[quote=darbikrash]Both Jim H and Stan Robertson reference the same web page. The jist of the claims are related to the time domain of the event- physicist Chandler claims the event is ~2.5 seconds, the NIST claims ~ 5.45 seconds.
Pretty big difference. At 2.5 seconds we have a problem, at 5.45 we do not.
Unfortunately, this is not science, this is he said- she said. However, I did look at several videos on this website that purportedly show the collapse from several angles. I do not count 2.5 seconds, no matter how hard I try. Nowhere close.
And down the rabbit hole we go……
[/quote]
There's no rabbit hole here, only facts. As you can understand better than most, if you measure 5.4 seconds of collapse but only the middle 2.5 seconds are freefall, you won't get freefall rates for the whole 5.4 second period.
That's just simple science and for NIST to have counted some seemingly random 5.4 second interval to measure as a means of dispelling instantaneous freefall at any moment would get their paper tossed during even the shoddiest peer review process performed by graduate student lab assistants.
However, I say there's no rabbit hole because when finally cornered with the video evidence NIST had to backtrack and has now admitted freefall. From the NIST website (emphasis mine):
The analyses of the video (both the estimation of the instant the roofline began to descend and the calculated velocity and acceleration of a point on the roofline) revealed three distinct stages characterizing the 5.4 seconds of collapse:
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)
Stage 3 (4.0 to 5.4 seconds): decreased acceleration, again less than that of gravity
(Source - NIST.gov website)
So this is not "he said, she said" this is straightforward and easily verified video frame analysis of a well documented event and even the NIST has now admitted a sustained period of freefall.
The only debate right now is whether that was 2.5 or 2.25 seconds.
But, as you said, for any period like that, we have a problem. However one of the problems we do not have is any uncertainty over the fact that free fall happened.
When bark is peeled off a tree, it's removed as varying sized chunks or plates. This is likely why the bark was likely peeled all the way to the base. It's like the outer skin of an orange.
This tree happened to be dead, so the bark peels into larger chunks, but the idea is the same.
Chainsaws or handsaws would do more direct damage to the heartwood of the tree in my opinion whereas the car disperses the damage more. I think an axe or a hatchet would be a more appropriate tool to do that damage, but the heartwood would me a mess. Anyways it's challenging to interpret exactly how ever bit of damage was done as we are not physically at the tree and are only looking at a low-resolution photo.
I've seen car damage on trees and it looks just like what we see in the photo. I'm very confident that a car had damaged the tree and not something else based on my experiences.
Ok, I got the video to work. First, "head on collision" appears to be not quite accurate. The damage to the car was largely on the left front and the car was displaced quite a way away from the tree. The way I think of "head on" the car would have stopped with the front end wrapped around the tree. So, a glancing blow would be more likely to result in the damage to the tree.Further, damage I have seen on trees caused by car collisions frequently have scars that are not intuitively identified as being caused by the collision. There are all kinds of movements caused by a collapsing car hitting the tree unlike those test collisions we have all seen videos of where a car is on a track and hits an immovable object.
Second, I have a lot of experience with chainsaws and would have a difficult time trying to duplicate the damage to the tree. Perhaps those people who create chainsaw sculptures could do better. I agree with WT that the tree was alive and (probably still) healthy. True, bark will come off in plates from dead trees, but not from healthy trees. Further, I'm pretty sure that tree is not an American Elm, the species most commonly associated with Dutch Elm disease. I have seen a lot of that disease since I have a lot of American Elms on my property that suffer periodic waves of the disease and die. Those trees never reach the size and age of the pictured tree. They rarely get to 20 years and/or a foot in diameter.
So, I'll stick with a car hit the tree theory.
Doug
[quote=Bankers Slave]All three towers were brought down in the same manner, the only difference being, they forgot about or lost the third plane.
[/quote]
Or maybe building 7 did have a plane assigned but the passengers had other plans. Seems like there were a lot of loose ends along those lines. http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c5/World_Trade_Center%2C_New_York_City_-_aerial_view_(March_2001).jpg
WTC7 is reddish brown, behind WTC1 and 2 in this March 2001 photo.
Chris begins this article with this comment: "I like to say that I’m allergic to conspiracy theories because . . ."
Consider that over several hundred years the Roman Catholic Empire sadistically murdered millions of woman, keepers and providers of the knowledge of how to live sustainably, and then employed generations of workers to build monumental edifices to itself, then it is clear that organizations can and do execute domination plans that span not just years or decades, but centuries. There is little to deny and much to support the postulate that the same kind of domination plans are in play today. That is not 'conspiracy theory', that is reality.
