2011 Toronto 9/11 Hearings.(Full Length Video)

page: 2
9
<< 1   >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 11 2012 @ 09:38 PM
link   
reply to post by LaBTop
 


Microspheres found.....byproducts of welding the steel of the WTC when it was originally constructed.

Steel...did not have to melt, only soften...why truthers continued to cling to that, no one will ever know.

Military...only had a realistic shot at taking out Flight 93 had it actually arrived over DC.

Flight 93....ONE crash site. No evidence of any kind it was shot down.




posted on Dec, 11 2012 @ 09:43 PM
link   
reply to post by LaBTop
 


Thanks for the wonderful breakdown of each section. It is a highly informative set of hearings. The video is deffinitely worth watching for anyone who has the time. At the very least it will get people thinking. Some people are always going to be stuck on the OS but the only thing we can do is keep digging into the info and let it take us to the truth. Thanks again.



posted on Dec, 11 2012 @ 09:50 PM
link   
reply to post by usmc0311
 


USMC, if you listen to half of the crap in the video, you will never find truth. Ryan, Griffen, Jones, Gage, they are all charlatans dedicated to making as much money as possible off of their theories. Just reading the summary that is being given on this thread shows that they are continuing to spout their misinformation.



posted on Dec, 11 2012 @ 10:01 PM
link   
reply to post by vipertech0596
 


I personally don't believe the OS so I like to hear what all types of people have to say about the incident. I would also be curious to know more about what you are talking about as I do not spend alot of time with the 9/11 theories as apposed to others so If you could link some documentation I would kindly appreciate it. As I said I like to look at all sides so If you have some info feel free to bring it forward for discussion. Thanks.



posted on Dec, 11 2012 @ 10:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by usmc0311
I personally don't believe the OS


So you dont believe 3 planes crashed into 3 buildings, and the 4th plane crashed.... so just what do you believe about 9/11 then?



posted on Dec, 11 2012 @ 10:44 PM
link   
reply to post by hellobruce
 


At this point I don't know what to believe. This is why I am researching it. I do believe planes were involved but I don't believe it was planes and only planes that brought the towers down. There are many different theories as to what the truth may be. I am just looing for answers, that is all.



posted on Dec, 11 2012 @ 11:36 PM
link   
Just for starters, concentrate on that little gem lectured by David Chandler, the one with my yellow line in it.

And don't pay attention to the others, there's little constructive coming from their fingers.
Mostly simple-liners. No deep thoughts or research. That's how you recognize them, they never address the real rock hard evidence, and that lecture David gave is such a gem.

See if they address the other rock hard evidence I posted in pieces in pages 6 to 9 in this thread :
www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Dec, 11 2012 @ 11:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by vipertech0596
reply to post by LaBTop
 


Microspheres found.....byproducts of welding the steel of the WTC when it was originally constructed.

Steel...did not have to melt, only soften...why truthers continued to cling to that, no one will ever know.

Military...only had a realistic shot at taking out Flight 93 had it actually arrived over DC.

Flight 93....ONE crash site. No evidence of any kind it was shot down.



The dust in the apartment of the lady was full of it, were they still welding?
When steel columns soften, they don't break/snap, but give way.
No military needed, the white plane could have been just as well CIA-owned. And probably was. They use guys like Buffet who was the principal owner, to hire their dirty deeds planes from, then return them. They always have a lot of private dirt on people like Buffet, Trump, Rockefeller, so they tend to cooperate nicely.
UA 93, two sites, admitted by the FBI, it was cordoned off, 2.5 miles away from the main site.



posted on Dec, 12 2012 @ 12:25 AM
link   
reply to post by LaBTop
 


And you continue to put forth misinformation. But, you are right, steel that has softened, does not snap. However, when it gives way and transfers its load to other steel beams, those WILL snap.



posted on Dec, 12 2012 @ 06:22 AM
link   
reply to post by LaBTop
 




No military needed, the white plane could have been just as well CIA-owned. And probably was. They use guys like Buffet who was the principal owner, to hire their dirty deeds planes from, then return them.

