NIST Officially Admits Freefall Speed re:WTC 7!!

Originally posted by thedman

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.

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....

I really wish you guys would look into this stuff before you come on here spewing it to others, and I don't mean a quick Google search.

First of all the asbestos fireproofing was spray on, and it was an average of about 1-1/2 inch thick, it wasn't just some sheetrock slapped up against it, research it.

"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."
I have seen the architectural design of both the towers and WTC 7 which are very similar, and what you describe is not accurate.

Check out the architectural design and you will see how painfully obvious it is that your assumptions, while they may be good assumptions, and may 'sound great on paper' are not based in reality.
Someone could have accessed the columns without having to cut anything. Do you think everytime a fire inspector went into the WTC complex they ripped down walls for him to inspect the asbestos fireproofing?

Originally posted by thedman
All the columns unlike a demolition are covered in layers
of sheet rock behind furniture.

Thanks for proving my point about the fireproofing.

ever cut piece of sheet rock?

Yes. I do it all the time in my profession.

Leaves hell of a
lot of dust everywhere),

That it does. I guess NYC has never heard of plastic and shop vacs?

place explosives, repair hole/paint hole, replace
furniture and clean up mess- all in a few hours and not have anyone notice it?

Who says they didn't notice it? I'm cutting holes in drywall, poking my head in ceilings, etc. etc all day long sometimes. You think people really notice?

Although, I do have to say that since 9/11 some people are more attentive to things. Which I give a big thumbs up for.

reply to post by tezzajw
I don't have any other clue what happened, it was like I hit the back button on my mouse and out of nowhere up came a request to ignore Leo Strauss, and to the other poster, You're right its a odd reason to hack if it wasn't an accident. I was not reading a Leo Strauss related post, it was the reason why I investigated the name Leo Strauss and came to this thread.

Maybe other people happened to have the same stuff happen, just throwing it out there for hits maybe.

Originally posted by Griff

Also keep in mind that buckled columns still have some resistance to them. So, the only way to have a freefall is to remove the column's resistance 100%.

Are you claiming freefall now too?

BTW, the Bazant paper that you said you agreed with proved that the buckled columns were something like 2% the strength needed to arrst the collapse.

Perhaps you should read it again.

Originally posted by Seymour Butz
Are you claiming freefall now too?

For 2.5 seconds the building fell with an acceleration that was very close to 9.8 m/s^2, which is the same as free fall acceleration. NIST confirm this.

How do you explain that, Seymour?

reply to post by Supes


wtc 1 and 2 were demolished from the top down to make sure the towers whouldn't fall on the side.
Skyscrapers are subject to high speed winds, and even swing a few feet on the top, literally bending the structure.
If you start to demolish a skyscraper from the bottom up chances are the building won't go down on its footprint.

In every photo and every video, you can see columns far outpacing the collapse of the building. Not only are the columns falling faster than the building but they are also falling faster than the debris cloud which is ALSO falling faster than the building. This proves the buildings fell well below free fall speed. That is, unless the beams had a rocket pointed to the ground.

Just look at any video you like and watch the perimeter columns.

Deceptive videos stop the timer of the fall at 10:09 when only the perimeter column hits the ground and not the building itself. If you notice, the building just finishes disappearing behind the debris cloud which is still about 40 stories high.

Below is a more accurate graphic using a paper written by Dr. Frank Greening which can be found at: www.911myths.com...

The paper takes the transfer of momentum into account. Like a billiard ball being hit by another on a pool table, each floor transferred its momentum to the next as represented below. The more weight, the less resistance each floor gave.


The time required to strip off a floor, according to Frank Greening, is a maximum of about 110 milliseconds = 0.110 seconds. It is rather the conservation of momentum that slowed the collapse together with a small additional time for the destruction of each floor.

When I did the calculations, what I got for a thousand feet was about nine seconds- let's see,
d = 1/2at^2
so
t = (2d/a)^1/2
a is 9.8m/s^2 (acceleration of gravity at Earth's surface, according to Wikipedia), [He gives this reference so you can double check him.]
d is 417m (height of the World Trade Center towers, same source)
so
t = (834m/9.8m/s^2)^1/2 = 9.23s
OK, so how fast was it going? Easy enough,
v = at
v = (9.8m/s^2 x 9.23s) = 90.4m/s
So in the following second, it would have fallen about another hundred meters. That's almost a quarter of the height it already fell. And we haven't even made it to eleven seconds yet; it could have fallen more than twice its height in that additional four seconds. If the top fell freely, in 13.23 seconds it would have fallen about two and one-half times as far as it actually did fall in that time. So the collapse was at much less than free-fall rates.