[quote=sivarik]Chris begins this article with this comment: "I like to say that I’m allergic to conspiracy theories because . . ."
[/quote]
Just for clarity's sake, the author of the article is Jim Kunstler not myself.
We regularly bring other voices to the conversation and let them have free reign over content and phrasing.
After 12 years of using the "average" rate of descent (which "averaged in" an initial period of motionlessness) and stating that there was no free fall, they finally admitted that there was a period of free fall. I believe that this was in response to David Chandlers video and article which were very widely circulated. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jh75fxzxGfs
But, they did NOT take the next step and revise their explanation for the mechanism of collapse. They let their progressive mechanism model stand untouched.
WT and Doug,Thanks for your responses. I appreciate them and while I suspected the bark might have been evidence of a setup, it was nothing more than a suspicion. You guys very well might be right, and I haven't seen enough cars hit trees to have a well-informed opinion. Doug, I was just kidding about Dutch Elm Disease…the crash happened in the Netherlands. :)
Cheers,
Hugh
Car examples…
Another animal behavior I didn't really mention is bark stripping which is done by beavers to create succession in the tree species around their pond, but also by bears to reach tree cambium. Bear bark stripping example here…
Snowden was not an NSA employee, he worked for a contractor. Also, his job responsibility did not include handling any of this information, he got access because he was a systems admin. Had he been an NSA employee he would have been screened frequently by polygraph and his ability to steal information would have been far more restricted.It's old, but the book "Inside the Company" by Philip Agee is very relevant reading. It describes what the CIA did in other countries during the late fifties and early sixties. The difference is they, or another alphabet soup agency, are now doing it here.
As to the secrecy aspect, out of the many thousands of CIA employees Agee was the only one to lay out in detail what the CIA actually did. He suffered greatly for it, and now both the laws and the courts are stacked much more heavily against such whistle blowers.
Agee's book also details the psychological profiling they use to insure that people of conscience aren't hired in the first place. This process has no doubt been refined over the years to further reduce the odds that a Philip Agee type might slip through.
There are countless examples of conspiracies that stayed below the public radar for many years, yet are now generally accepted. Iran Contra is one that involved at least hundreds of people, broke numerous laws, reached to the highest eshelons of the government. People who dared call attention to it were dismissed or liquidated. It was only hard evidence in the form of a downed airplane and captured pilot that brought it to light. Even then, the bulk of it was never disclosed in the mainstream media but can be found in books by reputable investigative reporters and individuals caught in the middle. See for example "Compromised" by Terry Reid or "Family of Secrets" by Russ Baker.
For ongoing investigative reporting by Russ Baker see http://whowhatwhy.com/
[quote=Bankers Slave]Can anyone enlighten me on the relevance of the tree bark removal mystery information.
Thanks in anticipation.
[/quote]
Perhaps a subtle "change of topic" to divert attention away from the discussion at hand?
if what you state is the case.1 million plus innocents dead and rising since 9/11 and still we have people accepting the official story…some very articulate and intelligent ones at that!
I just hope that some day they will rethink911.org
about chemtrails and not the implications to today's coal burning practices?
Chemtrails may be contributing to the input of heavy metals into our water resources, whereas unfiltered coal burning is contributing to the input of heavy metals into our water resources.
See the logic there?
The best evidence for chemtrails is non-point source pollution of heavy metals that can be directly connected to coal burning power plants. Can't we get mad at that instead?
Maybe this whole chemtrail business is a planted idea to take our minds away from the downside to burning coal
Thanks, WT, for keeping us focused on the big picture:The amazing power, the amazing dynamism, and eventually the amazing instability and destruction that are fossil fuels.
That's the big story of our contemporary civilization for sure.
Chemtrails are just an example of an exercise in critical thinking. You are no doubt correct that coal burning represents a much more egregious insult to our atmosphere than does any purported spraying by planes. Air traffic is by no means without effect though… the combustion particles emitted, and the contrails (clouds) that result Do have effects that we can assess scientifically;
Aircraft contrails affect climate by reflection of incoming so-
lar radiation and trapping of outgoing terrestrial radiation.
Thereby the global net effect results in a warming of the
atmosphere (Fahey et al., 1999). A common metric for the
quantification of the climate impact from contrails is con-
trail radiative forcing (RF), the difference between the ra-
diative fluxes at the tropopause of two atmospheric scenar-
ios with and without contrails.
I had a similar response from my brother when I attempted to enlighten him about 9/11. His response was "that can't be true" When I asked why, he said "If that was true I'd have to move to Canada, I couldn't be an American".