If the CIA is soooo good at keeping secrets for over 10 years riddle me this:
Why can't the head of the CIA get a little nookie on the side without being found out?
Why didn't the FBI agent who dug up the dirt, meet with a tragic auto accident?
Why didn't the other woman in 'nookie gate' meet with a random violent street crime?

You are into super secret conspiracies. You believe the CIA is omnipotent and can get away with anything.
Why can't the head CIA honcho have a few quickies without it making worldwide news?



posted on Dec, 13 2012 @ 09:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by vipertech0596
reply to post by LaBTop
 


And you continue to put forth misinformation. But, you are right, steel that has softened, does not snap. However, when it gives way and transfers its load to other steel beams, those WILL snap.


What misinformation? All found on the Internet.

They will not snap, their bolds will perhaps, or their end-welds will tear. Don't make it seem as if full steel beams will snap.
edit on 13/12/12 by LaBTop because: typo



posted on Dec, 13 2012 @ 09:29 PM
link   
reply to post by samkent
 


Can you be a tad bit more specific, I am not so familiar with your special "slang".

I remember this CIA director, who got sacked. He was found dead in his fishing boat. On a small lake in front of his house.
Google it, interesting hit. By the way, they always make it a tragic accident, a heart attack, or a wish to die, a self-murder.



posted on Dec, 14 2012 @ 07:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by LaBTop
3:04 - 3:27:38 David Chandler. WTC 7: A Refutation of the Official Account.
...
Exponent, when you have viewed this 23.5 minutes lecture by this master-teacher, I like to hear your reaction.


I'm a bit surprised by your frankly ridiculous fawning over David Chandler as I have always been unimpressed with his work in the past. Nevertheless 20 minutes is well within the spare time I have, so I'll watch it and add my notes to this post in chronological order.

3:04:33 - Can you tell Chandler is a maths teacher?
3:05:40 - Chandler says that NIST wants you to abandon common sense and believe only them. This is not a fair characterisation though as NIST devotes significant resources to identifying and proving their theory. Comparing it to 'common sense' is nonsensical.
3:06:04 - Chandler states that NIST's conclusion is 'patently absurd'. Surely this indicates his mind is already closed to possibilities?
3:06:25 - Chandler makes various statements about the report I will ignore in the hopes they are elucidated later.
3:06:50 - The argument that 'this appears obvious to me, therefore you are corrupt if you do not agree' is an obvious fallacy.
3:07:50 - Ok we all know how WTC7 was constructed, we especially don't need a tenant list! I'm bored after 3 minutes

