9/11 Conspiracy

[SAYIT]

For starters I never said "all the supports over 8 floors were severed at the same time." Obviously each floor could be 'removed' progressively, so long as they offered no resistance. Still, all I said was that it experienced a free fall through 8 stories.

As to you're point, and I didn't see the model so I am not conceding a .8 second non free fall period.
But if it's as you say, you're making the assumption that what caused the .8 second of non free fall movement is the same "event" that caused the 8 story free fall.
Put another way:
The roof starting it's descent isn't necessarily caused by the same thing as that which caused the 8 story free fall -- it could be the result of something that occurred first in a series of rapidly occurring 'events.'

But you already know that....

No it wasn't a different event.

The point on the roofline that was used to measure free-fall movement, from beginning (the non-free-fall past AND the free-fall part) to end, moved downward along with the REST of the roofline. Whatever event initiated the downward movement of the roofline affected the WHOLE roofline.

Do you not even understand what truthers are claiming? They say that the entirety of what remained of WT7 came down SYMMETRICALLY. That all vertical supports for eight floors were severed. That is why there was 2.25 seconds of free-fall. There cannot be different parts of the building falling at different times or speeds. That goes against everyting they are claiming.

Or are you disagreeing with what the other truthers believe?

What we see is ABSOLUTELY a building coming down SYMMETRICALLY.
NIST knew for this to occur it would require all the columns on any given floor to give way at precisely the same time and this would need to occur for every floor -an impossibility for an office fire...

Given the events of 9/11 - a high speed impact with a large passenger jet and the ensuing chaotic fires - severing all the columns on any given floor to give way at precisely the same time would have been an impossibility.

 

[Gamolon]

For starters I never said "all the supports over 8 floors were severed at the same time." Obviously each floor could be 'removed' progressively, so long as they offered no resistance. Still, all I said was that it experienced a free fall through 8 stories.

As to you're point, and I didn't see the model so I am not conceding a .8 second non free fall period.
But if it's as you say, you're making the assumption that what caused the .8 second of non free fall movement is the same "event" that caused the 8 story free fall.
Put another way:
The roof starting it's descent isn't necessarily caused by the same thing as that which caused the 8 story free fall -- it could be the result of something that occurred first in a series of rapidly occurring 'events.'

But you already know that....

No it wasn't a different event.

The point on the roofline that was used to measure free-fall movement, from beginning (the non-free-fall past AND the free-fall part) to end, moved downward along with the REST of the roofline. Whatever event initiated the downward movement of the roofline affected the WHOLE roofline.

Do you not even understand what truthers are claiming? They say that the entirety of what remained of WT7 came down SYMMETRICALLY. That all vertical supports for eight floors were severed. That is why there was 2.25 seconds of free-fall. There cannot be different parts of the building falling at different times or speeds. That goes against everyting they are claiming.

Or are you disagreeing with what the other truthers believe?

What we see is ABSOLUTELY a building coming down SYMMETRICALLY.
NIST knew for this to occur it would require all the columns on any given floor to give way at precisely the same time and this would need to occur for every floor -an impossibility for an office fire. So they came up with the crazy story that as we watch the building with seemingly nothing happening it's actually collapsing in a haphazard Asymmetrical manner on the inside -with the outer building shell hiding this from view - then the shell collapses symmetrically.

Different events, like pistons firing in an engine are unique events -they may start slow and accelerate -the motion of the car however is one continuous flow

No, it wasn't symmetrical.

The penthouse fell first, followed by the rest of the interior, then the facade came down. Why is it that you truthers continually use half truths to try and prove a point?

 

[Gamolon]

The roof starting it's descent isn't necessarily caused by the same thing as that which caused the 8 story free fall -- it could be the result of something that occurred first in a series of rapidly occurring 'events.

Then what was it? Couldn't have been explosives because that would have generated immediate free-fall.

Consider this also. The graph that shows free-fall is an AVERAGE of data points taken at various times during the roofline descent. An AVERAGE based on points HIGHER and LOWER than free-fall speeds. How do you explain those data points?

How about you explain to me how the columns throughout the entire horizontal plane of the building collapse at precisely the same time for every floor?

