It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The 2.25 second free fall at WTC7. What really happened?

page: 1
1

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 15 2010 @ 11:50 PM
link   
The 2.25 second free fall at WTC7. What really happened?

The debunker site says "At one point during the progressive collapse, Floors 7-14 failed completely, and the remaining part of the building above this point began a sudden plummet. It’s this plummet of the upper floors that AE911Truth continues to point to as the beginning of WTC 7′s collapse, but the actual collapse had been underway for a few seconds before this point."

How reliable is this information. Can it be disproved?




posted on Sep, 15 2010 @ 11:56 PM
link   
reply to post by patriots4truth
 


I guess I would like to know why they think floors 7-14 failed as they describe. I have seen no evidence for that. Maybe I am not looking hard enough but as far as I know there is no video that exists of floors 7-14 at all. So how do they know this information to be fact if no video shows floors 7-14?



posted on Sep, 16 2010 @ 12:13 AM
link   
reply to post by ExPostFacto
 


The NIST report say that building 7 started to collapse between floor 5 to 13 if i dont remember wrong.

But still, the odd thing is how the building can free fall for 2.25 seconds. I have already mentioned this in a older 911 thread.

For a building to fall for 2.25 seconds. The building must fall without "resistance". That means there is nothing in the space which the building is falling in for 2.25 seconds.

NIST can not explain this, they also admitted that they have measured the free fall speed by displaying a graf.



posted on Sep, 16 2010 @ 12:14 AM
link   
Problem is any freefall violates the law of conservation of energy if the official theorytale is correct. WTC7 demolition is proved with highschool physics. As to what was used, thermite is one contender, however I'd say scalar inferiometers in conjunction with thermite would fit the bill best as an independent failsafe for the operation.



posted on Sep, 16 2010 @ 12:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by spy66
reply to post by ExPostFacto
 


The NIST report say that building 7 started to collapse between floor 5 to 13 if i dont remember wrong.

But still, the odd thing is how the building can free fall for 2.25 seconds. I have already mentioned this in a older 911 thread.

For a building to fall for 2.25 seconds. The building must fall without "resistance". That means there is nothing in the space which the building is falling in for 2.25 seconds.

NIST can not explain this, they also admitted that they have measured the free fall speed by displaying a graf.



Why would the top start to collapse along with the other floors at roughly the same time? Which came first? Does it even matter?



posted on Sep, 16 2010 @ 12:50 AM
link   
reply to post by patriots4truth
 


The top usually come down first because the core columns at ground level have been disrupted, cut of destroyed by demolition.

Some experts say that the inside interior started to pancake like WTC 1 and 2. But they cant explain why the core columns wouldn't still stand.

NIST can't explain the fall speed with its collapse description. Because they can't admit that it was brought down by explosives.

This is a cover up you see, and people have to stick to the agenda. There is no way you will be able to argue against the NIST report, because NIST is supported by the government and their policy makers.

No other out side investigator will ever have any leverage against NIST and its report. That has already been proven.



posted on Sep, 16 2010 @ 01:36 AM
link   
are people retard, there a hundreds of videos of the twin towers collapsing on youtube, and there are equally hundreds of videos of controlled demolitions. they don't even come close to being similiar. you can also see close ups of the twin towers falling and you don't even witness anything near any explosions after the planes hit. to bring down the towers using a controlled demolition would need thousands of pounds of explosives especially at the foundation, a buildings strongest point. the fact is the millions of tonnes of concrete and steel collapsed on it self and each floor under this weight couldn't support energy pushind down on it.



posted on Sep, 16 2010 @ 01:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by randomname
are people retard, there a hundreds of videos of the twin towers collapsing on youtube, and there are equally hundreds of videos of controlled demolitions. they don't even come close to being similiar. you can also see close ups of the twin towers falling and you don't even witness anything near any explosions after the planes hit. to bring down the towers using a controlled demolition would need thousands of pounds of explosives especially at the foundation, a buildings strongest point. the fact is the millions of tonnes of concrete and steel collapsed on it self and each floor under this weight couldn't support energy pushind down on it.


is there any proof that this could happen for 8 floors with zero resistance?
on the other hand, is there any proof that this could not happen given the zero resistance constraint?

spy66, I believe the 2.25 seconds will be leverage against NIST and its report. I believe that when all the answers to the 2.25 seconds have been clarified the truther movement will have a great blurb to open other people's eyes.


edit on 16-9-2010 by patriots4truth because: talking to spy66



posted on Sep, 16 2010 @ 02:07 AM
link   
The jest of this 2.25 second free fall crap is that unless absolutely 100% of every aspect of the 9-11 events can be explained, than gee whiz, there must have been a conspiracy. Cuz gawd knows that every single second of any event, no matter how complex or unprecedented, should be able to be explained.



posted on Sep, 16 2010 @ 03:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by RKWWWW
The jest of this 2.25 second free fall crap is that unless absolutely 100% of every aspect of the 9-11 events can be explained, than gee whiz, there must have been a conspiracy. Cuz gawd knows that every single second of any event, no matter how complex or unprecedented, should be able to be explained.