3:08:30 - I'll gloss over how he measured the speed of an object moving in 3 dimensions from a 2d slice of it, but he talks about only the debris he can measure despite the fact the entire south face is obscured.
3:08:41 - NIST certainly does not discount the debris damage in the collapse. What NIST concludes is that without debris damage the building would still have collapsed, but not in the same configuration. A fairly important distinction.
3:09:25 - In contrast to his previous statement, this is a fairly accurate summary of NIST's conclusion.
3:10:15 - Actual laughs in the audience in response to mention of firefighters predicting WTC7s collapse. I don't know what to infer from this.
3:10:40 - Indeed there was a report they were quoting that was incorrect.
3:11:15 - The building's collapse was actually suspected more than an hour before the news report Chandler shows, I'm not sure why he focuses on the time here as official accounts include this too.
3:11:50 - Chandler demonstrates a particularly poor piece of analysis software that uses manual plotting and a linear line fit to determine rates of change. I've seen him use this software before and it's really not very suited, I'll expound on this if he uses it to make claims
3:12:30 - Chandler's data is not sufficient to make the claim that this sudden reduction in acceleration is due to air resistance. This is very poor science.
3:12:50 - The expected claim surfaces. I don't feel there's much else to be said here though, Chandler is manually fitting his points and using a very limited analysis with no verification whatsoever. His results differ from both NISTs results:
www.indymedia.org.uk...
And independent analysis such as that done by 'femr':
femr2.ucoz.com...
In fact if you look at the work femr has done I have been very impressed, I haven't checked out the software he's using but his feature tracing work and elimination of errors seems to be quite diligent. He's detected motion where I haven't seen it before and has provided some fairly convincing evidence that a portion of the building fell faster than freefall. I believe he also believes in controlled demolition, although I'm not sure. Back to Chandler.
3:13:00 - Chandler mentions the margin of error in his measurements, but does not quantify it. His software lacks the ability to quantify it and as they are hand drawn points he does not know the margin of error. Again terrible terrible science. It would be an instant fail of any analysis.
3:13:15 - Other analyses disagree with 'sharp onset'. Chandler's data itself is too noisy to tell.
3:14:00 - Chandler claims WTC7 was overengineered for '3-5x the load', this is uncited.
3:15:46 - Chandler claims that if objects undergo collisions they will have "less potential energy". This is completely incorrect. An object's potential energy is a simple equation, E=mgh. In a collision, some of the kinetic energy is used and the momentum is reduced. Chandler is not a physics teacher and what he is teaching is not correct.
3:16:22 - Chandler asserts that all of the potential energy was turned into kinetic energy within WTC7. This is a very poor analysis though as the only data source is a hand drawn graph and it aggregates the entire motion of WTC7 into a single point that Chandler himself selected. This assertion is not supported by the evidence he provides.

Continued in next post



posted on Dec, 14 2012 @ 07:33 AM
link   
reply to post by LaBTop
 


3:16:30 - Chandler asserts that freefall = demolition, but without providing any supporting evidence for this. Where are the traces of a number of known demolitions?
3:16:47 - Chandler seems to be unconsciously substituting the single point he's measured for the building as a whole.
3:17:50 - It's true that NIST's draft report was misleading on this point. This was corrected in the final report.
3:18:15 - Chandler accuses NIST of being part of a cover up because they had an inaccuracy in their draft report. The irony here goes unseen.
3:18:45 - "You need a lotta data points". Chandler uses 12. This is not 'a lot'.
3:19:22 - More accusations levelled at NIST, despite the fact that freefall was explicitly stated in their final report.
3:19:40 - Focusing on the time of collapse rather than acceleration is a "bizarre construct". Again the massive irony here goes completely unnoticed. At least this statement is accurate.
3:20:20 - Chandler presents his own timed version and accuses it of being inaccurate. Not quite sure how he's verified this is NISTs timing.
3:21:20 - Chandler's claim of 'absolute' freefall now seems to be 'within a few percent of freefall'. Given that he does not know his error margins, I wonder if he has made a final estimate with well defined errors anywhere publicly.
3:22:23 - Focusing on a response at a technical conference is somewhat pointless when the final report is publicly available and includes freefall.
3:22:55 - Chandler claims that NISTs model is based on a 'natural, fire induced' collapse. This is not the case, NIST carried out a FEA of various scenarios and their theory is based on their model.
3:23:20 - Chandler claims that you cannot detect controlled demolitions in a 'computer model'. This is a completely unsupported assertion.
3:24:54 - Chandler claims 'stage 1' of NISTs descent profile contains 'erroneous measurements'. No evidence is provided for this.
3:25:08 - Claims that the 'smooth curve' has no basis, despite the fact that it is a simple curve fitted to the data.
3:25:50 - Chandler once again seems to not understand that a single measured point does not represent the building as a whole.
3:27:00 - "That requires explosives". Yet another unfounded assertion. Explosives do not remove whole columns, they cut columns at a specific level. Those columns must still be bent and deformed in the collapse.
3:27:20 - Chandler thinks that a report is an 'authoritarian' action, despite the fact that professional technical reports are common. The venue he's looking for to critique the report is the collection of journals which represent this discipline.
3:27:35 - NIST did indeed come up with a working model that does not require explosives. Chandler flat out denies that it is a working model again because of his assertion that freefall = demolition.

This entire presentation hinges on a single fact. WTC7 reached freefall briefly in its collapse. This single fact is taken to prove that demolition occurred.

He never demonstrates this, he never proves this through any method, he never even shows his error bars. How in the world has this remotely convinced you?



posted on Dec, 22 2012 @ 10:22 PM
link   
Please view my comments in this other thread where Exponent also posted this.
Start with this post :
www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Dec, 22 2012 @ 11:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by LaBTop
What misinformation? All found on the Internet.


Ah, one of those.... I saw it on the interweb so it must be true....

Reminds me of poor Orly taitz, who was told by Orange County Superior Court Judge Charles Margines"“You should know that evidence is not stuff printed from the internet.”"



posted on Dec, 23 2012 @ 09:21 AM
link   
I will jump the opinionated ones, that will cost too much time and space and brings us nowhere. I'll leave them in, without comment.
A four block radius was cordoned off, remember that for any distances from which camera men were recording.

3:04:33 - Can you tell Chandler is a maths teacher?
LT: I can read the descriptive line under his first appearance.
3:05:40 - Chandler says that NIST wants you to abandon common sense and believe only them. This is not a fair characterisation though as NIST devotes significant resources to identifying and proving their theory. Comparing it to 'common sense' is nonsensical.
LT: Long debates were spend on NIST's end-editors scientific honesty.
1. They did not allow any of their countless online readers, the standard PDF copy/paste assistance, to quickly paraphrase text from their ONLINE reports : that's nearing to, or is in most minds, criminally corrupt behavior in these times, it slowed down the debates immensely, only a few like myself could bring themselves to meticulously type over that quagmire of texts. For me it is a clear sign of intended sabotage.
2. Then they removed all their interim-seismic and some other item reports from their online reports repository. In fact all that did not went along with their intentions. To seed shimmers of doubt in the minds of the whole world who saw that WTC 7 building sink down as a whole entity, just like any other demolitioned building. It did not chaotically start to break up, and it certainly did not initiated from that only photographed somewhat extensive surfacial damage point at its southern facade's western corner. There are no photo's from any other facade damage, only a photo from the chunk taken out at the center south roof line.
That's really corrupt. Especially all the seismic reports, because these showed their impact and collapse times to be highly questionable at the least. They hung their whole timeline and time-stamps on one single, video recorded event, the impact of the nose cone at the second hit tower. My WTC 7 seismic thesis and image show either proof of explosives, or, proof of tampering with exactly that second impact time video time ''bug''. When they would have believed the seismic timestamps as posted by LDEO one day later than 9/11 already, they would have started from the first minute on already, to look for tampering with the atomic clocked time ''bugs'' attached to all main networks video's. Indeed those were atomic clocked stamps for both the seismic and the video recordings, and STILL they do not match, for more than many many seconds (7 to 17 secs! ). That means that one of those recording methods must have been falsified on the spot that same day, all day long. Why did they not address that huge inconsistancy?
3. The most corrupt behavior is NIST's denial of access to their computational methods, on which they relied to hang that whole years long delayed WTC 7 report on. They plugged in, in their SECRET to this day, software, such idiot high temperatures so they at last could end up with a somewhat alike collapse pattern animation, as seen in reality in all WTC 7 video's. And we know by now that no diesel was burning in WTC 7 pre-collapse, since NIST said so, and office fires did not, and can't ever reach those in their secret software inserted fairy tale melting pot temperatures.
3:06:04 - Chandler states that NIST's conclusion is 'patently absurd'. Surely this indicates his mind is already closed to possibilities?
3:06:25 - Chandler makes various statements about the report I will ignore in the hopes they are elucidated later.
3:06:50 - The argument that 'this appears obvious to me, therefore you are corrupt if you do not agree' is an obvious fallacy.
3:07:50 - Ok we all know how WTC7 was constructed, we especially don't need a tenant list! I'm bored after 3 minutes