There weren't columns "throughout the entire horizontal plane" that collapsed for every floor. The east penthouse and the structure below collapsed 6 seconds prior to the facade. As has been explained to you, there were three phases. The east penthouse collapsed first, followed by the collapse progression to the west of the rest of the interior, then the facade.

- and how it happens on 8 separate floors in a manner that they offer no resistance?

There WAS resistance. I just explained it to you. There was resistance prior to the free-fall period as the remaining structure failed. The graph of the free fall period is an AVERAGE. The data points in the graph show points both above and below free fall speeds.

Why don't you answer a question for once and explain what those above and below free fall data point mean in terms of a collapsing building.

 

[CAPTCHATHIS]

The roof starting it's descent isn't necessarily caused by the same thing as that which caused the 8 story free fall -- it could be the result of something that occurred first in a series of rapidly occurring 'events.

Then what was it? Couldn't have been explosives because that would have generated immediate free-fall.

Consider this also. The graph that shows free-fall is an AVERAGE of data points taken at various times during the roofline descent. An AVERAGE based on points HIGHER and LOWER than free-fall speeds. How do you explain those data points?

How about you explain to me how the columns throughout the entire horizontal plane of the building collapse at precisely the same time for every floor?

There weren't columns "throughout the entire horizontal plane" that collapsed for every floor. The east penthouse and the structure below collapsed 6 seconds prior to the facade. As has been explained to you, there were three phases. The east penthouse collapsed first, followed by the collapse progression to the west of the rest of the interior, then the facade.

- and how it happens on 8 separate floors in a manner that they offer no resistance?

There WAS resistance. I just explained it to you. There was resistance prior to the free-fall period as the remaining structure failed. The graph of the free fall period is an AVERAGE. The data points in the graph show points both above and below free fall speeds.

Why don't you answer a question for once and explain what those above and below free fall data point mean in terms of a collapsing building.

The data points in the graph show points both above and below free fall speeds.

The roof starting it's descent isn't necessarily caused by the same thing as that which caused the 8 story free fall -- it could be the result of something that occurred first in a series of rapidly occurring 'events.

Then what was it? Couldn't have been explosives because that would have generated immediate free-fall.

Consider this also. The graph that shows free-fall is an AVERAGE of data points taken at various times during the roofline descent. An AVERAGE based on points HIGHER and LOWER than free-fall speeds. How do you explain those data points?

How about you explain to me how the columns throughout the entire horizontal plane of the building collapse at precisely the same time for every floor?

There weren't columns "throughout the entire horizontal plane" that collapsed for every floor. The east penthouse and the structure below collapsed 6 seconds prior to the facade. As has been explained to you, there were three phases. The east penthouse collapsed first, followed by the collapse progression to the west of the rest of the interior, then the facade.

- and how it happens on 8 separate floors in a manner that they offer no resistance?

There WAS resistance. I just explained it to you. There was resistance prior to the free-fall period as the remaining structure failed. The graph of the free fall period is an AVERAGE. The data points in the graph show points both above and below free fall speeds.

Why don't you answer a question for once and explain what those above and below free fall data point mean in terms of a collapsing building.

There WAS resistance. I just explained it to you. There was resistance prior to the free-fall period as the remaining structure failed.

Listen numbnuts, I'm not going to play ring around the rosie with you. You admit there is a period of free fall. For that to occur it would require no resistance. As far your contention that the free fall period is an average - well any period where the speed is greater than free fall would require no resistance plus an additional force or a downward force far greater than just gravity to overcome any resistance

 

[Capstone]

In the spirit of the season, I've had a change of heart!

...If you want to use lame "chronological" and "it'll take too long" excuses as reasons to not discuss items I bring to the table, that's your problem. ...

Those "lame excuses" of mine weren't intended to justify an evasion on my part of any item of 'evidential garbage' you chose to bring to the table from Griffin's essay; they were intended to ensure that you eventually brought EVERY such item (including Harrit's paper) to the table, since that's what it would take to support your unqualified claim. I wasn't out to worm-out of the discussion; I was out to prevent you from worming-out of backing up just one of your many laughably broad statements on this board.

