second squared. The minus sign indicates downward acceleration. The acceleration of gravity for New York City is 9.802 meters per second squared, so the measured acceleration is within 1% of the acceleration of gravity. Given the graininess and size of the image, 1% is not a significant difference from the actual acceleration of gravity. So the most accurate way to characterize the result is to say the acceleration of the building is indistinguishable from free fall. <br />
<br />
Notice that a little after the 3 second mark on our graph, about 2.5 seconds after the building drops, the acceleration ceases to be uniform. This indicates that the falling building is starting to encounter more resistance. Any measurement of the average acceleration that continues for more than the first 2.5 seconds of fall will show a lower average acceleration masking the fact that for a significant 2.5 seconds the building was in literal free fall.<br />
<br />
Freefall can only be achieved if there is zero resistance to the motion. In other words, the gravitational potential energy of the building is not available to crush or deform anything. During freefall, all of the gravitational potential energy of the building is being converted into kinetic energy and nothing else. Any breaking, bending, crushing, or pulverizing of the building components is occurring without the assistance of the free falling portion of the building. Any force the top portion of the building might exert on the lower portion would be reflected in a reaction force that would produce an observable slowing of the rate of fall. A reaction force is observable in this graph only in the last seconds when the velocity strays from the straight line. <br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhdxHR7J0bgATVBLnUdOK9GCMQPSNsbFnFHtekTjMO6i_dcCwSPGtUsxP9MO8imaR6u3RU21Fc2XltTGNT2Uo_6n3uprxNf3MvGh-J73Tr5kqwhmBfRNKwCMTFm1b2i7djDXOse4HuJobVc/s1600/WTC7+NIST+collapse-time.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="400" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhdxHR7J0bgATVBLnUdOK9GCMQPSNsbFnFHtekTjMO6i_dcCwSPGtUsxP9MO8imaR6u3RU21Fc2XltTGNT2Uo_6n3uprxNf3MvGh-J73Tr5kqwhmBfRNKwCMTFm1b2i7djDXOse4HuJobVc/s400/WTC7+NIST+collapse-time.jpg" width="350" /></a></div>Let's return to the NIST Final Report on WTC 7. I would like to clarify one thing right away. On page 40, there is a phrase "<span style="background-color: yellow;">Assuming that the descent speed was approximately constant</span>". The assumption is clearly false from even casual observation. However, the fact that they proceed to use a <span style="background-color: #fff2cc; border: 2px solid red;">formula for constant acceleration</span> clearly indicates the constant speed reference is a misstatement. They're actually assuming constant acceleration. <br />
<br />
More bizarre is the claim that "<span style="background-color: yellow;">the actual time for the upper 18 stories to collapse, based on video evidence, was approximately 40 percent longer than the computed free fall time</span>". If you start with a 40 percent increase in the time of the fall and work backwards to compute the effective acceleration, their claim is equivalent to saying the acceleration of the building is only 5 meters per second squared, which is 51% of the acceleration of gravity.<br />
<br />
Our results, however, clearly show a <b>significant stretch of time in which the acceleration of the building is indistinguishable from the acceleration of gravity itself</b>. In other words, complete free fall. They did not use a method that sampled the position versus time to show the velocity profile as was done here. The <b>NIST report uses only two data points</b>: the supposed start of the collapse and the time the roof line disappears from view. By choosing an early starting time, several seconds prior to the onset of free fall, and computing only the average acceleration between that point and the disappearance of the roofline, they gloss over everything that happened in between. <br />
<br />
I'm sure they detected some movement of the roofline at the point where they started the clock as a rationale for choosing that point. Even our data here shows a tiny amount of motion in the first second. But what was going on during this time is qualitatively different from what happened moments later. The event triggering the start of their measurements could more accurately be described as precursor movement. <br />
<br />
This is like timing the acceleration of a car in a drag race where the starting light goes on then the driver revs his engine a few times before letting out the clutch. It may be a fair way to penalize a sloppy driver but it doesn't say anything about the acceleration of the car was once it is actually moving. <br />
<br />
NIST's method tells us nothing about the nature of the motion itself. They merely assume uniform acceleration over a time interval in which it is clear that the acceleration is not uniform. Mislabeling their assumption to be constant speed indicates sloppy work, but asserting uniform acceleration for an interval where the building sits nearly motionless for several seconds, then drops for several seconds in free fall, is beyond incompetence. <br />
It is a crude, blatant lie. <br />
<br />
The <b>average acceleration is a meaningless quantity</b>; it is the instantaneous acceleration that is significant because the acceleration at any moment is an indication of the forces at work. To measure and publish a meaningless average acceleration when sufficient data in a multimillion dollar budget are available to measure the actual velocity profile constitutes either gross incompetence, or an attempt to obfuscate the issue. <br />
<br />
This is high school physics we're talking about. If they can't get the high school physics right, what confidence can we have in their multi-colored computer animated whiz-bang simulations to tell us the exact sequence of girder failures without any physical evidence for any of it. I'm a high school teacher. I teach my students better lab practice than NIST demonstrates here. <br />
<br />
In this video, I have measured the velocity profile and the instantaneous acceleration of the building with orders of magnitude better precision than NIST, and I did it with zero budget, a free software tool commonly used in high school physics classes and a copy of a video downloaded from the internet. <br />
<br />
I know the guys at NIST are not incompetent. What I'm left to conclude is that their only purpose in even mentioning freefall is to muddy the water and derail the discussion. The rate of fall of the building is an embarrassment to the official theory. Freefall is a small detail in the whole complex analysis, but it not a minor issue. <br />
<br />
<b>Buildings cannot fall at freefall through themselves because even a weakened building requires energy</b> to break up the pieces, crush the concrete, and push things around. When the falling building pushes things, the fall is not free. The things push back and the reaction forces will measurably slow the descent of the building. This is why one would reasonably expect crumbling structures to come down in a tumbling, halting, irregular manner.<br />
<br />
In short, the evidence is clear. We are witnessing not the collapse of a building, but it's demolition, and we have received not a report from an independent scientific investigation but a cover-up by a government agency.<br />
<br />
<blockquote><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiSRhVikxHb6jeHvMcjw7I6aye__cN3MhLJ77zhWT1x06IsE7DRznyXPEVDhypLuEvKiNN2VzZSf0SPBAjtdJyAD8z8JmrEuXBwB5WxR2873lXP1lvOUJGLcGLTEy0W7pWuTt1a-YVn77U2/s1600/wtc7cbs1gd4.gif" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://img360.imageshack.us/img360/2654/wtc7cbs1gd4.gif" /></a></div>(It's amazing!) Amazing, incredible, pick your word. For the third time today, it's reminiscent of those pictures we've all seen too much on television before when a building was deliberately destroyed, destroyed by well-placed dynamite to knock it down. - <a href="http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1386933778104554622">Dan Rather, 9/11, 2001</a> </blockquote><br />
[The WTC7 series has elicited a number of questions from people unclear on the details of how I did the measurements, compared to how NIST did them and how the representatives of NIST described their measurements. I have therefore created a <a href="http://www.911speakout.org/WTC7-Measurement-FAQ.pdf">WTC7 Measurement FAQ</a> page. I will also use this FAQ as a place of reference for other questions that arise as well.]<br />
<br />
Related videos: <br />
<br />
<ul><li><a href="http://911speakout.blogspot.com/2010/02/wtc7-in-freefall-no-longer.html">WTC7 in Freefall: No Longer Controversial</a></li>
<li><a href="http://911speakout.blogspot.com/2010/06/wtc7-nist-finally-admits-freefall-part.html">WTC7: NIST Finally Admits Freefall (Part I) </a> </li>
<li><a href="http://911speakout.blogspot.com/2010/06/wtc7-nist-finally-admits-freefall-part_09.html">WTC7: NIST Finally Admits Freefall (Part II)</a></li>
<li><a href="http://911speakout.blogspot.com/2010/02/wtc7-nist-finally-admits-freefall-part.html">WTC7: NIST Finally Admits Freefall (Part III)</a> </li>
</ul>Daniel LaLibertehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01855884898451299505noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1263349900715128489.post-76773316021053767002010-07-02T23:49:00.000-04:002014-03-09T18:15:08.523-04:00WTC7: NIST Finally Admits Freefall (Part I)In its draft report, released in August 2008, NIST attempted to cover up evidence that WTC7 fell at freefall, but the coverup was transparent. In its final report, released in November 2008, NIST finally acknowledged freefall, but couched it in a bizarre framework that continues to deny its clear significance. This video displays the brazenness of the NIST WTC7 coverup.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center; width: 620px">
<iframe allowfullscreen='allowfullscreen' webkitallowfullscreen='webkitallowfullscreen' mozallowfullscreen='mozallowfullscreen' width='320' height='266' src='https://www.youtube.com/embed/Rkp-4sm5Ypc?feature=player_embedded' frameborder='0'></iframe></div>
<br />
<br />
<a name='more'></a><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><b>WTC7: NIST Finally Admits Freefall (Part I)</b></span><br />
<br />
In August, 2008, after a seven year delay, NIST, the government agency charged with investigating the World Trade Center collapses released the Draft of their Final Report on the Collapse of World Trade Center Building 7 for public comment. <br />
<br />
In that report, they claim that the time for the building to fall the first 18 stories, that's the part of the collapse visible on many videos, was 40 percent longer than it would have taken had it been in freefall. <br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg3KNMF_ono4sjp2IOaIN_Zooggr8q7NGrc4LG8praNlbgqm2MPRYmNxzD8uLy5JkXowksYof3HbiBTcjlzsIZ3LpWvBrFlMuH3frJLnhyphenhyphenztvJ9pmwhPOlxD23pFxrS8_5DZyq-uytkKVRN/s1600/WTC7-VideoAnalysis.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg3KNMF_ono4sjp2IOaIN_Zooggr8q7NGrc4LG8praNlbgqm2MPRYmNxzD8uLy5JkXowksYof3HbiBTcjlzsIZ3LpWvBrFlMuH3frJLnhyphenhyphenztvJ9pmwhPOlxD23pFxrS8_5DZyq-uytkKVRN/s200/WTC7-VideoAnalysis.jpg" height="150" width="200" /></a></div>
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhoOw5uR7XhQLm8NMuPE3s3WOoV2BtKrvzLjTFjqXw3WYivhMq_bSSaqm29jjibNYOZsS_T583nVKYIu3-WAfBoCfe31WEjOcTMOncqq3wHboKINOZVL8s8MZNZMv9lXEMHTAExMRLCIxJ5/s1600/WTC7-VideoAnalysisPoints.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhoOw5uR7XhQLm8NMuPE3s3WOoV2BtKrvzLjTFjqXw3WYivhMq_bSSaqm29jjibNYOZsS_T583nVKYIu3-WAfBoCfe31WEjOcTMOncqq3wHboKINOZVL8s8MZNZMv9lXEMHTAExMRLCIxJ5/s200/WTC7-VideoAnalysisPoints.jpg" height="150" width="200" /></a>I responded with a video posted on YouTube, called "<a href="http://911speakout.blogspot.com/2010/02/wtc7-in-freefall-no-longer.html">WTC 7 in Freefall</a>", in which I showed that for approximately 2.5 seconds, Building 7 fell at a rate indistinguishable from free fall. Furthermore, in that video I showed that NIST's methodology was not a valid way to analyze the true motion of the building. NIST's measurement was not just wrong, it was fraudulent. <br />
<br />
Then on August 26th, NIST staged a technical briefing in which engineers and others with technical credentials could pose questions. I'm a high school physics teacher so I figured I would be excluded. However, I went ahead and registered citing my membership in the American Association of Physics Teachers as my professional affiliation. By the way, I am not speaking for AAPT; that was just my passport into the briefing. To my surprise, my credentials were accepted and I was able to pose a question. Here's a little of how it went. <br />
<blockquote>
Our next question comes from David Chandler, of the American Association of Physics Teachers. "Any number of competent measurements using a variety of methods indicate the northwest corner of WTC 7 fell with an acceleration within a few percent of the acceleration of gravity. Yet your report contradicts this, claiming 40 percent slower than freefall, based on a single data point. How could such a publicly visible, easily measurable quantity be set aside?" <br />
<br />
"Can you repeat the question, please?" <br />
<br />
Sure, "Any number of measurements using a variety of methods indicate the northwest corner of WTC 7 fell with an acceleration within a few percent of the acceleration of gravity. Yet the report contradicts this, claiming 40 percent slower than the free fall, based on a single data point." <br />
<br />
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: left; margin-right: 1em; text-align: left;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiFvhviPBh-RvhkBudPwaVJQY3UoILd3qBJWRQOP92eLiSx9-Sc384GjRxYsZf2VRaYYEhBGdnLsfg05kr7qWvyiVauqLLOhc9S6a_ybKuJwBjBxmL-1JMcgJ1jDDcKWB2BWzzM50VIY5G9/s1600/Dr+Shyam+Sunder.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiFvhviPBh-RvhkBudPwaVJQY3UoILd3qBJWRQOP92eLiSx9-Sc384GjRxYsZf2VRaYYEhBGdnLsfg05kr7qWvyiVauqLLOhc9S6a_ybKuJwBjBxmL-1JMcgJ1jDDcKWB2BWzzM50VIY5G9/s200/Dr+Shyam+Sunder.png" height="50" width="50" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Dr Shyam Sunder</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
"Well, um. the... First of all, gravity is the loading function that applies to the structure ...applies to, applies to everybody, every, all bodies on uh, on uh, on this particular, on this planet, not just in Ground Zero." </blockquote>
<br />
Whoa! I'm used to responses like that on a physics exam when a student hasn't even bothered to open the book. But this is NIST speaking, so let's continue. <br />
<br />
<blockquote>
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: left; margin-right: 1em; text-align: left;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiFvhviPBh-RvhkBudPwaVJQY3UoILd3qBJWRQOP92eLiSx9-Sc384GjRxYsZf2VRaYYEhBGdnLsfg05kr7qWvyiVauqLLOhc9S6a_ybKuJwBjBxmL-1JMcgJ1jDDcKWB2BWzzM50VIY5G9/s1600/Dr+Shyam+Sunder.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiFvhviPBh-RvhkBudPwaVJQY3UoILd3qBJWRQOP92eLiSx9-Sc384GjRxYsZf2VRaYYEhBGdnLsfg05kr7qWvyiVauqLLOhc9S6a_ybKuJwBjBxmL-1JMcgJ1jDDcKWB2BWzzM50VIY5G9/s200/Dr+Shyam+Sunder.png" height="50" width="50" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Dr Shyam Sunder</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
"The analysis showed there's a difference in time between a freefall time, a free-fall time would be an object that has no structural components below it, and if you look at the analysis of the video, it shows that the time it takes for the 17, for the the roof line of the video to, uh, collapse down to 17 floors that you can actually see in the video below which you can't see anything in the video, is about 3.9 seconds. <br />
<br />
What the analysis shows, and the structural analysis shows, or collapse analysis shows, that same time that it took for the structural model to come down from the roof line all the way for those 17 floors to disappear is 5.4 seconds. It's about 1.5 seconds or roughly 40 percent more time for that free fall to happen, and that is not at all unusual because there was structural resistance that was provided in this particular case, and you had a sequence of structural failures that had to take place. Everything was not instantaneous." </blockquote>
<br />
<div style="border: 1px solid blue; float: right; margin: 1em; padding: 1em;">
<span style="font-size: large;"><b>For the 18 stories under consideration:</b></span><br />
<ol style="line-height: 1.5em;">
<li>Freefall would take <b><span style="color: #0b5394;">3.9</span></b> seconds</li>
<li>Their computer model predicted <b style="color: #0b5394;">5.4</b> seconds</li>
<li>The slower time is to be expected since</li>
<ol type="a">
<li>there was <i style="color: #0b5394;"><b>structural support</b></i></li>
<li>there was a <i style="color: #0b5394;"><b>progression of failures</b></i></li>
<li>they were <i><b><span style="color: #0b5394;">not instantaneous</span></b></i></li>
</ol>
</ol>
</div>
Buried in all that verbage, what Dr Sundar is saying is freefall, for the 18 stories under consideration would've taken 3.9 seconds. However, their computer model simulating collapse required 5.4 seconds. The slower collapse time was to be expected, since there was structure supporting the building as it fell, slowing the fall, but there was a progression of failures that had to take place, and that these were not instantaneous. <br />
<br />
All of this makes sense as long as you don't look at the evidence. The evidence shows that freefall actually occurred, but since their computer modeling could not come up with a scenario that would allow for free fall, they had to declare free fall out-of-bounds, and try to cover up the evidence. <br />
<br />
The problem is, unlike the columns and girders buried deep inside the building, the motion of the building is right out in plain view. Since their model predicted 5.4 seconds for the 18-story collapse, they dutifully conjured up a 5.4 second measurement to match. They had to stretch themselves to do it, but they did it. They found the disappearance time, and then they went out of their way to pick an artificially early start time exactly 5.4 seconds earlier. This, they compared with freefall time. <br />
<blockquote>
This next question comes from Dr. Stephen Jones. <br />
<br />
"NIST discusses the fall time for WTC 7 on page 40 of the summary report, where it's stated, '<span style="background-color: yellow;">assuming that the descent speed was approximately constant</span>'. However, observations by others of the descent show that the building is accelerating rather than being at constant speed. So the question is, why did NIST assume that the descent speed was approximately constant?" </blockquote>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEheoUXQjZifwIB_o3on2x0LnqgONserlaQR2I3zhE_6sxFmkhoC4bX871P0RgRIj98B3EW5mkHphF1uypVamEsGUUQ-NzFB1O60_82DxUegBHBD9RlL5WttkbgFAUnbE9sKWOWoMVPgXANS/s1600/WTC7+NIST+collapse-time.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEheoUXQjZifwIB_o3on2x0LnqgONserlaQR2I3zhE_6sxFmkhoC4bX871P0RgRIj98B3EW5mkHphF1uypVamEsGUUQ-NzFB1O60_82DxUegBHBD9RlL5WttkbgFAUnbE9sKWOWoMVPgXANS/s320/WTC7+NIST+collapse-time.jpg" height="240" width="320" /></a></div>
Stephen Jones was calling attention to the obviously erroneous claim on page 40 of the Draft Report that stated that the building descended at constant speed. I'm sure constant speed was a simple misstatement.<br />
<br />
The correct response should have been "Whoops, we'll fix that." But no, here's how they handled that question. <br />
<blockquote>
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: left; margin-right: 1em; text-align: left;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh4H7SWa4erJka1c9LnchjtlSxR1W9kPB1FPSdvqfnG9z0BnEGA6CYFlNPm3OZd1sR487DWZRElW53dXQBjwRvsDoX_Y1ebapqtsicPRtkjq_zlUlqfQMTmyikL8XfW3qlIDTWiT3Iy_biw/s1600/Dr+John+Gross.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh4H7SWa4erJka1c9LnchjtlSxR1W9kPB1FPSdvqfnG9z0BnEGA6CYFlNPm3OZd1sR487DWZRElW53dXQBjwRvsDoX_Y1ebapqtsicPRtkjq_zlUlqfQMTmyikL8XfW3qlIDTWiT3Iy_biw/s200/Dr+John+Gross.png" height="50" width="50" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Dr John Gross</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
"The force of gravity obviously is, the acceleration of gravity is what's the driving force and our calculation was based on the amount of time from the top of the parapet to fall til it disappeared from view between the two buildings seen in the video. That time was established from the video, by a single frame. Search of the time, so that was down to 1/30th of a second, and then we did the same thing for when the top of the parapet disappeared. We found that time to be a 5.4 seconds."</blockquote>
I didn't hear a "Whoops" in there, did you?<br />
<br />
This is John Gross, one of the lead engineers for the NIST report on the Collapse of the Twin Towers. He has a PhD in structural engineering from Cornell University. He taught engineering at the University of Colorado in Boulder; he has long resume on top of that. <br />
<br />
Don't you think he probably knows the difference between speed and acceleration? <br />
<br />
Don't you think he could explain it with perfect clarity if he wasn't so preoccupied trying to cover his tracks? <br />
<br />
Don't you find it interesting that the 5.4 seconds he measured for the collapse time just happens to exactly match the theoretical prediction of their model? That kind of precision is incredibly rare when modeling real world events. Incredible is the right word - it's not credible!<br />
<br />
This measurement has all the characteristics of what we call "dry-labbing", manipulating the data to fit a pre-determined outcome. It's an ethics violation in science on a par with plagiarism. Any engineers engaging in this kind of sleight of hand should lose their licenses. The larger implication, of course, is dry labbing in this kind of investigation would constitute a criminal cover-up. <br />
<br />
After another round of quibbling, someone had to step in and bail out poor John. <br />
<blockquote>
"Can you clarify that?" <br />
"I think it's something that we need to clarify and correct in the final version of the report."<br />
"OK" </blockquote>
<br />
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjuDXlzvqriCrTMHalgMSRT9GRhN5aNYoLhC1Gt_oSlzMK14C8yrLmmE-HMuYGvCjz-Ao_1SbZ09b6WJGMp98xfRQ_9avTYAYcMD0cOHG99zelJjx918-qgjOciDy5L7p3wdZoy2TtHxk8D/s1600/NIST+Final+Report+-+WTC7.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjuDXlzvqriCrTMHalgMSRT9GRhN5aNYoLhC1Gt_oSlzMK14C8yrLmmE-HMuYGvCjz-Ao_1SbZ09b6WJGMp98xfRQ_9avTYAYcMD0cOHG99zelJjx918-qgjOciDy5L7p3wdZoy2TtHxk8D/s200/NIST+Final+Report+-+WTC7.png" height="200" width="155" /></a><span style="font-size: large;">That was August. This is November.</span> <br />
<br />
The final version of the NIST WTC 7 report just came out. And guess what? We have a revised analysis of the building collapse rate. <br />
<br />
Constant speed is out. Constant acceleration is out. <br />
<br />
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh16nmpXmZrn0WjWLHeBMdLK35UC65jMUwYiZ2EA9qzu67vnesXsLSdIpkO9Ma-FjwVKcoLMHZg_SbZHMfFENAgIzQaMP7xAYZBEWiVHIe3tpGpiH4tsDhkeAAwpmRejyvpVAShd1r_kZk4/s1600/WTC7+NIST+admits+freefall.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh16nmpXmZrn0WjWLHeBMdLK35UC65jMUwYiZ2EA9qzu67vnesXsLSdIpkO9Ma-FjwVKcoLMHZg_SbZHMfFENAgIzQaMP7xAYZBEWiVHIe3tpGpiH4tsDhkeAAwpmRejyvpVAShd1r_kZk4/s200/WTC7+NIST+admits+freefall.png" height="150" width="200" /></a>Instead we have three phases of collapse, with a whopping 2.25 seconds of absolute free fall. The irrelevant 5.4 seconds is still defended in the wording, but it plays no apparent role other than CYA for John Gross and associates. <br />
<br />
So freefall is, hereby, official dogma. How are they going to handle all the ramifications of that inconvenient fact? Read on. It says:<br />
<blockquote>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhgDFtZziQJNLfagey9XRL93Q4v85InctRbI29eUNo4_PswaGrNFEQjFzXOWYhZKVz5LhlG17UvR6AnztCw7dExXV9EImuirWgh7I8M90KqwnWpLq69AGP80SDbON87bQjULQo_kKn8ocbT/s1600/NIST+WTC7+3-phase+collapse.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhgDFtZziQJNLfagey9XRL93Q4v85InctRbI29eUNo4_PswaGrNFEQjFzXOWYhZKVz5LhlG17UvR6AnztCw7dExXV9EImuirWgh7I8M90KqwnWpLq69AGP80SDbON87bQjULQo_kKn8ocbT/s400/NIST+WTC7+3-phase+collapse.png" height="300" width="400" /></a></div>
"<span style="background-color: yellow;">The three stages of collapse progression described above are consistent with the results of the global collapse analysis discussed in Chapter 12 of NIST NCSTART 1-9.</span>" </blockquote>
That's it!<br />
<br />
Freefall went from an impossibility that required backflips in logic to obfuscate to a simple fact to be measured, then declared consistent with their fire-induced collapse hypothesis. Apparently they have now decided that freefall okay as long as it is seen as a part of a longer stretch of time that covers the required 5.4 seconds.<br />
<br />
In other words, they dropped the bullying tactic of blowing smoke to obscure the facts and adopted an alternate bullying tactic, cover it with a lie, and walk away. However, NIST cannot walk away from free fall.<br />
<br />
<b>Now that NIST has certified freefall as fact, take a look at the implications.</b><br />
<br />
[The WTC7 series has elicited a number of questions from people unclear on the details of how I did the measurements, compared to how NIST did them and how the representatives of NIST described their measurements. I have therefore created a WTC7 Measurement FAQ page: http://www.911speakout.org/WTC7-Measurement-FAQ.pdf . I will also use this FAQ as a place of reference for other questions that arise as well.]<br />
<br />
Related videos: <br />
<br />
<ul>
<li><a href="http://911speakout.blogspot.com/2010/02/wtc7-in-freefall-no-longer.html">WTC7 in Freefall: No Longer Controversial</a></li>
<li><a href="http://911speakout.blogspot.com/2010/06/wtc7-nist-finally-admits-freefall-part.html">WTC7: NIST Finally Admits Freefall (Part I) </a> </li>
<li><a href="http://911speakout.blogspot.com/2010/06/wtc7-nist-finally-admits-freefall-part_09.html">WTC7: NIST Finally Admits Freefall (Part II)</a></li>
<li><a href="http://911speakout.blogspot.com/2010/02/wtc7-nist-finally-admits-freefall-part.html">WTC7: NIST Finally Admits Freefall (Part III)</a> </li>
</ul>
Daniel LaLibertehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01855884898451299505noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1263349900715128489.post-79975598950520167392010-07-01T00:24:00.000-04:002010-07-04T13:56:22.309-04:00WTC7: NIST Finally Admits Freefall (Part II)This is not the "Part II" I had originally envisioned. That will have to wait for Part III. In following up on the erroneous measurement described by John Gross in Part I, I decided to look more carefully at the measurement and find the video frame NIST claims marks the beginning of the collapse. What I found is that there is no motion of the roofline for at least 20-30 video frames after the point identified by John Gross. In other words, the measurement is a complete fabrication with the goal of producing a "measurement" to agree with the result predicted by NIST's collapse model. This result is sufficiently significant to merit its own video.<br />
...More to come soon in Part III. <br />
(For more on John Gross, see <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3SLIzSCt_cg">9/11: NIST engineer John Gross denies WTC molten steel (extended)</a> )<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<iframe allowtransparency="true" frameborder="0" height="480" scrolling="no" src="http://www.youtube.com/v/iXTlaqXsm4k" width="620"></iframe><br />
<br />
<a name='more'></a><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><b>WTC7: NIST Finally Admits Freefall (Part II)</b></span><br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg3KNMF_ono4sjp2IOaIN_Zooggr8q7NGrc4LG8praNlbgqm2MPRYmNxzD8uLy5JkXowksYof3HbiBTcjlzsIZ3LpWvBrFlMuH3frJLnhyphenhyphenztvJ9pmwhPOlxD23pFxrS8_5DZyq-uytkKVRN/s1600/WTC7-VideoAnalysis.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="240" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg3KNMF_ono4sjp2IOaIN_Zooggr8q7NGrc4LG8praNlbgqm2MPRYmNxzD8uLy5JkXowksYof3HbiBTcjlzsIZ3LpWvBrFlMuH3frJLnhyphenhyphenztvJ9pmwhPOlxD23pFxrS8_5DZyq-uytkKVRN/s320/WTC7-VideoAnalysis.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>Part II of this series was going to be an exploration of the significance of NIST's admission the World Trade Center Building 7 underwent a period of freefall acceleration. That'll have to wait for Part III. <br />
<br />
After suggesting in Part I of this video that John Gross' method for determining the time of fall might constitute dry-labbing, in other words, falsifying measurements to support a pre-determined outcome,<br />
<br />
I got curious to know exactly what event he picked to start the clock. The measurement is a little tedious but the result is very significant. That's often the way it is in science, so stay with me on this one. <br />
<br />
Let's start with John Gross' explanation of how he determined the time of fall. By the way, you might recall, this was not the question he was asked, but it is the answer he gave. <br />
<blockquote><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh4H7SWa4erJka1c9LnchjtlSxR1W9kPB1FPSdvqfnG9z0BnEGA6CYFlNPm3OZd1sR487DWZRElW53dXQBjwRvsDoX_Y1ebapqtsicPRtkjq_zlUlqfQMTmyikL8XfW3qlIDTWiT3Iy_biw/s1600/Dr+John+Gross.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="50" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh4H7SWa4erJka1c9LnchjtlSxR1W9kPB1FPSdvqfnG9z0BnEGA6CYFlNPm3OZd1sR487DWZRElW53dXQBjwRvsDoX_Y1ebapqtsicPRtkjq_zlUlqfQMTmyikL8XfW3qlIDTWiT3Iy_biw/s200/Dr+John+Gross.png" width="50" /></a></div>"Our calculation was based on the amount of time from the top of the parapet to fall til it disappeared from view between the two buildings seen in the video. That time was established from the video by a single frame. Search of the time, so that was down to 1/30th of a second. And then we did the same thing for when the top of the parapet disappeared. We found that time to be 5.4 seconds." </blockquote><br />
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right; margin-left: 1em; text-align: right;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgc9564rcI3_LrSxd5PIa3_3t4E2pDPKugyEpRYdDHvgIU9l_-rWIzUM32FYpETHQeLpE9JPadpikb20BEnta7hPCMZkqW3Qa9Tknucfq3r2pgq5fOgP2HELT27qcA0I8xAmd-oDH_4to9v/s1600/WTC7+frame+178.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgc9564rcI3_LrSxd5PIa3_3t4E2pDPKugyEpRYdDHvgIU9l_-rWIzUM32FYpETHQeLpE9JPadpikb20BEnta7hPCMZkqW3Qa9Tknucfq3r2pgq5fOgP2HELT27qcA0I8xAmd-oDH_4to9v/s320/WTC7+frame+178.png" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">WTC 7 Frame 178</td></tr>
</tbody></table>To identify the point he picked for the start of collapse, we have to work backward. The ending point of his measurement was when the roof line came down to the level of the 29th floor. In our video, there's a structure on the roof of the foreground building that lines up with the 29th floor of Building 7, so it's easy to identify. <br />
<br />
I imported the video into a measurement program called VideoPoint, which has a frame counter, and stepped forward to the frame where the roof line lines up with the foreground marker. That's frame 178, counting from the first frame of video clip I'm using.<br />
<br />
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: left; margin-right: 1em; text-align: left;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg3fL9QHJCT2IWtZMTqj1m4ZQplie_8LUKRfkr7w37OzzrJD-YChyphenhyphen8icrZnZHRIyLAx3O19GLpP0X5XDVvK_0evkXwRhP1H6Vb01dbRpy-jd7MrGY3wJALojAJl5qvW4gAbafG6huhyphenhyphenKtzw/s1600/WTC7+frame+16.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg3fL9QHJCT2IWtZMTqj1m4ZQplie_8LUKRfkr7w37OzzrJD-YChyphenhyphen8icrZnZHRIyLAx3O19GLpP0X5XDVvK_0evkXwRhP1H6Vb01dbRpy-jd7MrGY3wJALojAJl5qvW4gAbafG6huhyphenhyphenKtzw/s320/WTC7+frame+16.png" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">WTC 7 Frame 16</td></tr>
</tbody></table>At 30 frames per second, 5.4 seconds comes out to be 162 frames. Subtracting this from frame 178 brings us to frame 16. So let's go back and see what's happening at, or about, frame 16. I put a red mark on frame 16, so as it goes by, you'll recognize it. <br />
<br />
Let's go back to the beginning and step through this section of the video. Watch for the beginning of the collapse.<br />
<br />
This is frame 1 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, <span style="background-color: red; color: black;">16</span>, 17, 18, 19, 20, ... ... ... 29 and 30. <br />
<br />
We're up to frame 30. Did you see the collapse begin? I didn't. Try rewinding the video few times. It's pretty boring. <br />
<br />
There's not the slightest hint of any collapse until frame 40. <br />
<br />
40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, ... ... ... ... ... 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70. <br />
<br />
There's a tiny motion of the corner of the west penthouse at frame 40. Then there is no more motion until about frame 46. Note that the motion of the penthouse precedes the movement of the roofline. There is no measurable movement of the roofline until frame 46. That's a full second beyond frame 16. Even then, there isn't any progressive ongoing movement of the roofline until about frame 60. By then we're back at just over 3.9 seconds of collapse time, or in other words, the onset of free fall. <br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh16nmpXmZrn0WjWLHeBMdLK35UC65jMUwYiZ2EA9qzu67vnesXsLSdIpkO9Ma-FjwVKcoLMHZg_SbZHMfFENAgIzQaMP7xAYZBEWiVHIe3tpGpiH4tsDhkeAAwpmRejyvpVAShd1r_kZk4/s1600/WTC7+NIST+admits+freefall.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="240" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh16nmpXmZrn0WjWLHeBMdLK35UC65jMUwYiZ2EA9qzu67vnesXsLSdIpkO9Ma-FjwVKcoLMHZg_SbZHMfFENAgIzQaMP7xAYZBEWiVHIe3tpGpiH4tsDhkeAAwpmRejyvpVAShd1r_kZk4/s320/WTC7+NIST+admits+freefall.png" width="320" /></a></div>The only rationale I can see for choosing frame 16 to start the clock is to make the measurement come out to exactly 5.4 seconds to agree with the prediction of NIST's collapse model. <br />
<br />
But what if I'm wrong? What if they did see some tiny movement on a clearer version of the video? That tiny movement, whatever might have been, did not last. It would have had to have been the glitch and the scientists at NIST would recognize it as a glitch because there's no measurable difference in the height of the roof line for the next 20 to 30 frames. <br />
<br />
What can we conclude? You can draw your own conclusions, but I think it's pretty clear that the whole idea there's any kind of real 5.4 second collapse interval is a fiction. It's a crude fabrication, and the three-stage collapse sequence pseudo science in the service of an ongoing coverup. <br />
<br />
In Part III, we will return to the central question: in conceding free fall, what has NIST actually admitted?<br />
<br />
[The WTC7 series has elicited a number of questions from people unclear on the details of how I did the measurements, compared to how NIST did them and how the representatives of NIST described their measurements. I have therefore created a <a href="http://www.911speakout.org/WTC7-Measurement-FAQ.pdf">WTC7 Measurement FAQ</a> page. I will also use this FAQ as a place of reference for other questions that arise as well.]<br />
<br />
Related videos: <br />
<br />
<ul><li><a href="http://911speakout.blogspot.com/2010/02/wtc7-in-freefall-no-longer.html">WTC7 in Freefall: No Longer Controversial</a></li>
<li><a href="http://911speakout.blogspot.com/2010/06/wtc7-nist-finally-admits-freefall-part.html">WTC7: NIST Finally Admits Freefall (Part I) </a> </li>
<li><a href="http://911speakout.blogspot.com/2010/06/wtc7-nist-finally-admits-freefall-part_09.html">WTC7: NIST Finally Admits Freefall (Part II)</a></li>
<li><a href="http://911speakout.blogspot.com/2010/02/wtc7-nist-finally-admits-freefall-part.html">WTC7: NIST Finally Admits Freefall (Part III)</a> </li>
</ul>Daniel LaLibertehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01855884898451299505noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1263349900715128489.post-62756561532160335592010-06-30T14:01:00.001-04:002012-09-15T19:39:19.131-04:00WTC7: NIST Finally Admits Freefall (Part III)Part III of this series fully explores the implications of NIST's admission that WTC7 entered actual freefall and critiques the foundations of their "investigation." In the end it calls for a new, independent, fully empowered, and open investigation.<br />
<br />
<iframe allowtransparency="true" frameborder="0" height="480" scrolling="no" src="http://www.youtube.com/v/v3mudruFzNw" width="620"></iframe><br />
<br />
<a name='more'></a><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><b>WTC7: NIST Finally Admits Freefall (Part III)</b></span><br />
<br />
Shyam Sunder is the lead investigator for the NIST analysis of the collapse of World Trade Center, Building 7. In the technical briefing on August 26th [2008], Doctor Sunder clearly explained why freefall for World Trade Center 7 was impossible. <br />
<blockquote><table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: left; margin-right: 1em; text-align: left;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiFvhviPBh-RvhkBudPwaVJQY3UoILd3qBJWRQOP92eLiSx9-Sc384GjRxYsZf2VRaYYEhBGdnLsfg05kr7qWvyiVauqLLOhc9S6a_ybKuJwBjBxmL-1JMcgJ1jDDcKWB2BWzzM50VIY5G9/s1600/Dr+Shyam+Sunder.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="50" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiFvhviPBh-RvhkBudPwaVJQY3UoILd3qBJWRQOP92eLiSx9-Sc384GjRxYsZf2VRaYYEhBGdnLsfg05kr7qWvyiVauqLLOhc9S6a_ybKuJwBjBxmL-1JMcgJ1jDDcKWB2BWzzM50VIY5G9/s200/Dr+Shyam+Sunder.png" width="50" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Dr Sunder</td></tr>
</tbody></table>"The analysis showed that there is a difference in time between a freefall time, a freefall time would be an object that has no that structural components below it, and that is not at all unusual because there was structural resistance that was provided in this particular case. And you had a sequence of structural failures that had to take place, when everything was not instantaneous." </blockquote><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhgDFtZziQJNLfagey9XRL93Q4v85InctRbI29eUNo4_PswaGrNFEQjFzXOWYhZKVz5LhlG17UvR6AnztCw7dExXV9EImuirWgh7I8M90KqwnWpLq69AGP80SDbON87bQjULQo_kKn8ocbT/s1600/NIST+WTC7+3-phase+collapse.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="150" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhgDFtZziQJNLfagey9XRL93Q4v85InctRbI29eUNo4_PswaGrNFEQjFzXOWYhZKVz5LhlG17UvR6AnztCw7dExXV9EImuirWgh7I8M90KqwnWpLq69AGP80SDbON87bQjULQo_kKn8ocbT/s200/NIST+WTC7+3-phase+collapse.png" width="200" /></a></div>That was before they were forced acknowledge that freefall actually occurred. Once they acknowledged freefall, they claimed, without elaboration, that their new analysis was "<span style="background-color: yellow;">consistent with the results of the global collapse analysis</span>". <br />
<br />
I'm not making this up; this is their own words. <br />
<blockquote><table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: left; margin-right: 1em; text-align: left;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiFvhviPBh-RvhkBudPwaVJQY3UoILd3qBJWRQOP92eLiSx9-Sc384GjRxYsZf2VRaYYEhBGdnLsfg05kr7qWvyiVauqLLOhc9S6a_ybKuJwBjBxmL-1JMcgJ1jDDcKWB2BWzzM50VIY5G9/s1600/Dr+Shyam+Sunder.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="50" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiFvhviPBh-RvhkBudPwaVJQY3UoILd3qBJWRQOP92eLiSx9-Sc384GjRxYsZf2VRaYYEhBGdnLsfg05kr7qWvyiVauqLLOhc9S6a_ybKuJwBjBxmL-1JMcgJ1jDDcKWB2BWzzM50VIY5G9/s200/Dr+Shyam+Sunder.png" width="50" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Dr Sunder</td></tr>
</tbody></table>"Freefall time would be an object that has no structural components below it." </blockquote>Sunder's original remarks make sense under the assumption of a natural collapse.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"></div><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEicnZ746KU3RQdsrNL9CFwmijQUfqv4F7_1PCFLjUyDaW3FZf-bKAu4XTkUu4MFHtQRNuEOpqZTWZtHWcthkYpQRZgjv7sBe44CwFXnl-DR2x77V7I749XQ0k41Ldxe7Q8aFouwjx6bT-tE/s1600/NonFreefallBefore.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="200" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEicnZ746KU3RQdsrNL9CFwmijQUfqv4F7_1PCFLjUyDaW3FZf-bKAu4XTkUu4MFHtQRNuEOpqZTWZtHWcthkYpQRZgjv7sBe44CwFXnl-DR2x77V7I749XQ0k41Ldxe7Q8aFouwjx6bT-tE/s200/NonFreefallBefore.png" width="158" /></a>Anything at an elevated height has gravitational potential energy. If it falls and none of the energy is used for other things along the way, all of that energy is converted into kinetic energy, the energy of motion, and we call it free fall. <br />
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjNla1vJl1cXWbB2X4DBDH-zjTt8V2zBgX_iE2pDwuch-Pxxt2uRLXq4h4aR_KExHhQiYZoPnli9kr8UPAdcDaPFojRtNlqJYj5ftnuxJF5tjaut23KzQweaPt988OZH74Ro6L4Ef11mtxH/s1600/NonFreefallAfter.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="129" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjNla1vJl1cXWbB2X4DBDH-zjTt8V2zBgX_iE2pDwuch-Pxxt2uRLXq4h4aR_KExHhQiYZoPnli9kr8UPAdcDaPFojRtNlqJYj5ftnuxJF5tjaut23KzQweaPt988OZH74Ro6L4Ef11mtxH/s200/NonFreefallAfter.png" width="200" /></a><br />
If any of the energy is used for other purposes, there'll be less kinetic energy, so the fall will be slower.<br />
<br />
In the case of a falling building, the only way it can go into free fall is if an external force removes the supporting structure. None of the gravitational potential energy of the building is available for this purpose or it would slow the fall of the building. <br />
<br />
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg3KNMF_ono4sjp2IOaIN_Zooggr8q7NGrc4LG8praNlbgqm2MPRYmNxzD8uLy5JkXowksYof3HbiBTcjlzsIZ3LpWvBrFlMuH3frJLnhyphenhyphenztvJ9pmwhPOlxD23pFxrS8_5DZyq-uytkKVRN/s1600/WTC7-VideoAnalysis.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="150" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg3KNMF_ono4sjp2IOaIN_Zooggr8q7NGrc4LG8praNlbgqm2MPRYmNxzD8uLy5JkXowksYof3HbiBTcjlzsIZ3LpWvBrFlMuH3frJLnhyphenhyphenztvJ9pmwhPOlxD23pFxrS8_5DZyq-uytkKVRN/s200/WTC7-VideoAnalysis.jpg" width="200" /></a>The fact of free fall, by itself, is strong evidence of explosive demolition, but the evidence is even stronger than that. My original analysis looks like this [on the left].<br />
<br />
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh4ifPupkBIk61vAlM2qlHxLXfd9jH6SDeXvY89OFHOLni99RE0lxL5ODdTXwk7QjMG-Yjro-AZ4_HU5pzhKTuJypNOkB41IzSkExtpCO0tHApjnSKNUzGorctsUT0xHLaAcAP-7eR1qoks/s1600/WTC7FreefallAnalysis2.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="178" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh4ifPupkBIk61vAlM2qlHxLXfd9jH6SDeXvY89OFHOLni99RE0lxL5ODdTXwk7QjMG-Yjro-AZ4_HU5pzhKTuJypNOkB41IzSkExtpCO0tHApjnSKNUzGorctsUT0xHLaAcAP-7eR1qoks/s200/WTC7FreefallAnalysis2.png" width="200" /></a>I have since confirmed my measurement using a different software package. Both of these graphs plot velocity versus time. A straight line indicates constant acceleration and the slope of the line indicates the rate of acceleration. What is particularly striking is the suddenness of onset of free fall. The acceleration doesn't build up gradually; the graph simply turns a corner. The building went from full support to zero support instantly. <br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh16nmpXmZrn0WjWLHeBMdLK35UC65jMUwYiZ2EA9qzu67vnesXsLSdIpkO9Ma-FjwVKcoLMHZg_SbZHMfFENAgIzQaMP7xAYZBEWiVHIe3tpGpiH4tsDhkeAAwpmRejyvpVAShd1r_kZk4/s1600/WTC7+NIST+admits+freefall.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="150" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh16nmpXmZrn0WjWLHeBMdLK35UC65jMUwYiZ2EA9qzu67vnesXsLSdIpkO9Ma-FjwVKcoLMHZg_SbZHMfFENAgIzQaMP7xAYZBEWiVHIe3tpGpiH4tsDhkeAAwpmRejyvpVAShd1r_kZk4/s200/WTC7+NIST+admits+freefall.png" width="200" /></a></div>NIST's graph is upside down relative to mine, but that's really not an issue. Their data is almost the same. What is dramatically different is the curve they superimpose on the data. This curve has no physical significance whatsoever. It is merely a hypothetical interpretation of the data. It is literally the mathematical equivalent of laying a wet noodle on the graph and nudging it around until it fits the data. The straight part fits the data reasonably well. What is totally misleading are the gradual transitions in to and out of free fall. <br />
<br />
The raw data speaks for itself. One moment the building is holding, the next moment it lets go and is in complete free fall.<br />
<br />
The onset of freefall was not only sudden, it extended across the whole width of the building. <br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhXYZMmUHof5NDsb9Sdat6pvEKjhgUgCvdWkX8Qr-IAQEgEW6seYj022S7aehZdDMrEurNlAnzpdvRvFMLwAQvCM-jFUh3aEJImt2KjPkrN2DzEcurjim9ZS_lhq67nXsUs0lW9zSVwkDmi/s1600/WTC7RooflineStayedLevel.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="192" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhXYZMmUHof5NDsb9Sdat6pvEKjhgUgCvdWkX8Qr-IAQEgEW6seYj022S7aehZdDMrEurNlAnzpdvRvFMLwAQvCM-jFUh3aEJImt2KjPkrN2DzEcurjim9ZS_lhq67nXsUs0lW9zSVwkDmi/s200/WTC7RooflineStayedLevel.png" width="200" /></a></div>My measurement of the acceleration of the building was based on the northwest corner. NIST's recent measurement confirming freefall was based on a point mid-way along the roofline. The fact that the roof stayed level shows the building was in freefall across the entire width. <br />
<br />
The collapse we see cannot be due to a column failure, or a few column failures, or a sequence of column failures. All 24 interior columns and 58 perimeter columns had to have been removed over the span of 8 floors low in the building simultaneously, to within a small fraction of a second, and in such a way that the top half of the building remains intact and uncrumpled. <br />
<br />
Let's come back to NIST's acceptance of free fall. Here is their exact wording: <br />
"<span style="background-color: yellow;">The three stages of collapse progression described above are consistent with the results of the global collapse analysis discussed in Chapter 12 of NIST NCSTAR 1-9.</span>" <br />
<br />
In other words, they're giving the appearance of claiming freefall is okay, but actually it's the 5.4-second duration of their three stage analysis that matches their model. <br />
<br />
But we saw in <a href="http://911speakout.blogspot.com/2010/06/wtc7-nist-finally-admits-freefall-part_09.html">Part II of this video series</a> the 5.4 seconds depends on an artificially early start time, which has no valid observational basis. Without the 5.4-second fig leaf, they are left with freefall and nothing more. NIST does not show how free fall is consistent with their hypothesis, because, as Shyam Sunder has correctly and eloquently explained, <b>free fall for a naturally collapsing building is impossible</b>. <br />
<br />
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjuDXlzvqriCrTMHalgMSRT9GRhN5aNYoLhC1Gt_oSlzMK14C8yrLmmE-HMuYGvCjz-Ao_1SbZ09b6WJGMp98xfRQ_9avTYAYcMD0cOHG99zelJjx918-qgjOciDy5L7p3wdZoy2TtHxk8D/s1600/NIST+Final+Report+-+WTC7.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="200" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjuDXlzvqriCrTMHalgMSRT9GRhN5aNYoLhC1Gt_oSlzMK14C8yrLmmE-HMuYGvCjz-Ao_1SbZ09b6WJGMp98xfRQ_9avTYAYcMD0cOHG99zelJjx918-qgjOciDy5L7p3wdZoy2TtHxk8D/s200/NIST+Final+Report+-+WTC7.png" width="155" /></a>This brings us to their computer model. NIST's so-called investigation actually consists of finding a way to reproduce the mysterious collapse of the building using a computer model. The assumption is that if the computer model can be made to reproduce the observed collapsed pattern, that must be how it happened. The problem is, if something unexpected was going on, like explosives for instance, you're not going to discover it in the computer model. For that, you need to look at the actual evidence. <br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjm80VL1PfpK6Ti0qjVps3Qh245L_pkdHXlzoQG3FLDLWknaGTNx89iEd1vZoMjhLMxb1hklF3QwB03QJtDIxZyNcuWpS2_OmnpInug4mn5yQpwncem7zaPHZOvooqdCOTEvLTxWrphXXC5/s1600/WTC+curved+steel.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="150" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjm80VL1PfpK6Ti0qjVps3Qh245L_pkdHXlzoQG3FLDLWknaGTNx89iEd1vZoMjhLMxb1hklF3QwB03QJtDIxZyNcuWpS2_OmnpInug4mn5yQpwncem7zaPHZOvooqdCOTEvLTxWrphXXC5/s200/WTC+curved+steel.png" width="200" /></a></div>So why not examine the steel directly? Oh yes, there isn't any. At least there isn't any after it was hauled away to Asia and melted down. NIST's investigation has been compared to conducting an autopsy without the corpse. As of 2005, NIST reported having only 236 pieces of steel from the World Trade Center complex, none of them unambiguously identified as being from World Trade Center 7. <br />
<br />
We've all watched CSI. Anyone serious about solving a crime knows the importance of physical evidence. Yet here the crime scene was scrubbed, the evidence was destroyed, and the investigation was delayed for years. Destroying a crime scene is, itself, a criminal act. Destroying the steel has absolutely no justification except to cover up the cause of the collapse. <br />
<br />
So even if we knew nothing else about the events of that day, we can see immediately there was a coverup. Knowing there was a coverup is a strong indication there was a crime someone wanted covered up. Any investigation that does not acknowledge this basic fact is not really an investigation; it's an extension of the coverup. <br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh7yl50StAlF8m6bxMgI8Okrf248KRbl8KOtWgfIhBXEPWiIFmSKdqqRdWvJ8lXVOgVhvSSfG3qXGto0bPfBewhka4XybttWJt8zk0olCyt1BBZfGO5pC3pmtMKeDCF64HRZRikGFQQUtE3/s1600/WTC7+NIST+model+crumpling2.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="200" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh7yl50StAlF8m6bxMgI8Okrf248KRbl8KOtWgfIhBXEPWiIFmSKdqqRdWvJ8lXVOgVhvSSfG3qXGto0bPfBewhka4XybttWJt8zk0olCyt1BBZfGO5pC3pmtMKeDCF64HRZRikGFQQUtE3/s200/WTC7+NIST+model+crumpling2.png" width="108" /></a></div><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjIFRzQlYQqUuPRTVTAR14w_x9EEBHHLN8Ug6FkpnsH0q9nY1soYs73US93OOyMSuWgXENxVpyifiFRHf7RX7l5Y_ztpiZ6JVc35fJoKGdcrtD62X5bnBqPfg7LnxbPjmXIRlVEB49NeuKY/s1600/WTC7+NIST+model+crumpling.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="200" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjIFRzQlYQqUuPRTVTAR14w_x9EEBHHLN8Ug6FkpnsH0q9nY1soYs73US93OOyMSuWgXENxVpyifiFRHf7RX7l5Y_ztpiZ6JVc35fJoKGdcrtD62X5bnBqPfg7LnxbPjmXIRlVEB49NeuKY/s200/WTC7+NIST+model+crumpling.png" width="108" /></a>NIST claims their computer model can account for the observed phenomena, so let's look at NIST's model, ... except we can't. The software they used to do the modeling is available but their model actually consists of all the numbers, measurements, and assumptions, together with any tweaks to the system they might have used to get it to come out the way they wanted. If that information were released, their results could be checked but anyone with the appropriate skills and software tools. But NIST has not released the numbers. <br />
<br />
All we've been shown are some of the selected animated outputs they were able to get their model to produce. Is their model realistic? We don't know. Some models are chaotic in the mathematical sense. In other words, tiny variations in the inputs might result in wildly different outcomes.<br />
<br />
Is NIST's model stable or chaotic, realistic or contrived, honest or fraudulent? We don't know! We can't know without independent testing. <br />
<br />
The very process of running a model until it produces the kind of result you're looking for is called <b>selection bias</b>. If you think about it NIST's methodology is explicitly based on selection bias. Even if you could show what might have happened, it doesn't show what actually did happen. The very fact that NIST has not released their model strongly suggests they don't want their results checked. In other words, their results are intended to be taken strictly on faith. <br />
<br />
If NIST has not released their modeling data and their assumptions, they have really not released the report. And the fact that this is their final report indicates they do not intend to do so. Therefore, on the face of it, their report is little more than a fancy, expensive coverup. <br />
<br />
One fact we do know about <b>NIST's model</b> is it <b>does not allow for free fall</b>. The best they could do is 5.4 seconds for the building to crumple down through 18 floors. Crumpling absorbs energy, and that makes freefall impossible. There's nothing in the models we have been shown that even resemble a three-stage collapse with a free-fall component. After all, as Shyam Sunder put it himself, freefall happens only when there are no structural components below the falling section of the building. Any natural scenario is going to involve a progression of failures and these don't happen instantaneously.<br />
<br />
So, in the end, we come back to where we were in the beginning. On first impression, we were looking at a classic controlled demolition. NIST claimed to have found a way it could have happened naturally. But in fact, they failed. <br />