Let's see:
KE = 1/2mv^2
The mass of the towers was about 450 million kg, according to this. Four sources, he has. I think that's pretty definitive. So now we can take the KE of the top floor, and divide by two- that will be the average of the top and bottom floors. Then we'll compare that to the KE of a floor in the middle, and if they're comparable, then we're good to go- take the KE of the top floor and divide by two and multiply by 110 stories. We'll also assume that the mass is evenly divided among the floors, and that they were loaded to perhaps half of their load rating of 100lbs/sqft. That would be
208ft x 208ft = 43,264sqft
50lbs/sqft * 43264sqft = 2,163,200lbs = 981,211kg
additional weight per floor. So the top floor would be
450,000,000 kg / 110 floors = 4,090,909 kg/floor
so the total mass would be
4,090,909 kg + 981,211 kg = 5,072,120 kg/floor
Now, the velocity at impact we figured above was
90.4m/s
so our
KE = (5,072,120kg x (90.4m/s)^2)/2 = 20,725,088,521J
So, divide by 2 and we get
10,362,544,260J
OK, now let's try a floor halfway up:
t = (2d/a)^1/2 = (417/9.8)^1/2 = 6.52s
v = at = 9.8*6.52 = 63.93m/s
KE = (mv^2)/2 = (5,072,120kg x (63.93m/s)^2)/2 = 10,363,863,011J
Hey, look at that! They're almost equal! That means we can just multiply that 10 billion Joules of energy by 110 floors and get the total, to a very good approximation. Let's see now, that's
110 floors * 10,362,544,260J (see, I'm being conservative, took the lower value)
= 1,139,879,868,600J
OK, now how much is 1.1 trillion joules in tons of TNT-equivalent? Let's see, now, a ton of TNT is 4,184,000,000J. So how many tons of TNT is 1,139,879,868,600J?
1,139,879,868,600J / 4,184,000,000J/t = 272t

Originally posted by tezzajw

For 2.5 seconds the building fell with an acceleration that was very close to 9.8 m/s^2, which is the same as free fall acceleration. NIST confirm this.

How do you explain that, Seymour?

Ya, how would you explain that Mr. Butz? Can you answer this seemingly simple question brought on by the "official story" tellers themselves?

reply to post by theindependentjournal


Pearls of wisdom?

Arthur Scheuerman said...

To say that Building 7 collapsed at free fall speed is misleading. The collapse began when the floors on the east side began failing. These failing floors eventually pulled a key column (#79) out of alignment. When this column failed it allowed all the floors and columns on the east side to collapse as indicated by the first visible indication of failure, - the penthouse roof kink. The collapse than passed the loads to the core columns which in turn also began failing. At 7.4 seconds after the kink first appeared in the penthouse roof all the interior and exterior columns had failed on the lower floors and for a time the roof line after slowly beginning to fall apparently accelerated to approximately free fall speed for about 2 & 1/2 seconds.

A thought for the day:

If you are going to tell people the truth, you had better make them laugh or they will kill you." --Oscar Wilde.

Just looked at that notorious BBC reporting with commentator Jane Standley in front of a window talking about a building having collapsed while it's still visible behind here.


Might be convincing evidence of foreknowlwedge but it looks to me like something with a less insidious explanation. The BBC took a feed of her in a studio setup in New York, and plugged in a blue screen behind her to give the impression to viewers she was pointing to things she was seeing out the window, while it was really just a bare wall.

This is done a lot in news braodcast. They didn't have the minutes later footage of New York to plug in. Sloppiness on the part of the BBC.

Either that or they knew the building was going to collapse through controlled demolition, and were anxious to get this report on the air a precious few minutes faster.

The technical and timing error seems far more plausible.

btw - how come we never get specifics on the means and activities of bad guys, how they planted the bombs, who was involved, etc?

Just endless pointing to glitches in the reportage?

Where would the Truth movement be without Youtube?


Mike F




Mike F

posted by mmiichael
btw - how come we never get specifics on the means and activities of bad guys, how they planted the bombs, who was involved, etc?

Just endless pointing to glitches in the reportage?

Where would the Truth movement be without Youtube?

You expect speculation from outsiders? What good would it do? There might be dozens, even hundreds of imaginative ways to plant the explosives in the Towers, WTC7, and the Pentagon. Maybe it was demolition expertise in the Military arsenal that none of us have even heard of? How would we possibly know exactly who the perps were? The FBI doesn't even have the slightest clue who the 'hijackers' were in your OFFICIAL STORY do they? They just bull along pretending nobody knows the identities were stolen.