Of course, your failure to adequately support your claim is no skin off my nose, especially since I've expected as much all along.

In fact, in our brief interaction in this particular thread, you've given me no reason thus far to expect that our discussion on any number of issues would likely result in anything but your own humiliation.

...I brought Harrit's paper to the table first. Either discuss it or hide behind your excuses. Your choice.

Go on then, make your case that Harrit's study is a "piece of garbage". I stand ready and willing to defend it, and to highlight the deficiencies in any and all copy-and-pasted arguments you might bring against it.

 

[daws101]

The roof starting it's descent isn't necessarily caused by the same thing as that which caused the 8 story free fall -- it could be the result of something that occurred first in a series of rapidly occurring 'events.

Then what was it? Couldn't have been explosives because that would have generated immediate free-fall.

Consider this also. The graph that shows free-fall is an AVERAGE of data points taken at various times during the roofline descent. An AVERAGE based on points HIGHER and LOWER than free-fall speeds. How do you explain those data points?

How about you explain to me how the columns throughout the entire horizontal plane of the building collapse at precisely the same time for every floor?

There weren't columns "throughout the entire horizontal plane" that collapsed for every floor. The east penthouse and the structure below collapsed 6 seconds prior to the facade. As has been explained to you, there were three phases. The east penthouse collapsed first, followed by the collapse progression to the west of the rest of the interior, then the facade.

- and how it happens on 8 separate floors in a manner that they offer no resistance?

There WAS resistance. I just explained it to you. There was resistance prior to the free-fall period as the remaining structure failed. The graph of the free fall period is an AVERAGE. The data points in the graph show points both above and below free fall speeds.

Why don't you answer a question for once and explain what those above and below free fall data point mean in terms of a collapsing building.

The data points in the graph show points both above and below free fall speeds.

The roof starting it's descent isn't necessarily caused by the same thing as that which caused the 8 story free fall -- it could be the result of something that occurred first in a series of rapidly occurring 'events.

Then what was it? Couldn't have been explosives because that would have generated immediate free-fall.

Consider this also. The graph that shows free-fall is an AVERAGE of data points taken at various times during the roofline descent. An AVERAGE based on points HIGHER and LOWER than free-fall speeds. How do you explain those data points?

How about you explain to me how the columns throughout the entire horizontal plane of the building collapse at precisely the same time for every floor?

There weren't columns "throughout the entire horizontal plane" that collapsed for every floor. The east penthouse and the structure below collapsed 6 seconds prior to the facade. As has been explained to you, there were three phases. The east penthouse collapsed first, followed by the collapse progression to the west of the rest of the interior, then the facade.

- and how it happens on 8 separate floors in a manner that they offer no resistance?

There WAS resistance. I just explained it to you. There was resistance prior to the free-fall period as the remaining structure failed. The graph of the free fall period is an AVERAGE. The data points in the graph show points both above and below free fall speeds.

Why don't you answer a question for once and explain what those above and below free fall data point mean in terms of a collapsing building.

There WAS resistance. I just explained it to you. There was resistance prior to the free-fall period as the remaining structure failed.

Listen numbnuts, I'm not going to play ring around the rosie with you. You admit there is a period of free fall. For that to occur it would require no resistance. As far your contention that the free fall period is an average - well any period where the speed is greater than free fall would require no resistance plus an additional force or a downward force far greater than just gravity to overcome any resistance

false!
btw the word your looking for would be simultaneously.
and no the north face of wtc7 fell neither symmetrically or simultaneously.

 

[Capstone]

...Why don't you answer a question for once and explain what those above and below free fall data point mean in terms of a collapsing building.

The same thing they'd mean in any multi-stage video analysis of a known controlled demolition: namely how much material resistance was circumvented (removed) via implosion in order to initiate the building's collapse. In the case of WTC 7, it was apparently around 100 sq. feet (most likely the first 8 or so floors), aspects of which were likely removed in stages during the course of the day (as supported by the unwavering testimony of Barry Jennings and the earliest version of Michael Hess's testimony). One thing the NIST group's concession of 2 and a quater seconds worth of gravitational acceleration demands is the removal of all physical resistance to the downward motion, including any resistance from the concrete bearing walls (the so-called "facade") as they purportedly pulverized themselves into dust. In other words: a clear violation of the third law of motion.

