It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

NIST *OFFICIALLY* Loses All Credibility

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 30 2006 @ 07:23 PM
link   

6. How could the WTC towers collapse in only 11 seconds (WTC 1) and 9 seconds (WTC 2)—speeds that approximate that of a ball dropped from similar height in a vacuum (with no air resistance)?

NIST estimated the elapsed times for the first exterior panels to strike the ground after the collapse initiated in each of the towers to be approximately 11 seconds for WTC 1 and approximately 9 seconds for WTC 2. These elapsed times were based on: (1) precise timing of the initiation of collapse from video evidence, and (2) ground motion (seismic) signals recorded at Palisades, N.Y., that also were precisely time-calibrated for wave transmission times from lower Manhattan (see NCSTAR 1-5A).


wtc.nist.gov...

First of all how could NIST state that the South Tower (WTC 2) fell in 9 seconds? It was clearly just over 10 seconds.

How could WTC 2 fall at the rate of freefall in a vacuum?


[edit on 30-8-2006 by aelphaeis_mangarae]




posted on Aug, 30 2006 @ 07:25 PM
link   
I thought it collapsed in 14 seconds????????

God they cant even get their own BS straight.



posted on Aug, 30 2006 @ 07:27 PM
link   
free-fall is freefall for christs sake. it doesnt matter if youre in a vacuum or not once you get above the weight of a piece of paper. simple theories for simple minds. Objection!



posted on Aug, 30 2006 @ 07:31 PM
link   


I thought it collapsed in 14 seconds????????

God they cant even get their own BS straight.


No, that was someone else.

NIST first claimed 12 seconds for the North Tower (WTC 1), and I forget what they said for the South Tower (WTC 2.)



posted on Aug, 30 2006 @ 07:40 PM
link   
Uhm, did you read that carefully? It's NOT the tower collapse time. It's the time it took for the FIRST EXTERIOR PANELS to impact the ground. The main tower collapse took longer than the panels to hit the ground.



posted on Aug, 30 2006 @ 08:20 PM
link   
Yes, but if the Tower pancaked like it supposedly did. The exterior walls really only fell as the Tower collapsed.

You can't deny this, just watch the videos of the collapse, the exterior panels are only being detached really as the building is collapsing.



posted on Aug, 30 2006 @ 08:24 PM
link   
So? The exterior panels were falling faster than the building. There's a huge cloud of debris that you can see falls and hits the ground a few seconds before the tower. THAT is what they're talking about. Yes the tower was collapsing, but the 9 seconds ISN'T the main tower.



posted on Aug, 30 2006 @ 08:32 PM
link   
I agree with Zaph. The first exterior panels striking the ground does not equate to the collapse time itself.






[edit on 2006-8-30 by wecomeinpeace]



posted on Aug, 30 2006 @ 09:03 PM
link   
True, but I would think this would be of Importance.



posted on Aug, 30 2006 @ 10:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by aelphaeis_mangarae
True, but I would think this would be of Importance.




apparently you have either thought wrong, or have not thought at all. as more and more of these theories about the towers get solidly debunked, you people keep stepping and fetching for something else to try and gain some credibility from. in the end, the NIST is not the one who "officially loses all credibility." no indeed, the only one that is losing credibility is yourself






edit: to get quotes right.

[edit on 8-30-2006 by forsakenwayfarer]

[edit on 8-30-2006 by forsakenwayfarer]



posted on Aug, 30 2006 @ 11:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by forsakenwayfarer
apparently you have either thought wrong, or have not thought at all. as more and more of these theories about the towers get solidly debunked, you people keep stepping and fetching for something else to try and gain some credibility from. in the end, the NIST is not the one who "officially loses all credibility." no indeed, the only one that is losing credibility is yourself


Your post contributes nothing to this thread and its topic and is simply an attack on another member and on "you people", whoever they are.

Please review the following thread if you wish to continue posting in this forum:

**POLICY STATEMENT FOR THE 9/11 FORUM: ALL MEMBERS PLEASE READ**






[edit on 2006-8-30 by wecomeinpeace]



posted on Aug, 30 2006 @ 11:53 PM
link   
excuse me, but the fact that you dislike my view on this laughable matter does not in any way affect the content of my post. ill be reviewing nothing, and beyond that i consider the fact you allow your personal views to interfere with your status as a mod a personal attack on myself.



posted on Aug, 31 2006 @ 12:08 AM
link   
Your views on the topic are irrelevant, and if your post focused on that topic there wouldn't be a problem. It is your personal attacks and focus on another member that is the issue, and you would be called out on it regardless of your stance, my stance, or the stance of any of the moderating staff on the actual topic.

