NIST Officially Admits Freefall Speed re:WTC 7!!

reply to post by Achorwrath

You are looking for how it has to be controlled demo. .

Who’s looking, it was a demo.

that means you have the predetermined conclusion, you search the evidence to fit your endstate.

Just like, you have, right! Anyone can spin 911 anyway, they want, including you, funny thing though; no one is buying into your version of 911.

If you follow scientific method. you only look at the physical facts in the event

Just what are the scientific methods that real science has accepted? Because from my understanding of the whole mess, “none” have been accepted by the journal of science or have been accepted for peer review. The reason is, we where waiting for NIST to give us the answers and that was a 10,000 page joke. However, NIST knew their report would not be accepted for peer review, or printed, and accepted in the journal of science, because they know it is a fraud.

So, other than that, what the h… are you basing your ridiculous conspiracy theory on.
Because, there has not been any other scientific reports done besides NIST, and we all know that is a proven lie. Furthermore, if you are not a structural engineer, or a mathematic genius, then you really are not qualified to be an authority on the destruction of the three WTC. You can only speculate, and only give your opinions, because there really is nothing else, until a new investigation is done.

Originally posted by WonderwomanUSA
reply to post by Achorwrath

 

You are looking for how it has to be controlled demo. .

Who’s looking, it was a demo.

that means you have the predetermined conclusion, you search the evidence to fit your endstate.

Just like, you have, right! Anyone can spin 911 anyway, they want, including you, funny thing though; no one is buying into your version of 911.

If you follow scientific method. you only look at the physical facts in the event

Just what are the scientific methods that real science has accepted? Because from my understanding of the whole mess, “none” have been accepted by the journal of science or have been accepted for peer review. The reason is, we where waiting for NIST to give us the answers and that was a 10,000 page joke. However, NIST knew their report would not be accepted for peer review, or printed, and accepted in the journal of science, because they know it is a fraud.

So, other than that, what the h… are you basing your ridiculous conspiracy theory on.
Because, there has not been any other scientific reports done besides NIST, and we all know that is a proven lie. Furthermore, if you are not a structural engineer, or a mathematic genius, then you really are not qualified to be an authority on the destruction of the three WTC. You can only speculate, and only give your opinions, because there really is nothing else, until a new investigation is done.

Ok, wait.... did you just say I had a conspiracy theory?

that is funny actually.

I have stated my qualifications in other threads.

I was a combat engineer who specialized in Structure Demolition

Besides, it does not matter what my qualifications are, you would claim I was lying.

I have used Physics, Math, Engineering, and a knowledge of demolitions to show proof for my theory.
Where is yours?

NIST did screw up, I am not sure how many times I have to say it.

They got one major thing correct, the building fell due to the conditions present on 9/11.

people who oppose what I have been saying make a couple of fatal mistakes (this includes some of the engineers and architects too)

1 - they treat the towers and WTC7 as single structures

This is a mistake as any large structure is made of of indvidual pieces, note that when the planes impacted the bolts holding the outer columns FAILED. The broke under stress. the welds fractured under stress.

2 - they fail to look for the point of failure.

In WTC 1 & 2 they did not review all of the physical and strcutural evidence.

Bolts FAILED on the outer support columns, this means the bolts supporting the columns and the welds had a higher potential for failure.

the floor trusses (according to the original blue prints) were channel welded at the core beams and BOLTED to the outer columns.

If you are not fammiliar a channel weld is where the beam or truss slides into a channel and the outer edge of the channel is welded.

By making these two mistakes in viewing the tower collapses they are coming to incorrect conclusions.

NIST did this also with the claim that the trusses weakend to the point of bending more than 30 degrees.

It would not have take much to destroy the integrity of the bolts at the outer columns after the shock and fire.

The trusses are also only directly bolted at the top; the bottom had a vibration dampening system that was designed for lateral movement and was not as strong as a direct bolt.



If all you have is

Who’s looking, it was a demo.

That is a very weak argument.

reply to post by Achorwrath

Ok, wait.... did you just say I had a conspiracy theory?

that is funny actually.

Yes, it is funny, why haven’t you written a hypothesis that will be peer review. LOL
Like, you are a leading authority on 911. You are only parroting the lying media, and some of NIST lying report. You are only presenting a conspiracy theory nothing more

I have stated my qualifications in other threads.

I have stated mine to (I am the foremost Authority, of being A KNOW IT ALL, and always having the last words.)

I was a combat engineer who specialized in Structure Demolition

Yah, me to, and tomorrow I will be a nuclear engineer, if it will fit my purpose. So, anyone can make up anything.

Besides, it does not matter what my qualifications are, you would claim I was lying.

Yah, you are right about that, and you would say the same for me right! ( of course you would, and my ego is bigger than yours I am right and you are wronge.)

I have used Physics, Math, Engineering, and a knowledge of demolitions to Ishow proof for my theory.
Where is yours?

I used common knowledge, common sense, and I have enough sense to know when I have been lied to. Furthmore, my eyes do not lie to me, however, my government has lied to me and NIST has lied to all of us.

NIST did screw up, I am not sure how many times I have to say it.

Too many to count, fool me once, but fool me twice. I think not. In a court of law if you can prove one lie then they are not creditable are they.

They got one major thing correct, the building fell due to the conditions present on 9/11.

I disagree with you, the building never just fell, they where blown to bits. Do you need someone to tell you that your eyes are deceiving you, and then convince you of a lie, boy are you gullible?

This is a mistake as any large structure is made of of indvidual pieces, note that when the planes impacted the bolts holding the outer columns FAILED. The broke under stress. the welds fractured under stress.

This is strictly your own opinion nothing more, you have no scientific proof of this.

2 - they fail to look for the point of failure.

This one I agree with you on, however they where to busy concentrating on a lie.

By making these two mistakes in viewing the tower collapses they are coming to incorrect conclusions.

Good, then you should demand they look into your theory.

The trusses are also only directly bolted at the top; the bottom had a vibration dampening system that was designed for lateral movement and was not as strong as a direct bolt.

The problem with your whole theory is, it dose not hold water, because how do you explain every bolt holding every floor Joyce breaking simultaneously all around the entire building on every floor at the same time. Furthermore, even if this can be explained the core columns of the WTC would still be standing. You can not have it both ways, it defies physics.

First, all bolts on all floors did not break at once - I never stated that, and no one (other than you) has to my knowledge.

I can ask the same question of you? Where is your document supported by the mountain of evidence you claim you have...

Oh wait, you used common sense, no math, no physics, no engineering.

In a court of law all evidence is weighed on its individual merrit.

Again I am not sure what video you watched the building was not blow to bits, They collapsed down onto themselves.

Last time I checked they did not drop the towers into place already built.
Or pour it into a giant mold.

They are made up of indivual parts that are connected together with bolts welds etc. That is not an opinion it is the way things are built.

As for the bolts shearing, they did in multiple places... those places are visible in pictures of the towers before the collapse.


Please explain why the core would stand when the rest of the building colapsed.

The core was made up primarily of steel beams (box in the lower floors and a combination of H and Box in the upper.)
- This is confirmed by a check of the blueprints -

what would have kept them sticking 1,300 feet in the air while the rest of the building fell?

That defies physics.

Originally posted by Achorwrath
The core was made up primarily of steel beams (box in the lower floors and a combination of H and Box in the upper.)
- This is confirmed by a check of the blueprints - ...

You really drift off topic in your desperate attempts to avoid trying to explain why WTC 7 fell at a freefall rate for 2.25 seconds.

Stick to the topic or leave the thread. Your contributions are hand-waving clutter to this thread.

reply to post by tezzajw


WTC 7 fell at a freefall rate for 2.25 seconds because of gravity. When a structure catastrophically fails for any reason, gravity takes over. Claiming explosive demolition requires evidence of demolition materials. There is none.

Originally posted by pteridine
WTC 7 fell at a freefall rate for 2.25 seconds because of gravity. When a structure catastrophically fails for any reason, gravity takes over.

Sure it does... too bad that the structure itself also provides resistance to gravity.