<br />
The only way they can support their claim is through lies, secrecy, and pompous, but false, pronouncements. That constitutes a failed agenda. Explosive demolition is the only scenario that has been put forward that could actually account for the observations. <br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiSRhVikxHb6jeHvMcjw7I6aye__cN3MhLJ77zhWT1x06IsE7DRznyXPEVDhypLuEvKiNN2VzZSf0SPBAjtdJyAD8z8JmrEuXBwB5WxR2873lXP1lvOUJGLcGLTEy0W7pWuTt1a-YVn77U2/s1600/wtc7cbs1gd4.gif" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://img360.imageshack.us/img360/2654/wtc7cbs1gd4.gif" /></a></div>Where does that leave us? We have a building that underwent directly observable, and now officially acknowledged free fall, with no plausible mechanisms other than explosive demolition. We have an official investigation by a government agency that has fraudulent manipulated data, that has refused to even consider existing physical evidence that explosives were used. They have wrapped themselves and their data in secrecy an offered up pronouncements as conclusions to be taken on faith. <br />
<br />
The NIST investigation is a fraud and a farce. We need a new fully empowered, truly independent and open investigation.<br />
<br />
[The WTC7 series has elicited a number of questions from people unclear on the details of how I did the measurements, compared to how NIST did them and how the representatives of NIST described their measurements. I have therefore created a <a href="http://www.911speakout.org/WTC7-Measurement-FAQ.pdf">WTC7 Measurement FAQ</a> page. I will also use this FAQ as a place of reference for other questions that arise as well.]<br />
<br />
<b><span style="font-size: small;">Related videos: </span></b><br />
<ul><li><a href="http://911speakout.blogspot.com/2010/02/wtc7-in-freefall-no-longer.html">WTC7 in Freefall: No Longer Controversial</a></li>
<li><a href="http://911speakout.blogspot.com/2010/06/wtc7-nist-finally-admits-freefall-part.html">WTC7: NIST Finally Admits Freefall (Part I) </a> </li>
<li><a href="http://911speakout.blogspot.com/2010/06/wtc7-nist-finally-admits-freefall-part_09.html">WTC7: NIST Finally Admits Freefall (Part II)</a></li>
<li><a href="http://911speakout.blogspot.com/2010/02/wtc7-nist-finally-admits-freefall-part.html">WTC7: NIST Finally Admits Freefall (Part III)</a> </li>
</ul>Daniel LaLibertehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01855884898451299505noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1263349900715128489.post-49614708206965758652010-06-29T23:31:00.000-04:002010-07-04T13:58:56.530-04:00Downward Acceleration of the North TowerThe roof line of WTC1 (The North Tower) begins dropping with sudden onset and accelerates uniformly downward at about 64% of the acceleration of gravity (g) until it disappears into the dust. This means it is meeting resistance equal to about 36% of its weight. The implication of this, however, is that the force it is exerting on the lower section of the building is also only 36% of its weight. This is much less than the force it would exert if it were at rest.<br />
<br />
The acceleration data thus prove that the falling top section of the building cannot be responsible for the destruction of the lower section of the building. A complete analysis has been published in the article entitled "<a href="http://journalof911studies.com/volume/2010/ChandlerDownwardAccelerationOfWTC1.pdf">Destruction of the World Trade Center North Tower and Fundamental Physics</a>" Journal of 9/11 Studies, Vol 28, Feb 2010. (Some calculus and basic physics required.)<br />
<br />
<iframe allowtransparency="true" frameborder="0" height="480" scrolling="no" src="http://www.youtube.com/v/ZjSd9wB55zk" width="620"></iframe><br />
<br />
<a name='more'></a><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><b>Downward Acceleration of the North Tower</b></span><br />
<br />
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiWmmX4J3Meejg-NxD4LSY4PzzbkjMs72BmfrCsWDHDrmjk45Zfu-kXfKzuqgDETv05uUui76JQ8ctguv0OLtLjxr5E4siK_tvZGCueQyS9yKcttNQGhvEfHvDTlTV7fVr-uPMPGpbJgO2l/s1600/WTC1TrackingRoofline.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="148" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiWmmX4J3Meejg-NxD4LSY4PzzbkjMs72BmfrCsWDHDrmjk45Zfu-kXfKzuqgDETv05uUui76JQ8ctguv0OLtLjxr5E4siK_tvZGCueQyS9yKcttNQGhvEfHvDTlTV7fVr-uPMPGpbJgO2l/s200/WTC1TrackingRoofline.png" width="200" /></a>This is the start of the collapse of World Trade Center, number One, also known as the North Tower.<br />
<br />
We are here tracking the motion of the roof line at two-tenths second intervals through approximately 32 meters, or 8 stories. This graph shows the <b>height of the roof line</b> as a function of time.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgn1wGC0BjntiRgKFjjhag51QPmmNY5K0DB6Opuczg6qfudZXdDersRbMNMDgxuZ3eGkhvx2ediq1F10YxJUoFumjKJNkcJp9c1SiCLYWJqyt-lVSE6vwLs-s0subc-SNTK_kcd4BoSoXoR/s1600/WTC1TrackingRooflineVelocity.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="148" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgn1wGC0BjntiRgKFjjhag51QPmmNY5K0DB6Opuczg6qfudZXdDersRbMNMDgxuZ3eGkhvx2ediq1F10YxJUoFumjKJNkcJp9c1SiCLYWJqyt-lVSE6vwLs-s0subc-SNTK_kcd4BoSoXoR/s200/WTC1TrackingRooflineVelocity.png" width="200" /></a></div>The analysis is simpler if we plot <b>velocity</b> as a function of time. On this kind of a graph, a straight line indicates constant acceleration.<br />
<br />
First note that there is a sudden onset of collapse as the point we are tracking makes a sudden transition from being at rest to an approximately <b>constant downward acceleration</b>.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjp8igi-Da7hArL96FRHZ4FmXGRuZ03qElyrmjH8Smn4s6di1UdlVk1uWwFN7N5-wOA8ImRtJO09o3B3riS5N0sT1g4PmvMhZSfZv1tVCWP7WDCHjWTdvFNqTcdimpWsZU2tKQoCgB9J5Nu/s1600/UpwardResistiveForce.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="190" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjp8igi-Da7hArL96FRHZ4FmXGRuZ03qElyrmjH8Smn4s6di1UdlVk1uWwFN7N5-wOA8ImRtJO09o3B3riS5N0sT1g4PmvMhZSfZv1tVCWP7WDCHjWTdvFNqTcdimpWsZU2tKQoCgB9J5Nu/s200/UpwardResistiveForce.png" width="200" /></a></div>The slope of the graph indicates that the acceleration is 6.31 meters per second squared downward, which is <b>64% of free fall</b>. In other words, once it starts falling, the <b>upward resistive force is only 36% of the weight</b> of the falling section of the building.<br />
<br />
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhrCKsmzQICe5iICWsQRe6a33je32XOgFTNx2x8vuU-ZCl3r5_dhWBGD1hEnEzlfIlXS4xL6T6JQUuLynC7OVFj83udSquZ7VxoEHb2oc7pFy3KzHn04UkJUFZfSq3KAUdiIpLatWhkDEGS/s1600/NewtonsThirdLaw.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="200" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhrCKsmzQICe5iICWsQRe6a33je32XOgFTNx2x8vuU-ZCl3r5_dhWBGD1hEnEzlfIlXS4xL6T6JQUuLynC7OVFj83udSquZ7VxoEHb2oc7pFy3KzHn04UkJUFZfSq3KAUdiIpLatWhkDEGS/s200/NewtonsThirdLaw.png" width="110" /></a>So far so good. But now turn it around. Newton's third law says interactions between objects work both ways. The forces two objects exert on each other are always <b>equal and opposite</b>. If the upward force acting on the falling block is 36% of the weight of the falling block, the downward force exerted by the falling block must be exactly the same, 36% of the weight of the falling block.<br />
<br />
In other words, the top section of the building is exerting less force on the lower, stronger, undamaged structure than it would if it were simply sitting motionless. Therefore, as long as the top section of the building is in uniform, downward acceleration it cannot possibly be providing sufficient force to destroy the building.<br />
<br />
This may seem counter-intuitive to you. You might think a <b>falling block</b> coming down on the lower section of the building <b>would observe a greater force</b> than a stationary block. But that is <b>true only if the falling block actually impacts the lower block, which would cause the falling block to decelerate</b>. The only way the falling block can continue to accelerate smoothly, as we see here, is for the lower section of the building to give way without significant resistance.<br />
<br />
If this rate of acceleration continued all the way to the ground the building would fall about 11.5 seconds. This is close to the observed collapse time.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiOHKez1zj5PNtqKLtXEpp9DHBpUNEgR2cm_6zhASMurBw-uY5aEzSZ2j0O_eZnvoamyobc6gYLjP_j8VSAtS7-faqRoaTlJJT2WY2CeEs1AIL6PzJN63Tc0HHZMXj0FPll5j1h1XA58yOB/s1600/WTC1TopSectionDissolving.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiOHKez1zj5PNtqKLtXEpp9DHBpUNEgR2cm_6zhASMurBw-uY5aEzSZ2j0O_eZnvoamyobc6gYLjP_j8VSAtS7-faqRoaTlJJT2WY2CeEs1AIL6PzJN63Tc0HHZMXj0FPll5j1h1XA58yOB/s320/WTC1TopSectionDissolving.png" /></a></div>So far I've been using the term "block" loosely. What we actually see here is the falling section of the building turning to dust before our eyes. But what is happening to the upper section of the building behind the dust clouds doesn't really affect this analysis.<br />
<br />
Given the fact that it is <b>accelerating downward</b>, the top section of the building, whatever its condition, cannot possibly be destroying the lower section of the building.<br />
<br />
The destruction of the building must be caused by something else.<br />
<br />
[I want to acknowledge the work of Graeme MacQueen and Tony Szamboti who made similar measurements by other means and have reached similar conclusions. Their paper is entitled "<a href="http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/2008/TheMissingJolt7.pdf">The Missing Jolt</a>"]Daniel LaLibertehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01855884898451299505noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1263349900715128489.post-5658842639374727872010-06-28T21:44:00.000-04:002010-07-04T14:00:13.887-04:00South Tower Smoking GunsThis video narrates a collection of diverse phenomena in the debris cloud of the South Tower that point to explosive demolition. Particularly notable is one projectile (which I have not seen discussed previously) that is shooting to the east, then stops, midair, then turns a sharp corner and shoots straight down trailing white smoke. White smoke is characteristic of aluminum oxide which is a byproduct of the thermite reaction.<br />
<br />
<iframe allowtransparency="true" frameborder="0" height="480" scrolling="no" src="http://www.youtube.com/v/DChR1XcYhlw" width="620"></iframe><br />
<br />
<a name='more'></a><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><b>South Tower Smoking Guns</b></span><br />
<br />
This is the destruction of the South Tower of the World Trade Center, viewed from a helicopter to the south. This particular video clip is rich in details that call the official story into question.<br />
<br />
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: left; text-align: right;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj_EpCk_hl8LdqMyPOw8BEjzmIif6W3k9hve_qugbqJmzjQgY5jHpscccg0GZ44m0K0oSbf7ooByL78oF6dA2wJr3v978E5oYfV_BxrUF3ai4TNhWqAMdRHe6VhrUjAhQXvlaHexE-vGAVP/s1600/WTC2EjectionsAboveImpact.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="133" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj_EpCk_hl8LdqMyPOw8BEjzmIif6W3k9hve_qugbqJmzjQgY5jHpscccg0GZ44m0K0oSbf7ooByL78oF6dA2wJr3v978E5oYfV_BxrUF3ai4TNhWqAMdRHe6VhrUjAhQXvlaHexE-vGAVP/s200/WTC2EjectionsAboveImpact.png" width="200" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Ejections above impact point</td></tr>
</tbody></table><table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right; text-align: left;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi6dWVJpxAQKF8B9MdkFmgXmN7lwhT5kz17sFaNBdIe7CPrUgIKcCnCTT8d_aWk0b7-RZbnWu0jZEhJaiIW2Hbo10OvYIiDFeSL7WEAnnNVhraW3ekOt4pOlbKegDRxcKKHxH0YT-smmPXA/s1600/WTC2TopTiltingIntact.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="133" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi6dWVJpxAQKF8B9MdkFmgXmN7lwhT5kz17sFaNBdIe7CPrUgIKcCnCTT8d_aWk0b7-RZbnWu0jZEhJaiIW2Hbo10OvYIiDFeSL7WEAnnNVhraW3ekOt4pOlbKegDRxcKKHxH0YT-smmPXA/s200/WTC2TopTiltingIntact.png" width="200" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Top section tilting, still intact</td></tr>
</tbody></table>Notice the numerous explosions on the west side of the building <b>above impact point</b>.<br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: right;"></div>As the top 30-floor section falls, it tips to the east. It starts off intact, but then it <b>disintegrates in mid-air</b>. Gravity alone could not cause the top section to disintegrate. When an object is in freefall, there are no internal stresses. It should have hit the ground in one piece, but it didn't.<br />
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right; text-align: right;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiM3mfSR8nH5CBcIScUPGZPNlOGKgnXtmz1-5bLCHe8IeyTVpg3OD-BxLWXdih2v2H1fdAhCIBdYCbrWmBTTJElq_OARamRo-eG2JQN36s2dUWbxtNkMOpM3i3-JR3BELEnznunbsez8Ch5/s1600/WTC2TopDisintegrates.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="133" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiM3mfSR8nH5CBcIScUPGZPNlOGKgnXtmz1-5bLCHe8IeyTVpg3OD-BxLWXdih2v2H1fdAhCIBdYCbrWmBTTJElq_OARamRo-eG2JQN36s2dUWbxtNkMOpM3i3-JR3BELEnznunbsez8Ch5/s200/WTC2TopDisintegrates.png" width="200" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Top section disintegrates</td><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><br />
