FAQ   Search   Memberlist   Usergroups   Register   Profile   Log in to check your private messages   Log in 
WTC7.... the Final Verdict is in on 9/11
Goto page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    The Next Level Forum Index -> General Discussion
  ::  Previous topic :: Next topic  
Author Message
Aemilius



Joined: 14 Mar 2015
Posts: 43

PostPosted: Wed Apr 29, 2015 8:58 am    Post subject: WTC7.... the Final Verdict is in on 9/11 Reply with quote

WTC7 - ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSION

A complete Empirically Verifiable Scientific Method Driven Graphical Target System
Analysis and Conclusion arrived at by Process of Elimination.


The conditions required for gravitational acceleration
to occur have been known for centuries....

The condition under which a body is, literally, free
to fall under the influence of the local gravitational field
with no resistance to its acceleration....

The control that appears on the right in many of the
animations is intended as a reminder of that, and also
signals the beginning of a comparison....

We can still know with certainty what conditions exist
beneath an object as it falls....

....even though we may not be able to see into the
space beneath it as it does....

Buckled columns, whether one or a hundred, whether one
at a time or all at once (or any combination thereof) won't just go
from 100% to 0% when they buckle, they'll steadily
decrease in strength while they buckle and that takes time....

The mechanism of buckling, a mode of natural progressive
structural failure, whether caused by heat....

....by overloading....

....or even other modes of natural progressive structural failure
such as impact induced fracturing....

....or fracturing due to overloading....

....absolutely can not match or create the conditions required for gravitational
acceleration to occur, it's literally impossible. There is no such
thing as structural gravitational acceleration....

Some force must be introduced to quickly remove all support from
beneath the literally falling visible upper part of the building seen
in the video. The claimed progressive collapse of the building
(NIST probable collapse sequence starting with column 79 on the left)....

....that essentially happens all at once....

....is clearly physically inconsistent with what we empirically
know
of natural progressive structural failure (defined as a time
consuming process of individual/sequential/simultaneous failure
involving one or a number of related structural components). It's
a physical impossibility for the lower part of the
asymmetrically damaged building (reportedly three core
columns and nine perimeter columns)....

....to have naturally progressively collapsed in any way that
could result in the upper part of the building symmetrically
descending straight down through itself (NIST probable collapse
sequence starting with column 79 circled below) at anything
near gravitational acceleration for any period of time....

Any building collapse like that seen playing out below (as
seen from the South) resulting from a natural progressive structural
failure of a steel frame building including a 105 foot 2.25 second
period of gravitational acceleration is an absolute physical impossibility....

....and there is absolutely no mode or combination of modes of
natural progressive structural failure driven solely by gravity that
can ever give rise to the conditions required for free fall to have
occurred at any point during it's descent....

The scenario playing out below is an absolute physical impossibility.
Just as there is no such thing as structural gravitational acceleration, nor is there any
failure mode known as natural progressive structural gravitational acceleration....

There is simply no point during a natural progressive gravity driven
collapse of any steel frame skyscraper where one could say....
"Hold it.... right there! That's the point where all the steel columns
and structural components
that were supporting the building just a
moment ago
(with an area greater than that of a football field)
will undoubtedly be found to be behaving in a manner very much like
air
(below left). It will take very careful calculation to tell the fall
times apart during this free fall period of the ongoing natural
progressive structural failure
(below right)"....


For the 2.25 seconds (eight stories, approximately 105 feet) that we
know the upper part of the building literally fell at gravitational
acceleration it cannot have been using any of it's potential
energy to crush the building contents, columns and other structural
components beneath it and undergo free fall at the same time (as
illustrated by this frangible impedance scenario)....

It's physically impossible for the lower asymmetrically
damaged part of the building to have naturally progressively collapsed
in a way that could result in the upper part of the building actually
accelerating as it descended symmetrically straight down through
itself, through the path of maximum resistance (below right), and then,
driven on solely by gravity, actually continue to accelerate so
nearly to gravitational acceleration (below left) as to require very
careful calculation
for any difference between the two to be detected....

Some other force powerful enough to quickly remove all support
from beneath the upper part of the building as it descended must
be introduced to explain the observed rate of descent during the 2.25
second period of gravitational acceleration. For the 2.25 seconds that the
building literally fell at gravitational acceleration, no other force
powerful enough to quickly remove all support from beneath the
upper part of the building was seen to be introduced from outside
the building, and no other force powerful enough to quickly remove
all support from beneath the upper part of the building is known
to have existed inside the building as an element or normal
function of it's infrastructure. For a load supported by a column to
descend at gravitational acceleration, all support must be quickly
removed, there's absolutely no other way. It must be knocked
out, pulled out, blown out, vaporized etc. Since no eight story tall
boulders were seen rumbling through Manhatten that day that could have
quickly knocked out all support....