3:08:30 - I'll gloss over how he measured the speed of an object moving in 3 dimensions from a 2d slice of it, but he talks about only the debris he can measure despite the fact the entire south face is obscured.
LT: He relied on one point at the north facade its western corner, and thus on all building material straight under it. Which all went down in the same pace. What's your point?
We can plot many more extra points on their way down, why? Free fall was proved for the roof corner point, NIST admitted it too. Why nitpick? And we all can see the whole building drift down as one entity in all video's. Exactly that triggered mistrust in NIST in all viewers worldwide.
And the USA has a damn long list of false flag planned war initiations, so why should all these people think in this WTC 7 case otherwise?
3:08:41 - NIST certainly does not discount the debris damage in the collapse. What NIST concludes is that without debris damage the building would still have collapsed, but not in the same configuration. A fairly important distinction.
LT: I do not believe for one second that a steel construction can collapse the way WTC 7 did, or in any other configuration, from office fires alone. A few important experiments (Newcastle Uni f.ex.) proved that steel can sag after many hours heating at the same points, but the fires in WTC 7 went from room to room and consumed all material, then went out. Thus, the steel that was also fire proofed b.t.w., was exposed to these low temp fires, 600 C, to 1200 C for not more than about 20 minutes max, which is far within their building-codes ruling. The higher temps were perhaps reached only for a few minutes, and still steel beams or columns will not be affected, since steel conducts heat very fast to adjacent cooler parts of it. You see in WTC 7 video's of the east facade and the north facade fires, that they proceed from room to room along one floor, the first fires already out when a few rooms further new ones start while the rooms in between are loosing severity quickly.
And the only extensive debris damage is only visible in those NYPD helicopter shots, and was for many years offered in such a manner, that it looked as if the damage at the southeast facade corner was much bigger than in reality. Only lately have all the real heli-photo's been released after a FOIA request, and now you can see at last that the damage there, was very much less than the one they showed first. They first took only one of these NYPD heli-photo's with exactly a stream of smoke covering undamaged corner windows. As if that was a long gash in these corner windows, while there was none at all, only faint smoke that was intended (made? ) to look like damage.
The south facade video glitch-gash so vehemently defended by believers here, turned out to be just that. In the first Prof. Jones report he showed a photo shot at 11:00 AM where we can see that the whole south facade its surface is smoke free, and no long deep gash from top to bottom in its center is present. With distinct sharp sides. That happens only when a video is shot from the other side of the Hudson, like the only one where that ''gash'' appeared. Camera men know these will form in such long distance shots. Overlapping ''video relict shadows''.
3:09:25 - In contrast to his previous statement, this is a fairly accurate summary of NIST's conclusion.
3:10:15 - Actual laughs in the audience in response to mention of firefighters predicting WTC7s collapse. I don't know what to infer from this.
3:10:40 - Indeed there was a report they were quoting that was incorrect.
3:11:15 - The building's collapse was actually suspected more than an hour before the news report Chandler shows, I'm not sure why he focuses on the time here as official accounts include this too.
LT: The problem with all of these is, that all the spoken texts included the words " (or) has already collapsed'' from many news reports while it still firmly stood erect. I will include a video in my coming huge visualized Evidence List, where you see and hear at least 12 different studio reporters and on the spot ones say those specific words.
3:11:50 - Chandler demonstrates a particularly poor piece of analysis software that uses manual plotting and a linear line fit to determine rates of change. I've seen him use this software before and it's really not very suited, I'll expound on this if he uses it to make claims.
LT: I keep my comment for that too till then.
3:12:30 - Chandler's data is not sufficient to make the claim that this sudden reduction in acceleration is due to air resistance. This is very poor science.
LT: It's clearly no sudden reduction in acceleration at the end, when the ball is nearly at the ground. It's a smooth deviation of the former straight line. What other force could result in this clear deviation than increasing air resistance? We both know its effect, that's why we measure in vacuum when we need reliable direct data.
The only other explanation I can think of, is that his camera had a badly manufactured lense, with mistakes-causing faults in the glass at the rim of it.
This only when can be proved that the projectory of that ball near the ground was recorded in that lense glass its outer region.
3:12:50 - The expected claim surfaces. I don't feel there's much else to be said here though, Chandler is manually fitting his points and using a very limited analysis with no verification whatsoever. His results differ from both NISTs results:
www.indymedia.org.uk...
And independent analysis such as that done by 'femr':
femr2.ucoz.com...
In fact if you look at the work femr has done I have been very impressed, I haven't checked out the software he's using but his feature tracing work and elimination of errors seems to be quite diligent. He's detected motion where I haven't seen it before and has provided some fairly convincing evidence that a portion of the building fell faster than freefall. I believe he also believes in controlled demolition, although I'm not sure. Back to Chandler.
LT: No, wait a moment.
His software seemed to be secure enough to have the power to let NIST do something they REALLY did not like to have to do. Retract all their former report statements that no freefall at all took place in the WTC's. And the difference in results by him and NIST you mention, is reached by NIST, -only- after Chandler exposed at a public hearing their mistake. He used a FREE software, while NIST then threw in their whole MILLIONS of dollars government-grand and came with somewhat more sophisticated methods that costs heaps of money to buy.
And still they come to the same conclusion as Chandler, AFTER he pointed it out to them.
You have been very impressed by Femr's work, but you haven't checked out the software he's using, so how do you know anything more than what can be seen in his graph image. How did HE measure?
Presumebly from the same grainy NTSD, not PAL recorded videos that Chandler and NIST all used? How did he reached such a multitude of precise plot points results, much better than in both NIST and Chandler their graphs? And why do you not link to the articles with their images in them? I see only image links posted by you.
3:13:00 - Chandler mentions the margin of error in his measurements, but does not quantify it. His software lacks the ability to quantify it and as they are hand drawn points he does not know the margin of error. Again terrible terrible science. It would be an instant fail of any analysis.
LT: Again, NIST's scientists seemed to think otherwise, they accepted his method, checked it with their much better methods, and had to teethgrindingly admit he was RIGHT.
I think this satisfactorily proves your own personal opinion wrong, and not his FREELY online available method.
3:13:15 - Other analyses disagree with 'sharp onset'. Chandler's data itself is too noisy to tell.
LT: Again, show us the methods of these other analyses, that reached much better results than NIST and Chandler alike. Especially which collapse video Femr used to get his plots from.
3:14:00 - Chandler claims WTC7 was overengineered for '3-5x the load', this is uncited.
LT: I think I saw it mentioned in the NIST report with all the CONED details in it. WTC 7´s CONED power station its enormous electrical power was cut off already around 10 AM, so that very loud, sharp explosion you hear in that phone boot video, can´t be an electrical device exploding, gas was strongly forbidden in a NY high rise, cooking had to be all electric f.ex., flamable solvents were forbidden too.
To me that sounds like a HE explosion, a cutter charge perhaps, but we will never know for sure. One thing is sure, most listeners will say that`s an `explosion ! `
3:15:46 - Chandler claims that if objects undergo collisions they will have "less potential energy". This is completely incorrect. An object's potential energy is a simple equation, E=mgh. In a collision, some of the kinetic energy is used and the momentum is reduced. Chandler is not a physics teacher and what he is teaching is not correct.
LT: I agree. It still does not change the fact that this math teacher teached the physicists of NIST a lesson in precise physics.
3:16:22 - Chandler asserts that all of the potential energy was turned into kinetic energy within WTC7. This is a very poor analysis though as the only data source is a hand drawn graph and it aggregates the entire motion of WTC7 into a single point that Chandler himself selected. This assertion is not supported by the evidence he provides.
LT: Agreed. Only analysis of much better recordings, which are not available, could prove it. It is however again nitpicking, it has little to do with what he proved to NIST. Nobody is perfect. That should be the conclusion drawn by NIST and Chandler.



