NIST Officially Admits Freefall Speed re:WTC 7!!

Take a look at these videos! The implications of this admission could be a key to exposing a criminal coverup!

reply to post by Leo Strauss


GREAT FIND!!! HOLY SMOKING GUN BATMAN!!!

No really this is incredible stuff you have found here, and I think you're right about the fact that this could be the lynchpin in a REAL INVESTIGATION.

Starred and Flagged!!!

In other words, Physics PHD John Gage got caught lying in a criminal cover-up. NIST will continue the criminal cover-up. We must wait longer for NIST to come clean and admit demolition for WTC7.

NIST has reversed its earlier denial of freefall and acknowledged a period of freefall comparable to this analysis in their final report on WTC7 released in November 2008. They did their own measurement with a point near the center of the roof line and came up with an acceleration of 9.81 for approximately 2.25 sec. Their report did not, however, face the consequences of this acknowledgment: that ALL RESISTANCE was instantaneously removed across the width of the building, supporting pre-planted explosives as the cause of the collapse.
-----------------------------------
(Original comment comments follow)
-----------------------------------
Contrary to the August 2008 NIST report on WTC7, the acceleration of Building 7 is measured and is found to be indistinguishable from the acceleration of gravity over a period of about 2.5 seconds of fall.

During the first round of questions in the Aug 26, 2008 NIST Technical Briefing (at 1:01:45 into the presentation) the following question was asked by David Chandler:

"Any number of competent measurements using a variety of methods indicate the northwest corner of WTC 7 fell with an acceleration within a few percent of the acceleration of gravity. Yet your report contradicts this, claiming 40% slower than freefall based on a single data point. How can such a public, visible, easily measurable quantity be set aside?"


Dr. Shyam Sunder replies:

"Could you repeat the question?"

[the question is repeated by the moderator, leaving out the word, "competent" as well as the last sentence]

"Well...um...the...first of all gravity...um...gravity is the loading function that applies to the structure...um...at...um...applies....to every body...every...uh...on...all bodies on...ah...on...um... this particular...on this planet not just...um...uh...in ground zero...um...the...uh...the analysis shows a difference in time between a free fall time, a free fall time would be an object that has no...uh... structural components below it. And if you look at the analysis of the video it shows that the time it takes for the...17...uh...for the roof line of the video to collapse down the 17 floors that you can actually see in the video below which you can't see anything in the video is about...uh... 3.9 seconds. What the analysis shows...and...uh...the structural analysis shows, the collapse analysis shows that same time that it took for the structural model to come down from the roof line all the way for those 17 floors to disappear is...um... 5.4 seconds. It's...uh..., about one point...uh...five seconds or roughly 40% more time for that free fall to happen. And that is not at all unusual because there was structural resistance that was provided in this particular case. And you had...you had a sequence of structural failures that had to take place and everything was not instantaneous."
--------

Note that:
--He acknowledges that freefall can only occur if there is no structure under the falling section of the building.
--He acknowledges that their structural modeling predicts a fall slower than freefall.
--He acknowledges that there was structural resistance in this particular case.
--He acknowledges that there was a sequence of failures that had to take place and that this process was not instantaneous.

Thus, he acknowledges that their model is at variance with the observable fact that freefall actually occurred. Their response is to hold to their model, deny that freefall occurred, and put up a smokescreen of irrelevant measurements that obscure the reality.

[edit on 12/11/08 by SPreston]

Originally posted by SPreston

Note that:
--He acknowledges that freefall can only occur if there is no structure under the falling section of the building.
--He acknowledges that their structural modeling predicts a fall slower than freefall.
--He acknowledges that there was structural resistance in this particular case.
--He acknowledges that there was a sequence of failures that had to take place and that this process was not instantaneous.

Since the man in the suit said it, will the sheep actually consider it for a moment?

Simple fact: if any of that building's potential energy (PE) went to destroying itself, it would have lost kinetic energy (KE) which requires that the building slow in its fall. Even NIST's models predict this, of course. There is no way it wouldn't predict that. It would break a stupidly obvious law of physics that apparently nobody in this stupid age understands anymore. If the building was causing itself to collapse, it would have lost PE/KE and slowed. Since it did fall at free-fall, it wasn't causing itself to collapse.


