NIST Officially Admits Freefall Speed re:WTC 7!!

reply to post by pteridine


Still, the point would be that if column 79 was such a thorn in the side of WTC 7, then the "planners" would know this also. So, again, knowing that one column could potentially bring down the whole building is far better to get away with than blowing up the whole entire building.

As far as taking it down with the towers: How could you possibly explain this when even yourself said they would have no idea what type of damage (if any) would happen to WTC 7? I can see it now: The towers fall, completely missing WTC 7 but, yet, mysteriously, it falls in conjunction with them? Yeah, that would work.

Or would it be better to maybe fake some damage from the towers with explosions, set some pyrothecnics off to start those "massive" fire (you those invisible massive fires) and then claim that is what brought it down?

So, now we have a few explosives to simulate damage and then enough to sever one column. Again I'll ask, does this require "hundreds of pounds of explosives and thousands of feet of det cord"?



[edit on 3/24/2009 by Griff]

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

I do not want anything spent and my post there was not directed at you.

As to your other claims
Link

Figure out how much would bee needed.

(3) a 3:1 ratio of charge width to charge thickness is optimum for contact explosive charges calculated to cut structural steel in thicknesses of 3 inches or less; (4) the formula C sub T = 1/2 S sub T C sub W = 3 C sub T is more accurate and efficient than the U. S. Army formula P = 3/8A/1. 34 for calculation of contact charges of Composition C-4, paste, and EL506A-5 Detasheet explosives to cut structural steel;

Linear Cutting Charges
Note these are not good for sections that are not flat.

now to setup demo on a steel beam you place charges on oposing sides (one higher than the other) of the beam to create a shear force.

source

Take a close look at that image, there is about 5-6 pounds there in that small area. that is less than 4 feet by best guess. So 5-6 Pounds for 4 feet of thin steel

reply to post by Griff


Griff,
If the conspiracy was to demo the towers and WTC7, you wouldn't really have to worry about damage. If it was really important that WTC7 came down, it wouldn't be an afterthought or target of opportunity. Who do you think is going to be checking on WTC7 when the tower is coming down? You need the cover because the amount of explosive needed for this demo is going to be more than most people think. Achor has implied that this will require some serious main charges. The beams you are talking about are substantial. When everything is down under a cloud of dust, who's to say what happened?
As to blowing up the key beam, I don't know if anyone understood its importance until the collapse. Is there any non-military analytical software that would allow such a prediction?

Here is how I was taught at Engineer NCO school.
Some of the advanced and non-conventional stuff is not publicly available.

It is power point so you will need that to view itSource

note the method and calculation of charges.

Again in my opinion based on training and experience it would require hundreds of pounds even to cut column #79 to cause collapse

I'm glad LaBTop brought in the seismic record to this thread. I never thought to see if anything can be discerned from it about the free fall period. In the image below I mapped out NIST's timing starting from the kink in the Penthouse which they timed using the Cianca photo. The block in red is the time it took for the waves to propogate to the station. The yellow is the 6.9s from the kink to when the north side began to move down. The blue is the 1.75s of the First Stage of collapse. And the Green is the 2.25s of the Second Stage when there was free fall acceleration.



I'm not sure anything can be see in the graph, but a possibility may be there is quite a drop in activity after the large spike in the blue area. If we were to subtract a second (move the box of color to the left) this would still fit within their +/- 1s margin of error.

This may be asking too much from the seismic record, but I still thought it would be interesting to post.

Originally posted by pteridine
Who do you think is going to be checking on WTC7 when the tower is coming down?

Every single tv station plus countless civilians had their cameras focused on the WTC complex (of which WTC 7 would be in view).

Achor has implied that this will require some serious main charges. The beams you are talking about are substantial.

This is one of the main reasons why I feel fire couldn't do the same to 3 buildings on the same day.

When everything is down under a cloud of dust, who's to say what happened?

Ah, so now the roles change. When I state that explosives could be hidden in the towers as they collapsed and be under cover, it's "no they couldn't". But, when it is reversed and we talk about "hush-a-booms" at WTC 7, they would be masked by the tower's collapse?

So, which is it? Would they be masked or not?