Yet, WTC 7 fell at a freefall rate, for 2.25 seconds, meaning there was no internal resistance. Why, pteridine? Why was there no internal resistance for 2.25 seconds?

Originally posted by tezzajw

Sure it does... too bad that the structure itself also provides resistance to gravity.

Yet, WTC 7 fell at a freefall rate, for 2.25 seconds, meaning there was no internal resistance. Why, pteridine? Why was there no internal resistance for 2.25 seconds?

Yet, before and after the freefall there was resistance. Why tezza? Why was there resistance before and after the freefall? Do you think this implies a failure that initiated a slow collapse which triggered catastrophic collapse in freefall which then slowed as materials piled up?

Originally posted by pteridine
Yet, before and after the freefall there was resistance. Why tezza?

I don't know, pteridine. That's what I would like to know.

I'm waiting for you to explain why a freefall rate for 2.25 seconds happened in the early collapse sequence?

reply to post by tezzajw


It happened because the building was collapsing. Do you believe that it is diagnostic of anything in particular?

Originally posted by pteridine
It happened because the building was collapsing. Do you believe that it is diagnostic of anything in particular?

Yes, it happened while the building was collapsing. So, again, pteridine, how does a building collapse for 2.25 seconds, in the early collapse sequence, without providing any internal resistance to its own collapse?

You're avoiding answering the question.

reply to post by tezzajw


It collapses in freefall for 2.25 seconds because at that time the internal resistance to collapse was small. For the other 11 seconds or so, there was more internal resistance. What point are you trying to make?

Originally posted by pteridine
It collapses in freefall for 2.25 seconds because at that time the internal resistance to collapse was small.

Why was the resistance 'small', pteridine? Note the play on words when you type 'small'. Page 45 of the NIST reports states that between 1.75 seconds and 4 seconds, the acceleration was equal to gravity. Your 'small' resistance during that time period is actually zero, according to NIST.

How did the entire structure of the building not oppose the collapse for 2.25 seconds?

You continually avoid answering the question. Don't bother looking for an answer in the NIST report, they don't bother to print one either.

reply to post by Achorwrath

First, all bolts on all floors did not break at once - I never stated that, and no one (other than you) has to my knowledge.

Really! There goes your pancake theory, and your progressive speed of a free fall. If the floors did not break away all at once, meaning every bolt holding every floor bracket, and Joyce, If this did not happened then you would have resistance that means it would have took a lot longer for the WTC to fall. You and I know that did not happen, all three WTC fell with an accelerated free fall speed, in order to have this, you cannot have resistances. You say the bolts did not break all at once (you are wrong) they did, in order for the WTC to fall as fast as they did, there would not be any other way.

I can ask the same question of you? Where is your document supported by the mountain of evidence you claim you have...

I never made claim that I had mountains of evidences, that is something you concocted because your ridiculous conspiracy theory is falling apart, and holds no scientific value and there is no proof to anything you are saying because a real investigation has “NEVER” been done. Only a real cover up has been done nothing more.

Oh wait, you used common sense, no math, no physics, no engineering.

I never said I was a genius! Does one need to be an engineer, or a math whiz, to know when they are being LIED to?

In a court of law all evidence is weighed on its individual merrit.

That’s right! Once you have proven one lie, most lawyers will have a field day and disregard the rest of the witness testimony. Because, if he lied about one thing, then he will lie about everything else, because he is covering up the truth, or he is guilty of the crime. Everyone know this.

Again I am not sure what video you watched the building was not blow to bits, They collapsed down onto themselves.

You are joking Right! LOL

As for the bolts shearing, they did in multiple places... those places are visible in pictures of the towers before the collapse.

Really! Show the actual pictures of those places that are visible in pictures before the Explosions.

Please explain why the core would stand when the rest of the building colapsed.

Because, the floors where built “around” the core columns, the core columns where the main structural foundation to the WTC it was infact, built as a separate unit with the rest of the towers constructed to the core.