</td></tr>
</tbody></table><br />
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: left; margin-right: 1em; text-align: left;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhMCMKj5dUL5DtO78dIUSIJTyrUMsheA_GsZacGK53bsBZ2tcCniu5nnMtEQI5VQC-d-VZFtqPPWklUV1xVXVY2n6lYVkn_OEUxhhTIeInYfhZeumboREKSA0waA679VXSyA2gqJjgIrSTb/s1600/WTC2WhiteSmokeTrail.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="133" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhMCMKj5dUL5DtO78dIUSIJTyrUMsheA_GsZacGK53bsBZ2tcCniu5nnMtEQI5VQC-d-VZFtqPPWklUV1xVXVY2n6lYVkn_OEUxhhTIeInYfhZeumboREKSA0waA679VXSyA2gqJjgIrSTb/s200/WTC2WhiteSmokeTrail.png" width="200" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Projectile with white smoke trail</td><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><br />
</td></tr>
</tbody></table>Some of the debris is clearly being <b>accelerated by forces other than gravity</b>. These effects can be caused by late-firing explosives, which can produce some white smoke trail. <b>White smoke</b>, consisting of aluminum oxide, is a byproduct of a thermite reaction.<br />
<br />
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right; margin-left: 1em; text-align: right;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh-eadcWZBfHD6m58YRanVqjQDQ3DGj3PezFHcXQZQxJBRHzznNiDQbO7rUA5WDmdv5UzoU3511rJZJdG69Avr1D72J5wSVTnWr8PXAhfPSvLUjc_pzGfcGlrBpn0M6p25OU7I9j3PM4TzS/s1600/WTC2ProjectileChangingDirections.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="132" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh-eadcWZBfHD6m58YRanVqjQDQ3DGj3PezFHcXQZQxJBRHzznNiDQbO7rUA5WDmdv5UzoU3511rJZJdG69Avr1D72J5wSVTnWr8PXAhfPSvLUjc_pzGfcGlrBpn0M6p25OU7I9j3PM4TzS/s200/WTC2ProjectileChangingDirections.png" width="200" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Projectile changing directions</td><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><br />
</td></tr>
</tbody></table>While producing this video, I ran across one rocket projectile I had not seen commented on before. <b>This one stopped in midair and changed directions.</b> Even taking perspective effects into account, this projectile lost one component of momentum and gained another. That requires an impulse. Note that the rocket trail those not point back to the building, but the point where the impulse occurred.<br />
<br />
Let's take it from the top; there's a lot going on; watch for the smoking guns.Daniel LaLibertehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01855884898451299505noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1263349900715128489.post-80672456083614698212010-06-27T22:45:00.000-04:002010-07-04T14:00:40.969-04:00South Tower Smoking Guns (Follow-up)After finding the projectile that turns a sharp corner while trailing white smoke I looked for it in other videos and found it in several. The clearest is from a camera with a very similar perspective to the first, but in this video the trail can be followed to the bottom of the collapse. Here I explore the significance of this find.<br />
<br />
<iframe allowtransparency="true" frameborder="0" height="480" scrolling="no" src="http://www.youtube.com/v/cMX7qHGEODs" width="620"></iframe><br />
<br />
<a name='more'></a><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><b>South Tower Smoking Guns (Follow-up) </b></span><br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh-eadcWZBfHD6m58YRanVqjQDQ3DGj3PezFHcXQZQxJBRHzznNiDQbO7rUA5WDmdv5UzoU3511rJZJdG69Avr1D72J5wSVTnWr8PXAhfPSvLUjc_pzGfcGlrBpn0M6p25OU7I9j3PM4TzS/s1600/WTC2ProjectileChangingDirections.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="133" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh-eadcWZBfHD6m58YRanVqjQDQ3DGj3PezFHcXQZQxJBRHzznNiDQbO7rUA5WDmdv5UzoU3511rJZJdG69Avr1D72J5wSVTnWr8PXAhfPSvLUjc_pzGfcGlrBpn0M6p25OU7I9j3PM4TzS/s200/WTC2ProjectileChangingDirections.png" width="200" /></a></div>In my earlier video titled <a href="http://911speakout.blogspot.com/2010/02/south-tower-smoking-guns.html">South Tower Smoking Guns</a>, I pointed out a projectile near the end of the clip that moves to the right, then suddenly turns through a sharp angle, and moves downward at least from the perspective of the camera, all the while producing a trail of white smoke. <br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhBfa_IS9pljaBllpzIGiQGhCYWkbhIFJ6JIDGGOk1GZOK1PVzxyU0iSR8Z_CKcStv6nuzQZFe0GXymujImSv94ejOjzoRyHwYIytQI8ze93XmmsQKQ0ZgZEuz-xIb17PgFIFLG0PVGiMRT/s1600/WTC2ProjectileSmokeTrail.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="240" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhBfa_IS9pljaBllpzIGiQGhCYWkbhIFJ6JIDGGOk1GZOK1PVzxyU0iSR8Z_CKcStv6nuzQZFe0GXymujImSv94ejOjzoRyHwYIytQI8ze93XmmsQKQ0ZgZEuz-xIb17PgFIFLG0PVGiMRT/s320/WTC2ProjectileSmokeTrail.png" width="320" /></a></div>For this object to radically change directions like this, it had to experience a sudden impulse. We know there was a large amount of unreacted nanothermite in the World Trade Center dust. That was confirmed in a paper published in the Chemical Physics Journal, in April 2009. Thermite reactions produce aluminum oxide which is visible as white smoke, and nanothermite is explosive. Nanothermite is stable when wet and can literally be painted onto steel beams. Nanothermite painted onto this chunk of maternal would explain the explosion producing the sudden change of direction, and it would also explain the white smoke trail. <br />
<br />
When we zoom in, and we can see that the path zig-zags, indicating multiple small explosions.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjLbguuAO_s-QKd8DZyFaGLcekdaLKWPcGF3O0FIqWQaN6n58qIk8ZGPhavczLIiGAAd4xhMQBHnQ7tj-OhAWS2nPB74wwn_daKng2k0LM-jxJUdLQNDz2CTG0hyRYcseu6UzizhdLE2p0w/s1600/WTC2ProjectileLongTrail.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjLbguuAO_s-QKd8DZyFaGLcekdaLKWPcGF3O0FIqWQaN6n58qIk8ZGPhavczLIiGAAd4xhMQBHnQ7tj-OhAWS2nPB74wwn_daKng2k0LM-jxJUdLQNDz2CTG0hyRYcseu6UzizhdLE2p0w/s1600/WTC2ProjectileLongTrail.png" /></a></div>Once I found this projectile, I looked for it in other videos. I found it in several videos from different angles, but when shown against the backdrop of the white debris cloud, it is very hard to see. This is another video from a very similar perspective to the first. In this shot, the trail can be seen to persist all the way down to the bottom of the collapse. <br />
<br />
We can learn several things from the behavior of this projectile. First, it is clear that this chunk carries explosive material with sufficient power to drastically change its momentum in a short outburst. Secondly, it is clear that the smoke we see is not general smoke from the fires entrained in the wake of a moving object. Since the smoke trail follows the object in all of its twists and turns, it is clear that the smoke is being emitted from the object itself. The most obvious interpretation, of course, is we are seeing the results of nanothermite burning and undergoing explosive outbursts. <br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiQIlChaUMvjiQK3G2rcoDdm4Y4fydy8115ue9IlPHxsmrC-gkSLfDyfc89Mp68SIc5wUIpqzfy5FwtSMtqv0QlnilXGJaXgF4E3oWj08ZXba-JBGjphGmDpEbPnZDDn1RjA0g0wI5yiN3f/s1600/WTC2LotsOfTrails.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="150" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiQIlChaUMvjiQK3G2rcoDdm4Y4fydy8115ue9IlPHxsmrC-gkSLfDyfc89Mp68SIc5wUIpqzfy5FwtSMtqv0QlnilXGJaXgF4E3oWj08ZXba-JBGjphGmDpEbPnZDDn1RjA0g0wI5yiN3f/s200/WTC2LotsOfTrails.png" width="200" /></a></div>Once we see this clear example of an object trailing smoke generated on its surface, we can reinterpret what we are seeing elsewhere. There are lots of chunks of falling debris trailing smoke clouds. In many cases we can see long beams with smoke being emitted from the entire length of the beam. <a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj3bjaFQWnlH0j24G8d4YAz7EyuNiMFxVkaeFaNqAUIR7IqFY9OC3u-xm3fsLb-CdDOztjEFsu4Wb9LB_EKRLv0eHdxjgQPBT5V8EfgZQ1WtG5-vRH05gdb4DzKa0fVbAP2nzM5ybF2tL3T/s1600/WTC2ChunksRacingAhead.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="150" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj3bjaFQWnlH0j24G8d4YAz7EyuNiMFxVkaeFaNqAUIR7IqFY9OC3u-xm3fsLb-CdDOztjEFsu4Wb9LB_EKRLv0eHdxjgQPBT5V8EfgZQ1WtG5-vRH05gdb4DzKa0fVbAP2nzM5ybF2tL3T/s200/WTC2ChunksRacingAhead.png" width="200" /></a>We no longer need to assume that this is smoke following in their wake.<br />
<br />
When we see white smoke that looks as though it's coming from the girders, it is reasonable to assume that we are, in fact, seeing smoke coming from material painted onto the girders themselves.<br />
<br />
When we see chunks that race ahead of the rest of the falling debris, as we see near the bottom of this view, we can reasonably interpret this as caused by explosive impulses. They increase the speed of these objects just as they change the direction of the one we've been studying.<br />
<br />
It is time to take off the blinders. We have not only chemically detected nanothermite in the World Trade Center dust, we are literally seeing nanothermite in action. Once our eyes are open, we can see it wherever we look.Daniel LaLibertehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01855884898451299505noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1263349900715128489.post-57131992588795177412010-06-26T09:41:00.000-04:002010-07-04T14:01:10.712-04:00South Tower: Exploding ProjectileA close-up view of debris being ejected from the South Tower of the World Trade Center as the 30-floor top section falls to the east shows numerous smoking projectiles that look like comets. Several of them can be seen to explode. One such exploding projectile is followed here. It ejects two fragments, both of which undergo secondary explosions. (Note, the rising fragment to the left of the projectile under consideration appears to be a tumbling object that alternates from black to white to invisible. It passes behind one of the fragments described in the video.)<br />
<br />
<iframe allowtransparency="true" frameborder="0" height="480" scrolling="no" src="http://www.youtube.com/v/BnR4A4zb8B0" width="620"></iframe><br />
<br />
<a name='more'></a><br />
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg3akss-ErKRx3JYkuHTBCsXwNrY_qCicFQ3LA_dTbXFT17Gn_UKea3aZnt0v8DhGC37aLI5NfGw8HbcwJUHzHolhAjhicQcbQUdPnu5se20UpqMW2_-a4N3oCJMYRxjjAMFH8IspQXONcd/s1600/WTC2RooflineIntact.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="133" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg3akss-ErKRx3JYkuHTBCsXwNrY_qCicFQ3LA_dTbXFT17Gn_UKea3aZnt0v8DhGC37aLI5NfGw8HbcwJUHzHolhAjhicQcbQUdPnu5se20UpqMW2_-a4N3oCJMYRxjjAMFH8IspQXONcd/s200/WTC2RooflineIntact.png" width="200" /></a><span style="font-size: large;"><b>South Tower: Exploding Projectile </b></span><br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiw0XlNZzZ-iSwGAGUP0HhEER_m8Sw9d8FQPtEs8ZBYFPNWcvP_FPf5BgAVZeYbyQ4OI7kSBA2kmAF8_7J5z9kXw6S3J5EmFSEuf0mcSwlcjj_IX-XGZwRlnrviLxOdjGtgH44na1TzMt8b/s1600/WTC2RooflineDisintegrated.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="133" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiw0XlNZzZ-iSwGAGUP0HhEER_m8Sw9d8FQPtEs8ZBYFPNWcvP_FPf5BgAVZeYbyQ4OI7kSBA2kmAF8_7J5z9kXw6S3J5EmFSEuf0mcSwlcjj_IX-XGZwRlnrviLxOdjGtgH44na1TzMt8b/s200/WTC2RooflineDisintegrated.png" width="200" /></a></div>This is the South Tower of the World Trade Center viewed from the southeast. As it falls it tips toward the camera.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhtOqBV4ozvsxd1KOvyzmDRw2wCHJu91OIGK24-Ld38esxuddYFg7sQcZzexbCNekfrNFCtY2Cozys36Gbd4u1B2UjjId-vu_ACM0C3dkXnCAw8hrUhF74-lU5nxRrrwuCJUil9fGu1n2Hv/s1600/WTC2CometsAboveRoofline.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="133" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhtOqBV4ozvsxd1KOvyzmDRw2wCHJu91OIGK24-Ld38esxuddYFg7sQcZzexbCNekfrNFCtY2Cozys36Gbd4u1B2UjjId-vu_ACM0C3dkXnCAw8hrUhF74-lU5nxRrrwuCJUil9fGu1n2Hv/s200/WTC2CometsAboveRoofline.png" width="200" /></a></div>Notice that as the skeleton of the roofline partially emerges from the dust there are a number of smoking projectiles that look like comets.<br />
<br />
A number of these objects undergo explosions. Watch the comet-like object at the far right in slow motion. It is the most easily viewed because it shows up against the blue sky.<br />
<br />
<img src="http://doc-0k-80-docs.googleusercontent.com/docs/secure/ha0ro937gcuc7l7deffksulhg5h7mbp1/afskuigssc98u7nko54r9hkgmledi517/1276344000000/03825010713612687842/*/0B5FdflRJmBWcNDcxMzE5N2QtMzVmZS00NTFiLTk2YzItZjFiZjdhMDk4NWNl" style="float: left; margin-right: 1em;" /><br />
Let's take it one frame at a time.<br />
<ul><li>Here we see it flaring. </li>
<li>A fragment is ejected to the left. </li>
<li>Now the fragment itself splits apart. </li>
<li>Let's go back to the earlier explosion. Note that another fragment is being shot down and to the right. </li>
<li>It also undergoes a secondary explosion.</li>
</ul><br />
<br />