....and no suspicious looking Frenchmen were spotted rigging for verinage
(a form of controlled demolition) the night before that could have
quickly pulled out all support....

....and no bombs or rockets were seen to be dropped on/fired at it that
could have quickly blown out all support....

....and no giant laser beams or other secret weapons were being tested in
the area that could have quickly vaporized all support....

....and no other force capable of quickly removing all support from
beneath the upper part of the building existed in the building as a
normal function of it's infrastructure (blue)....

....it naturally follows that whatever the other force was that
must be introduced to explain the observed 2.25 seconds of descent
at gravitional acceleration, it must have been introduced some
time before the event, and unless someone can show how the
other force that must be introduced either during or just
before the collapse of the building was introduced from outside
the building, or that it was already existing inside the building as
a normal function of it's infrastructure, the process of elimination really
leaves only one possible explanation for the building's behaviour.
Some energetic material powerful enough to quickly remove all support
from beneath the upper part of the building during the 2.25 second period
of gravitational acceleration must have been physically transported
inside the building some time before the event, it had
to be brought in. The explosion model is the only one....

....that can realistically match and empirically be expected to
create the conditions that we know must have existed....

....beneath the literally falling visible upper part of the building
during its observed largely symmetrical descent at gravitational
acceleration for approximately 105 feet in 2.25 seconds....

The undisputed (both the NIST and independent researchers alike agree)
observation of a significant well defined period of gravitational acceleration....

Stage 1 (0 to 1.75 seconds): acceleration less than that of gravity (i.e., slower than free fall)

Stage 2 (1.75 to 4.0 seconds): gravitational acceleration (free fall)
NIST - "During Stage 2, the north face descended essentially (displaying all the absolutely
necessary, extremely important features) in free fall (free descent of a body in which the gravitational force
is the only force acting on it), indicating negligible (so small or unimportant as to be not worth
considering, insignificant) support from the structure below."


Stage 3 (4.0 to 5.4 seconds): decreased acceleration, again less than that of gravity

....means that an explosion, or a number of explosions, must have
occurred that was powerful enough to quickly remove all support
from beneath the upper part of the building (below right), either all at
once or incrementally in advance of its descent, permitting it to descend
at gravitational acceleration for the observed period and under the
conditions required (below left) for free fall to occur....

The empirically established fact that WTC7 was brought down by
explosives immediately shines a bright spotlight on literally the only
ones
who could possibly have carried out a covert domestic operation
of this magnitude (all the events of that day).... the only ones who
had exclusive 24/7 access to the highly secured building (WTC7).... the
only ones who were in complete control of the security system for
the building.... the only ones who had ready access to the quantity
and quality of energetic materials required.... and the only ones
who had the required expertise in the effective use of said energetic
materials. The fact is that only the Department of Defense/Central
Intelligence Agency could've done it. And just as one needn't be Isaac
Newton to see there is no other possible explanation for the behavior of
WTC7 other than energetic materials having been physically transported
inside the building, one needn't be Sherlock Holmes to see there is no
other possible explanation as to who could have done it since the building
was in perpetual lock down for many years as a highly secured
government facility.... it's elementary.


Last edited by Aemilius on Fri Dec 04, 2015 2:29 pm; edited 49 times in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Fintan
Site Admin


Joined: 18 Jan 2006
Posts: 8139

PostPosted: Sat May 02, 2015 5:26 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Great work Aemilius!

For the non-technical reader, that's the most persuasive,
clear and accessible case for the impossible free fall I've
ever seen online.

Most accounts of that issue are either far too technical or
mistakenly assume the lay reader is going to properly
understand the collapse dynamics.

So folks, compare the Aemilius analysis above with the
NIST graphic showing the alleged collapse mechanism:

Quote:

Source


Are we really to believe the official account that the above
lattice of connected girders buckled at a free fall speed?! Wink

There is an interesting point worth making
as a side note to your free fall stage analysis:

Quote:
" NIST knew very well, by the method that they were using, that an inward
movement of the top of the north wall would be interpreted as a downward movement –
because they used a point "near the middle" of the top of the wall where they knew that
the wall had moved inward the greatest amount – instead of using the northwest corner.

This enabled NIST to show an earlier "start time" of the descent of the north
face and a larger downward movement before the onset of free-fall."

Source


For those not aware, I interviewed Richard Gage of AE9/11Truth
about the Twin Towers and WTC7. We disagree on the Towers.

Audio interview here:
Quote:
LISTEN: http://breakfornews.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=54655#54655

[/url]


Will post more on this, this is a quick initial reaction.

_________________
Minds are like parachutes.
They only function when open.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Aemilius



Joined: 14 Mar 2015
Posts: 43

PostPosted: Tue May 05, 2015 8:32 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Fintan wrote:

Great work Aemilius!

For the non-technical reader, that's the most persuasive,
clear and accessible case for the impossible free fall I've
ever seen online.


Thanks Fintan (nice to meet you), that's quite a compliment!

I actually put a lot of work into it, in fact.... I'd literally bet my life on it. I spent two full months discussing it with Dr. Alan Calverd, a Cambridge University educated forty-five year veteran Ph.D Research Physicist and regular contributor to the Cambridge University sponsored website TheNakedScientists who, though he ultimately ended up repeatedly soiling himself academically over the entire course of the exchange by continuing to argue against the Law of Conservation of Energy as applied to a falling body in open debate with an eighth grade dropout was nevertheless instrumental in helping to guide the formatting of the animations. It's been over seven months now since I posted the analysis at the end of the thread "What is Free Fall?".

To date, not one member, not one moderator, not one podcast or other staff member at the TheNakedScientists or Cambridge University, particularly Dr. Calverd, has even managed to directly address it (NakedSilence?), let alone break it or point out any obvious error by simply copying and pasting one of the simple animations along with a bit of accompanying descriptive text that says anything like "This animation and accompanying descriptive text is incorrect, the scenario would not play out as depicted/described in the analysis and here's why....". This is also true of all the other forums I've brought this up in over the last two years or so (only name calling, personal attacks, distraction, obfuscation, etc.).

And it's not hard to see why really when one thinks about it, they (proponents of the official narrative) can't really confirm it or deny it without getting into trouble. In other words.... anyone who confirms the veracity of the analysis instantly falls into the "conspiracy theorist" category. This they absolutely will not do, so they don't confirm it, they just remain silent.... and anyone who denies the veracity of the analysis must point out some error. This they absolutely can not do, so they don't deny it either, again, they just remain silent.... they literally can not address it one way or the other!


Last edited by Aemilius on Sat Jul 18, 2015 9:28 am; edited 5 times in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
stillsearchingtruth



Joined: 22 Jul 2014
Posts: 331

PostPosted: Tue May 05, 2015 5:58 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Firstly this is absolutely stellar work but...you should not be letting this gather dust.
Reach out to some of the bigger YouTube channels for a kick off because this needs to be given oxygen.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Aemilius



Joined: 14 Mar 2015
Posts: 43

PostPosted: Wed May 06, 2015 11:27 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hi there stillsearchingtruth....

stillsearchingtruth wrote:

Firstly this is absolutely stellar work...


Again, what a compliment!

stillsearchingtruth wrote:

Reach out to some of the bigger YouTube channels for a kick off because this needs to be given oxygen.


At fifty-six, I'm still a relative newcomer to the internet (about five years) working with old salvaged computers (no instructions, took me about a year with the first one just to figure the damn thing out!) on an incredibly slow free dial-up connection. It works alright for forums, viewing and creating gif animations, etc., but even a two minute video literally takes forever to download and usually ends up with an "error" message of some sort, so not sure exactly how I'd go about that or even which ones to approach.... Any ideas?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Southpark Fan



Joined: 24 Nov 2011
Posts: 1432
Location: The Caribbean of Canada

PostPosted: Wed May 06, 2015 12:28 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Nice work Aemilius!

Try this to speed things up:

If using Windows - click Start (bottom left corner windows symbol)>>right click>>Computer>>click>>Properties>>If you have a System Properties pop-up Window open or a different layout, open Device Manager depending on how you see this - Open Device Manager>>Click on [+]Ports(COM & LPT)>>Double click on your internet connected Communications Port ( COM1 or COM2 )>>Communication Port properties>>Port Settings Tab

Ok, now change

Bits per second to Maximum (128000)
Select Flow Control = Hardware











You can use an alternate method to get to the Device Manager:

Click Start (bottom left corner windows symbol)>>Control Panel>>System>>If you have a System Properties pop-up Window open or a different layout, open Device Manager depending on how you see this - Open Device Manager>>Click on [+]Ports(COM & LPT)>>Double click on your internet connected Communications Port ( COM1 or COM2 )>>Communication Port properties>>Port Settings Tab

Ok, now change

Bits per second to Maximum (128000)
Select Flow Control = Hardware

_________________
"Now water can flow or it can crash. Be water, my friend." - Bruce Lee
"Three things cannot be long hidden: the sun, the moon, and the truth." - Buddha
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Big Boss



Joined: 04 May 2008
Posts: 826
Location: Outer Heaven

PostPosted: Thu May 07, 2015 11:18 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Initial reaction: absolutely amazing.....I'll keep reading and studying. Talk about breaking it down to the most common denominator, which is exactly in line with what the majority of members here at BFN have generally always agreed on if not suspected outright. Welcome aboard Aemilius! What brought you to BFNews?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Aemilius



Joined: 14 Mar 2015
Posts: 43

PostPosted: Thu May 07, 2015 1:05 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hi Southpark Fan....

Thanks for the compliment! Followed your settings instructions with negative results. Thanks for trying though, I appreciate your trouble shooting for me.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Aemilius



Joined: 14 Mar 2015
Posts: 43

PostPosted: Thu May 07, 2015 6:02 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Glad you like it Big Boss. I don't remember exactly how I came across BFN (I do a lot of random searches), but at some point I put a shortcut to it on the desktop and finally checked it out.... and thanks for the welcome too.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
kathy



Joined: 20 Jan 2006
Posts: 728
Location: Surfing The Waves

PostPosted: Thu May 07, 2015 11:20 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Aemilius wrote:


At fifty-six, I'm still a relative newcomer to the internet (about five years) working with old salvaged computers (no instructions, took me about a year with the first one just to figure the damn thing out!) on an incredibly slow free dial-up connection. It works alright for forums, viewing and creating gif animations, etc., but even a two minute video literally takes forever to download and usually ends up with an "error" message of some sort, so not sure exactly how I'd go about that or even which ones to approach.... Any ideas?


Hi Aemilius and welcome, you have dragged me out of my cocoon to respond and welcome you to breakfornews. You are in good company here among the wonderful members of BFN forum. Like you I received no formal training on how to use a computer, but I was lucky that the one I started on was new back in 1996. However we do remember the pain of dail up and sharing the line between two computers. Squabbles about who was hogging the bandwidth were regular occurrences. I applaud you on your work despite the difficulties with your connection. I am sure the lads here will have great advice for you.

Keep up the great work.

_________________
IMAGINE
Truth fears no questions
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Aemilius



Joined: 14 Mar 2015
Posts: 43

PostPosted: Fri May 08, 2015 2:38 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hi kathy and thanks (sorry to wake you up)!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Southpark Fan



Joined: 24 Nov 2011
Posts: 1432
Location: The Caribbean of Canada

PostPosted: Sat May 09, 2015 1:40 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

That is too bad it didn't help Aemilius. One thing, you need to make sure your computer is optimized; that is, no viruses, no programs running in the background wasting resources etc...

Maybe the work you have done has led to the story below Aemilius?

Anyway....

American Institute of Architects to reconsider WTC 7 Collapse
Victoria N. Alexander | May 7, 2015 | Digital Journal


Expose the two frauds; firstly dismantle the fairy tale behind these events, and secondly, expose NIST for the fraud that it is.

Quote:
At their national convention May 14-16, AIA members will be voting on a resolution to adopt a position statement in support of a new investigation into the collapse of “Building 7” on September 11, 2001.

The 47-story building, that formerly stood in the shadow of the North Tower, fell fairly neatly into its own footprint at about 5:20 PM on that tragic day. Other buildings in the World Trade Center complex were severely damaged by falling debris from the Towers and remained standing. But Building 7, not damaged as significantly as other buildings, suffered a sudden total collapse, which was captured on a number of videos.

A government investigation into the extraordinary demise of “Building 7” was undertaken by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), the agency responsible for helping set building industry safety standards. The NIST report, published in 2008, concluded that floor beams, heated by fires fueled by office furnishings, expanded to such an extent that they pushed a girder off its seat, causing a cascade of floors that left a key column laterally unsupported for several floors, which then caused the column to buckle. The report claims that this column's buckling then brought down the entire structure in seconds.

As catastrophic as these results were, NIST made no recommendations to retrofit hundreds of existing similarly constructed buildings to prevent them from suffering similar fates in the case of normal office fires.

Fifty-five AIA members who have proposed the resolution argue that, if office fires caused this kind of damage to a steel frame building, we need to be concerned about the safety of the people working and living in these kinds of buildings. Although NIST claims "more than 20 changes in the U.S. model building and fire codes have already been adopted based on the findings and recommendations from the investigation," the concerned AIA members point out that very few of NIST's recommendations that have been implemented relate to structural integrity in general, and none relate to the type of failure NIST says caused WTC 7 to collapse.

_________________
"Now water can flow or it can crash. Be water, my friend." - Bruce Lee
"Three things cannot be long hidden: the sun, the moon, and the truth." - Buddha
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    The Next Level Forum Index -> General Discussion All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Goto page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8  Next
Page 1 of 8

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group

Theme xand created by spleen.