I highly disagree with you. This event is a crucial part of the original story. If it can be proven that it is impossible for the free fall to happen in the OS conditions then there has to be a logical alternative to the OS (most likely explosives).

I believe that there are qualified people out there that can prove whether the OS account of the 2.25 second free fall for eight stories is at all possible. I don't think it would be too "complex or unprecedented" for an expert to lay down the proof against the OS. I started this thread to see if there are any experts who have challenged this event and to see if there is any experts that would like to challenge this event.

Again, I believe this 2.25 seconds is absolutely crucial in regard to whether the OS is true or not.



posted on Sep, 16 2010 @ 04:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by RKWWWW
The jest of this 2.25 second free fall crap is that unless absolutely 100% of every aspect of the 9-11 events can be explained, than gee whiz, there must have been a conspiracy. Cuz gawd knows that every single second of any event, no matter how complex or unprecedented, should be able to be explained.


The 2.25 seconds of free fall is documented in the NIST report. so if any one is full of crap its you. Why don't read the NIST report before you speak out loud.

Or better yet lets hear your version of how a building can collapse from the bottom all the way down, and as the building collapses accelerate to free fall speed for 2.25 seconds.


edit on 27.06.08 by spy66 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 16 2010 @ 04:48 AM
link   
It's good to see people focusing on the destruction of WTC7.

The truth movement really shouldn't worry so much about how the twin towers were demolished, because there are too many uncertainties involved. The towers were constructed according to a never-before-used design, and since the collapse of buildings of this design is unprecedented, there is nothing for comparison to know what the 'norm' is.

WTC7 is another kettle of fish. This was a skyscraper built along the traditional lines of a rigid lattice of welded and bolted steel supports. There are thousands of skyscrapers of this type that have been constructed during the last century, and they are all built so they will not easily fall down.

To bring a skyscraper like WTC7 down requires the expertise of demolition specialists.

WTC7 is the 'elephant in the room' proof that 9/11 was not a surprise attack by Islamic extremists, but rather an event that people within the United States had made extensive preparations for.

The truth movement only has to demonstrate beyond reasonable doubt that WTC7 was demolished, because the only thing that could have provided an 'excuse' for the collapse of WTC7 is damage from the collapse of the twin towers, making it highly likely that the the people who organized the demolition of WTC7 knew the towers would fall to provide the cover.

It is self-evident that WTC7 was a controlled demolition, so it shouldn’t be too hard to prove.



posted on Sep, 16 2010 @ 04:59 AM
link   
Besides the NIST study, are there any other scientific studies that you feel the need to profane? Shall we ludicrously scrutinize the science in all the tobacco, stem cells, evolution, and global warming studies while we are at it? The same government is behind those. Or shall we be selective based on our personal pathologies and prejudices?


edit on 16-9-2010 by RKWWWW because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 16 2010 @ 05:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by aethron


It is self-evident that WTC7 was a controlled demolition, so it shouldn’t be too hard to prove.


If it was self-evident you wouldn't have to prove it. Typically a building the size of WTC7 requires 6 months of intensive preparation to demolish, not to mention thousands of man-hours put in by scores of workers. It's not an act that can be done stealthily. Should be a piece of cake to prove.



posted on Sep, 16 2010 @ 05:30 AM
link   
reply to post by RKWWWW
 



Typically a building the size of WTC7 requires 6 months of intensive preparation to demolish, not to mention thousands of man-hours put in by scores of workers.


Yes...So how could some small fires and random damage cause a collapse that you concede requires intensive preparation?



posted on Sep, 16 2010 @ 06:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by RKWWWW

Originally posted by aethron


It is self-evident that WTC7 was a controlled demolition, so it shouldn’t be too hard to prove.


If it was self-evident you wouldn't have to prove it. Typically a building the size of WTC7 requires 6 months of intensive preparation to demolish, not to mention thousands of man-hours put in by scores of workers. It's not an act that can be done stealthily. Should be a piece of cake to prove.


You ignore another possibility: WTC7 was wired for eventual demolition when it was built. Now, that does not mean that the New York CIA agents and staff of other US Federal agencies were sitting in their offices at WTC7 for years above sticks of dynamite waiting to be detonated. Perhaps they were added secretly in the week before 9/11.