 

[daws101]

...Why don't you answer a question for once and explain what those above and below free fall data point mean in terms of a collapsing building.

The same thing they'd mean in any multi-stage video analysis of a known controlled demolition: namely how much material resistance was circumvented (removed) via implosion in order to initiate the building's collapse. In the case of WTC 7, it was apparently around 100 sq. feet (most likely the first 8 or so floors), aspects of which were likely removed in stages during the course of the day (as supported by the unwavering testimony of Barry Jennings and the earliest version of Michael Hess's testimony). One thing the NIST group's concession of 2 and a quater seconds worth of gravitational acceleration demands is the removal of all physical resistance to the downward motion, including any resistance from the concrete bearing walls (the so-called "facade") as they purportedly pulverized themselves into dust. In other words: a clear violation of the third law of motion.

nice theory but no explosives or accelerants of any kind were found at any of the wtc sites or the pentagon or shanksville.

 

[daws101]

Newton's Third Law can fail in a number of cases:

• There is a time delay in the equations of motion, such as is the case for electrodynamics (as opposed to electrostatics). What is happening here is that the field that mediates the interaction is itself storing momentum. There is no room for such in Newton's 3rd. As mentioned before, this can be reconciled by observing that momentum is still conserved. Newton's 3rd law is conservation of momentum in the special case that forces are instantaneous and central in nature.
• The force is not central in nature, which once again is the case for electrodynamics. In the strong form of Newton's third law, third law force pairs must be equal but opposite in nature and the force must be directed along or against the line connecting the pair of particle. This form of Newton's third law conserves both translational and angular momentum. Translational and angular momentum can still be conserved in the case of non-central forces if the mediating field stores these momenta, but Newton's third does not apply in such cases.
• The underlying interaction inherently involves three or more particles. Newton's third demands that forces be resolvable down to pairs of particles. There are some multi-body interactions in quantum mechanics where the interactions only appears when three or more particles are present. These interactions cannot be isolated down to pairs, and once again Newton's third law fails.

In more advanced physics, it is the conservation laws that reign supreme. Newton's third law derives from the conservation laws with the assumption that forces act in pairs, act instantaneously, and act along the line connecting particle pairs. Drop those assumptions and you have to drop Newton's third law. You do not have to drop the conservation laws, however. In even higher level physics, the conservation laws themselves can be derived from the very nature of space and time.

Can Newton s Third Law Of Motion Be Violated

there are no examples of newton's third law being violated by explosives

 

[SAYIT]

For starters I never said "all the supports over 8 floors were severed at the same time." Obviously each floor could be 'removed' progressively, so long as they offered no resistance. Still, all I said was that it experienced a free fall through 8 stories.

As to you're point, and I didn't see the model so I am not conceding a .8 second non free fall period.
But if it's as you say, you're making the assumption that what caused the .8 second of non free fall movement is the same "event" that caused the 8 story free fall.
Put another way:
The roof starting it's descent isn't necessarily caused by the same thing as that which caused the 8 story free fall -- it could be the result of something that occurred first in a series of rapidly occurring 'events.'

But you already know that....

No it wasn't a different event.

The point on the roofline that was used to measure free-fall movement, from beginning (the non-free-fall past AND the free-fall part) to end, moved downward along with the REST of the roofline. Whatever event initiated the downward movement of the roofline affected the WHOLE roofline.

Do you not even understand what truthers are claiming? They say that the entirety of what remained of WT7 came down SYMMETRICALLY. That all vertical supports for eight floors were severed. That is why there was 2.25 seconds of free-fall. There cannot be different parts of the building falling at different times or speeds. That goes against everyting they are claiming.

Or are you disagreeing with what the other truthers believe?