As to blowing up the key beam, I don't know if anyone understood its importance until the collapse. Is there any non-military analytical software that would allow such a prediction?

Why does it have to be non-military?

[edit on 3/24/2009 by Griff]

Originally posted by NIcon
I'm glad LaBTop brought in the seismic record to this thread. I never thought to see if anything can be discerned from it about the free fall period. In the image below I mapped out NIST's timing starting from the kink in the Penthouse which they timed using the Cianca photo. The block in red is the time it took for the waves to propogate to the station. The yellow is the 6.9s from the kink to when the north side began to move down. The blue is the 1.75s of the First Stage of collapse. And the Green is the 2.25s of the Second Stage when there was free fall acceleration.



I'm not sure anything can be see in the graph, but a possibility may be there is quite a drop in activity after the large spike in the blue area. If we were to subtract a second (move the box of color to the left) this would still fit within their +/- 1s margin of error.

This may be asking too much from the seismic record, but I still thought it would be interesting to post.

Metal breaking can make that type of large spike though (as shown in videos of metal strutures failing), I think the seismic record can be used to point either way unfortunately.

It can fit either pattern depending on how you look at it.

Along those lines, wouldn't the seismic record show when more metal is breaking along with when less metal is breaking i.e. when the structural components quit offering resistance and allow free fall acceleration? I see the most metal breaking 3 seconds prior to the kink in the penthouse and a smaller amount around 3.5 seconds after the kink in the penthouse. I see less metal breaking at the time of the kink in the penthouse, when the north face begins to descend, and at the beginning of the Second Stage of collapse. But with the extension of the signal in time, it's hard to just look at the graph and discern exactness. But it is interesting that the most metal broke 3 seconds before the kink in the penthouse, but that's another topic and doesn't have anything to do with the free fall acceleration. Or does it?

reply to post by NIcon

I think it a piece of the puzzle for why free fall occured. But I have my doubts as to using it in a conclusive manner.

It is good supporting evidence but not a piece that can stand on its own.

That is all I am saying.

the spike there could indicate a structural fracture or snapping of a metal beam, there might or might not be more the rest could be abosrbed by general noise clutter.

Here is a controlled demolition experts view and report.
Link

His comments as to the spike are interesting, they are not quanified eoungh to be definitive for me in that area but the rest is interesting. WTC 7 information starts at Assertion #7

reply to post by Griff

You asked "So, which is it? Would they be masked or not?"

I said that if this were to be done, it would have been done during the collapse of the towers to hide, as best as posssible, the noise, smoke, and flying debris. You will note that all those video cams trained on the towers were blinded by the dust.

Obviously, I do not believe any were demoed.

posted by Achorwrath
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.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/d97a33c0a367.gif[/atsimg]

WTC7 gave every indication of a controlled demolition, including the freefall period finally admitted by NIST against their will, the kink in the penthouse, and the visual nature of the collapse. But the towers appeared to be a top-down explosive demolition, abnormal and apparently designed by military demolition experts. Prove demolition on any one of the three buildings and the other two are assumed demolition.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/b5062eeec027.jpg[/atsimg]

The top 30 storys of the South Tower did topple over, away from the aircraft point of impact. It should have continued toppling over into the street below, but instead was disintegrated into dust by explosives of some nature.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/b817965410cc.jpg[/atsimg]

As anyone can see, the explosive bursts are progressing about 7-10 storys ahead of the collapse wave, by looking at the corner with the still intact floors above.

posted by Achorwrath

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,

Oh yeah, one side of the tower exploding outward for over 500 feet while the other three sides remained essentially pristine and barely damaged, would have been real easy to explain. What would they have to say if both towers remained standing afterward, held up by the powerful core structures, and one side of each tower a gaping wound? How would they blame that on two airplanes? What excuse would they use for pulling WTC7 if the gaping wounds faced away from WTC7? How would the 'hijackers' get up into the towers to plant demolition charges on one side? Would the FBI be helping them again? Deciding to use real explosives again?

reply to post by Achorwrath

I've read this paper before and there is a lot of assertions but I don't see anything to back up what he's saying. I suppose the following is the part that would concern WTC7 and the seismographs: "3. Any detonation of explosives within WTC 7 would likely have been detected by seismographs monitoring ground vibration in the general area (see Assertion #4). To our knowledge, no such telltale "spike" or vibratory anomaly was recorded by any monitoring instrument."