These explosions may seem small, but the fact that there are explosions at all confirms the presence of explosives in the building.Daniel LaLibertehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01855884898451299505noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1263349900715128489.post-79666198238945133732010-06-25T23:44:00.000-04:002010-07-04T14:01:53.669-04:00Cutter Charges in the North Tower of the World Trade CenterSmall explosive ejections focused on a corner column of WTC1 (The North Tower of the World Trade Center) are evidence of cutter charges used to cut the corner columns. One of these occurs at the 98th floor at the onset of the demolition of the building. The other occurs lower in the building at the instant the column enters free fall.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<iframe allowtransparency="true" frameborder="0" height="480" scrolling="no" src="http://www.youtube.com/v/zoAD8HlrLZg" width="620"></iframe><br />
<br />
<a name='more'></a><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><b>Cutter Charges in the North Tower of the World Trade Center</b></span><br />
<br />
This is the North Tower of the World Trade Center seen from the north side on September 11th, 2001. Just as it starts to fall, there are massive ejections of material at about the 98th floor. <br />
<br />
Many of us believe these are blasts from explosions to destroy the core columns allowing the building to fall. However, those who accept the official government story claim we are merely seeing dust and smoke being pushed out the windows as a result of collapsing floors. It is hard to resolve this dispute directly because the core columns are not directly visible. <br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgkw1R_knY1QhTJEEowrJIG-3hhq3UBWIIsVf0CtDdmSyjpqqQj6yKM3Y2Es_sgN0dFWR0ona3nUsN2LgJJpMi_atKAgDSpdweE2OismFKh2jPk_xcKGluzwIX_OS3ysfcYgcYKIdN91yV4/s1600/WTC1UpperCutterFullView.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="240" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgkw1R_knY1QhTJEEowrJIG-3hhq3UBWIIsVf0CtDdmSyjpqqQj6yKM3Y2Es_sgN0dFWR0ona3nUsN2LgJJpMi_atKAgDSpdweE2OismFKh2jPk_xcKGluzwIX_OS3ysfcYgcYKIdN91yV4/s320/WTC1UpperCutterFullView.png" width="320" /></a></div>Nearly hidden by all the spectacular ejections, one small focused jet of material has special significance. This little puff is not coming out of the window at all, but out of the corner of the building. <br />
<img src="http://doc-0k-80-docs.googleusercontent.com/docs/secure/ha0ro937gcuc7l7deffksulhg5h7mbp1/fitr166huncfvm2kq1e8qtrajqn4g76a/1276128000000/03825010713612687842/*/0B5FdflRJmBWcOWQ5OGY1ZWUtYzA0Yi00MmVhLTgxZTItMjZhMTA2ZmFhMjc3" /><br />
<br />
Each corner of the building has two 14-inch box columns connected to each other by large steel plates and covered on the exterior with aluminum cladding. There are no corner windows. <br />
<br />
The corner columns are structurally significant because they connect the adjacent wall assemblies and give the building three-dimensional stability. If anyone wanted to demolish the towers, the corner columns would be natural targets. <br />
<br />
The fact that a jet-like puff emerges from the corner of the building is <b>evidence in itself of an explosive charge</b>. But there's more. <br />
<br />
Notice that as the surrounding structure descends, this little jet, as it plays itself out, remains fixed relative to the original structure of the building. It does not move down with the falling walls and floors. This suggests that we could be seeing the work of a cutter charge strapped to a column. <br />
<br />
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhtRCZ8La-lZLvBoeJHAWKQYF5ZTqmqvkHWOxsyvmH6VCjKstoCaad2rEJEmMr3XVN8BRP9dojVI4ou3yUF3-v5Z-sbVqjOsC7QdfHlFY3NSJm7N2Xg74MpxTOxlJZ_RJdTkyemwCXIubwf/s1600/WTC1ProtrudingColumn.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="240" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhtRCZ8La-lZLvBoeJHAWKQYF5ZTqmqvkHWOxsyvmH6VCjKstoCaad2rEJEmMr3XVN8BRP9dojVI4ou3yUF3-v5Z-sbVqjOsC7QdfHlFY3NSJm7N2Xg74MpxTOxlJZ_RJdTkyemwCXIubwf/s320/WTC1ProtrudingColumn.png" width="320" /></a>As the roof line moves down past the 98th floor, a <b>surviving column</b> is seen protruding upward from the debris cloud. It sways outward, but it does not fall for several seconds. Note that the top of this column exactly matches the height of the little corner puff. Careful measurements confirm this impression. <br />
<br />
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgnN7k5_CHwriPPFEx8JmrddPQ2Gi9MQXss4aWGZzdgx5v4Ikl-yGo84Veb5Q3sYERsLv2kLkoov5mIQBHdgohwhon3sLWq1IaJw_UdQgk_7f3LnpU__UmD7g8P81wZDrOH0ucAzdnKzKRb/s1600/WTC1UpperCutterData.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="150" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgnN7k5_CHwriPPFEx8JmrddPQ2Gi9MQXss4aWGZzdgx5v4Ikl-yGo84Veb5Q3sYERsLv2kLkoov5mIQBHdgohwhon3sLWq1IaJw_UdQgk_7f3LnpU__UmD7g8P81wZDrOH0ucAzdnKzKRb/s200/WTC1UpperCutterData.png" width="200" /></a>The evidence is mounting that we are seeing not only a cutter charge in action, but the very column that is cut. The column sways but it does not fall for a matter of seconds. Then it <b>abruptly enters free fall</b>. Again, careful measurements confirm this impression. <br />
<br />
What's going on below that allows the column to suddenly drop? There is another video aimed lower, along the northwest corner of the building. Since we are looking for an event that happens at a specific time, we need to find some way to synchronize the two videos. <br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"></div><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhdLksO73CIQw2Cc3vuipvjq_IOwUH4mdaLmA1NtcepjW4EXCIkbb1CuVTYHjaFwnwgWhZb7dYLVgdEC6058ZkC7MCcp8Jje4dYLzmL2T3-SZKaBwcjX9h5Cckmq036YC_hWkMn-ReZBkNv/s1600/WTC1ProtrudingColumnLastGlimmer.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="150" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhdLksO73CIQw2Cc3vuipvjq_IOwUH4mdaLmA1NtcepjW4EXCIkbb1CuVTYHjaFwnwgWhZb7dYLVgdEC6058ZkC7MCcp8Jje4dYLzmL2T3-SZKaBwcjX9h5Cckmq036YC_hWkMn-ReZBkNv/s200/WTC1ProtrudingColumnLastGlimmer.png" width="200" /></a></div><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEimauGZVKz7Z92-H6aOAv3RW8Q66X9kKFaeFHCcKNV2GCvtCABiEZg8TzKY4mcyyfebnZacVjAI_BIKtcHAdWGNnm4KYBULLnMAHnppf6IzZ_P9bxMFNoadfnQserPdOhs_jaPlCKgoKJnL/s1600/WTC1ProtrudingColumnLastGlimmer2.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="150" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEimauGZVKz7Z92-H6aOAv3RW8Q66X9kKFaeFHCcKNV2GCvtCABiEZg8TzKY4mcyyfebnZacVjAI_BIKtcHAdWGNnm4KYBULLnMAHnppf6IzZ_P9bxMFNoadfnQserPdOhs_jaPlCKgoKJnL/s200/WTC1ProtrudingColumnLastGlimmer2.png" width="200" /></a>Fortunately, there is an easily pinpointed event that is visible in both videos. When the column we've been watching starts to fall, it emerges from the shadows into bright sunlight, then it falls back into the shadows again. The last glimmer of sunlight is visible as a bright bead on the end of the column. This momentary event can be identified in both video clips, allowing the frames to be synchronized. <br />
<br />
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg-7CBRL1_yTwk7f1GleM_G-e7TtumuPtKuevfoESkDQSEd8qYJOpZMpSGfVYNuGsG7yCPzYa_2V77fSSOr9IFGI-hJD9VipW0EhMVjvu9FEtkl7jF0v5lzTqbuFWfXKzYmgjw5YP2ad2iC/s1600/WTC1LowerCutter.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="240" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg-7CBRL1_yTwk7f1GleM_G-e7TtumuPtKuevfoESkDQSEd8qYJOpZMpSGfVYNuGsG7yCPzYa_2V77fSSOr9IFGI-hJD9VipW0EhMVjvu9FEtkl7jF0v5lzTqbuFWfXKzYmgjw5YP2ad2iC/s320/WTC1LowerCutter.png" width="320" /></a>Looking at the lower video, we can see a very interesting event that correlates with the exact moment the column goes into free fall: Another focused jet cutting through the corner of the building. In fact, several ejections are clustered on the corner within a fraction of a second of each other.<br />
<br />
The hypothesis that we are looking at ejections of dust and smoke as a result of collapse is no longer viable. These events are helping to cause the collapse.<br />
<br />
It is clear that the focused corner jets are capable of cutting through steel. If what we are seeing is an example of <b>explosive charges cutting through steel columns</b>, then it is clear that explosives were used in the building. Once we recognize explosives were used, we can see the entire event with new eyes.Daniel LaLibertehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01855884898451299505noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1263349900715128489.post-83920955974834669672010-06-24T02:46:00.003-04:002011-05-26T22:09:57.409-04:00Acceleration + SerendipityThis is a study of the overall downward acceleration of WTC1, the North Tower of the World Trade Center. During this investigation it was discovered that the one feature that kept pace with the original acceleration of the roofline was a wave of ejections on the west wall.<br />
<br />
<iframe allowtransparency="true" frameborder="0" height="480" scrolling="no" src="http://www.youtube.com/v/AJf7pWVyvIw" width="620"></iframe><br />
<br />
<a name='more'></a><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><b>Acceleration + Serendipity</b></span><br />
<br />
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiPzAsddsgkhWpJjeOMDG-yYnB1_tuTUzxeu00OCYiK9yeqGxMwN9fXnP3lnixuziCRA8Bhxrl_af0pgi2kowpVJ6A20hxmKWpblGAOkpksdEOlsRuyDsLszKFNtXYDRoSjKIehwLsIkC1K/s1600/WTC1fallrate.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="150" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiPzAsddsgkhWpJjeOMDG-yYnB1_tuTUzxeu00OCYiK9yeqGxMwN9fXnP3lnixuziCRA8Bhxrl_af0pgi2kowpVJ6A20hxmKWpblGAOkpksdEOlsRuyDsLszKFNtXYDRoSjKIehwLsIkC1K/s200/WTC1fallrate.png" width="200" /></a>Some time ago, I did an analysis of the <a href="http://911speakout.blogspot.com/2010/05/downward-acceleration-of-north-tower.html">Downward Acceleration of the roof line of WTC 1, the North Tower</a> of the World Trade Center. I was only able to track the motion through the first few seconds while the roof line was visible above the debris cloud. I found that the drop of the roof line occurred with sudden onset and underwent a uniform acceleration, 64% of the acceleration of gravity.<br />
<br />
I started the current project to explore whether the same acceleration continued all the way down or whether it changed as the destruction moved down the building. I found the answer to that question, but along the way I noticed something else that is perhaps even more intriguing. We'll come to that unexpected observation at the end of this video.<br />
<br />
One of the most conspicuous features of the was the rapid rate of fall. For most people their intuition tells them that buildings do not fall in on themselves especially that fast in any kind of natural event. Intuition does not have the last word in a situation like this, but blindly accepting the contrary pronouncements of authority figures is little better, and perhaps worse, as a guide to the truth. We need to look for ourselves.<br />
<br />
It is commonplace to hear that the Twin Towers fell at freefall speed. As a point of clarification, the rate of fall is characterized by acceleration, not speed. This is more than just a vocabulary question; it involves a basic concept. So let's pause for a little demonstration.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjuoLOIa1ccj-4a5zlY-EHrJ2pXwwqQmyoC8C-3Ng9xB8R_0dh8lNk9PeN1qwIqlje4rUTj5SnUtNmXBQomxqFQwNyARt78uka61eE-jV3q8adEM1ZOM2FmTELsciywagnGuAfBmho2wjdN/s1600/TrackerSoccerball.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="150" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjuoLOIa1ccj-4a5zlY-EHrJ2pXwwqQmyoC8C-3Ng9xB8R_0dh8lNk9PeN1qwIqlje4rUTj5SnUtNmXBQomxqFQwNyARt78uka61eE-jV3q8adEM1ZOM2FmTELsciywagnGuAfBmho2wjdN/s200/TrackerSoccerball.png" width="200" /></a></div>One tool I use for studying motion on video clips is a program called <a href="http://www.compadre.org/osp/webdocs/Tools.cfm?t=Tracker">Tracker</a>. It's part of the <a href="http://www.compadre.org/osp/">Open Source Physics Project</a> and it's freely available on the internet.<br />
<br />
What I'm going to do here is drop a soccer ball and record its motion. To do that I have to add marks on each frame. The program collects the positions from the pixel locations, and the times from the frame numbers. It displays the data in a table and a graph.<br />
<br />
This graph shows the vertical <b>position</b>, y, <b>versus time</b>, t. What results is a picture of the motion of the ball spread out over time. To translate the pixel positions to actual measurements, I have to calibrate the image by marking something of known length. In this video I'm holding meter stick. So by marking the ends of the meter stick, the program can figure out how many pixels on the video make up one meter in the real world.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhr9-ANNOpx4Jyk8gYQS4R9rM2dIsa8erVlHVDNDg1Y48pnUc44FEa0qEgzYUUKormN0UUZIrS-DgQJFuUlg3ZBTsJSppjk03YJilS6LXy-JpU4Gp-_-pqXhUlaXFTgQBeJJQBQKk5WnyFX/s1600/TrackerSoccerballVelocity.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhr9-ANNOpx4Jyk8gYQS4R9rM2dIsa8erVlHVDNDg1Y48pnUc44FEa0qEgzYUUKormN0UUZIrS-DgQJFuUlg3ZBTsJSppjk03YJilS6LXy-JpU4Gp-_-pqXhUlaXFTgQBeJJQBQKk5WnyFX/s320/TrackerSoccerballVelocity.png" /></a></div>Another thing we can do is look at other quantities. For instance, if we plot the vertical component of the <b>velocity versus time</b>, we get a graph that looks like this.<br />
<br />
Note that the <b>position verses time</b> graph for free fall is in the shape of a <b>parabola</b>, and the <b>velocity versus time</b> graph is a <b>straight line</b>. What's going on here is that when I let go of the ball, the velocity starts out at 0 and increases downward by equal amounts in equal increments of time. That produces a linear graph.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg3kTX1IcxCunV7XIL5XhbMK3o_JGMv4tIoTonkGiDwO8C0sf1ILH18h1ZPeYOo7fXTqx92X9SUAX2WWDgBbVpp_V-Wra3NxbsiUrBdN1DL-pCoBi96bkrP4mzQdwJKnrK8EpKsPwKWWja5/s1600/WTC7+DownwardVelocity.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="150" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg3kTX1IcxCunV7XIL5XhbMK3o_JGMv4tIoTonkGiDwO8C0sf1ILH18h1ZPeYOo7fXTqx92X9SUAX2WWDgBbVpp_V-Wra3NxbsiUrBdN1DL-pCoBi96bkrP4mzQdwJKnrK8EpKsPwKWWja5/s200/WTC7+DownwardVelocity.png" width="200" /></a></div><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh16nmpXmZrn0WjWLHeBMdLK35UC65jMUwYiZ2EA9qzu67vnesXsLSdIpkO9Ma-FjwVKcoLMHZg_SbZHMfFENAgIzQaMP7xAYZBEWiVHIe3tpGpiH4tsDhkeAAwpmRejyvpVAShd1r_kZk4/s1600/WTC7+NIST+admits+freefall.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="150" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh16nmpXmZrn0WjWLHeBMdLK35UC65jMUwYiZ2EA9qzu67vnesXsLSdIpkO9Ma-FjwVKcoLMHZg_SbZHMfFENAgIzQaMP7xAYZBEWiVHIe3tpGpiH4tsDhkeAAwpmRejyvpVAShd1r_kZk4/s200/WTC7+NIST+admits+freefall.png" width="200" /></a><span style="font-size: small;">Freefall would be a smoking gun for explosive demolition because it would indicate zero resistance. <b>Building 7 fell in actual freefall over two seconds.</b> NIST has grudgingly acknowledged this in their final report, but has refused to even address the obvious implications.</span><br />
<br />
In my earlier video, I measured the rate of fall of the roof line of WTC 1 for the first few seconds while it was visible and found that it came down with constant acceleration, 64% of the acceleration of gravity. In that video, I showed the fact that the top section of the building accelerated right through its collision with the lower section is also a smoking gun for explosive demolition. Watch the video: "<a href="http://911speakout.blogspot.com/2010/05/downward-acceleration-of-north-tower.html">Downward Acceleration of the North Tower</a>". I won't repeat the argument here.<br />
<br />
In that video, I noted that if the rate of acceleration persisted, the tower <i>would </i>fall in 11.5 seconds. Jim Hoffman, on his website <a href="http://911research.wtc7.net/">911Research.WTC7.net</a> does a <a href="http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/collapses/freefall.html">thorough analysis</a> from several lines evidence and concludes that the total time for the North Tower to fall was approximately 15 to 16 seconds.<br />
<br />
I wanted to understand the rate of fall beyond the first few seconds. Measuring the motion of falling clouds of debris is difficult. So rather than a direct measurement, I wrote a program to put two sets of markers on the video of the falling tower. Both start at the height of the roof line. <span style="color: blue;">The blue mark descends at free fall</span>. <span style="color: red;">The red mark descends at 64% of free fall.</span><br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjR-xVSdeAAqyOesOoAs2I8JVyDfy7wyeFxDgCm8DLDjhltHMcE6JecEoajuqyL2tflvC7Na9rpKtzuwiOWPqvVNZw7vPy6S20mZ3OiVvme7Ey0v2-HflsghJQ9OVbDV-vtmB_bO_o9qOVr/s1600/WTC1+markers+adjacent.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjR-xVSdeAAqyOesOoAs2I8JVyDfy7wyeFxDgCm8DLDjhltHMcE6JecEoajuqyL2tflvC7Na9rpKtzuwiOWPqvVNZw7vPy6S20mZ3OiVvme7Ey0v2-HflsghJQ9OVbDV-vtmB_bO_o9qOVr/s640/WTC1+markers+adjacent.png" width="600" /></a></div><br />
As we run through the clip, it is clear that the top of the debris cloud does indeed lag behind both marks. Even the heavy falling debris near the bottom falls at less than free fall because of its meeting air resistance.<br />
<br />
<a href="https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/F069IF6DGTRBmotnSTWljbw-wiQPj1UBRi2VUeShH2TaH2-VWYlXocYRE65C1DxnmrSm8zqnHWUlXdd0Hq9GMeuHKw=s512" imageanchor="1" style="float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/F069IF6DGTRBmotnSTWljbw-wiQPj1UBRi2VUeShH2TaH2-VWYlXocYRE65C1DxnmrSm8zqnHWUlXdd0Hq9GMeuHKw=s512" /></a>So much for the original purpose of this project. However, along the way I noticed something else. One feature is actually keeping up with the red mark, the original downward acceleration of the roof line. That's the sequence of ejections at the lower right from the West wall of the tower. That means this wave of ejections is the fastest moving feature in the buildings decent.<br />
<br />
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhu1wy88tXvT77RW4n_YdC6U5EbzXimJT1JGI3y_m4IIFkz4bBDIJtFGO2RwSQ521PlZWMp6s_0SBNsL_5CarVt8IAMRR0dBHro7n_uaK6ZVWmTNcZuKC2i1xcVT8My5YQHUbPEfIWazMkf/s1600/WTC1+Leading+Wave+of+Ejections.png" imageanchor="1" style="float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="240" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhu1wy88tXvT77RW4n_YdC6U5EbzXimJT1JGI3y_m4IIFkz4bBDIJtFGO2RwSQ521PlZWMp6s_0SBNsL_5CarVt8IAMRR0dBHro7n_uaK6ZVWmTNcZuKC2i1xcVT8My5YQHUbPEfIWazMkf/s320/WTC1+Leading+Wave+of+Ejections.png" width="320" /></a>If anyone still believes these are naturally occurring puffs of air caused by some internal process such as collapsing floors they would need to explain how such a process could propagate so fast within the building, nearly keeping pace with the heaviest debris falling only through air just a few feet away. If one assumes the floors collapsed to blow out this much material in the <span style="background-color: yellow;">leading wave of ejections</span>, one would also have to explain how air pressure could be built up and maintained higher in the building for the other waves of ejections that follow.<br />
<br />
The fact is, strong focused ejections are occurring on multiple floors simultaneously. The theory that these are simply air being squeezed out defies both common sense and any kind of honest analysis.<br />
<br />
The most reasonable way to account for the rapid wave of ejections is to recognize them to be a <b>timed sequence of explosions</b> designed to destroy the underlying structure of the building, top to bottom. Such a sequence would not be limited by physical conditions in the building. The downward motion of the explosions is merely a pattern designed purely for appearances to mimic a natural collapse and to stay hidden under the canopy of the falling debris. If this was the intent, it was not accomplished successfully as we can see.<br />
<br />
Perhaps the reason the leading wave of explosions propagate down the building at the same rate as the initial acceleration of the roof line is they were timed that way on the assumption that the building would continue to fall at the initial rate all the way down. That last point is just a speculation, of course, but the measured outcome is not.Daniel LaLibertehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01855884898451299505noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1263349900715128489.post-82129722123737827972010-06-23T19:05:00.000-04:002010-07-04T14:02:46.552-04:00High Speed Massive Projectiles from the WTC on 9/11I have revisited and extended some of my early measurements of high speed massive projectiles from the World Trade Center on 9/11. The results for the three projectiles measured: 56 mi/hr, 45 mi/hr, and 78 mi/hr. I don't claim this is smoking-gun evidence of explosive demolition all by itself, but it is part of the puzzle and it is more compatible with the explosive demolition hypothesis than simple gravitational collapse.<br />
<br />
<br />
<iframe allowtransparency="true" frameborder="0" height="480" scrolling="no" src="http://www.youtube.com/v/eHnLlwqiu0A" width="620"></iframe><br />
<br />
<a name='more'></a><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><b>High Speed Massive Projectiles from the WTC on 9/11</b></span><br />
<br />
We are told that the Twin Towers of the World Trade Center were weakened by airplane impacts and fire, then came down in a gravity-driven collapse.<br />
<br />
Just look at the supposed collapses. It stretches credibility to even call them collapses. These events resemble explosions, even eruptions, more than collapses. We are not seeing the walls come a tumblin' down, with the dust blown out to the side. We are seeing massive projectiles thrown horizontally hundreds of feet.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjkMRq9XKjzJXjcZQchoDWrAuCX565u71AI37zIUSqVwbIaXCweeBjASahFm1h7FxWsWmr0CAyLoYdb7TAQWWjFdhmE8skoUvtM6AsBR6cPgGEidTOOWrj90pCjTycsj380lm6V-cLcDet_/s1600/WTC+perimeter+column+structure.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="133" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjkMRq9XKjzJXjcZQchoDWrAuCX565u71AI37zIUSqVwbIaXCweeBjASahFm1h7FxWsWmr0CAyLoYdb7TAQWWjFdhmE8skoUvtM6AsBR6cPgGEidTOOWrj90pCjTycsj380lm6V-cLcDet_/s200/WTC+perimeter+column+structure.png" width="200" /></a></div>By massive, I mean multiple tons. A single perimeter wall unit consisting of three 14-inch square columns, 36 feet long, connected by spandrels, weighed on the order of four tons. Some of these are seen flying outside the debris cloud, reaching farther than the majority of the debris. <br />
<br />
My very first personal investigation of the 9/11 events was when I watched the expanding debris cloud from the North Tower on a DVD several years ago. I paused the DVD, took out a ruler, and estimated horizontal velocity of one of the debris streamers right on the television screen. My rough estimate was about 60 miles per hour. With that measurement, I was hooked. I realized something very strange was going on. <br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjFLSeR21TAd06O6xMSXDpCnC6_ns6EnkAxtzGTeQg5stDknqkMMdI777y8gHBJdNj8kvz9DXTDX2UkSrkbq_PLexJneCsKgHhGfqc8MFCMvTowfXoA_aK2cKfeZYMM2p2bniaDr4d4A8Io/s1600/Physics+ToolKit+first+projectile.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="132" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjFLSeR21TAd06O6xMSXDpCnC6_ns6EnkAxtzGTeQg5stDknqkMMdI777y8gHBJdNj8kvz9DXTDX2UkSrkbq_PLexJneCsKgHhGfqc8MFCMvTowfXoA_aK2cKfeZYMM2p2bniaDr4d4A8Io/s200/Physics+ToolKit+first+projectile.png" width="200" /></a></div>I followed up with digital measurements on videos downloaded from the internet using a tool I had available at the time, Physics ToolKit. Some of my early measurements, using low resolution videos, were crude. Over time, I have gained access to higher quality videos and better measurement tools. So I decided to go back and redo my early measurements of projectile speeds.<br />
<br />
First, I looked at the westward moving projectile from the North Tower that I had crudely measured on the television screen a few years ago. This time, I got a reliable value of 25 meters per second, which translates to about 56 miles per hour. My original estimate was pretty close. <br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjuLyawgFW4NWi18Cul3_GAiiqUJ1qmYl-8R7Ie9w3vbe6v7ngYFfZ3V5XlZfM8bSI-YyKwbno-sbXJR4mfTDVSGKNM8-nUsxa6ZWgUEDYdin7grQ_kx6d2aPP_hwsBhI-TTCfvdDuvY4rz/s1600/Physics+ToolKit+javelin.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="133" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjuLyawgFW4NWi18Cul3_GAiiqUJ1qmYl-8R7Ie9w3vbe6v7ngYFfZ3V5XlZfM8bSI-YyKwbno-sbXJR4mfTDVSGKNM8-nUsxa6ZWgUEDYdin7grQ_kx6d2aPP_hwsBhI-TTCfvdDuvY4rz/s200/Physics+ToolKit+javelin.png" width="200" /></a></div>On a video of the South Tower, I noticed a large elongated object moving like a javelin above the main debris cloud. On the original video where I saw this object, the camera was zooming the whole time which made the measurement difficult. I recently found another video which shows the same projectile but taken with a stationary camera. Result: 20 meters per second, or 45 miles per hour. <br />
<br />
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiKap06EGDag2kZgTKIhoR68fnCQ9K5eY40aog20AaFYeVTOJDHwXBi3Vtm7waVrrcBRhpxOdGPqt7e1mVDggQjVhjGhyphenhyphenbh4dzQ9l1xi27gr4rfHCCKu2Wj6VrCpiYrvH-ZQjeswpkeFePg/s1600/Physics+ToolKit+projectile+at+78mph.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="133" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiKap06EGDag2kZgTKIhoR68fnCQ9K5eY40aog20AaFYeVTOJDHwXBi3Vtm7waVrrcBRhpxOdGPqt7e1mVDggQjVhjGhyphenhyphenbh4dzQ9l1xi27gr4rfHCCKu2Wj6VrCpiYrvH-ZQjeswpkeFePg/s200/Physics+ToolKit+projectile+at+78mph.png" width="200" /></a>Another high-speed projectile was launched northward from the North Tower, late in the collapse, toward Building 7. Closeups show the structure of the object which appears to be one or more wall units. This particular video footage was shot by Rick Siegel from across the Hudson River. He panned the camera a lot so the measurement was a challenge. But I decomposed the video into individual images and manually aligned the images to stabilize the video. I used the stabilized video to do the measurements and got good uniform results: 35 meters per second or 78 miles per hour. I've repeated this measurement with other techniques and have consistently gotten results well over 70 miles per hour.<br />
<br />
High-speed massive horizontal projectiles may not be smoking gun evidence all by itself, but it is very suggestive of an explosive event. It's another piece of the puzzle.<br />
<br />
<br />
(On a technical note, if you are looking at the numbers in the three measurements, the third measurement is taken while the video was zoomed in, relative to the calibration frame. The numbers shown have to be scaled down by a factor of 1.701 to give the stated results.)Daniel LaLibertehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01855884898451299505noreply@blogger.com0