NIST Officially Admits Freefall Speed re:WTC 7!!

reply to post by captiva

---

Are we to wait untill we have no means to fight back! are we to wait untill are sons are dead! ITS TIME NOW!!! Are you going to wait untill Obama takes all the rights away that Bush did not get! Its going to be to late. We need to start fighting back NOW!

QFT

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]

reply to post by thedman

---

If there was unreacted thermite, as the rubble settled some of it could have been ignited, keeping the temperature extremely high for long peroids of time. In fact unreacted thermite is the only reasonable explanation as to why the temperatures stayed so high for so long.


Well this isn't a mine fire. The only time a mine fire stays burning for extended periods of time is when it's a coal mine or some other mineral that will feed the fire. If the contents of the building have been proven not to be capable of burning hot enough to melt the steel columns, how could the contents of the building burn hot enough to produce pools of molten metal?


Really? So a man who graduated magna cum laude with his his bachelor's degree in physics from Brigham Young University where he later became a professor, and got his Ph.D. in physics from Vanderbilt University, conducted his Ph.D. research at the Stanford Linear Accelerator Center, and post-doctoral research at Cornell University and the Los Alamos Meson Physics Facility, who also pioneered work on Muon-catalyzed fusion, (cold fusion) is a "fool"?
I'm curious where you got that information.

Could you please post your references where you got the information stating that:
"The chemical traces were sulphur - which is part of the gypsum board and barium, which is present in florescent lights and in TV/CRT tubes of which there are thousands in WTC 7."
I would like to see that.

[edit on 11-12-2008 by ashamedamerican]

---

---

Mini nukes? Explain why there were no radiation casualties at the scene -
even the smallest nuclear weapons deployed produced a lethal burst
of radiation for a radius of 350-400 meters. No lingering radiation
was detected afterwards either.

As for noise - ever see a building collapse? Makes a lot of noise as it
falls, including booming noises as the floors collapse into each other

Thermite is rather difficult to ignite - usually done with burning magnesium

The temperature was kept high by fires burning in the rubble for weeks,
the rubble covering it acting as a lid keeping the heat in - same as in a
mine fire

As for Jones - simply having a PHD does not mean you are not bat crap
nuts ! Jones is a loon who was shown the door when became an
embarasment

As for barium - look it up will....

I have worked graveyard shift asbestos removal in state office buildings in the past. Although our worksite would remain for several days, I can see how a group could gain authorized access after hours, and, by working through ceiling panels and in elevator shafts and in the basement, that their work could remain unknown or little suspected by the 9 to 5er's.
Except for a few security guards we were alone all night in those buildings.

So you're trying to tell me that eventhough the contents of the buildings have been proven to be incapable of burning hot enough to melt the steel columns, once you cover it with rubble and starve it of oxygen the temperature will then rise hot enough to produce pools of molten metal?

I have to admit you're right, anyone with credentials that impressive and who could help to pioneer Muon-catalyzed fusion sounds "bat crap
nuts" to me.

With all due respect, please take your pseudoscience, rhetoric, and slanderous remarks and use them on someone stupid enough to believe it.
Until you can come up with an arguement that sounds even remotely intelligent, and provide references and proof to back up your claims, I'm done debunking your ridiculous pseudoscience. It's an insult to the intellect of a grade school student to expect anyone to believe what you are saying.

I'm honestly trying my best to both be polite, and explain the irrational and ridiculous nature of your statements at the same time so please don't take this as an attack.

reply to post by Anonymous ATS

---

Source, Great place to quickly raise your suspicions

I am really glad people are still interested in this. After all
the brilliant investigative work that has been done in the past
is the reason I joined ATS.

It was a shame when the topic devolved into pointless bickering
and name calling. I am glad to see that the mods are keeping a
close watch on these recent threads to prevent those who can't
or won't engage in civilized discusion and debate from diverting
those of us who want to deny ignorance in pursuit of answers.

I myself am 100% convinced WTC7 was a demolition. To me all it
took was 2 or 3 views of the collapse.



Another excellent recent thread about the pentagon attack

reply to post by Leo Strauss

---

wait a second here... I am counting just over 5 seconds when watching that video..... perhaps exactly 5.4.... from the moment that the building begins to deform to the moment that it is no longer visible even between the little crack between the two other buildings blocking the view. Whoever says that the fall takes just over three seconds is measuring a different stretch of time than the visible collapse on this video.

NIST might be lying about a whole lot of things, but the measurement of just over 5 seconds is actually in agreement with the video.

-rrr

How come so many Americans do not even know that a third skyscraper collapsed on 9-11 in New York City? WTC7 was not even hit by an aircraft. Only three steel framed skycrapers in history have collapsed allegedly from fires, and all three happened in New York City on 9-11-2001.

Even NIST has revised their latest report to show that is not correct.
I don't know what to tell you.
Even NIST now admits that WTC 7 came down at near free fall speed.

With all due respect, I don't know what video you are watching, and whether it is playing at full speed, but end of story.

So don't count so fast. They are not using building deformation. They are counting the time it takes the actual building 47th story roof level to fall down to a certain level. Do you think these scientists count on their fingers and are unable to afford an accurate stop watch? Do you think your inaccurate vocal counting method has uncovered a previously unknown scientific fact?

Besides the video in the OP has been transferred to a different video format which may or may not have a different speed. This higher resolution video below in WMV format is much more accurate and David S Chandler and NIST had access to this video.

YouTube Link

[edit on 12/11/08 by SPreston]

I would imagine that the reason WTC7 was brought down was that they had already designed the new look ground zero & it was in the way - it too needed demolishing to build the big new temple of zion / war against terror memorial with its cathy "Freedom towers" (hows that for irony) branding.

After following the 9/11 truth movement for some time now I have to saw...WOW. After seeing this evidence, I think most folks will ave to reconsider. Just seeing those scientist look like a 6th grader making excuses for not doing their HW was eerie. It might not happen tomorrow but this bit of evidence will change everything.

I honestly do not know how people can believe these lies, especially when there's so much information pointing out the flaws in some of what these "experts" suggest.

I have nothing more to say. It's disgusting. And all those who know the truth and lie to the masses, should either hang their heads in shame...or hang.

Here is a very articulate breakdown of WTC7
By Dr Steven E. Jones a Physicist and Archaeometrist.

Very informative read Here

I read and absorbed this in less than an hour and highly recommend it.

There is an abundance of real educated reaserch out there, there is no question that we
have been decieved by a false flag operation to mobilize the industrial military complex.
Just as we have always been.


I also thought this was interesting.




Watch it Here

Thanks to all who replied and for the valuable contributions! This is an important development.

While I know the natural response is to begin to speculate on the possible causes for the collapse which is OK with me. I would like to stress this thread is really about those 2 1/2 seconds of freefall and what that means to the credibility of the entire NIST report and their computer models.

It appears the NIST experts have been completely debunked and embarrassed by a high school physics teacher with a budget of zero as compared to the millions spent by NIST. The teacher had it right judging by the stammering avoidance of questions and ultimately NIST changing the report to reflect the freefall speed! Freefall speed in a fire induced global collapse???

reply to post by AlienChaser

---

AlienChaser:
You may want these links as well.
Dr. Steven Jones's work can be found here, along with alot of other scholars.
The Journal of 9/11 Studies
Scholars for 9/11 Truth
You may also like this if you haven't found it yet.
Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth

There is a lecture here by Professor Steven Jones Ph.D you should watch, it explains alot.
American Scholars Symposium 9/11 and the NeoCon Agenda - Los Angeles, California June 2006
There are newer lectures he has done that give updated and new information that is not included here, I would highly recommend looking for those also.
You might also want to check out the William Rodriguez video there as well.
There are also some new Loose Change interviews on that page showing information that never made it into Loose Change Final Cut, as well as a Director's Cut of Terrorstorm. Also the Dr. Webster G. Tarpley, Ph.D lecture gives alot of background.
Keep in mind these are from 2006 and updated versions of each lecture can be found online, Google video has alot of them.

Loose Change Final Cut can be found here, as well as earlier versions which also show information that is not in the final cut.

Not every piece of this relates directly to WTC 7 but I'm willing to bet there's more information here than you want.
Happy hunting, and if you need help getting your hands on the updated lectures let me know I think I have them bookmarked somewhere.

[edit on 11-12-2008 by ashamedamerican]