Nobles makes some mention of the fact that portions of the cores of both Towers remained standing after the collapses. Otherwise the top section would have extended far into parts of the building that are clearly as yet unaffected by the collapse." "It is clear that that the top section itself must be disintegrating. Debunkers have yet to provide any rational explanation for this event.Īnother phenomenon is the disintegration of the upper section of WTC 2 as it collapsed. One of which is the instant acceleration of the upper section of WTC 1. Nobles portrays NIST and Bazant as having explained that "the acceleration of their descent was not mathematically unusual," there are phenomenons in the collapses of both buildings that neither NIST nor Bazant account for. Those can be viewed here and here.Īlthough Mr. Two refutations have even been peer reviewed and published in the same journal Bazant's papers have been published in. He refers to Bazant's work as providing "more rigorous calculations" and that his papers have been published in "respected scientific journals." However, several refutations to Bazant's work have been written over the years. Nobles then cites the work of Bazant et al. It is unsupported by any calculation or logical argument. It ignores the fact that most of the rubble fell outside the towers' footprints, and hence could not contribute to crushing. It requires us to believe that the massive steel frames of the towers provided no more resistance to falling rubble than air. NIST's assertion that the Tower's intact structure was "unable to stop or even to slow the falling mass" is absurd: He first cites a statement made in NIST's FAQ on the WTC, ignoring the fact that nowhere in NIST's report do they explain the actual total collapse of the buildings. Nobles attempts to demonstrate that the rate at which the buildings fell has already been well accounted for by several sources. The east penthouse could be more accurately described as a "portion." That makes it sound like it was a very small part of the building that collapsed. Nobles refers to the main structure of WTC 7 as a "portion" of the collapse. But clearly the idea of sections of the roof falling in a demolition before the main structure is not unheard of. Sure, there was a much shorter gap between the two events than with Building 7. And it is not impossible that roof elements can collapse in a demolition before the main structure. I myself have already shown the collapse of column 79 and the penthouse is problematic enough. This is an issue that has been addressed several times already, but many debunkers still think the fall of the east penthouse invalidates the idea that WTC 7 was a demolition. Nobles then presents this video to demonstrate that Building 7 actually took close to 16 seconds to collapse. It has already been established that the total time for the Towers to come down was approximately 15 seconds in either case. What's more, the rate of fall for some of the pieces of steel has itself been shown to be a smoking gun. David Chandler has outlined this characteristic of the collapses very accurately. While the debris is certainly falling faster than the actual collapse, the wave of the destruction appears to be keeping up with the majority of the debris. Nobles features this photo to demonstrate how the debris coming off from the Towers is falling faster than the Towers themselves. If we are trying to establish whether or not the buildings were controlled demolitions, then the question really should not be "did the buildings fall at free fall?" The question should be "did the buildings fall in time intervals consistent with controlled demolitions?" That of course begs the question of whether or not buildings destroyed through controlled demolition fall in free fall. However, I have often felt that trying to determine if the WTC fell at free fall acceleration is in itself somewhat misleading. It is clearly more appropriate to say "acceleration" rather than "speed" when discussing the issue of free fall. Nobles makes is one I happen to agree with. The Difference Between "Speed" and "Acceleration" This is a response to the AE911Truth.Info page titled "Freefall Speed." Here, I will examine the arguments made by Joseph Nobles and see if they are justifiable.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |