No bob, bucked exterior columns will provide negligible resistance. It has also been hypothesised that the collapsing debris internally also "pulled" the exterior facade down faster than natural acceleration, in fact faster than free fall.
and to round out the available info https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e8N6V68jotg Note that one of these guys teaches physics for a living and one appears to have slept through Science 101......
Free-Fall indicates NO resistance, "negligible" resistance is still resistance the bits under the falling mass would have slowed down the falling mass, therefore the ONLY option that works in this case is the total removal of resistance from under the falling mass. Not to mention the fact that your "negligible" resistance would have to be UNIFORM over the whole length & width of the West & North walls in order to produce the result observed.
Why? The phenomenon was only observed in the NW corner. What leads you to conclude that it would mean the entire North and West faces also followed suit?
Check the video of the "collapse" of WTC7 note that the entire North & West faces of the building fall in unison.
Yes, I've seen that video countless times, and while it 'looks' unison, it actually isn't, and I'm fairly certain the measurement only applied to the NW corner. I will look into that again as it has been some time since I read the data.
Explain why some of Chandler's data points show LESS than free fall. The graph was not a perfectly straight line drawn through all data points.
Correct. Anyone showing a graph of non-linear data points and then claiming that the AVERAGE line through them is a constant is in an unrealistic fantasy world.
the average line through them IS constant, that is the purpose of linear regression. your post makes no sense
Let me explain this for you since you don't seem to understand. Let's say I do an experiment. Let's say I have someone drive from point A to point B and that drive took 3 hours. During that drive, I record the speed of the car every 10 minutes. At the end of the trip, I create a graph showing all of the 10 minute recordings I have (data points) made over the course of the 3 hour trip. I then draw a line across the graph representing 55 mph. Some of my data points are above that line, some fall on that line, and some fall above that line. Based on the information in that graph, are you telling me that the following statement would be true? The car's speed was 55 mph for the whole trip. Are you saying that the 55 mph speed was CONSTANT through the whole trip?
Have you considered taking a physics course? The purpose of a linear regression is in fact to yield a straight line constant to take into account measurement, charting and data error to obtain a best fit. NIST used the same method in their calculations. I do not dispute the use of linear regression for that purpose. So what obscure point of minutia are you trying to make? That we do not live in a mathematically perfect world?
Have you considered actually answering the post or are you going to continue to play games? Every time you are presented with a tough question, you try and hide your ignorance by diverting the conversation in another direction. Just answer the question presented above. Based on my experiment presented above, is it accurate to say that the car traveled at 55 mph for the whole trip? Yes or no?
you are the one playing games with your giant broad funnel throw anything together despite the fact it does not fit approach. Stop funneling everything together. A sows ear is not a silk purse. That is why I explained how it works. I guess I wasted my time.
You explained nothing. I asked you if it was an accurate statement to say that the car in the scenario I laid out above traveled at 55 mph for the entire trip. You won't answer because you know where it leads. Your evasion is noted by all here.
If you think that I don't understand math or physics and that I am playing games, why are you finding it difficult to answer the simple question? Answering my question surely wouldn't degrade the validity of any of your claims right?
either you have a point or not. if you cant make it not my problem, I dont loose any sleep over it LOL State the point you want to make and I will comment.
I already have made my point. You have proved it many times over with your ability to not answer simple questions. Oh well. I tried.
Wow... For me one funny part about the guys trying to claim that WTC 7 fell at free fall speed is the video one of them linked which shows that it didn't do so at all. Specifically the first video on this page. http://www.wtc7.net/videos.html It's shot from an elevated vantage point and it shows that one of the "penthouse" structures collapsed several seconds before the main building. The only way they can claim that the building collapsed at free fall speed is to ignore the very evidence they attempt to use to show that it did. Another things is they all seem to not mention any of the very unique properties of the building. For instance I have yet to see one of them mention that there was a Con Ed sub station under WTC7 and that when that sub station was built a caisson foundation system for a 25 story building was installed but the eventual WTC was 47 stories. Which resulted in the need of a cantilever structure to carry some of the load.