Like All Skyscrapers, the Twin Towers Were Over-Engineered
One aspect of engineering that is not widely understood is that structures are over-engineered as a matter of standard practice. Steel structures like bridges and buildings are typically designed to withstand five times anticipated static loads and 3 times anticipated dynamic loads. The anticipated loads are the largest ones expected during the life of the structure, like the worst hurricane or earthquake occurring while the floors are packed with standing-room-only crowds. Given that September 11th was not a windy day, and that there were not throngs of people in the upper floors, the critical load ratio was probably well over 10, meaning that more than nine-tenths of the columns at the same level would have to fail before the weight of the top could have overcome the support capacity of the remaining columns.
There is evidence that the Twin Towers were designed with an even greater measure of reserve strength than typical large buildings. According to the 1964 white paper cited above, a Tower would still be able to withstand a 100-mile-per-hour wind after all the perimeter columns on one face and some of the columns on each adjacent face had been cut. 7 Also, John Skilling is cited by the Engineering News Record

[edit on 21-3-2009 by WonderwomanUSA]

reply to post by Achorwrath

There is evidence that the Twin Towers were designed with an even greater measure of reserve strength than typical large buildings. According to the 1964 white paper cited above, a Tower would still be able to withstand a 100-mile-per-hour wind after all the perimeter columns on one face and some of the columns on each adjacent face had been cut. 7 Also, John Skilling is cited by the Engineering News Record for the claim that "live loads on these [perimeter] columns can be increased more than 2000% before failure occurs." 8
Frank Demartini's Statement
Frank A. Demartini, on-site construction manager for the World Trade Center, spoke of the resilience of the towers in an interview recorded on January 25, 2001.
The building was designed to have a fully loaded 707 crash into it. That was the largest plane at the time. I believe that the building probably could sustain multiple impacts of jetliners because this structure is like the mosquito netting on your screen door -- this intense grid -- and the jet plane is just a pencil puncturing that screen netting. It really does nothing to the screen netting.

911research.wtc7.net...

what would have kept them sticking 1,300 feet in the air while the rest of the building fell?

You obviously have not study the blue prints as you claimed

The Core Structures
The Structural System of the Twin Towers
Each tower was supported by a structural core extending from its bedrock foundation to its roof. The cores were rectangular pillars with numerous large columns and girders, measuring 87 feet by 133 feet. The core structures housed the elevators, stairs, and other services. The cores had their own flooring systems, which were structurally independent of the floor diaphragms that spanned the space between the cores and the perimeter walls. The core structures, like the perimeter wall structures, were 100 percent steel-framed.
The exact dimensions, arrangement, and number of the core columns remained somewhat mysterious until the publication of a leaked collection of detailed architectural drawings of the North Tower in 2007. Although the drawings show the dimensions and arrangement of core columns, they do not show other engineering details such as the core floor framing. It is clear from photographs, such as the one on the right, that the core columns were abundantly cross-braced.
Cross-Bracing
Construction photographs show that the core columns were connected to each other at each floor by large square girders and I-beams about two feet deep. The debris photograph below shows what appears to be one of the smaller core columns surrounded by perpendicular I-beams approximately three feet deep. In addition, the tops of core structures were further connected by the sloping beams of the hat truss structures.

911research.wtc7.net...

