NIST Officially Admits Freefall Speed re:WTC 7!!, page 19

reply to post by Achorwrath

---

I agree with everything you said here, except for the costing millions for a new investigation. The way they are throwing the B's and T's around nowadays I really believe some M's towards this would be appropriate, responsible and necessary. But that's a political discussion.

Also, from what is being uncovered by going through the NIST reports what you may be brushing off as incompetence I, and many others, see as approaching very near fraud. Maybe not fraud in the legal sense, but fraud in the scientific method sense, which is a huge deal considering NIST is an agency setup to advance the nation's technology infrastructure, which, being technology, relies greatly on science and the scientific method.

As for people not being satisfied with a new report or will never be convinced there were no "dark deeds" involved, I can't speak for them. I can say honestly that as of now I do not believe in a conspiracy, however, I do have a high suspicion of one and I can visualize many scenarios of one taking place. But suspicions are like chocolate cake in the morning, you eat it early and you feel sick all day until you either take something for it or pass it.

edit to add disclaimer: I'm not exactly sure what that bit about chocolate cake means, but I typed it, so it stays.

[edit on 25-3-2009 by NIcon]

reply to post by NIcon

---

The NIST report was and still is (in my opinion) a joke, it was rushed, botched and used bad evidence in many cases.
They knew the out come they needed and forced the facts to fit.

I personally believe it was terrorism that day. I also think that in a world where companies cut corners every day to save a buck and accountants make decisions on saftey it is VERY possible that WTC7 was not completely structurally sound.

I think it would be in the interests of all the companies that would be facing serious litigation to ask for the right outcome.

WTC7 had many wierd structural and design features. As I have mentioned when all this first happened I started to look at it from a demolition project vantage point, just in reverse.

I started at the end state and looked at how the building fell (not checking for freefall but still watching the building's collapse) next I compared that to information about the structure and what is down on paper. (what little I could find). from there I came to the conclusion that NIST's claim of fire was not correct. That like all great disasters there is more than one thing that goes into the event.

I saw indications of damage to three sides of WTC7 and the roof, I looked at the building layout (and to the best of the information available) looked at the interior layout. The collapse seemed to fit one of fire, impact damage and structural failure concentrated around a central point. that is the right side of the building (as you are looking at the smaller side of the trapezoid) failed.

And you are correct the shipping ramp is on the northeast side but still makes up for 10% of the building layout and is right under the kink that occured.
The Con-Ed substation ends before the location of the kink (I think it actually ends right at where is started (Damage layout Figure 5-1)

reply to post by Griff

---

Griff,
Where did you get your seismology degree? Perhaps you'd like to explain the seismogram. Be sure to include scale expansions, time differentials, background noise, and local events. It is surprising that no other seismologist noticed these anomalies over the years and that the careful plotters neglected to prevent these from being posted on the internet for researchers to discover the awful truth.

I do find your incredulity, in print, very expressive.

[edit on 3/25/2009 by pteridine]

reply to post by Achorwrath

---

Achorwrath, I respect your view of what may have happened that day. And I believe everything you mentioned has a possibility of what actually occurred. And I'm definitely all ears and willing and able to go in whatever direction the data takes me. I came to ATS because when I started looking at 911 I found most of the topics were well beyond me, and it seems there is a lot of knowledgeable people here. I may not be a structural engineer, a seismologist or an expert in any other field involved (I'm just a dumb artist), but I do think I have a good grasp of retaining information and piecing it together. So I hope nobody here ever thinks I'm attacking their position whenever I post. (I've seen many a rumble since I've been here, thankfully I haven't gotten caught up in one.) Most of the time it's either to clarify what people say with other things I've found or to ask for more details. In the end, I'm here for totally selfish reasons and that is to resolve this in my own head.

reply to post by pteridine

---

So, I have to have a seismology degree to actually see for myself that the spikes at onset are greater than the global collapse? OK.

reply to post by Griff

---

I thought that you would take the opportunity to educate those of us that don't understand the seismograms.
It would be far more instructive than to be referred to yet another rant site. Perhaps it is beneath you.

reply to post by pteridine

---

If you are looking for education, please visit Labtop's links. He can definitely do a much better job of educating than I can do.

BTW, I don't mean to sound so stand-offish today.



[edit on 3/25/2009 by Griff]

reply to post by tezzajw

---

Tezza,
Someday, when you are older, you may get to go to University and learn about graphs, too. Interpretation of seismograms is more complicated than reading 'graphs' and you may even learn that fact, although you may not learn to read them.

Here's an interesting story: I, being a student of the art of nothing more than putting pigment to cellulose fibers, dared to be bold enough to venture into the esoteric art of graph reading, which I had heard was along the lines of reading entrails or tracking the movements of the 13th sign of the zodiac. I determinedly set out to examine the esoteric graph (which can be found here www.ldeo.columbia.edu...) and tried to make sense of the encrypted words put forth concurrently. And in my boldness I did find that the high priests did ordain that the original time of commencement of events was at precisely 17:20:33. But, lo, my ignorance did show, because there before me no 17:20:33 presented itself. Then I, as a persistent neophyte, did dare to ponder upon the cipher and was blessed by the realization that time of commencement was 17 seconds prior to the portrayed hieroglyph. So I, being an inexperienced apostle, did take it upon myself to start at the time of commencement and counted 17 units hence and did plot a non-dimensional point at such location. Then I, being also an apt student of the eschatological doctrine of the Order of NIST, did remember that their commencement of events did occur at such a time as when the clock struck 17:20:46. Now being somewhat familiar with both holy orders, I did realize that one was a northerly philosophy and the other southerly, and that in order to synchronize their times of commencement, it became necessary to plot the southerly version upon the northerly's graph. And then I, being an astute observer, proceeded to count 17 units hence and did plot a non-dimensional point at such location. And I, being free of dogma, did observe that in the Order of NIST's eschatology the largest chaos occurs prior to their time of commencement, which, to this unfettered mind, seems to bring up an existential problem, as anyone who has observed the event under discussion will surely testify that the greatest amount of chaos succeeded the time of commencement.

reply to post by NIcon

---

Hahaha! Nice one.

