How long did it took for the WTC 7 to collapse?

Its a simple question and I like to hear from people on board that would help me as to how long it took for the building to collapse. Because I like to check something out first. I do hear it was like 6 seconds or something.

Kinda hard to tell Delta...

I've got the Naudet .mpeg of the collapse, and I've timed it @ 4.371 seconds via Virtual Dub for the top 18 ( from my count ) floors to disappear behind the 101 Barclay Street building ( at the lowest roof level of the 101 Barclay Street building )...

Which means that it took .242833333333333~ seconds for each floor, and @ 47 floors means about 11.413166666666666666666666666667 seconds...

IMHO...

www.youtube.com...

This video shows the collapse total time about 13 sec from my perspective.

That could be very well be true...

Like I said it was my count on the floors ( could be wrong, wouldn't be the first time ), and my perception of when it started...

But it wasn't 6 seconds...

And, I've read the 13 seconds before ( not going to discount it ), but it's the only video I've go to go on...

Cheers...





[edit on 8-11-2006 by Jedi_Master]

The timing does not matter, because you can begin timing the collapse arbitrarily, and the whole last part of it is completely obscured anyway. You can begin timing when the global collapse begins, when the Penthouse fails, after WTC1's collapse, when the building's construction was completed, etc., on and on ridiculously as anyone sees fit.


A much more useful figure would be the SPEED, or VELOCITY of the global collapse. This is something I plan on presenting in the future after finding an accurate way to gauge a large portion of the collapse.

Originally posted by bsbray11
and the whole last part of it is completely obscured anyway.

You mean like the whole "loss of angular momentum" argument, most of that is obscured as well...

Not that is has anything to do with what I just said, Jedi, but no, the cap is not obscured before its momentum is lost, and this is clearly evidenced in any number of collapse videos of WTC2 available. The momentum arrests, and then the vertical collapse ensues, after which the cap is destroyed over a few seconds.


But regardless, you guys should look for a way to gauge the collapse velocity, rather than how long it took. The velocity will be more useful.

Originally posted by bsbray11
Not that is has anything to do with what I just said, Jedi, but no, the cap is not obscured before its momentum is lost, and this is clearly evidenced in any number of collapse videos of WTC2 available. The momentum arrests, and then the vertical collapse ensues, after which the cap is destroyed over a few seconds.


But regardless, you guys should look for a way to gauge the collapse velocity, rather than how long it took. The velocity will be more useful.

Ummm...Im' sorry every argument I've seen you guy's make is...

"It took x amount of seconds for collapse to happen this is less than free fall, or at free fall so therefore it must be a CD"

the cap is not obscured before its momentum is lost, and this is clearly evidenced in any number of collapse videos of WTC2 available. The momentum arrests, and then the vertical collapse ensues, after which the cap is destroyed over a few seconds.

Not the way I see it, it clearly keeps tilting until it is obscured by the debris

So how in your infinite wisdom is the velocity going to help ?

Another staffer at Studyof got around to calculating the velocity before I did, but here it is nonetheless:

www.studyof911.com...

101 Barclay was used as a reference point from a CBS video.


Based on the height of the building given by NIST, as shown in that article, the acceleration from what's visible in the CBS video was around 9.77 m/s^2, whereas free-fall is 9.8m/s^2.

So the building was pretty much falling at free-fall speed in a vacuum. Looking forward to explanations of this.

Originally posted by bsbray11
Another staffer at Studyof got around to calculating the velocity before I did, but here it is nonetheless:

www.studyof911.com...

101 Barclay was used as a reference point from a CBS video.


Based on the height of the building given by NIST, as shown in that article, the acceleration from what's visible in the CBS video was around 9.77 m/s^2, whereas free-fall is 9.8m/s^2.

So the building was pretty much falling at free-fall speed in a vacuum. Looking forward to explanations of this.

That's not too much resistance being encountered. If that held constant.

Originally posted by Masisoar
That's not too much resistance being encountered.

Yeah, like, none.

That was for a big chunk of the building too. I'd say it was at least 1/3 of the whole height of the building without looking back at the article. A third of a building does not drop straight down to the ground without ANY resistance except during a demolition. The whole point of a demolition is to make a building fall without any resistance. It just doesn't happen otherwise.

There's crap in between the falling section and the ground, namely steel and concrete and granite, and that stuff doesn't quite fail without any energy affecting it. Obviously the energy was not coming from the falling building itself, or else the energy would be "taxed" from the falling building, ie resistance, and it wouldn't have been in free-fall. The extra energy would have been coming from explosives.

Bump - Good relevance to the WTC 7 issues.

Originally posted by bsbray11

So the building was pretty much falling at free-fall speed in a vacuum. Looking forward to explanations of this.

And how exactly do explosives make a building fall "at free-fall speed in a vacuum"?


And why would exlosives be required for it to fall quickly?

If the NIST report is correct, the interior collapsed first, basically pulling the rest of the building down. In that case, it makes sense that it fell quickly, there was nothing holding it up at that point.

The reasons demolition is considered is because of the free fall velocity calculated. As Bsbray11 has pointed out, because it fell so quickly, it experienced relatively little to no resistance, giving notice to that for this to occur, you would have to have vertical support beams, which in a normal situation, would act as resistance, but this wasn't noticed. In fact, with the collapse of WTC 7, you have almost complete free fall as if everything was successfully knocked out.

