3:16:30 - Chandler asserts that freefall = demolition, but without providing any supporting evidence for this. Where are the traces of a number of
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
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.
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
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
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