What we see is ABSOLUTELY a building coming down SYMMETRICALLY.
NIST knew for this to occur it would require all the columns on any given floor to give way at precisely the same time and this would need to occur for every floor -an impossibility for an office fire. So they came up with the crazy story that as we watch the building with seemingly nothing happening it's actually collapsing in a haphazard Asymmetrical manner on the inside -with the outer building shell hiding this from view - then the shell collapses symmetrically.

Different events, like pistons firing in an engine are unique events -they may start slow and accelerate -the motion of the car however is one continuous flow

No, it wasn't symmetrical.

The penthouse fell first, followed by the rest of the interior, then the facade came down. Why is it that you truthers continually use half truths to try and prove a point?

Because the truth just doesn't serve their agenda.

 

[Gamolon]

Go on then, make your case that Harrit's study is a "piece of garbage". I stand ready and willing to defend it, and to highlight the deficiencies in any and all copy-and-pasted arguments you might bring against it.

According to Harrit's paper, he had four samples of dust. One from Ms. Janette MacKinlay (sample 1), Mr. Frank Delassio (sample 2), Mr. Jody Intermont (sample 3), and Mr. Stephen White (sample 4).

2. Chip Size, Isolation, and Examination

For clarification, the dust samples collected and sent to
the authors by Ms. Janette MacKinlay will be sample 1; the
sample collected by Mr. Frank Delassio, or the Delassio/
Breidenbach sample, will be sample 2; the sample collected
by Mr. Jody Intermont will be sample 3; and the sample
collected by Mr. Stephen White will be sample 4.

There was two criteria Harrit used to extract chips from each sample listed above for further testing. The criteria was that the chips had to have red and gray layers AND be attracted to a magnet.

The red/gray chips are attracted by a magnet, which facilitates
collection and separation of the chips from the bulk of the
dust. A small permanent magnet in its own plastic bag was
used to attract and collect the chips from dust samples. The
chips are typically small but readily discernible by eye due to
their distinctive color. They are of variable size with major
dimensions of roughly 0.2 to 3 mm. Thicknesses vary from
roughly 10 to 100 microns for each layer (red and gray).

Having isolated the chips he wanted using the criteria above, he performed further tests outlined in the paper.

Based on those tests he came to the conclusion that he found some form of thermite.

Based on these observations, we conclude that the red
layer of the red/gray chips we have discovered in the WTC
dust is active, unreacted thermitic material, incorporating
nanotechnology, and is a highly energetic pyrotechnic or
explosive material.

Never in his paper does he say that any chip isolated and tested had ever turned out to be anything other than thermitic. Based on his paper, he has proven that if you extract ANY red/gray chips with a magnet from a pile of WTC dust, those chips are without a doubt, thermitic. This thinking is further supported with the video below starting at 7:26. Harrit has a bag of WTC dust which he informs the audience to pass around and use the magnet to isolate what he says to be thermitic chips.


Do you agree with these points thus far?

 

[Gamolon]

well any period where the speed is greater than free fall would require no resistance plus an additional force or a downward force far greater than just gravity to overcome any resistance

Funny how you didn't address the points that were less than free-fall.

Gotta love it!

 

[Capstone]

Do you agree with these points thus far?

With the caveats that:

1. the failure to mention (or indeed find) any non-reactive magnetic red/gray chips in the 4 samples used by Harrit's group ...does not entail a concession that none were present in those samples (I.E. it could be the case that no such chips were tested for their explosive reactivity to heat, or to determine their elemental compositions),
2. and the provenance of the dust from the 5-gallon jar that "emerged recently" from NYC, which was used for Harrit's impromptu experiment with the audience at the Toronto hearings, wasn't mentioned.

Please continue.

 

[CAPTCHATHIS]

well any period where the speed is greater than free fall would require no resistance plus an additional force or a downward force far greater than just gravity to overcome any resistance

Funny how you didn't address the points that were less than free-fall.

Gotta love it!

Knucklehead, your not loving anything. This is the original conspiracy theory you are defending and you've just admitted to periods of greater than free-fall speed - requiring a force additional to gravity. This is your theory to explain and defend.
You can't.

 

[Gamolon]

Do you agree with these points thus far?

With the caveats that:

the failure to mention (or indeed find) any non-reactive magnetic red/gray chips in the 4 samples used by Harrit's group ...does not entail a concession that none were present in those samples (I.E. it could be the case that no such chips were tested for their explosive reactivity to heat, or to determine their elemental compositions),

Oh, I beg to differ. Here is an interview where Harrit says there were indeed active and dead red/gray chips and that it takes skill to find the active ones. Take a listen starting at 1:23 in the video below. He also states in this video from 2009 that these are some of the things they are currently (in 2009) investigating. So he had both active and dead chips yet reported on only the active ones. Very curious. Haven't heard any further tests or studies regarding the dead chips either. That was 5 years ago.

and the provenance of the dust from the 5-gallon jar that "emerged recently" from NYC, which was used for Harrit's impromptu experiment with the audience at the Toronto hearings, wasn't mentioned.
Please continue.

That's fine.

That being said, Jim Millette did a study and extracted red/gray chips with a magnet and found different chips (whether you think they are paint or not does not matter here). It was then said by Stephen Jones that probably had the wrong material.

More and more, it appears that Millette was simply not looking at the same material that we studied.

Letter regarding red gray chip analyses 911Blogger.com

So how did Millette have the wrong chips if Harrit supposedly already proved that if anyone simply extracts red/gray chips with a magnet, they'll have thermtic chips?

If you agree with Jones that Millette had the wrong chips, then please explain to me what other tests/criteria from Harrit's paper one must perform on the magnetically attracted red/gray chips to be sure that they are the right ones.

 

[Gamolon]

Knucklehead, your not loving anything. This is the original conspiracy theory you are defending and you've just admitted to periods of greater than free-fall speed - requiring a force additional to gravity. This is your theory to explain and defend.
You can't.

Why did you not address the less than free-fall data points. This means resistance.
So what resistance was being encountered?

 

[CAPTCHATHIS]

So what resistance was being encountered?

A great deal of resistance is being encountered ...from you! You can't explain greater than free-fall speeds -which require a force additional to gravity. This is yours to explain. It's your theory. And for what it's worth a period of less than free-fall speed /resistance does not preclude the use of explosives or something similar but that is irrelevant. You can't have greater than free-fall speed without some additional force -it's impossible - so explain to us how it happened!

 

[Capstone]

I have to hand it to you, Daws; of the lengths OCTers have gone to justify holding on to their ridiculous story-lines, your copied-and-pasted crap has now officially taken the cake as the longest I've seen to date!

Newton's Third Law can fail in a number of cases: ...

First of all, that statement is, at best, horribly misleading.

This, for instance:

• There is a time delay in the equations of motion, such as is the case for electrodynamics (as opposed to electrostatics). What is happening here is that the field that mediates the interaction is itself storing momentum. There is no room for such in Newton's 3rd. As mentioned before, this can be reconciled by observing that momentum is still conserved. Newton's 3rd law is conservation of momentum in the special case that forces are instantaneous and central in nature.

...doesn't exemplify a "fail[ure]" of Newton's Third Law; it describes a measurable absorption effect of a momentum-storing field, the measurement of which can and should be considered part of the 'equal-yet-opposite' reaction' in question.

So, tell me, Daws, what do you believe acted as such a mediating field on 9/11/01; and why do you think it wasn't mentioned in any of the NIST group's official reports?

• The force is not central in nature, which once again is the case for electrodynamics. In the strong form of Newton's third law, third law force pairs must be equal but opposite in nature and the force must be directed along or against the line connecting the pair of particle. This form of Newton's third law conserves both translational and angular momentum. Translational and angular momentum can still be conserved in the case of non-central forces if the mediating field stores these momenta, but Newton's third does not apply in such cases.

Again, yes it does, exactly as I stated above. Even in electrodynamics (which, BTW, doesn't seem particularly relevant to building 7's collapse), neither the measurable absorption rate of a non-central force's mediating field nor the mitigating effects of that force's characteristic non-centrality should be separated from the 'equal-yet-opposite' equation. The fact that certain electrodynamic interactions don't appear to promulgate equitable reactions ...can always be explained in terms of the measurable physical circumstances that mitigated those appearances, without ever violating the third law of motion.

I am curious, though; what type of non-central force do you think was at play in promulgating the apparent violation of Newton's Law on 9/11; and why do you believe the NIST report on WTC7 failed to mention it?

• The underlying interaction inherently involves three or more particles. Newton's third demands that forces be resolvable down to pairs of particles. There are some multi-body interactions in quantum mechanics where the interactions only appears when three or more particles are present. These interactions cannot be isolated down to pairs, and once again Newton's third law fails.

Notice the disingenuous failure to mention the types of particles involved in those multi-body interactions, the natures of which (much like those of interacting non-central forces in electrodynamics), may well explain the appearance of non-equitable reactions observed in that still highly theoretical branch of physics otherwise known as QM.

In more advanced physics, it is the conservation laws that reign supreme. Newton's third law derives from the conservation laws with the assumption that forces act in pairs, act instantaneously, and act along the line connecting particle pairs. [...][empasis Capstone's]

Bullshit!

Newton's laws derive from conservation laws, including those that regulate the forces and fields that sometimes mitigate the appearance of reactive equability.

But tell me, Daws; theoretically speaking here, what novel thing do you imagine happened at the subatomic level on 9/11/01 that resulted in the apparent violation of the third; and why do you feel it was missed by the government's science lackeys at NIST?

there are no examples of newton's third law being violated by explosives

No shit?!

It's never been violated during a fire-induced, progressive collapse either, despite what the NIST report would apparently have us believe.

 

[Capstone]

Oh, I beg to differ. Here is an interview where Harrit says there were indeed active and dead red/gray chips and that it takes skill to find the active ones. ...

I think you're missing the point, Gams.

My statement was written in response to this:

. . .Never in his paper does he say that any chip isolated and tested had ever turned out to be anything other than thermitic. Based on his paper, he has proven that if you extract ANY red/gray chips with a magnet from a pile of WTC dust, those chips are without a doubt, thermitic. ...

The failure to mention in the paper that any dead magnetic red/gray chips were found doesn't justify the conclusion you've apparently pinned on Harrit's group, namely that "ANY red/gray chips [extracted] with a magnet from a pile of WTC dust [...] are without a doubt, thermitic", much less dead or alive. Such a conclusion would, in fact, be an appeal to silence.

...So he had both active and dead chips yet reported on only the active ones. Very curious. ...

Not curious at all, really, especially considering the title of the study: Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 [bold emphasis mine]. Why report on any thermitic material that may have degraded to the point of inactivity in such an aptly titled paper? The discovery of active thermitic material (with a military-grade signature - including barium) is strong enough to stand on its own without further trying to gage the dead-to-active ratios in the 4 samples.

...If you agree with Jones that Millette had the wrong chips, then please explain to me what other tests/criteria from Harrit's paper one must perform on the magnetically attracted red/gray chips to be sure that they are the right ones.

If, by the "right chips", Jones was referring to the active ones (I.E those not yet degraded to the point of inactivity), it's hard to say, because the chemical compositions of dead and alive chips would presumably be identical. The only way to parse the good ones from the duds may be to heat them to the point of ignition and watch the fireworks or lack thereof, as the case may be.

It's pretty clear to me what's most likely happened here to differentiate the two studies. Harrit's group reported on the active chips; Millette et al reported on the inactive ones.

 

[n0spam4me]

The preceding has been an exercise in nit picking, the fact is that because the best fit curve for the data describes 9.8 m/s^2 and because of the tonnage of the bit that was observed falling, one can not expect deviations in the data as was plotted, therefore the data points that fall outside the curve are anomalies and can be attributed to camera vibration or other factors that cause the data points to deviate from the true curve. With that now out of the way, the fact that many tons of material, no matter what excuse is attempted here, the fact is that there was sufficient material in the North & West walls of WTC7 to have what was observed falling keep its shape as it fell and vertical nature of the event can be confirmed by observing the line of the north/west corner of the building.
Events such as controlled demolitions have components such as this, that is vertical descent of the building, this was a planned event, somebody intended for the building to do exactly what it did.