So I go to Assertion #4 and read "In all cases where seismographs detected the collapses, waveform reading indicate a single, gradually ascending and descending level of ground vibration during the event." And then I look at the graph of the WTC 7 collapse and see an ascending then a descending level then about 7 seconds later I see another ascending then a gradual descending level, so his statement that "a single, gradually ascending and descending level" is absolutely, undeniably wrong concerning the WTC7 graph. I ask myself, "Did he ever look at this graph?"

And then he mentions that Protec was monitoring the area for vibrations, and I ask "did they release this data so I can see for myself?" I'm sure this man is an honorable upright citizen, but since I don't know him, my father doesn't know him, and my mother doesn't know him, I'd rather not rely on his word and would rather scrutinize his data myself.

edit: undeniable to undeniably


[edit on 24-3-2009 by NIcon]

reply to post by SPreston


You are still speculating.

You have not provided proof of demo,
You state 7-10 floors below the collapse.

Please show me the calculations you used for that.

you commnet

WTC7 gave every indication of a controlled demolition, including the freefall period finally admitted by NIST against their will, the kink in the penthouse, and the visual nature of the collapse. But the towers appeared to be a top-down explosive demolition, abnormal and apparently designed by military demolition experts. Prove demolition on any one of the three buildings and the other two are assumed demolition.

"apparently designed by military demolition experts" Pure Speculation - you have no proof of this at all.

"Prove demolition on any one of the three buildings and the other two are assumed demolition." is not a scientific conclusion it is again speculative and shows a predisposed conclusion.

So if I walk in and find three people dead and one has a bottle of poison all three died from poison?

But regarless of that comment you have not proven demo.
At no time has it been proven.

@NIcon,

Things to note in that report, (besides the seismic information which I already said was not definative) there has never been evidence of explosives found

Even Steven Jones admits that he only found traces of what might have been thermite but cannot provide a custody chain or the origins of the material.

Making that inadmissible as evidence.

We know that the deomlition teams used thermal lances on the steel to cut it up. A themal lance is like thermite on a stick.

Since he did not quantify what "spike" he was looking for I cannot comment on that. I also am not experienced with seismic data enough to comment on what a demo chrage spike would look like Versus a steel member snapping.

I know that acoustically they look similar in wave form through air.

I'm not much big on seismography, either, but taking a look at the graph on page 9/10 of this pdf about mining blasts:

www.ldeo.columbia.edu...

And then comparing them to the graphs in NCSTAR 1-9 Vol2 on page 331/392:

wtc.nist.gov...


I don't see much difference. But I'm a layman.

As for the guy, from Implosion World he mentions he examined pictures and the graphs and blah blah blah. I wish he would show what he refers to. Show me the pictures. Show me the graphs. Show me the interview transcripts. Educate the "ignorant masses" (me), rather than just make conclusive statements and think everything is hunky dory. Please don't claim that because you recorded the live news broadcasts that day, that in any way gives you a "unique position to analyze and comment on this event." (that was a reference to point four on page 2 of 12)(okay...enough ranting about that paper)

Edit to add: okay, so this isn't much of a substantial post. I guess I just wanted to complain about the implosion world paper and any other paper that is like it.

Another edit: changed page from 335 to 331. But 335 has graphs from a quarry blast, too, thus my first link is not necessary.

[edit on 24-3-2009 by NIcon]

[edit on 24-3-2009 by NIcon]

reply to post by NIcon


I do not disagree, it is one of the problems I have with the sites claiming it was demo.

I personally agree with some of the points in the article (as I have a back ground in demo) but certainly not all.

It was a good example of how both sides credit documents that are ambiguous and not conclusive in evidence.

reply to post by NIcon


Don't forget that the demolition "expert" from Implosion world claims that ALL demolitions are bottom-up, so therefore the towers HAD to be just a collapse.