Pre-wiring is the only way of explaining why Silverstein phoned the insurance company insuring his building and asked whether it would be OK for him to give the order to blow it up, as revealed several months ago by a news reporter who accompanied Silverstein and Mayor Giuliani on the morning of 9/11. He would never had done this if he knew that the job would take weeks....



posted on Sep, 16 2010 @ 06:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by aethron
reply to post by RKWWWW
 



Typically a building the size of WTC7 requires 6 months of intensive preparation to demolish, not to mention thousands of man-hours put in by scores of workers.


Yes...So how could some small fires and random damage cause a collapse that you concede requires intensive preparation?


Ah, but it wasn't small fires and random damage that collapsed WTC7. That's not your argument, is it? Don't waste your time mischaracterizing the issue while you should be proving a simple case of controlled demolition. Stay focused!



posted on Sep, 16 2010 @ 06:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by micpsi

Originally posted by RKWWWW

Originally posted by aethron


It is self-evident that WTC7 was a controlled demolition, so it shouldn’t be too hard to prove.


If it was self-evident you wouldn't have to prove it. Typically a building the size of WTC7 requires 6 months of intensive preparation to demolish, not to mention thousands of man-hours put in by scores of workers. It's not an act that can be done stealthily. Should be a piece of cake to prove.


You ignore another possibility: WTC7 was wired for eventual demolition when it was built. Now, that does not mean that the New York CIA agents and staff of other US Federal agencies were sitting in their offices at WTC7 for years above sticks of dynamite waiting to be detonated. Perhaps they were added secretly in the week before 9/11.

Pre-wiring is the only way of explaining why Silverstein phoned the insurance company insuring his building and asked whether it would be OK for him to give the order to blow it up, as revealed several months ago by a news reporter who accompanied Silverstein and Mayor Giuliani on the morning of 9/11. He would never had done this if he knew that the job would take weeks....


So to "prove" controlled demolition all you must do is imagine and propose a here-to-fore, unknown demolition method? Wow. I guess one could prove nearly any old effing thing doing that.



posted on Sep, 16 2010 @ 09:03 AM
link   
I think the focus should remain on disproving the original story, debunkers say as a hypothesis
"Column failure on 8th floor
+ lateral bracing lost
+ internal structure already falling
= free fall for 8 floors"

I want to see experts proving beyond a reasonable doubt that there had to be some resistance in the OS to prove that their version of the freefall is impossible. How hard is it to prove resistance when those floors that failed in the OS have several tonnes of bending and twisting steel to provide resistance. The truther story can flat out prove why there was no resistance - demolitions.

XP a few posts back
Yes we should focus on Building 7 for now. If the truther movement gains proof against the OS here, and then gains steed, the real OS conspirators will have to eventually claim that there was explosives planted in the building "just in case we ever need to pull the building" (for insurance fraud? - rat out Silverstein and put all the blame on him?)

In any case, the whole idea of WTC towers being rigged with explosives would seem viable in many more people's eyes once they hear the OS conspirators admit that they had explosives planted in the building in case they ever needed to pull it. The truther movement will gain even more steed

First we, the truthers, need to focus on WTC7 and getting analysis of those 2.25 seconds so we can have proof against the Original Story. All the other analysis being done on WTC7 is important as well but I personally would stick hardest to the 2.25 second free fall for now


edit on 16-9-2010 by patriots4truth because: clarification of debunker hypothesis



posted on Sep, 16 2010 @ 08:59 PM
link   
“Primarily for the east tenant floor, when a floor beam thermally expanded, the beam displaced the girder at the interior end of the floor beam but did not displace the exterior frame at the other end of the floor beam.” - NCSTAR 1-9, p. 526.

Today, licensed mechanical engineer Derek Johnson says in another forum: Now that is amazing. If the beams are unrestrained at one end, how can they develop the compressive force necessary for buckling to occur?

"Many of the east floor beams on Floors 12, 13, and 14 failed by buckling, as shown in Figure 11-27 and Figure 11-35” – NCSTAR 1-9, pp. 526-27

Derek Johnson: Can the beams push the girder laterally (and break the intersecting girder's 4-bolt seated connection at column 79) if they have buckled in compression?

------------------------------------------------------
Derek Johnson is teasing disinfoagents. He has them by their balls.Here is another five questions he presents truth debunkers in the other forum. go to post #1142. No one has been able to give a complete answer already 35 pages in.

Here is a presentation he did called Engineering Destruction from December 2009

every youtube posted here at AboveTopSecret


edit on 16-9-2010 by patriots4truth because: added stuff



new topics

top topics



 
1

log in

join