I bet you never learnt that at school! School might teach how to read a graph, but that doesn't mean it can teach criticial thinking, initiative, resourcefulness or independence...

Well done, NIcon.

posted by tezzajw
reply to post by NIcon

---

Hahaha! Nice one.

I bet you never learnt that at school! School might teach how to read a graph, but that doesn't mean it can teach criticial thinking, initiative, resourcefulness or independence...

Well done, NIcon.

critical thinking, initiative, resourcefulness or independence...

Aaah...... the critical flaw in the abilities of our unworthy opponents.



Download higher quality video on upper righthand side

read more NEW: WTC7 and North Tower Collapse Video

---

[edit on 3/26/09 by SPreston]

reply to post by NIcon

---

NIST has "admitted" free fall or near free fall speed for 2.5 seconds of the collapse sequence of WTC#7. So what? It does not prove demolition no matter how many exclamation points and caps Griff uses. There is no evidence.
NIcon, congrats on trying to decipher the seismogram. Despite your lengthy session with your thesaurus, it is more complicated than your erstwhile allies make it out to be. There are local and long distance events that need to be cross correlated and located [e.g.,quarry blasting and earthquakes in Asia] changes in velocity based on substrate, and different velocities for different wave types because of where they travel.
Do all of you think that you are the ones to crack the 911 code and show that it was all a big plot based on a seismic timeline? In over 7 years, no one noticed what you discovered doing "research" by surfing various websites and reading rants. The plotters of the biggest conspiracy in history forgot about the seismometers and allowed the data to be posted.
I anticipate the publication of this "research" in a medium other than conspiracy websites so that many more citizens can be amazed at your incisive analysis. I will gladly testify as to the legtimacy of your work. Certainly you should alert the Congress, now, so that they can be ready with subpoenas when the big story breaks.

reply to post by pteridine

---

pteridine, you do seem preoccupied by the phrases "does not prove demolition" and "conspiracy." As I pointed out in an earlier post, I, for one, am open to any explanation that could be put forth to explain what I and others have found through simple deductive reasoning. I really believe that the simple deductive reasoning that I and others on this thread have used concerning the data presented is very sound. If you see a flaw in the reasoning please point it out. A hand-waving "the plotters forgot????" explanation does not do it for me, as I can easily point out that maybe "the plotters" do not have the capacity for simple deductive reasoning. A simple "it was so" explanation doesn't work for me, either, as my reasoning, which has worked pretty well for me throughout my life, finds that "it may not be so" (notice the word "may").

So I welcome anyone to provide an explanation to why it appears in the graphs (notice the word "appears") that the most energy was expended just prior to the claimed failure of column 79. I welcome any explanation of how "changes in velocity based on substrate" or how "different velocities for different wave types" would cause this appearance. A "no one noticed this in 7 years???" response is a point to consider, but when making a choice between that argument, the simple argument "it was so" (with no further data provided) and the argument "possible explosives," which seems to be the better explanation? Which is the best avenue to further explore?

I also welcome anyone to provide an explanation for the 2.5s of free fall where there was absolutely no resistance against collapse. A simple "it was near free fall, so there was some resistance" does not work, as I, and anyone else who cares to, can read the report and see that the word "near," or any other similar qualitative word, does not appear in that section of the report. So when making a choice between the argument "it was really a near free fall" (which is not supported by the report, and no further data is provided), the simple argument "it was so" (with no further data provided) and the argument "possible explosives," which seems to be the better explanation? Which is the best avenue to further explore?

edited for spelling

edited for more spelling


[edit on 26-3-2009 by NIcon]

[edit on 26-3-2009 by NIcon]

reply to post by NIcon

---

How do you know when most energy was expended? If you interpreted the seismograms correctly, all you know is the amount of energy that was transferred to the ground, not how much was expended. To properly analyze the event, you would also need data from multiple sites so that you could eliminate spurious peaks and locate other seismic events. How do you get that from one set of data? Short answer, you don't.
The seismic amplitude of WTC#7 was only about 10% of that of the towers which make interpretation even more difficult.

reply to post by pteridine

---

The simple answer is: I don't know, per se. But reading through all the accounts and viewing the data that has been released, my reasoning comes to certain conclusions. Here is a simple graph that portrays what my reasoning comes up with:



It may be totally wrong. So if you have any information that could prove that it is, please provide. But my reasoning is a voracious animal which requires solid proof and concrete data to change it's ways. So if you have this or any other data, please present it as I'm all ears and would love to discuss it.

Flight 93 was headed for Building 7
  Posted 11 days ago with 48 member flags

9/11 INTERCEPTED
  Posted 3 days ago with 45 member flags

9/11: The WTC Elevator Key
  Posted 13 days ago with 43 member flags

WTC7, the smoking gun that just will not go away until the traitors are rounded up
  Posted 3 days ago with 35 member flags

What are your favorite 9/11 debunking tactics?
  Posted 7 days ago with 17 member flags

Who is the Joker on ATS radio now running their mouth?
  Posted 15 days ago with 13 member flags

Was the government a co-conspirator?
  Posted 17 days ago with 9 member flags

British Police Want Us To Present False Flag Terror Evidence.
  Posted 7 days ago with 8 member flags

Newest topics, updated in real-time:

Newest topics getting flags, in real-time:

Newest topics getting replies, in real-time: