NIST Officially Admits Freefall Speed re:WTC 7!!

reply to post by IconoclasticTalamasca

---

It was WTC #7

YouTube Link

That's it standing right behind her as she says it has collapsed.

Oh you mean THESE types of explosions that were heard at ground level before the towers fell, or other ones?

Google Video Link

YouTube Link

YouTube Link

YouTube Link

YouTube Link

Here's my observations on this. From what I was told in my fire science classes, steel begins to lose integrity at 600f and begins to flow at 1200. In watching the towers fall, what I noticed was the areas above the impact fell through the damaged areas and continued downward through the building. Typically, demo'd buildings fall from the bottom and all the way up the structure. If you look at the videos, this didn't happen.

Think about the mass of all those floors above the impact and all fairly structurally sound. The fires weaken the structure in the damaged areas to the point of failure. The intact portions above fall through the weakened sections gaining momentum, as they hit the areas below the damage, their momentum carries them through, taking the floors below along for the ride, gaining speed and mass. Earlier in the thread someone mentioned the speed of collapse was 94% of free fall, not sure if that's fact, but thats not free fall.

Watch the videos again and notice how the dust and debris is ejected as the section above the impact falls through the building. To me it's indicative of the upper section falling through the building and not a demolition which would have the debris coming from the bottom of the building.

While I don't deny that it all smells fishy, I think the devastation was far beyond the planner's wildest dreams. I bet they would have settled on fire damage and a few hundred lives lost.

With all due respect, regardless of what you were told in "fire science classes" there are countless architects, engineers, physicists, scientists, scholars, professors, etc. etc. etc. who all explain in great detail using mathematical formulas and calculations the exact weakening and melting temperatures of the materials used in the towers and WTC 7.

They all contradict NIST, who by the way seems to get easily stumped at the simplest questions, and prove that NIST is full of it up their eyebrows.

There is also rock solid, peer reviewed evidence of thermate being used as well as alot of other information. Check the links provided in this thread and all the other threads about 9/11 and they should explain in great detail exactly how this happened, what traditional demolitions are and what 'top down' demolitions are, and how the people responsible didn't intend "fire damage and a few hundred lives lost"

reply to post by ashamedamerican

---

I wasn't trying to come of as a self styled expert or anything, I was just posting my observations

The problem I have is that both sides have used "science" and "experts" to "prove" their claims.

All I know is what I saw, and what I saw was reminiscent of demolitions, but not exactly like the others I have seen as the towers didn't fall from the bottom.

Either way, the only real evidence we have is what we have seen, and if what you saw was a building razed by explosive charges, then that is what you saw. I didn't perform or see reports of trace studies looking for evidence of explosives, so I based my post on what I saw.

Yes but the difference is that the experts on the 9/11 truth movement side have used peer reviewed science to prove that the supposed "science" on the NIST side of the arguement is actually pseudoscience, and whereas the science on the truth movement side is peer reviewed, NIST simply says "well that's my story, and I'm sticking to it," to defend their supposed science.

That is of course, until they are caught red handed and publicly by a highschool teacher like this case, then they revise their reports to show the actual data without ever admitting that they had falsified their original data to begin with.

So you could say that both sides use science and experts to prove their claims, but that is not really the truth of the matter.

reply to post by Supes

---

All the science that is being used to support the Official Story, has already been proven false to begin with. None of the Official Story is true, it is “all” a lie it was built on lies, that is why it cannot stand up to real science.

I promise to do more reading on the subject. My mind has never been made up on this. There's too much we don't know in my opinion.

Seem to forget that that was done 8 1/2 before 9-11 or do you ignore
that too.

1500 lb truck bomb planted in parking garage near some of the support
columns - blew 100 ft crater through 6 levels in the basement. Buildings
survived - some of my friends worked in WTC then. Told of hearing
thump and feeling building move.

en.wikipedia.org...

Picture of crater



In order for explosives to be effective would have had to wrap explosives
arounf support columns and also torch cut the columns to weaken them

Just one problem - unlike demolition site WTC WAS OCCUPIED! (98%
occupancy). All the columns unlike a demolition are covered in layers
of sheet rock behind furniture. Now explain how one moves the furniture,
cuts into the sheet rock (ever cut piece of sheet rock? Leaves hell of a
lot of dust everywhere), place explosives, repair hole/paint hole, replace
furniture and clean up mess- all in a few hours and not have anyone notice it?

That's not true.
First of all traces of thermate were found, with thermate you don't have to cut anything with torches, you attach it to the columns, set it off, and the thermate does the cutting, research it.

Secondly you wouldn't need to cut through sheetrock or move furniture, you pop the suspended ceiling tiles and have direct access to the columns. Don't believe me? go to a skyscraper and pop those ceiling tiles and look for yourself.

As for "all in a few hours" that has already been proven wrong as well. Under the guise of maintenance you could have access to the building all night long, everynight until the job was finished.

No mess, no furniture moving, no attention.

Edit: That is why thermate is referred to as a "cutting charge."

YouTube Link

[edit on 12-12-2008 by ashamedamerican]

Is this off topic ramblings about WTC 1 and 2, or on topic discussion about the free fall acceleration that NIST confirms in its report on WTC 7?

Geez you recite all the idiotic conspiracy theories quite well - been practicing?

Maybe should read this - answers your questions

Some people dont know or forgot how immense this building was. The most important thing is how close it was to its neighbours and yet they suffered very little damage. Wtc 7 fell like a controlled demo.



Mod Edit: Image Size – Please Review This Link.

[edit on 12/12/2008 by Hal9000]

Maybe something is going on, when I was surfing ATS a random pop-up came up asking me to ingore 'Leo Strauss' I didn't want to, it was a random pop-up.

Someone's playing funny games...

Let Springer or Skeptic Overlord know the details right away.

I'm sure that they will act as swiftly as they can to stamp out any hackers.

Use the ALERT feature, so that it will be noticed by staff members.

No I've been researching which I would suggest you do too.

The engine that was found 3 blocks from the towers was either a CFM-56 or a CF-6, it's tough to tell because the two engines are very similar.

The problem with this is that those are both General Electric engines and United Airlines doesn't use GE engines on it's 767's, they use Pratt & Whitney engines. Pratt & Whitney will service a CFM-56 but it is still made by GE.

So whoever planted the engines, planted the wrong engines.
But you would know that if you had researched this and not just used Google.

By the way this thread isn't about the towers, or the engines found at the towers, it's about the NIST report on WTC 7.

wtc7 was exactly like a typical demolition. that is what this thread is about, man. freefall can only happen when there is no resistance, and no resistance cannot happen without an external energy source to (instantaneously) knock out the resistance.

Just one problem - the columns are covered by fireproofing materials

The main support columns were covered with 2 layers of 5/8 sheetrock.
whats more the main support columns were clustered in the central core covered by wall. Also no false ceiling as were in central service core with elevators plumbing, electrical conduits, bathrooms, stairs.

Now explain how one cuts through wall to reach columns coated in 2 layers
of sheetrock and not attract attention....

reply to post by star in a jar

---

maybe you accidently clicked the mouse button while you were reading his post. a spontaneous "ignore user?" window sounds like a pretty lame thing to do if you've bothered to hack into the system.

this is just an idea, im no expert in demolition or structural engineering but is it possible that most of your (im from England) really big skyscrapers are fitted with these kind of thermite charges when they are built as a kind of safety feature? so if something like this happens and there is a real possibility of it toppling over and flattening a wide area they can be detonated to collapse the building to minimize collateral damage? im sure it wouldn't be something that would be made common knowledge, but would possibly explain how the charges got there, and why no one saw them being installed.