I won't discuss it beyond this post. In future, please focus on the topic and refrain from personal attacks or discussing member personalities.

Thank you.








[edit on 2006-8-31 by wecomeinpeace]



posted on Aug, 31 2006 @ 12:14 AM
link   
there was no discussion nessescary, and im sorry you felt that way. no personal attacks were implied intended, or existant. you have either A, misunderstood my post and mislead yourself, or B intentionally read-into my post and are just making things up. the fact that i dont agree with the OP's views OR the evidence (however misread) is COMPLETELY relevant. you sir, are wrong.



posted on Aug, 31 2006 @ 07:26 AM
link   
All the exterior walls hitting the ground at the rate of free fall in a vacuum doesn't mean anything?

[edit on 31-8-2006 by aelphaeis_mangarae]



posted on Aug, 31 2006 @ 07:54 AM
link   
Did you miss this part of the above page?


From video evidence, significant portions of the cores of both buildings (roughly 60 stories of WTC 1 and 40 stories of WTC 2) are known to have stood 15 to 25 seconds after collapse initiation before they, too, began to collapse. Neither the duration of the seismic records nor video evidence (due to obstruction of view caused by debris clouds) are reliable indicators of the total time it took for each building to collapse completely.



posted on Aug, 31 2006 @ 07:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by aelphaeis_mangarae
All the exterior walls hitting the ground at the rate of free fall in a vacuum doesn't mean anything?


Not "all the exterior walls", only the first exterior panels, from the initial collapse point. Those panels were separated from the building at the beginning of the collapse and were in free fall thereafter. 9.22 seconds is free fall in a vacuum from the top of one of the towers, and so considering that the collapse point for WTC2 was at the 78th floor, "approximately 9 seconds" for the panels from that point to reach the ground seems about right to me. Air resistance would be negligible considering the shape of the panels. The only thing that would have added any significant time would be the time it took for the panels to separate from the building.

JM $.02c



posted on Aug, 31 2006 @ 08:22 AM
link   
Ok, thanks for your thoughts welcomeinpeace.

And yes I did read that Howard.



posted on Sep, 1 2006 @ 02:03 PM
link   
The problem with the Nist explanation is the implicit assumption that pieces of aluminium cladding, or indeed any debris, would create the first seismic signal, some ten or so seconds after collapse initiation, when during that period the catastrophic failure of the floors and columns induced by a near vertical force would remain totally seismically silent.
Couple this with the claims regarding the much smaller [in relative terms] energetic event of the aircraft impact. We are told that this was transmitted down the length of the Tower and to the nearest seismic station in about 17 seconds.
So according to Nist the aircraft impact - a near horizontal force - did transmit at high speed through the columns, about 300m, and reached the 34km distant seismic station in about 17 seconds. Yet the collapse - a near vertical force did not transmit down the length of the tower to ground level, some 300m in ten seconds.
To reconcile these inconsistencies, the simple answer is that the first seismic indication was not a result of the aluminium cladding hitting the ground.
The inconsistencies in the timing of the collapse initiations and aircraft collisions must be viewed holistically and the various times of these events should be examined chronologically. The hard to escape, conclusion is that Nist are attempting to adjust the actual times of the collapses and aircraft impacts in order to deny the evidence of pre-impact basement explosions.

See the next Journal of 911 studies for greater detail of these timings.

Gordon.

free-fall is freefall for christs sake. it doesnt matter if youre in a vacuum or not once you get above the weight of a piece of paper. simple theories for simple minds.

Yes this is a simple theory. Very simple and also very wrong. It can be shown to be demonstrably wrong by simple examination of a person and a parachute. Do these weigh less than "a piece of paper"?

[edit on 1-9-2006 by gordonross]



posted on Sep, 1 2006 @ 02:42 PM
link   
The seismic event would have begun when the floors began to collapse, right? I mean, the sound of on floor impacting another that size would be the beginning of the collapse.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join