This isn't, and never was, rocket science.


What's harder to understand than any of this, is how so many people will just "go with the flow," sheep mentality, herd mentality, whatever you want to call it. Whatever they feel is status quo, whatever the TV says, whatever they "feel" right with thinking, well that's good enough for them. All I have to say is the more you take other peoples' thinking for granted, the more screwed you are making your life. This isn't just about 9/11, it's about everything. It's frustrating to watch so many people so happily leap over cliffs. Think for yourself people. The people you are letting do the thinking for you don't give a damn about you, at best.

Originally posted by bsbray11
Since the man in the suit said it, will the sheep actually consider it for a moment?

Simple fact: if any of that building's potential energy (PE) went to destroying itself, it would have lost kinetic energy (KE) which requires that the building slow in its fall. Even NIST's models predict this, of course. There is no way it wouldn't predict that. It would break a stupidly obvious law of physics that apparently nobody in this stupid age understands anymore. If the building was causing itself to collapse, it would have lost PE/KE and slowed. Since it did fall at free-fall, it wasn't causing itself to collapse.


This isn't, and never was, rocket science.

Yes! a star for you. This stuff is basic physics! Not even basic physics but basic physics principles!

Where are all those silly debunkers and official conspiracy story pushers now?

Threads ago these resident debunkers were calling every one names and attacking them for this information that NIST finally had to admit to.

"Truthers" intellects' rational people = 100445 points

Debunkers, liars, terrorists = 150 (for selling a lie while people were still crying over their lost loved ones murdered on 9/11)

Up against the wall.

I have included a video incase some of you dont know what a wtc7 is.



I have a major problem and question.

1. If Wtc 7 and the other towers housed super top secret FBi, cia, etc and other sensitive data in certain areas that you would need high security clearence to enter, can all that be comprimised by a fire which then could allow any rookie fireman or terrorist dressed as a fireman to access extremely top secret information or do they have a high level security fireman team allowed to access highly sensitive areas?


If the answer is no they dont have a high level firemen team to attack fires in top secret areas then that means a fireman has higher priority to the sensitive area then the most high level officers.

2.. After the 1993 bombing is it possible that it was decided that the wtc towers would have to be rigged with saftey explosives incase someone tried to bomb the garage again they could ensure a controlled collapse rather than let the building fall all over new york buildings and streets?

If that's the case I can see why no one would want to admit to that since it would be in question who thought it the towers weren't safe enough to stand alowwing thousands to die. Wtc 7 had highly sensitive information, could that building self destruct to protect national security?

I heard stories in 2001 about witnesss/fireman? that witnessed somewhere around the 24th floor the f.b.i officies lin the towers before collapse looked as ifa bomb tore through it. Any one remember this?



[edit on 11-12-2008 by IvanZana]

great find... I don't see any federal truthers anywhere yet... I wonder why....

Originally posted by thefreepatriot
great find... I don't see any federal truthers anywhere yet... I wonder why....

These 'federal debunkers' need 3 hours to one day to form a response. It is a concentrated effort working in concert.

I think we can get to the 911 perps if we start charging some of these debunkers with aiding and abetting and or possibly finding out that they are the terrorists.

If the gov is behind 911, and the gov funds 911 debunkers and other lie sites then 911 debunkers are an extension of the murderers of 911 and will have to pay for every drop of blood spilt with their lies that led to the war in afghanistan, Iraq, and in the hearts and minds of good americans and people across the world.

[edit on 11-12-2008 by IvanZana]

If the building was causing itself to collapse, it would have lost PE/KE and slowed. Since it did fall at free-fall, it wasn't causing itself to collapse.

Only if all of the mass building was moving at free fall. In reality, you see some of it (the upper parts) doing so, but that doesn't mean that all of it did, and for all time from initial to final configuration.

Collapsing buildings fall at 'g', whether from internal collapse or induced collapse.

This is not indication of any conspiracy at all.