posted on Dec, 23 2012 @ 09:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by vipertech0596 Flight 93....ONE crash site. No evidence of any kind it was shot down.


and ZERO evidence of any aircraft at the 'impact site' at all.



posted on Dec, 23 2012 @ 10:44 AM
link   
3:16:30 - Chandler asserts that freefall = demolition, but without providing any supporting evidence for this. Where are the traces of a number of known demolitions?
LT: Traces? NIST refused to look for those traces. But I think you meant 'tracks'.
I have never been able to find online any tracking records for well known demolitions. Only the videos, but not any physics study regarding their free fall times they must inhibit by design. Strange, ehh?
I am sure that freefall means in this case demolition, how else does a demolition firm construct its demo-plans? They need to form a region of no resistance in a building, so that the massive top will gain enough momentum from gravity to crush the still standing bottom parts. And crush itself when being stopped instantly by the ground, then the top also crushes in on itself.
WTC 7's demo must have been designed with a lot of overpower, to be sure that it came down and did not hang halfway.
3:16:47 - Chandler seems to be unconsciously substituting the single point he's measured for the building as a whole.
3:17:50 - It's true that NIST's draft report was misleading on this point. This was corrected in the final report.
LT: ONLY after Chandler corrected them FIRST, otherwise they would have never done that by their own INITIATIVE !
3:18:15 - Chandler accuses NIST of being part of a cover up because they had an inaccuracy in their draft report. The irony here goes unseen.
LT: A few other things I pointed at in my last reaction on your first comments, do indeed show corrupt moves by NIST.
3:18:45 - "You need a lotta data points". Chandler uses 12. This is not 'a lot'.
EDIT LT: NIST first used in all their calculations a stopwatch to time the rate of fall and arrived at 3.9 s for the time of fall. They took the time it took for a point on the roof to get out of sight in the smoke. By clocking the time between those TWO points. Which is ridiculous when you want to know the true rate of fall over the whole trajectory.
This is such a very faulty manner of measurement, that's why they consistently arrived at a 40% longer than free-fall time. David said that every one involved in those calculations with a grade in physics, should have known immediately that they were part of a cover-up. I agree.
I do not believe that such stupid people work at NIST, but I know the pressure from the top expelled on these poor sobs daily, to serve their grants-masters. No outcome will be expected that is not in line with the thoughts of the Principal of the Report. And that leads to silent obeyance. The killer of pure free and honest research. END-EDIT.
LT: NIST only used 10 ! The red circled black points in their graph. Their data used in linear regression.

