NIST Officially Admits Freefall Speed re:WTC 7!!

reply to post by WonderwomanUSA


If you haven't already made up your mind, consider reading the contents of the site below, I'm sure you will find it enlightening.

www.911myths.com...

reply to post by tezzajw


It fell for 2.25 seconds in freefall [as best can be measured] because there was little or no resistance to the collapse for that time period. Why do you keep asking the question, Tezza? Are you looking for certainty in a collapse mechanism? Do you think that explosives were required for a free-fall portion of collapse?

Originally posted by pteridine
It fell for 2.25 seconds in freefall [as best can be measured] because there was little or no resistance to the collapse for that time period. Why do you keep asking the question, Tezza? Are you looking for certainty in a collapse mechanism? Do you think that explosives were required for a free-fall portion of collapse?

How do buckling columns produce free-fall acceleration? Please explain how those columns lost ALL resistance.

The did not buckle, they sheared.

That has been preseted before by myself and others.

Bolted columns and plates are more economical than welds and usally stronger in construction, unless impacted when they have the potential for shear.

Originally posted by Achorwrath
The did not buckle, they sheared.

That has been preseted before by myself and others.

Bolted columns and plates are more economical than welds and usally stronger in construction, unless impacted when they have the potential for shear.

Remember we are talking about WTC 7?

How did the columns just "shear"?

Let's use a different approach to this discussion using this old logical formula:

If A = B,
And B = C,
Then A = C.

In the video on page one, Dr. Sunder claims "free fall time would be an object that has no structural components below it."

So we can make this into the statement:

(A) an [falling] object that has no structural components below it = (B) free fall

Then NIST publishes "This free fall drop continued for approximately 8 stories" which can be written as:

(B) free fall = (C) continued for approximately 8 stories or 32.0m (105 ft)

So we could conclude:

(A) an [falling] object that has no structural components below it = (C) continued for approximately 8 stories or 32.0m (105 ft)

So now we can rephrase the question to:

How and why were there "no structural components below" "for approximately 8 stories" of the collapse?


Note: When Dr. Sunder made the first statement before NIST published it's final paper, I assume when he says "no structural components below" he also includes "buckled columns" as a "buckled column" would still be a "structural component below"

Originally posted by NIcon
Note: When Dr. Sunder made the first statement before NIST published it's final paper, I assume when he says "no structural components below" he also includes "buckled columns" as a "buckled column" would still be a "structural component below"

Good analysis.

Also note that buckled columns still give resistance.....i.e. no free-fall.

Unless of course something severed the columns and took them out for 8 stories.....I wonder what could do that?

Thanks Griff. But now I'd like to take a snapshot from NIST that shows what they consider the state of the building during the 2nd Stage, or from 1.75 to 4.0 seconds. The image below is supposedly at the 2.5 second mark:




I have marked in pale yellow those areas which I consider to have "structural components below" and I marked in pale green those areas which I consider to have "no structural components below"

Granted this only shows up to the 18th floor, so I do suppose their model could show this area of "no structural components below" somewhere above this.

I know we are talking about WTC7.

As stated before there was debris damage to the building.

To the sides and roof.

hit a pole directly on top and see what it does

Originally posted by Achorwrath
I know we are talking about WTC7.

As stated before there was debris damage to the building.

To the sides and roof.

hit a pole directly on top and see what it does

Buckle.

Please show an incidence where it would shear. Thanks.

Now I'd like to see above the 18th floor at the time there were "no structural components below." For that I'll go to the video. Below is a snapshot from 9.4 seconds after the penthouse collapses, or 2.5 seconds after the initiation of global collapse. This puts us well in the Second Stage where according to NIST there was free fall or as I'm determining it the time when there is "no structural components below."



Again I marked in pale yellow those areas I consider to have "structural components below" and pale green for those areas that have "no structural components below." I also marked what I counted down to be the 18th floor.

It could be argued that this is just an empty shell of a building and that there really is "no structural components below" but just a facade. But I notice that the collapse seems to be occurring at, near, or below the 18th floor which would send us back to the snapshot of their model in my previous post.... ooops......

edited: I into It

[edit on 22-3-2009 by NIcon]

reply to post by NIcon


If you haven't seen it yet, we are due the computer model from NIST.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

BornPatriot took the reins and contacted NIST via FoIA to get their computer model. We took up a donation and actually got the $825 needed for NIST to send it to us (why we had to pay extra when our tax paying dollars paid for this in the first place is another thread/beef of mine entirely). Funny thing though is after more than a month of waiting for their computer model, we still haven't received it as of yet. I wonder why it is taking so long to copy a terrabyte's worth of data? Or are they "fixing' it? I guess we'll see when we finally receive it.

reply to post by Griff

Griff, I've been following that thread whenever it pops up, and if I weren't so broke I would have even donated.

But perhaps if I weren't so broke, I wouldn't have spent so much of my free time on the computer, and then would not have seen that thread and would have never realized I could donate.

Anyway, donation or not, I'm still following it.

Originally posted by Griff

Originally posted by Achorwrath
I know we are talking about WTC7.

As stated before there was debris damage to the building.

To the sides and roof.

hit a pole directly on top and see what it does

Buckle.

