NIST Officially Admits Freefall Speed re:WTC 7!!

Originally posted by pteridine
reply to post by NIcon

 

NIST has "admitted" free fall or near free fall speed for 2.5 seconds of the collapse sequence of WTC#7. So what? It does not prove demolition no matter how many exclamation points and caps Griff uses. There is no evidence.

Yet, you still can't explain away no resistance when even buckled columns give resistance (unless severed in some way).

See. No caps and no exclamation points.

BTW, just saying "there is no proof of explosives" doesn't work when we have the suspect cleaning up the crime scene (and in as much hurry as humanly possible I might add).

Would you take the mob's word for it if they shot someone and were then allowed access to the crime scene to do the "investigation"?

Well, consider your all mighty government an extension of the mob.

At least in parts.

[edit on 3/26/2009 by Griff]

Originally posted by pteridine
Why would you question NIST's scatterplot? Do you disagree with it? Or are you raising a question based on it?

The scatterplot is fine. Along with the linear regression line, it shows an acceleration of 9.81 m/s^2.

I question why the scatterplot is how it is. I question why a building can fall for 2.25 seconds with NO resistance.

You do excel at asking questions, tezza.

Yeah, a lot of debunkers despise it too. They can't answer my questions and don't like their official story being prodded.

I also seem to be building pathos points with you for some reason. Your sensitivity to repartee leads me to wonder if I have correctly assessed your gender. I will make a note in your official file.

Off topic, worthless musings of your's that waste space in this thread and on the ATS server.

reply to post by tezzajw

You and many others will continue to question how a building in catastrophic collapse can fall down.
Of course, questions are the easy part. Perhaps you should try to come up with a theory of your very own while waiting to be abducted. You do have an active imagination. I'm sure you can come up with something.


[edit on 3/26/2009 by pteridine]

Originally posted by Griff

Yet, you still can't explain away no resistance when even buckled columns give resistance (unless severed in some way).

See. No caps and no exclamation points.

BTW, just saying "there is no proof of explosives" doesn't work when we have the suspect cleaning up the crime scene (and in as much hurry as humanly possible I might add).

Would you take the mob's word for it if they shot someone and were then allowed access to the crime scene to do the "investigation"?

Well, consider your all mighty government an extension of the mob.

At least in parts.

[edit on 3/26/2009 by Griff]

Yes, they were severed in some way. Without evidence of explosives or thermite/ate it must have been the impact damage and fires.
It is our Government not my Government. Your theory of the perpetrators hiding all the evidence of misdeeds is not original. All you need is evidence of hiding the evidence......

Time to re-read my posts on this thread its page 9 again for your asked for theory :

Seismic Data, explosives and 911 revisited :
www.abovetopsecret.com...

It won't hurt to read that whole thread to the very end btw.

EDIT to add this post from page 8 which should be read first :
www.abovetopsecret.com...

My posts on page 7 may interest you all too :
www.abovetopsecret.com...


[edit on 26/3/09 by LaBTop]

reply to post by LaBTop


I looked at the seismic data and see no evidence of explosives. What aspect of it do you claim to be of interest?

Let me ask you, since I offered for many years ago already MUCH more information on the subject than you:

Show me your seismic data of (thermobaric) explosives, since you seem to have a means of comparing them to my posted 9/11 WTC7 seismogram from LDEO, and then you deducted somehow that the first huge peaks which dwarf the next pack of peaks are a natural event caused by fires.

Then show me how you decided that the main seismic event in the WTC7 graph is a natural event. Note that this huge seismic event happened at a point in time that not any visible inch of WTC7 had moved at all. No visible movements of the facade, no window broken, no roof line, no penthouse, no debris hitting the ground, because there was no debris at all at that moment.

If you have read all my seismic posts, you will have found my posted explosive data sets from other sources.

If you have not read all of them, these posts of mine on page 3 of this thread will help to find them :
www.abovetopsecret.com...
(A compilation of links to most of my seismic and thermobaric posts all over this board)

Originally posted by pteridine
Yes, they were severed in some way. Without evidence of explosives or thermite/ate it must have been the impact damage and fires.

Explain please. Thanks.

How do columns get severed from impact damage and fire?

1). Impact damage: Had the columns been severed at impact, the structure would have fallen at impact....i.e. there were columns undamaged from the impact. And plenty of them too.

2). Fire: Fire causes steel's strength to decrease which in turn causes the columns to buckle not shear (like scissors do to paper).

Please give me an in-depth explanation as to how impact damage and fire severed every single column that would have given resistance. Thanks.

Hint: You can't. But, please try. I'm all ears to learn.

[edit on 3/26/2009 by Griff]

More of my "theory" :

Originally posted by LaBTop
We have discussed the thermobaric viewpoint extensively in the past, thus I can give you a few very good leads :

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Tom Bedlam :
However, just for fun, I found some research being done on drilling into box girders and flooding them with thermobarics a split second before you detonate them - guess what - it shatters steel box girders like glass. What a weird thing to research.

In the heat of the discussion, I never was able afterwards to ask TB for the source of his research. However I found some comparable notes in my research. In that case, a certain thermobaric composition could shatter these huge steel boxed columns also like glass, but in this case the thermobaric explosion went off outside the columns. The explosion front velocity in this case is so high, that nothing but solid rock could resist it.

reply to post by Griff


Thermal expansion shearing connectors at joints. A 50' steel beam would expand 4-5 inches at 500 C, if I remember the calculations I did for a previous post.
When the evidence is considered, there aren't too many failure mechanisms available. You will say that this leads to suspicion of explosives, which is true, but it does not lead to proof of explosives. If we consider who might have planted the explosives, when they planted the explosives, and why they planted the explosives, the theory stretches credulity further.
So far, all that has been said is that some unknown entity, for some unknown reason, used non-traditional demolition materials, that left no traces, to destroy a building that was, for all intents, already destroyed. At least the gravity ray was not invoked.

reply to post by LaBTop


Thermobarics are exceptionally high energy devices. Enough to destroy the building would have been noticeable. The shockwave and other effects would have been very exciting for all concerned and made for many youtube videos.