3:19:22 - More accusations levelled at NIST, despite the fact that freefall was explicitly stated in their final report.
LT: No wonder, NIST also neglected all of Chandler's mails, letters etc, or A&Efor911Truth mails etc. The same they still do with my seismic evidence that either the LDEO graph is false, or that one proves demolition forces before anything moved in WTC 7.
Chandler thus choose to publicly humiliate NIST on one of its public hearings. He succeeded quite well, ain't that so? Only then did they change their final draft, and then publicized their Final Report. You try to seed the impression that all was dandy with NIST. IT WAS AND IS NOT !
3:19:40 - Focusing on the time of collapse rather than acceleration is a "bizarre construct". Again the massive irony here goes completely unnoticed. At least this statement is accurate.
3:20:20 - Chandler presents his own timed version and accuses it of being inaccurate. Not quite sure how he's verified this is NISTs timing.
3:21:20 - Chandler's claim of 'absolute' freefall now seems to be 'within a few percent of freefall'. Given that he does not know his error margins, I wonder if he has made a final estimate with well defined errors anywhere publicly.
3:22:23 - Focusing on a response at a technical conference is somewhat pointless when the final report is publicly available and includes freefall.
LT: That is completely wrong, it was not available, only Drafts, where no freefall at all was accepted by NIST. See my comment at your 3:19:22 comment.
3:22:55 - Chandler claims that NISTs model is based on a 'natural, fire induced' collapse. This is not the case, NIST carried out a FEA of various scenarios and their theory is based on their model.
LT: NIST did HOWEVER choose the least acceptable model scenario with idiot high and long fire temperatures, and does not offer the software method where they filled in those idiot high data, up to this day. NO PEER REVIEW OF THEIR METHOD.
3:23:20 - Chandler claims that you cannot detect controlled demolitions in a 'computer model'. This is a completely unsupported assertion.
LT: I agree with him, and you also know it gives ample possibilities to 'steal' real data points and falsify such a computer model. Especially when they do not give you entry to the software they used. And the implemented data points.
3:24:54 - Chandler claims 'stage 1' of NISTs descent profile contains 'erroneous measurements'. No evidence is provided for this.
LT: Let's thus wait for his comments.
3:25:08 - Claims that the 'smooth curve' has no basis, despite the fact that it is a simple curve fitted to the data.
LT: Ditto.
3:25:50 - Chandler once again seems to not understand that a single measured point does not represent the building as a whole.
LT: But NIST was forced to accept it and went through the dust for it.
3:27:00 - "That requires explosives". Yet another unfounded assertion. Explosives do not remove whole columns, they cut columns at a specific level. Those columns must still be bent and deformed in the collapse.
LT: Totally wrong assertion. In demolition, they use combo's of cutter and displacement charges.
The first cuts, the second displaces the diagonally cut column just a bit so it can slide down.
They could neatly cut and displace that whole column 79, over 8 floors with a few handfull of cutter charges and a few displacement charges, think the bottom one as a chisel shaped cut that glides down and get pushed away slightly, to be sure it will not 'hang' on leftover metal-slag bridges.
3:27:20 - Chandler thinks that a report is an 'authoritarian' action, despite the fact that professional technical reports are common. The venue he's looking for to critique the report is the collection of journals which represent this discipline.
LT: Could you rephrase that. I think your readers will not get the gist of it.
3:27:35 - NIST did indeed come up with a working model that does not require explosives. Chandler flat out denies that it is a working model again because of his assertion that freefall = demolition.
LT: And he is right, Ask Danny Jowenko. Oh no, he died in a car accident in Holland....

This entire presentation hinges on a single fact. WTC7 reached freefall briefly in its collapse. This single fact is taken to prove that demolition occurred.

He never demonstrates this, he never proves this through any method, he never even shows his error bars. How in the world has this remotely convinced you?

LT: Show me NIST's error bars in THEIR graph, please. And he did not need to convince me, I was convinced the moment I saw WTC 7 fell. And the whole world with me.
Then DAVID came along and added the physical evidence that there was an eight floors high region worth of no resistance in that building during those PROVEN 2.5 seconds of free fall. Simple as that.

David even made another video using the same software where he puts a same type of graph of a by hydraulical jacks demolitioned French building (gravitational second portion collapse after the jacks removed a few floors worth of columns), beside the North Tower's collapse graph. (demmo-collapse of top portion plus its antenna mast, then followed by a still aided gravitational collapse).
The first graph shows the inevitable upward 'knick' in the plotted line when the top portion impacts the still erect bottom building portion, the North Tower one shows a constant straight downward plotted line during the whole time that the top portion reference point he chosed, went down, untill it passed the initiating point and got lost in the explosions clouds.

I am amazed that a clever guy like you can't see through the "MIST of NIST".
edit on 23/12/12 by LaBTop because: See my EDIT at 3:18:45 .



posted on Dec, 24 2012 @ 03:16 PM
link   
reply to post by RoScoLaz
 


Really? I have no problems finding photos and witnesses to the debris of an United Airlines airliner at the crash site. In addition, I have no problems finding interviews about the personal effects found belonging to the passengers and crew known to be on Flight 93, at the crash site.





new topics
top topics
 
9
<< 1   >>

log in

join