Think about Jenga. Remove a low block. How fast do the pieces fall? acceleration by 'g'

Now, make a new jenga block out of a really wimpy bubble, and put it at the bottom. At some point when the weight above is too much, it will pop. How fast will the blocks fall? acceleration by 'g'.

reply to post by mbkennel



Its only a matter of time before a competing thread is created to counter the popularity this thread will get.

Expect hologram, missile, pods, space weapons, abl, microwave weapon threads to appear all in hopes to make 911 truth look like 911 Confused or derailment topics like thermite and other arguments ment to derail or make it look like no one can agree in the truth movement.

[edit on 11-12-2008 by IvanZana]

reply to post by IvanZana


legally it should be possible to charge war crimes on anyone involved in the propaganda campaign if it can be shown they were knowingly spreading disinfo in concert... Should be possible..

star and flag for reminding the issue to those who already knows and showing the dark side of reality for others.

I am member of AE911 truth and as an architect I knew it for some longer time. the free fall issue was one of the biggest holes in the radiculus official story of 911. but one issue is to know it but the other is to do something about it.

if they will go away with it it is shame on us to let it be so.
it is important to protest, even to riot. if not we are lost. next time we will be all the 911 alike incident victims. and the NWO will be done.

You ask about debunkers but I question why I should care if terrorist did 9/11 or an alphabet agency did it. Either way it kick started the war on terrorism and made a lot of money for a lot of people. It provided ratings for the MSM, money for Haliburton, Honeywell, CSC, Lockheed Martin, Boeing. Northrop Grumman, Raytheon and lots of others. Millions of employees of these and others companies worked behind the scenes on set building, dressing, production, etc. as well as side by side with our military on stage. A few people died on 9/11 and we have had one hell of a reality show for the last few years.

reply to post by Leo Strauss


Nice thread. I'm doing the slow slow download now on dial-up.

The NIST report is a joke.

reply to post by mbkennel


Are you suggesting that some 'lower' part of wtc7 was taken out?

I actually want to get this right:

-NIST releases a rough draft.

-Questions were asked at a press conference after the release (was it the final draft).

-Mr. Chandler's questions were read, seemed like the NIST dudes were a little perplexed by the questions raised.

-NIST later acknowledged his observation.

-They (NIST) seem to think he was right that a small portion of the collapse was indeed in free fall speed.

- These findings get noted and updated on the NIST website.

okay, what am I missing?

Originally posted by IvanZana
Where are all those silly debunkers and official conspiracy story pushers now?

Threads ago these resident debunkers were calling every one names and attacking them for this information that NIST finally had to admit to.

Oh they will be here soon to use their pseudoscience in an attempt to explain why even at free fall speeds it proves nothing, or some other ridiculous, irrational trash.
Either that or they will simply drop this one claim and still continue to hold up the NIST report as if it were the holy gospel.

For all of those who said it wasn't freefall speed, grab your forks and knives because I brought you some dinner.

Would you like salt and pepper with that crow?

[edit on 11-12-2008 by ashamedamerican]

Originally posted by BRational
Are you suggesting that some 'lower' part of wtc7 was taken out?

I believe the core was knocked out for over ten stories in the area where the free fall time appeared.

Originally posted by CameronFox
okay, what am I missing?

What you are missing is that:
1. A highschool teacher had to point out government "experts" "mistakes."
2. Freefall speed proves that there was no resistance, which means that the supporting columns all suddenly stopped holding the building up, which is exactly what would happen if they had been cut with thermite demolition charges.
3. That NIST came to conclusions first, then "cooked" the supposed "evidence" to support their false claims, and was caught in the act, and then had to refute their own lies because even a highschool teacher could see through them.
4. The "crackpot 911 truthers" as our friends the debunk parrots love to call us, are not such crackpots afterall.
5. That the 'official story parrots' need to step back, take a deep breath and admit they were wrong.
6 That the 'official story parrots' need to step back, take a deep breath and decide how many more 'official story' lies they are willing to prop up as if they were actual facts, knowing that now those lies are starting to be proven.

I'm sure other people will come up with more, but these are the obvious ones off the top of my head.
Edit: Typpoos



[edit on 11-12-2008 by ashamedamerican]

My question is: what (or who) was in WTC7? I wonder if that was the original target. Scarey to think about all this!