Tower Blueprints
Surviving Evidence of the World Trade Center Attack

The blueprints to the Twin Towers and Building 7 remained off-limits to the public for more than five years after the attack, despite the fact that the buildings were built with public money and that the engineering drawings of public buildings are supposed to be public information. 1 Incredibly, the team of engineers from the ASCE that conducted the only investigation of the building "collapses" before Ground Zero had been cleaned up lacked access to the buildings' blueprints -- at least until they signed waivers that they would not use the evidence in a lawsuit against the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey. 2
Whistleblower Releases Blueprints
In March of 2007, an extensive set of detailed architectural drawings of the World Trade Center became public through the actions of a whistleblower. The 261 drawings included detailed plans for the North Tower (WTC 1), the World Trade Center foundation and basement, and the TV mast atop the North Tower. The set of drawings does not include plans for the other six buildings in the World Trade Center complex. However, since the Twin Towers were of almost identical construction, it is safe to assume that the structural details that the drawings shown for the North Tower are largely applicable to the South Tower.
The drawings contain a wealth of detail about the buildings, including the dimensions of structural members such as the core columns.
Most of the drawings can be viewed in this multiresolution browser.
Official Reports Misrepresented the Towers' Construction
The detailed architectural drawings make clear what official reports have apparently attempted to hide: that the Twin Towers had massive core columns, and those columns ran most of the height of each Tower before transitioning to columns with smaller cross-sections.
Based on construction photographs exhibited in the Skyscraper Museum and illustrations from the Engineering News Record , 9-11 Research had established by mid-2005 that, low in the Towers, the sixteen core columns that bounded the long faces of the buildings' cores had dimensions of 54 by 22 inches. The detailed drawings show that these columns maintained these dimensions through about the 66th floor.
Both of the government-sponsored engineering studies of the Twin Towers' "collapses" -- FEMA's and NIST's -- are highly misleading about the core structures. Neither FEMA's Study nor NIST's Report discloses dimensions for core columns -- dimensions that are clearly evident in the architectural drawings. Both Reports use a variety of techniques seemingly designed to minimize the strength of the cores or to conceal their structural role entirely.
So effective was FEMA at concealing the nature of the cores that the 9/11 Commission Report , citing the FEMA Report, denied the very existence of the core columns.

911research.wtc7.net...
Try and do a little research, before making a fool out of yourself, I had no problem Google this info myself, and I don’t need to be an Engineer or a math whiz to *read.*




[edit on 21-3-2009 by WonderwomanUSA]

Or I could not take someone elses opinion and try to use it as fact.

Instead I read them on my own;

They are available here

Note how the central core of columns is not encased in concrete; notice how some of the outer columns have nothing more than a gypsum box around the H beams...

does not look like a massive pieces of concrete and steel to me.

Blueprints

Those are for floors 89 to 93,

here is 94 and 95, this is even more spaced out and less in the central core to prevent damage to the columns.

here is 96-100

same thing as 94 and 95 almost nothing to prevent the mass of the plane from continuing through.


As for those statments,

They are doing exactly what I said - they are forgetting that on 9/11 after the planes hit

The towers were no longer as designed

they were damaged. you can throw all thoughts of original design out the window.

They were experiencing something even the designers admit they never counted on.




[edit to add link]

[edit on 21-3-2009 by Achorwrath]

Originally posted by tezzajw
Why was the resistance 'small', pteridine? Note the play on words when you type 'small'. Page 45 of the NIST reports states that between 1.75 seconds and 4 seconds, the acceleration was equal to gravity. Your 'small' resistance during that time period is actually zero, according to NIST.

How did the entire structure of the building not oppose the collapse for 2.25 seconds?

You continually avoid answering the question. Don't bother looking for an answer in the NIST report, they don't bother to print one either.

The acceleration was equal to gravity as best as can be measured, hence "small" and not "zero." The building did not oppose the collapse for 2.25 seconds because it didn't. NIST didn't bother to answer because there was nothing to answer. What is your point?

Everyone is overlooking the known desgin flaw.
the outer columns did not reach all the way to the ground, they stopped at the Fifth Floor. at the Fifth Floor they used transfer joints to transfer the outer load to the inner columns

The 94% free fall time is consistant with the five floor difference.

It's my understanding that only outer columns 47 through 54 stopped at the seventh floor to be brought inline with the Con Edison columns. Columns 1-46 and 55-57 continued through floor 4. Columns 10-44 continued through floor 3. Columns 10-42 and 44 continued through floor 2. And Columns 10-28, 32, 37, 42 made it to the ground. At least that's what I make out from NCSTAR 1-9 Vol1.pdf. I never could find any information on the Con Ed column layout or what support it provided to WTC 7.

[edit on 21-3-2009 by NIcon]

[edit on 21-3-2009 by NIcon]

WTC7

This is a good image to show the supporting columns
note that not all extend out to the perimeter.


One other thing to mention is the nine desile generators (I do not know the type or wieght) on the fifth floor.

Trusses

Here is an illustration of the truss system,
it is important to note that the kink observerd at collapse was right over the two main trusses for the right side of the building (if lookin at WTC7 from the main plaza.)