Where would the 9-11 Official Conspiracy Theory be without the fanatacal faithful believers?

Originally posted by Seymour Butz

Originally posted by Griff

Also keep in mind that buckled columns still have some resistance to them. So, the only way to have a freefall is to remove the column's resistance 100%.

Are you claiming freefall now too?

Isn't this thread about Nist admitting 2.5 seconds of freefall in WTC 7?

Care to explain just how this happens in a fire induced collapse?

Or are you just going to follow me thread by thread and argue with me over every little semantical game you can play?

BTW, the Bazant paper that you said you agreed with proved that the buckled columns were something like 2% the strength needed to arrst the collapse.

We are not talking about Bazant. We are talking about NIST's claim of freefall acceleration for 2.5 seconds.

It's funny how you blast me in one thread because I combined 1, 2 and 7 but in this thread you do it? Where's Bazant's paper about 7?

Perhaps you should read it again.

Perhaps you should.

[edit on 12/14/2008 by Griff]

[edit on 12/14/2008 by Griff]

Originally posted by mmiichael
Might be convincing evidence of foreknowlwedge but it looks to me like something with a less insidious explanation. The BBC took a feed of her in a studio setup in New York, and plugged in a blue screen behind her to give the impression to viewers she was pointing to things she was seeing out the window, while it was really just a bare wall.

The thing that refutes this "scenario" would be BBC's own time stamp indicating that it was actually indeed before WTC 7 collapsed. Try again.

Grifff wrote,

" The thing that refutes this "scenario" would be BBC's own time stamp indicating that it was actually indeed before WTC 7 collapsed. Try again.
"


With all due respect, do tou think that every time stamp everywhere is exactly and accurately linked to some immutable timekeeping like the Greenwich standard?

Equipment is turned on and off, batteries run low, etc - introducing errors.
Like your electric clock reverting to 12 Oclock when there is a power loss of only a fraction of a second. Computerized systems can even slip up on dates and even years.

This is not unusual in supposedly real time broadcasting. Equipment reading error is, for me, far more plausible than the BBC being aware in advance a tower was going to come down in NYC, then jumping the gun by having a reporter comment on it while there were images of it still standing in the background.

Try Again.


MF

reply to post by mmiichael


So how far off would that make the BBC's clock? About 20 minutes?

Do you seriously think we wouldn't be able to go back and check and see if it got off by 20 minutes since the towers were hit, and all of that? And when was the last time you saw this problem on a major network?

WTC7 collapsed in SIXTEEN seconds.

That's not even remotely close to free fall.

Sorry.

uk.youtube.com...

posted by griff
The thing that refutes this "scenario" would be BBC's own time stamp indicating that it was actually indeed before WTC 7 collapsed. Try again.

posted by mmiichael
Try Again.

Over an hour before the WTC 7 demolition at 4:10pm, Aaron Brown reports - "building 7, in the wtc complex, is on fire and has either collapsed, or is collapsing".

Apparently a 9-11 planner called all of the networks and told them early that they were planning to drop WTC7. Now a FOX news video surfaces of WTC 7 collapsing AFTER reporters said it already collapsed.

We are seeing video today, that only Hollywood could have produced at another time.

Or perhaps Flt 93 was planned to fly into WTC7 at an earlier time and all three WTC skyscrapers were planned to be dropped together. The networks all had their scripts ready, and some dumb 9-11 perp forgot to call them and report that WTC7 had not fallen with the towers after all. So they read their scripts, and then just stood there looking goofy with WTC7 still standing in the background.

That 9-11 OFFICIAL STORY is just getting sillier and sillier every day.



[edit on 12/16/08 by SPreston]

i work on teevee all the time. that stuff is accurate to the second.

what a LAME 'debunk' that is.

"the batteries were running low at the BBC" "the greenwich mean time was off"



the building went into FREEFALL. that means ZERO resistance, which means ZERO structural support, which means the structural support was removed by something BESIDES gravity, which would have only been able to accelerate the building downward at LESS THAN FREEFALL ACCELERATION if ANY gravitational energy was being used to break apart the building.

did the BBC put a bluescreen behind gravity?

Originally posted by mmiichael
With all due respect, do tou think that every time stamp everywhere is exactly and accurately linked to some immutable timekeeping like the Greenwich standard?

With all due respect, I have a simple watch that gets the time from the atomic clock every night and is solar powered. Do you think BBC is that off? If so, aren't "they" incompetent and need fired from "their" jobs? If my simple watch can keep better time than "them"?

[edit on 12/16/2008 by Griff]

[edit on 12/16/2008 by Griff]