NIST Officially Admits Freefall Speed re:WTC 7!!

A condition like yours is described in medical circles as living in constant denial.

There is nothing in those data originating from me, it is all provided by government paid entities. I just connected the dots by intertwining both institutes their findings.

We called that in my circles : "let them trip their own wires".

Originally posted by LaBTop
A condition like yours is described in medical circles as living in constant denial.

There is nothing in those data originating from me, it is all provided by government paid entities. I just connected the dots by intertwining both institutes their findings.

We called that in my circles : "let them trip their own wires".

Thank you for the medical diagnosis. You are certainly more qualified medically than as a geophysicist. There is no evidence for explosives in the seismograms. The dots don't connect. After a busy dot connecting day, I'm sure you are expert at tripping your own wire.

So, in your world, a buckling single column leads far more seismic energy onto the bedrock than the whole building coming down onto the bedrock?

As mentioned I am not an expert in seismology.
But I have extensive experience with explosives.

So how would an explosion, from a device attached to the outside of the column make more noise than the column snaping?

Remember the column is connected to the con-ed substation foundation...

also in controlled demo it is not one charge but a series of charges that are used to bring a building down.

reply to post by LaBTop


Is that what you think you've found in the seismic records? I didn't realize that you were a geophysicist. Have you published your findings, yet?

Thus, now it's time to do what I advised you both, read the links provided to you. It's all said a dozen times already, and I'm not playing any further in any repeating games.

Is the debating game more important than the historical correct truth for members like you?
A patient researcher reads first, than reacts.
There's quite a lot to read, so let's take a pause on the seismic subject and the professional demolition subject, and return for the moment to the free fall subject.

There must have been several seconds of no substantial resistance at all at the onset of the collapse.
How do you explain that away?

Originally posted by LaBTop
There must have been several seconds of no substantial resistance at all at the onset of the collapse.
How do you explain that away?

The building was collapsing.

Originally posted by pteridine

Originally posted by LaBTop
There must have been several seconds of no substantial resistance at all at the onset of the collapse.
How do you explain that away?

The building was collapsing.

That's not an explanation, pteridine.

I'm not the only one waiting for your explanation of why the building fell for 2.25 seconds, without any internal resistance, early in the collapse sequence.

reply to post by tezzajw


again it did not fall at complete freefall it was 94% freefall as the video states.
So there was resistance.

granted it was limited but it was there. remember WTC7 had a very unique confirguration. The foundation was build to support a much smaller building. much of the main support came from the old Con-Ed station whose foundation was only meant to support 25 stories.

They tied the much larger WTC7 into the old structure in many places, the smaller side of the trapaziodal shape recieved the majority of its support from lateral trusses tied into the old building along floors 5-7. The right side held the loading dock which also had the majority of support along those same floors, these were horizontal trusses which tied into the building and (as with the loading dock used angular stiffeners for added support. (the angels reversed on alternating coulmns).

IF the building lost support along those (especially at the lodaing dock area) there would have been between a 5-7 story unsupported area extending along the front of the building as well.

what would nine desiel generators worth of wieght have done to the internal support in the building once support was removed or that support failed.

remember there were nine of them on the fifth floor. they actually added steel in (about 300 tons if I remember correctly) to help support them.
in pictures you can see the louvers for exhaust of the generators which would seem to indicate they were also posistioned along the front of the building. adding further to the forces at work.

reply to post by LaBTop


Collapse due to internal failure is collapse. The question here is the cause of the internal failure. Freefall conditions are not diagnostic of any specific cause of collapse, which is what is being implied on this thread. I was being asked to provide reasons for the near freefall event and I did; the building was collapsing. There was a catastrophic failure of some sort.
Those of you that claim some kind of demolition have to get past the free fall event. It does not prove demolition, it only proves catastrophic collapse. We already know that there was a collapse and we are just debating the cause. What you need to show demolition is evidence of demolition. Remember -- free fall does not mean demolition, it means free fall.
Evidence would be explosive or thermal residue, timers, blasting caps, unexploded materials, operation plans, piles of hacksaw blades, gravity ray generators, etc. You need physical evidence, not speculation on somebody-for-truth websites. If you like witnesses, you need corraboration. If you like video, you need unequivocal evidence; puffs of air from a collapsing building are not necessarily explosives.
Given all of that, one must take all existing evidence and observation and try to explain what happened. NIST has done so given what they had to work with. The NIST explanation must stand until a better explanation, backed by hard evidence, is brought forward.

Originally posted by pteridine

Originally posted by LaBTop
There must have been several seconds of no substantial resistance at all at the onset of the collapse.
How do you explain that away?

The building was collapsing.

Yeah. Through AIR!!!!!!

Explain please.

Originally posted by Achorwrath
reply to post by tezzajw

 

again it did not fall at complete freefall it was 94% freefall as the video states.
So there was resistance.

Not according to NIST. I.E. what this thread is about.

granted it was limited but it was there. remember WTC7 had a very unique confirguration. The foundation was build to support a much smaller building. much of the main support came from the old Con-Ed station whose foundation was only meant to support 25 stories.

Unless this "unique" structure had air holding it up for 8 stories, there is NO WAY IN HELL it can fall at free-fall for 8 stories. Why is this so hard to comprehend for some on here?

IF the building lost support along those (especially at the lodaing dock area) there would have been between a 5-7 story unsupported area extending along the front of the building as well.

This is so incorrect, it's not even funny anymore.

The interior columns collapsed with the rest of the building at free-fall. So, your "explanation" of there being 5-7 story drop is false as false can be.

what would nine desiel generators worth of wieght have done to the internal support in the building once support was removed or that support failed.

Fail the flooring.

remember there were nine of them on the fifth floor. they actually added steel in (about 300 tons if I remember correctly) to help support them.
in pictures you can see the louvers for exhaust of the generators which would seem to indicate they were also posistioned along the front of the building. adding further to the forces at work.

So, this force (that was already resisted with the addition of 300 tons of reinforcement) added more weight somehow from 9 A.M. to 5:30 P.M. on 9/11? Did gravity increase in NYC on 9/11/01 from 9 A.M. to 5:30 P.M.?

[edit on 3/25/2009 by Griff]

Originally posted by pteridine
Those of you that claim some kind of demolition have to get past the free fall event. It does not prove demolition, it only proves catastrophic collapse.

It proves that for 8 stories, the building fell through NOTHING but air.

So, you really want me to believe that EVERY SINGLE interior column collapsed before the exterior started to collapse, thus producing a "shell" to collapse through air? Please.

Remember -- free fall does not mean demolition, it means free fall.

Free-fall means ALL support was somehow taken away all at once. What other mechanism other than demolition is there a precedence for this? Please.

Given all of that, one must take all existing evidence and observation and try to explain what happened. NIST has done so given what they had to work with. The NIST explanation must stand until a better explanation, backed by hard evidence, is brought forward.

Yeah, NIST with their "hard" evidence.

reply to post by Achorwrath

Could you specify where in the video they state "94% of free fall"? I went through the videos and only found the following references:

This is from the first video:
0:40 - "was 40% longer"
1:58 - "fell with an acceleration within a few percent"
2:27 - "fell with an acceleration within a few percent"
2:35 - "claiming 40% slower"
4:07 - "or roughly 40% more time"
5:00 - "free fall actually occured"
9:13 - "2.25 seconds of absolute free fall"

This is from the second video:
2:44 - "within 1% of the acceleration of gravity"
Note- he finds -9.885 and states that for New York it is -9.802, so isn't what he found 1% greater than acceleration of gravity?
to continue:
2:58 - "indistinguishable from free fall"
4:50 - "was approximately 40% longer"
5:05 - "Which is 51% the acceleration of gravity"
5:17 - "is indistinguishable from the acceleration of gravity"
5:18 - "in other words, complete free fall"

Can you please point out where or how you determined that "94% of free fall" is in the video? Are you taking some data in a graph that is displayed and computing this? If so, can you please expound on that?

Originally posted by Achorwrath
reply to post by tezzajw

 

granted it was limited but it was there. remember WTC7 had a very unique confirguration. The foundation was build to support a much smaller building. much of the main support came from the old Con-Ed station whose foundation was only meant to support 25 stories.

Also, from what I'm reading, in 1967 the foundation for the Con Ed structure was built to support a smaller building (25 stories?) But when they actually went to build WTC7 they had to add to the foundation. From the diagram on page 57/404 of NCSTAR 1-9 Vol1, it looks like they had to add 60 additional caissons to the 101 that were built in 1967 to support the additional structure.

Were these additional 60 caissons added only to support a planned 25 story building, but then they built the 47 stories anyway? Were the 1967 original 101 caissons only meant to support a smaller than 25 story building? If you have links to documents or articles to clarify this please provide.

reply to post by Griff

I don't "want" you to believe anything. I only said that catastrophic collapse is not diagnostic of demolition. This is a factual statement regardless of your incredulity. Citing near free fall collapse over a short period as evidence of demolition is incorrect. It may or may not have been the result of demolition. You should know this if you are a structural engineer.
The NIST report uses what evidence they have and explains the events. The fact that you don't like the explanation or require demolitions for your explanation of events does not invalidate their explanation. It puts the burden of proof on you to show evidence for how explosives were used and where. Gut feelings are sometimes important in leading investigative pathways but are only feelings and not evidence. Conflict arises when applying precedent and experience to conditions and events without precedent. Faith in one's own abilities will lead one to believe that extrapolation is possible and soon feelings become beliefs and beliefs graduate to facts.
My guess is that all those with gut feelings trust their feelings and are frustrated that they have no conclusive evidence of any conspiracy with any of the 911 events, other than intel incompetence by some competing agencies.
There is no evidence of demolition of any of the WTC buildings.

reply to post by NIcon


I will again ask a question here that might shed some light on a lot of things.

As I have mentioned before as Hobby I tinker with Non Linear Video editing.

On side effect of video compression is called time dilation/compression. This happens when an encoded video stream either speeds up slows down during its encoding pass. many things I have read talk about this and warn against single pass encodes (like DiVX and XVid).

The most reliable encoding systems use a multi-pass progressive method that allows for bit rate and timing errors to be found.

One thing I would like to know is - were any of the people involved in this using original footage? If not did they check for timing errors in the encoded video?

The reason I ask this is that the raw unencoded footage is going to be more accurate than even the reboradcast or captured video off of YouTube or TV.

It is another one of the questions I have always had about the NIST report and the people viewing the footage.

Remember that full motion playback for recoding is roughly 29 FPS.
If the system plays back at 30 or 31 you have a timing error.

As for the comment on 94% free fall I remember hearing it in the video, searching for it now. but either way with a few percent is still not complete free fall, also note that he says the "North West Corner" that would be right over the loading dock if I remember correctly.

Just an epistemological question:

If an explanation does not explain all the observable variables, but rather explains multiple unobservable variables, should that explanation therefore be considered an explanation of an unobservable event rather than an explanation of an event that is observable (i.e. the videos of the collapse of WTC7)?

reply to post by Achorwrath

Achorwrath, the question of video encoding came up in one of my earlier conversations about NIST's timing of events.

It's my understanding that NIST received the original recordings from various sources and then converted them to digital files in a format with the least amount of compression. If I remember right they converted to some variation of AVI, but I'm not positive. I would have to look that up. It is in their report somewhere. But they seem to be satisfied with the results.

So the sequence of events as I understand it is: they came up with their conclusions of 40% greater than free fall speed by studying their first generation digital copies. They seemed to have been satisfied with the results as they published this finding.

Then a guy downloads a heavily compressed version of a video and analyzed the collapse and finds there was a time of free fall descent. He then presents his findings at a public hearing of NIST. Then NIST confirms that this needs to be clarified.

What happened next I'm not exactly sure. But I hope, I pray, every fiber of my being and all the trust I have in causation in the universe and what little remaining trust I have in humanity yearns, desires and pleads, that the people at NIST then went back to their first generation digital copies of the collapse and tried to verify or nullify this man's findings.

Or they simply could have just went back to the office and slapped together a neat little graph and said "yeah, that looks about right."

Seeing as they did publish new findings that there was a period of free fall acceleration, and seeing that I do trust that the people at NIST are doing some actual analysis of actual data, I would assume that the first generation digital copies do show this period of free fall acceleration.

As for any discrepancy between the original videos and NIST's digital copies, I suppose another entity would need to get the original videos from their respective sources and get NIST's digital copies and do a comparison. If a discrepancy were to be found, though, to me it would call into question much more of what happened that day, more than just this 2.5 second period. But basically wouldn't this then be a need for a new investigation?

edit to add: Also, I'm pretty sure the loading dock was in the North East section of the building. The Con Ed structure was in the North West.

[edit on 25-3-2009 by NIcon]

reply to post by NIcon


Yes, as I have said before, I do not agree with NIST, I think the point I am trying to make is incompetence is not an indication of sinister intent or conspiracy. As we go through this thread I have brought out points against both sides of the argument. (as with the question of video time accuracy)

I think there are too many factors between the NIST report and the people calling it into question.

BOTH sides seem predisposed as to the conclusions.

again, I think that a new report or investigation (one that does not cost the taxpayers millions of dollars we do not have) that can be done by a neutral thrid party and subjected to methodical review would be great.

My concern as I have said is that I do not think even something like this will satisfy all. There are some that are convinced of dark deeds and will not be swayed by any information offered.