NIST Officially Admits Freefall Speed re:WTC 7!!

As I have already said I am speaking from regular building demo.

But think about it this way, if you are going to blow the building you would not rely on the chance that one of the interior columns would do it.

You would demo the structure as if it were solid. meaning steel cutting charges along the outer walls and interior columns.

Along the most likely points ot failure (the bottom floors) remember that the building was structurally changed when they put in the additional generators (something like an additional 300 tons of steel trusses) so you now have a different load and structure than originally designed.

If I were planning the building demo I would go from the fifth floor where the southside trusses connected in to the Con Ed Pillars.

hitting the interior columns and lateral trusses strating from floor five up in sucession.
This is taking into account making sure the outer facade and walls fall inward and little or no push out.

you would see the visible detonations from each floor with this method.

Now I will say that I do not have a complete structural diagram (which is needed for accurate demo) so this is going from observation and the diagrams that I have seen.

Now to effect the single column failure I would need to shear the column at multiple points anyway (to simulate buckling) as well as shear the individual trusses at multiple floors.

This would still take serval hundred pounds of explosives and a couple of thousand feet of detcord.


I hope that explains why i do not feel it was controlled demo

Originally posted by Achorwrath
As I have said repeatedly they made so many mistakes that their report only got one thing right.
The towers fell due to the event that took place

In light of this, I find your defeatist attitude to the possibility of a genuine investigation shocking and irresponsible.

Originally posted by Achorwrath
Do I want the government to waste more money on a new investigation?
Personally no, the reason I say this is that even if a new investigation is done people will say that one is bogus if it supports the first one in any way.

So how many will we need for people to be satified?

One investigation that is both transparent and scientifically rigorous is all that is required and the very least the victims of 9/11 deserve. You've just admitted NIST's investigation is bogus, but you say we can't have a genuine one because people might still think it was bogus! What an absurd and arrogant statement.

Professor Quintere, as I stated, was not advocating in the first instance a new investigation. He was calling for an independent peer review of NIST's work because he identified how flawed it was.

The corollary of this, I don't doubt, would be a new investigation, but the forensics, eyewitness reports etc., are already collected, so the problems you allude to of vast expense and faded memories don't apply.

I naively assumed that once those who defend the official theory of the WTC's destruction were forced to concede what a deceptive piece of nonsense NIST have foisted on the world, they would either join the demand for justice or quietly step back into the shadows. Lo and behold! Now they're "heroically" supplying their own carefully crafted explanations of how the laws of physics were suspended on 9/11.


[edit on 23-3-2009 by EvilAxis]

reply to post by LaBTop

It seems you were responding to my post when I suggested that there was no evidence for explosives. Somehow, the link you provided only showed a seismogram purporting to be of the collapse, but there seemed to be no evidence of any explosives.
Do you have evidence of residue, misfired demolition charges, spent caps, blasting machines, timers, fuse, detcord, thermite, thermate, operation orders, or anything else?


[edit on 3/23/2009 by pteridine]

reply to post by LaBTop

It appears that you have been mislead by somone incorrectly reading a seismogram. The original table referred to below is at: www.ldeo.columbia.edu...

Here is a summary of seismic observations of the
two impacts and the three collapses:

Columns from left to right in the table: Date; OriginTime (UTC); Magnitude(Richter scale); Time(EDT); Dominant Period; Signal Duration; Remark.
09/11/2001 12:46:26±1 0.9 08:46:26 0.8 sec 12 seconds first impact
09/11/2001 13:02:54±2 0.7 09:02:54 0.6 sec 6 seconds second impact
09/11/2001 13:59:04±1 2.1 09:59:04 0.8 sec 10 seconds first collapse
09/11/2001 14:28:31±1 2.3 10:28:31 0.9 sec 8 seconds second collapse
09/11/2001 21:20:33±2 0.6 17:20:33 0.7 sec 18 seconds Building 7 collapse

Note building 7 collapse at 0.6 on the Richter scale and the towers at 2.1 and 2.3 respectively.

reply to post by EvilAxis

I naively assumed that once those who defend the official theory of the WTC's destruction were forced to concede what a deceptive piece of nonsense NIST have foisted on the world, they would either join the demand for justice or quietly step back into the shadows. Lo and behold! Now they're "heroically" supplying their own carefully crafted explanations of how the laws of physics were suspended on 9/11.

Oh so true, I agree with your statement in the above, however, I had to put Achorwrath on ignore. Achorwrath is playing a game with all of you. The goal of this game Achorwrath is playing, is to piss you off, the sad part of all of this is; Achorwrath is playing on some peoples emotions who takes 911 more serious.

Do I want the government to waste more money on a new investigation?
Personally no, the reason I say this is that even if a new investigation is done people will say that one is bogus if it supports the first one in any way.

This is so ridiculous, Achorwrath, doesn’t even know what the out come of a new investigation is going to be, infact no one knows, he doesn’t know what people are going to say. Unless he is a mind reader, the funny thing he dose state is: ( Do I want the government to waste more money on a new investigation?) LOL Achorwrath has just implied that the government “wasted” money investigating 911 to say the lease, he doesn’t believe in the governments version of 911, however he will argue that the government is right, and all their reports are correct, and are all accepted by the mass of the population. You say black, Achorwrath will say white, He really doesn’t care what your opinions, are or facts you have. The goal of this game is to make you all lose control, and some of you good people have fell in his trap

One investigation that is both transparent and scientifically rigorous is all that is required and the very least the victims of 9/11 deserve. You've just admitted NIST's investigation is bogus, but you say we can't have a genuine one because people might still think it was bogus! What an absurd and arrogant statement.

EvilAxis, you have just proved my point, that Achorwrath, is playing a game, and it has even piss you off, that "IS" his goal. You have a right to be angry, because he is playing on your beliefs and ridiculing them. One more thing I found out Achorwrath will have the last words on everyone don’t believe me read all his posts.

My take on WTC 7, in my opinion, is I believe it was demolished by use of demolition that was well planted, months in advance. NIST went out of their way to avoid doing an investigation on demolition, and the lies that NIST told at a press conference the reason they did not look into doing a study on demolition, was there where NO eye witness who saw explosion, or heard any explosion. I do not need to show all the web sites of all the firemen, and police officers, and first responders, who have gone on record that they saw and heard explosion. Not only has NIST deliberately lied in the final report, but also NIST has lied publicly on a press release. I find it a slap in our faces, and in the faces of the love one that died in those Towers. I do not understand why a peer review has not been done on NIST reports, and I do not understand

[edit on 24-3-2009 by WonderwomanUSA]

[edit on 24-3-2009 by WonderwomanUSA]

Originally posted by pteridine
The report stated a fact: the building fell at freefall for part of its collapse.

The final report stated that fact. The draft report didn't. It took a high school physics teacher to alert NIST to their ommission.

Either expansion of the steel with shearing of fasteners or planned demolitions, of some sort, shearing beams could have allowed for such catastrophic failure. Gravity acts the same regardless of the cause, so the speed is not diagnostic of the cause.

Again, like NIST, you still can not explain why WTC 7 fell at freefall rate. You just accept it.

The only explanation, and the simplest explanation, is what was concluded by the NIST report until new evidence is brought to light. Until that time, it is the only logical conclusion.

NIST didn't state why the building fell at a freefall rate. They only stated that it did fall at a freefall rate.

The only logical conclusions are that NIST don't know why it fell at a freefall rate, or they do know why and they are not telling.

I will ask a simple question here.

Why?

Why control the demo of the buildings?

Many of you believe the government did this to precipitate war.

So why control the demo?

Which would be more tragic?

Dropping the buildings semi neatly onto their own foot prints?

Or allowing them to topple over the city?

As far as a new investigation goes. What does happen if it supports the NIST conclusion? Not the facts they used but the final conclusion?

Where they say that it fell not due to demo but due to damage and the set of circumstances.

How many of you in here would believe it.

You call me arrogant for not wanting another $20 million + spent on this. I say you all are arrogant for saying the first report was a waste of taxpayer money and demanding anoter $20 million spent.

Oh and wonderwoman, if you are going to attack me you really should at least READ my posts, I have never said that NIST findings were correct, I have in fact stated time and time again that their report was rushed, inaccurate and sloppy.

You have yet to provide anything but your opinion or the opinions of others and call them facts, you state more than once all you have is your belief that you have been lied to. You have yet to be able to counter anything I have posted except with more attacks and rhetoric.

reply to post by EvilAxis


A new investigation would require a recounting of witnesses and a review of the forensics (including raw material)

Otherwise it is not an invesigation.

It becomes nothing more than a rehash of the NIST report.

Peer review is great, and to a certain degree it has been done by many many people and they all have their own explanations of what happend, some say controlled demo, others are shouting it was "mini-nukes" the list goes on into the absurd.

you asked my opinion on a new investigation and I gave it to you,

Also, please do post how Physics was suspended that day.

Folks, a reminder, the topic is NIST Officially Admits Freefall Speed Re:WTC 7

The topic is not one particular member or another.
The topic is not what color tie I am wearing today.
The topic is not he said, she said, the topic the NIST officially admitting freefall speed.

repeat, NIST officially admitting freefall speed regarding WTC 7.

Attack the post, not the poster.

Double Post

[edit on 24-3-2009 by EvilAxis]

posted by Achorwrath

So why control the demo?

Which would be more tragic?

Dropping the buildings semi neatly onto their own foot prints?

Or allowing them to topple over the city?

Why would any one of the three WTC buildings topple over the city? Without the military grade demo charges, all three buildings would still be standing today, unless the city of New York decided to take them down. And after having aircraft flying into them, New York would probably take the towers down piece by piece, from the top down, and at maximum cost.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/f5b62bca8b49.jpg[/atsimg]

But why fly the aircraft into the towers if the 9-11 perps did not want them taken down? With the FBI's help, they tried to topple the towers in 1993. Their ineptness then caused their attempt to fail. The FBI was just as inept in 2001 as they were in 1993, if not more so, and the perps are in the process of being revealed. Apparently toppling the towers with demo charges is not so easy. The core structures were so powerful, that they had to be destroyed, and the entire tower demolished without toppling; an unknown built-in safety factor perhaps.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/870606a20bd4.jpg[/atsimg]

reply to post by SPreston


That is conjecture and speculation.

You have said more than once that the top of the building should have toppled over.

And that the only reason it did not was due to demo.

Also to claim they had engouh demo in the building to bring it down but not enough to topple it is a self defeating argument.
Iw would have taken much less and only planted on one side to make the towers fall,

No planes, no dramatics, they could have said it was another bomb in the garrage, and that the weakend structure from the 93 blast contributed to it.
After all there are people that claim the bomb dogs were not in the building...

But this is about WTC7 and free fall collapse.

I will say it again, from looking at the available information I feel the buildings could have collapsed due to a combination of damage (shear, fracture, buckling etc) and fire.

I also feel this is more likely than conrolled demo for the reasons I have posted above.

The personal attacks are getting rather silly. It is allowed for me o have an oposing position to others as this is a public forum.

reply to post by Achorwrath


NIST did a terrible job and in your heart and in an ideal world you'd like a new investigation but you know we don't live in an ideal world so a new investigation would be a terrible waste of money and besides people would reject it anyway because you know already it could only possibly come to the same conclusion as NIST and people in their stubborn contrary irrational way would say it was bogus...

You've made your views very clear, I fully support your right to express them and I give them all the respect they deserve.

Apologies to Mod. Henceforth, I will try to remain on topic.

[edit on 24-3-2009 by EvilAxis]

Originally posted by EvilAxis
reply to post by Achorwrath

 

NIST did a terrible job and in your heart and in an ideal world you'd like a new investigation but you know we don't live in an ideal world so a new investigation would be a terrible waste of money and besides people would reject it anyway because you know already it could only possibly come to the same conclusion as NIST and people in their stubborn contrary irrational way would say it was bogus...

You've made your views very clear, I fully support your right to express them and I give them all the respect they deserve.

Apologies to Mod. Henceforth, I will try to remain on topic.

[edit on 24-3-2009 by EvilAxis]

Yes and no,
I feel that there are a lot of personal motives involved too.
I have noticed that some are making money on this tragedy and it disgusts me. There are sites (I am not talking about ATS) that are profiting from this.

I hate that, I would like to see a new investigation of the infromation yes, but I do not feel that an objective, unbaised one can be done right now maybe not ever.

Everyone that would be willing to do has a potential motive.
The Gov would want to show that they are right, the oposition would also want tto show that they are right. Getting another country to do it brings polotics into it.

I just do not feel there is a good way to do this accurately and objectively without massive expense. even if we grouped all the oposing views together they would argue over details (just like we see here).

For me, I looked at the data (and have relooked at it) available and used what I know about engineering and demolitions to see how it would (could) be done. From my experience and what I see available I do not feel it was controlled demo.

As I stated above, I also looked at the psycological aspects. usig demo why bring it straight down? It would have a greater impact to topple (and it is easier) it into other buildings causing more damage and loss of life.

In 93 that was the intent of the bomb in the towers.
I personally feel they wanted the same here this time.

[edit on 24-3-2009 by Achorwrath]

Originally posted by Achorwrath
But think about it this way, if you are going to blow the building you would not rely on the chance that one of the interior columns would do it.

Why? If you're trying to be secret about it, it would be better to take this chance and if it doesn't work, the building would still be demolished at a latter date because of it's structural instability. So, really, why would you blow the whole building and give yourself away? If it was an inside job that is.

Originally posted by Griff

Originally posted by Achorwrath
But think about it this way, if you are going to blow the building you would not rely on the chance that one of the interior columns would do it.

Why? If you're trying to be secret about it, it would be better to take this chance and if it doesn't work, the building would still be demolished at a latter date because of it's structural instability. So, really, why would you blow the whole building and give yourself away? If it was an inside job that is.

Achorwrath is correct. If you were in control, you would blow the building when a Tower fell to cover the obvious noise, flash, and any flying parts, as I have said previously. You could not know how damaged WTC7 would be after the towers fell and would have to plan for no damage. Doing a partial job and having it fail leaves evidence that could be discovered. As a plotter with a presumed reason to demolish WTC7, you would pay attention to details and not be satisfied with a half-way job.

Originally posted by Achorwrath
As far as a new investigation goes. What does happen if it supports the NIST conclusion? Not the facts they used but the final conclusion?

If it is transparent, independent, and peer reviewed, I would whole-heartedly accept it.

Where they say that it fell not due to demo but due to damage and the set of circumstances.

You keep saying that NIST says this. They do NOT. They say fire brought it down.

You call me arrogant for not wanting another $20 million + spent on this. I say you all are arrogant for saying the first report was a waste of taxpayer money and demanding anoter $20 million spent.

Actually, I don't want anything spent on a NEW investigation as much as I want a transparent, peer reviewed one.

Originally posted by Achorwrath
reply to post by EvilAxis

 

A new investigation would require a recounting of witnesses and a review of the forensics (including raw material)

Otherwise it is not an invesigation.

It becomes nothing more than a rehash of the NIST report.

Good. NIST needs to be peer reviewed before I'll accept it. Period. As of now, they are hiding it. Why? If their conclusion is so rock solid, why are we being kept in the dark as to everything?

Peer review is great, and to a certain degree it has been done by many many people and they all have their own explanations of what happend, some say controlled demo, others are shouting it was "mini-nukes" the list goes on into the absurd.

Ah, I see what you are saying. A real investigation that gets peer reviewed would create more conspiracy theories. That makes so much more sense.

Also, please do post how Physics was suspended that day.

Why, when it was? Or can you finally explain a free-fall of eight stories when even buckled columns give resistance? And don't give me that they sheared either because there is no way in hell every single column would shear except with explosives.

[edit on 3/24/2009 by Griff]