Please show an incidence where it would shear. Thanks.

you missed the point, yes the top impact would buckle the column, but what about anything attached to it?

when something buckles connections along it are subjected to shear forces as they try to remain attached. bolts are even more susceptible to this type of damage, welds will fracture but usually not fail completely bolts shear and snap.

reply to post by pteridine

If you haven't already made up your mind, consider reading the contents of the site below, I'm sure you will find it enlightening.

www.911myths.com...

I do not read “disinformation”, and yellow journalism, and if that is what you read, no wonder you have a problem researching the truth. Conspiracy sites like that are set up to deceive, and steer people away from the truth, and cause out rage against people who are in the truth movement. (You should have known better, being on ATS) We are on ATS to deny ignorance, not to believe in lies, and push propaganda web sites as creditable sources of information. There is nothing enlightening about reading lies, however, if I where you, I would be more careful in selecting my reading materials, and making a fool out of myself.

Yellow journalism is a type of journalism that downplays legitimate news in favor of eye-catching headlines that sell more newspapers. It may feature exaggerations of news events, scandal-mongering, sensationalism, or unprofessional practices by news media organizations or journalists. Campbell (2001) defines Yellow Press newspapers as having daily multi-column front-page headlines covering a variety of topics, such as sports and scandal, using bold layouts (with large illustrations and perhaps color), heavy reliance on unnamed sources, and unabashed self-promotion.

Source


And how does a site that offers counterviews comprise Yellow Jounalism?


"You keep using that word, I do not think it means what you think it means"

- Inigo Montoya (Princess Bride)

So you attack others for not reading (despite not knowing if they did or not) yet you blatantly state you wont read any other evidence if it does not support your view.

reply to post by Achorwrath


You are just pandering for a fight that thread was not posted to you.
I think pteridine, can speak for himself

Yellow journalism
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


By extension the term is used today as a pejorative to decry any journalism that treats news in an unprofessional or unethical fashion, such as systematic political bias. Yellow Journalism can also be the practice of over-dramatizing events.
Frank Luther Mott (1941) defines Yellow Journalism in terms of five characteristics:[1]
1. scare headlines in huge print, often of minor news
2. lavish use of pictures, or imaginary drawings
3. use of faked interviews, misleading headlines, pseudo-science, and a parade of false learning from so-called experts
4. emphasis on full-color Sunday supplements, usually with comic strips (which is now normal in the U.S.)
5. dramatic sympathy with the "underdog" against the system.

en.wikipedia.org...
You know this really pisses me off, when someone copies only parts of a defination to fit their deceptive perpouses.
I think #3

use of faked interviews, misleading headlines, pseudo-science, and a parade of false learning from so-called experts

This fits www.911myths.com...

"You keep using that word, I do not think it means what you think it means"

Well that’s what you get for assuming, try and do some reasurch.

So you attack others for not reading (despite not knowing if they did or not) yet you blatantly state you wont read any other evidence if it does not support your view.

I have not attack anyone, I just treat people the way they treat me, do you have a problem with that? And as far as of my views you do not know what I support or believe.

As of attacking people in these 911 threads, that is something that you are very good at, one only needs to read your respondes in your postings.

What has all this got to do with (NIST Officially Admits Freefall Speed re:WTC 7 !!)
Do you have anything to contributed to this thread, besides going after people that you dislike, and determine to have the last words. (mostly, children do that!)

You have attacke me repeatedly as well as others in this thread.
Here Is just one example.

My post points out that you do not follow what you tell others to do.

I linked the source, so how am I hiding anything?

Misleading interviews??? Like which ones? Please point them out..

I can point to many misleading interviews on the sites you have linked.

Flashy Headlines (like this one)

I can show many imaginary drawings on your links as well.

Pseudo Science is also used in many of the sites you link, and so called experts.

Does that make them yellow too?

You posts are inflamatory at best, you continue to state you have no science, math or physics, just your opinion that you have been lied to. (
You then do not read all available evidence (I read both sides not just the ones that fit what I think)



Someone gave you a link to information and you discarded it out of hand.
yet you accuse others of doing this very thing.

You do not read what is being sent to you, infact, this is the second time I have sent this to you, and you do not comment on any of it. You do what I see deniers do all the time when the facts hit them in the face, they just hand wave all the evidences, nothing new here.

Source


You also claim that the tower could have withstood several impact from planes, that is simply false there is nothing anywhere in the design concepts and sepcifications that say they could handle multiple impacts.

Again you are found to be stating someone elses opinion and a completley missinformed one.

As to your last comment (which is a direct attack on me likening me to a child) I believe you keep replying to my posts also, this is what a discussion is. one person makes a statement or asks a question and the other responds.

reply to post by WonderwomanUSA


The web site that I gave you is even-handed and suggests that you further check any information that they provide. You refuse to read it because you claim it is "yellow journalism."
Close-mindedness is not a desirable attribute of a truth seeker. Why don't you use your knowledge and refute anything that you believe is not true.

reply to post by Achorwrath

Achorwrath, & pteridine, We keep going back and forth on nothing, but bickering, and you said this, and I said that, and I want the last words, and I am right, and you are wrong.
This is BS, and I have had enough with both of you, as of now consider yourselves put on ignore