Originally posted by pteridine
reply to post by Griff

 

Thermal expansion shearing connectors at joints. A 50' steel beam would expand 4-5 inches at 500 C, if I remember the calculations I did for a previous post.

How does this shear a column?

At least the gravity ray was not invoked.

And there it is. Why can we not have a regular conversation with you "debunkers" without it always turning to this?

Originally posted by pteridine
reply to post by LaBTop

 

Thermobarics are exceptionally high energy devices. Enough to destroy the building would have been noticeable. The shockwave and other effects would have been very exciting for all concerned and made for many youtube videos.

Says who? You?

Have any calculations to back this up? Know of any calculations for thermobarics? Because I haven't come across any yet in my 4 years investigating this. If you have them, by all means post them, but do not sit there and state your opinion as fact. Please.

Originally posted by pteridine
You and many others will continue to question how a building in catastrophic collapse can fall down. Of course, questions are the easy part. Perhaps you should try to come up with a theory of your very own while waiting to be abducted.

Huh?

NIST was funded with millions of dollars to come up with a theory and guess what, pteridine - it didn't provide one. NIST failed to explain how WTC 7 could fall for 2.25 seconds with no resistance.

There is NO onus upon me to come up with a theory. I am not charged with any official capacity to investigate the WTC 7 collapse. NIST was given this task and NIST failed to adequately explain the collapse. You can't explain it, despite me asking you several times over in this thread.

The official NIST report on WTC 7 can not explain this glaring anomaly. Without an explanation for the 2.25 second freefall acceleration, the NIST conclusion that column 79 was the trigger is unsubstantiated, as it does not explain all of the observed behaviour of the collapse sequence.

reply to post by tezzajw


Fortunately, none of the millions spent by NIST was your tax money but the citizens of this country appreciate your concern.
NIST did what they could with what they had. There is no certainty in these post facto analyses; there are only things that are more or less probable. One of the things that is less probable is expending more tax money on another investigation without additional evidence being brought forward. As there is no evidence for demolition, other than what has already been considered, I suspect that conclusions will be generally the same and that these boards will run hot with speculation and demands for yet another investigation for a long time. Should you wish, you may petition the Australian government to fund a reinvestigation as a neutral party.

reply to post by pteridine


I don't want a new investigation. I want a transparent, peer reviewed one. Why is that so hard? What is there to hide?

reply to post by pteridine

Which brings up a good point: What "additional evidence" would spur NIST into accepting that a new investigation is needed? At what point would they consider it necessary to adjust their model?

They released their report with their simple "40% greater than free fall" point and their modeling of the collapse which was confirmed based partly on that data. In August they were then presented with "additional evidence" (at least it was new to them) of free fall at their public hearing on August 26th. They then confirmed this "additional evidence" when they released their final report in October, just about 2 months.

Did they then go back and look at the parameters they inserted into their modeling to see if they had missed something that, if corrected, would account for this "additional evidence"? Did they adjust anything and run the model again just to see if they could or could not account for this? Did they even care?

It doesn't seem so, as on this page wtc.nist.gov... it says "The structural model of the building components used to predict the subsequent fire-induced progressive collapse included more than 3 million separate elements and took about 7 to 8 months to complete a single run on some very powerful computers." Or on page 80/130 of NCSTAR 1A-1, it says "Due to the nonlinearities in the analysis, as well as sequential local failures, a 25 s analysis took up to 8 weeks to complete."

So unless they got some very very very very powerful computers to speed the process, I don't think they even tried.

It probably will be said in response "Why would they run their model again?" and I would reply "Because 'additional evidence' was found."

Edited: went in and replaced all instances of "new evidence" with "additional evidence" to keep the same terminology as pteridine..... I didn't want to start discussing the differences of meaning between "new" and "additional"

Edited to add a clarification: I originally put quotes around "new evidence" not in an attempt to quote pteridine, but rather because the free fall was not technically new as people were claiming it for years...but now with my last edit it looks like I'm just quoting him.... which I'm really not.... well sort of....


[edit on 27-3-2009 by NIcon]

[edit on 27-3-2009 by NIcon]

Just another post to expand on my previous post:

This is an interesting quote from here www.nist.gov... "These validated computer models produced a collapse sequence that was confirmed by observations of what actually occurred." So if at the time this statement was made one of the observations was "40% of free fall," can this statement now be said after the "discovery" of the observation of 2.25 s of free fall acceleration?

reply to post by NIcon


It is my opinion that another investigation will not be done. While many on this site believe differently, the American public has accepted the official story, warts and all, and it would take some significant revelation to regain their interest and force another. If this really was a plot, no evidence will surface, anyway.

posted by pteridine
reply to post by tezzajw

 

Fortunately, none of the millions spent by NIST was your tax money but the citizens of this country appreciate your concern.
NIST did what they could with what they had.

Well it was certainly this citizen's tax money and many of my fellow citizens do not like our millions wasted on NIST. NIST did what they could with what they did not have; scientists with more than an ounce of brains.

Then a physics school teacher forced them to reluctantly admit to 2.25 seconds of freefall and those frigging idiots still do not understand what they agreed to nor how to explain it.

NIST came up with the conclusion they were ordered to come up with, and the NIST 'scientists' were so stupid they did it looking like a bunch of bumbling fools. They were no better then a bunch of cheap whores selling themselves for money.