Some "expert" eh? Look up "top-down demolition" and you'll see a couple posted on youtube.

reply to post by Griff

Griff, that is a good point about that paper, along with many others that could be pointed out, but that concerns the towers. I think WTC7 was mainly a bottom-up collapse, so I think the example I pointed out 2 of my posts ago is the best example concerning WTC7. (We must stay on topic. Tsk. Tsk.)

Achorwrath, I agree with you. I've been to many sites that do the exact same thing as this paper. Just blurt out something and say it's so. But I really think as regards whatever position the person takes, it's an equal opportunity criticism. I even catch myself doing it sometimes.

I really think, rather than pinpointing it on any point of view or position, it has to do with a serious lack of critical thinking in our public discourse. That's why I've advocated for years (to my brother, who's a teacher) that Rhetoric should be a required class in High School. I really believe most people can't spot it's use and fall for anything that they hear. (but now I'm waaaay off topic. tsk. tsk.)

edited: added a "be"

[edit on 24-3-2009 by NIcon]

Just try to explain away the fact depicted in my seismic graph, that the by far biggest spikes in that WTC7 seismogram occurred seconds before any part of WTC7 showed any movement at all, no broken windows, no denting penthouse, a totally inert building filmed by many camera's.

Then try to explain away the fact, that the many many seconds later slowly developing total global collapse of WTC7 ( a whole massive 47 stories high skyscraper collapsing down to earth) did show a far less bundle of seismic spikes than the first much bigger pack of spikes.

It will help to understand what was happening inside that building, when you can grasp the fact that demolition cutting charges are depicted in seismograms as far higher spikes than the following gravitationally collapse of the gutted constructions that have been blown up.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

""explosives are much more efficient at exciting the ground motion than is the collapse of three-fourths of the building.""
-snip-
""experts say that the "crack" of a C-4 cutting charge is "downright disappointing" to hear.""

Comes from my last post in this thread by me :
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Some of you new members should read up f.ex. that whole thread, and follow links provided, you will end up reading lots of threads I participated in, explaining what really happened on 9/11.

If you are really interested fill in "LaBTop seismic" or "LaBTop thermobaric" as your search terms in this board's Search-engine, to find a plethora of information formerly unknown to you about seismic evidence of unexplained energy events detected by seismographs on 9/11 for all four events of that day, and widely unknown information on new generations of thermobaric explosives, which do fit many facts registered on 9/11 by camera's and microphones.
And fit into many eyewitness accounts of that day.

And forget all these neat demo videos, of totally gutted and cleaned out buildings, regarding their demolition noise levels.
The 9/11 buildings demoed were ALL in perfect condition, with all internal walls intact, and most windows intact too.
It's a big difference if you throw a firecracker in a hen house or in a stone barn.

Nicon, nice addition to my seismic graph.
If we may believe NIST, which we do not that much anymore, you could also make one starting at the by NIST adjusted 5 seconds later point, at 17:20:52 depicted by me in the upper part of the graph. In that case, you see even better how ridiculously late in the seismogram that blue part will end up.

And keep realizing that we all saw with our own eyes, and reminded by many video shots, that the whole visible upper part of WTC7 slid down as if it disappeared in a hole in the ground, suddenly appearing under it. All visible facade kept its form as it slid out of sight.
Which means that the failure point was lower than the eyes or camera's could see or record.
And thus the first building debris-impact with the underlaying rock happened fairly fast, within a few seconds after a huge chunk of the building disappeared from under the rest on top of it.

Exactly what we see in the seismogram.
First a huge explosion (biggest spike), then a pause, when the rest of the building travels downwards through the blasted away part, then followed by the gravitational impact of that debris on the bedrock for several seconds.(smaller spikes)


EDIT: to add this link to a explanatory post of mine in that thread :
www.abovetopsecret.com...

[edit on 24/3/09 by LaBTop]

reply to post by LaBTop

No problem, LaBTop... here it is:



Looking at this graph again after a couple of months, it really is amazing to me how they tried to fudge the numbers for their final report and it's amazing how lousy of a job they did.

reply to post by LaBTop



There is no physical evidence for explosives in the collapse of any WTC building on 9/11.



[edit on 3/24/2009 by pteridine]