It's interesting to note the squibs that go up WTC 7 AS it collapses, interesting and relative to the matter because they would not of been caused by air.

What you are doing is totally pointless Left Behind, you are pushing on in the same manner your predecessors before you have, pointless and not scientifically because the evidence has been presented but you choose to start back at square 1.

You will never be like LOLHowardRoark.. he is the god of all debunkers. You insult his debunker intelligence.



[edit on 11/22/2006 by Masisoar]

Yeah whether it took 2 seconds or 60 seconds is irrelevant. No building is going to fall straight down onto itself with no resistance unless that resistance is compromised.

How do you take away the resistance of columns and lower floors? Think about it.

In no way could all the columns fail at the same time from pockets of fire and damage to one side of the building. If so there would be no need for special demolition techniques, you could just set fires and wait...LOL

Unless every column failed at the same time you could not have a neat vertical collapse, you would have had a partial chaotic collapse much like the federal building, or WTC 5 and 6...



This is basic physics, I shouldn't have to explain it to you.

Yes we also understand "the kink" and therefore, with silly arguing, peone will point that out and be like "LAWL, guess it wasn't all simultaneous" but however, its relative, and BAM, you still have a fairly simultaneous compromise of the structural components to allow it to fall down that vertically.. and with a HUGE lack of resistance.

Originally posted by Masisoar

What you are doing is totally pointless Left Behind, you are pushing on in the same manner your predecessors before you have, pointless and not scientifically because the evidence has been presented but you choose to start back at square 1.

Right.

And I suppose your proving a lot by showing grainy blown up pics of broken windows in WTC 7. Those are not squibs. This is clear when you actually look at the originals, as opposed to swallowing whole whatever new crap Alex Jones or ST911 are spewing out.

Please, the irony of you talking about pointlessness is killing me.

Why don't you focus on the pointlessness of your endless speculation about explosives?

After all, none of you actually have any proof, all you have is speculation based on twisted misunderstandings of what happened.

Until you actually have something to add to the discussion Masi, I could really care less about your opinion about me or the argument I am presenting.

Why don't you actually try to posting something of quality instead of this endless cheerleading and baiting. And I think no one here over 12 years old is actually amused by this new LAWL nonsense you keep spewing.

You will never be like LOLHowardRoark.. he is the god of all debunkers. You insult his debunker intelligence.

Look, it's bad enough that you sent a u2u saying basically the same off topic baiting as you just posted, but what does your mancrush with Howard Roark have to do with me, or this topic?

Originally posted by LeftBehind

And I suppose your proving a lot by showing grainy blown up pics of broken windows in WTC 7. Those are not squibs. This is clear when you actually look at the originals, as opposed to swallowing whole whatever new crap Alex Jones or ST911 are spewing out.

O RLY? I'd like to see the originals please.

Why don't you focus on the pointlessness of your endless speculation about explosives?

O RLY? You know my personal theories on what happened that day because they do not involve explosives...

Naive.

After all, none of you actually have any proof, all you have is speculation based on twisted misunderstandings of what happened.

O RLY? What are my twisted understandings.. such a broad broad statement.

Until you actually have something to add to the discussion Masi, I could really care less about your opinion about me or the argument I am presenting.

I'm sure a lot of people feel the same way about the mindless B.S. that spews out from your keyboard.

Why don't you actually try to posting something of quality instead of this endless cheerleading and baiting. And I think no one here over 12 years old is actually amused by this new LAWL nonsense you keep spewing.

Haha, I love the LAWL word, there's no age limit. Not sure why you have to attack that, lol I guess that's suppose to be a strong point of your arguments huh?

I would say you're cheerleading though. The 9/11 scene hasn't really offered too much else on the basis of "New material" so, I guess I'm just mouthpiecing the conclusions I've made thus far, pity me fool, pity me.

You will never be like LOLHowardRoark.. he is the god of all debunkers. You insult his debunker intelligence.

Look, it's bad enough that you sent a u2u saying basically the same off topic baiting as you just posted, but what does your mancrush with Howard Roark have to do with me, or this topic?

I love HowardRoark, what my intimacy with him has to do with is non of your concern, please mind your own business on this matter. And althought I don't agree with what he has to say, I do have an upper more respect for him and admiration than for you.

[edit on 11/22/2006 by Masisoar]

Anyways, back to the debate on this thread. It's logically plausible from the amount of videos showing World Trade Center 7's collapse and its fall time, that it did fall at a rate of speed almost similiar to that of free fall, in which it experienced little to no resistance and furthermore, when taking into consideration the manner in which it collapsed, with the exception of the kink (which I personally do not feel makes all the difference), the vertical beams seemed to of all been compromised simultaneously at relatively the same time, allowing for a rather seemingly vertical collapse.

And further speculation into the matter of more than just the base supports being compromised from secondary devices (charge cutting further up the supports to allow for little resistance in the collapse and a more successful collapse) is I think important to this matter.

Another mind numbing debate where some common sense should end it.

The central core should not have collapsed period and even if there was failure it would have not fallen as far down as it did. There even could have been a tilting of the core at some point but we never got that.

Collapsing floors would mean the outer structure may fail in places but that could cause a crumpling eg. like in a pop can.

Regarding floors I still see no argument to explain why the two elevator or sky levels would not either stop or greatly slow the building collapse.

The conclusion watching the outcome is a form of demolition using the plane's impact as a diversion from the true method used to bring the building down.