NIST Officially Admits Freefall Speed re:WTC 7!!

reply to post by NIcon


Yes a lot of the NIST members were also part of the FEMA/ASCE team.

BTW, read that house.gov link to see how well that went.

Washington, D.C. - President Bush has signed into law legislation sponsored by Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-Queens & Brooklyn) and Science Committee Chair Sherwood Boehlert (R - NY), and New York Senators Clinton and Schumer, to overhaul building collapse investigations. The National Construction Safety Team Act will ensure that the mishandled evidence and in-fighting that hobbled FEMA’s World Trade Center investigation never happens again. Rep. Weiner issued the following statement:

www.house.gov...

Also, remember that John Gross bold-faced lied at press conferences. "There was no molten metal nor reports of molten metal".

Either these "scientists" are extremely incompetent (There's that excuse again) or were told what to investigate (my guess since they are mostly political appointees.....look it up.....the Director of NIST is chosen by the President himself).

Originally posted by pteridine
As it is, you have no evidence that NIST did anything but evaluate what they had access to.

Then why do they keep getting caught in lies and omissions?

posted by pteridine
reply to post by NIcon

 

Why do you assume NIST was cooking the books? It is not a good plan to have conspiracies staffed by many conspirators.

With the tens of thousands of qualified scientists available, why did NIST need to be staffed by idiots who needed to be corrected by a high school physics teacher?

Was willingness to obey orders and deliver a predetermined decision a factor in their placement? Bush surely knew of the 9-11 plan at the start of his administration when he appointed the head of NIST. Why not stack the deck like he did with the 9-11 Whitewash Committee?

You got to stop beating this dead horse guys. I know some people are obsessed with this incident, but we will never have a definitive suits everybody answer to what transpired that day.

This phrase "free fall speed" is driving me nuts! One can't not go on to any forum without somebody debating it in at least one thread.

Move on,get over it .Stop posting links to video that we have already seen.This subject has been debated ad nauseum for the last 7-8 years and as we all know we have other serious issues.

reply to post by pteridine

There you go with the word "conspiracy" again. It may just be they determined beforehand the cause and were too blinded by their beliefs to consider otherwise.

Why were they maybe "cooking the books"? Because it does seem to be getting pretty clear that they do not like to deal with facts that are inconvenient to their conclusions. Here's a partial rundown:

At the August public hearing, they try to explain how free fall did not occur, but when they admit it did occur, there's no alteration to their model or any further explanation.

As Griff pointed out, they refused to consider testimony about the molten metal and/or pictures of possible molten metal, but testimony about damage to the south face and other aspects of what happened was considered.

They refused to model past the point of collapse initiation for the tower and just claim that total collapse was inevitable. The computer models are to complex to run, they say. This strikes me as odd as sometimes I read how astronomers construct computer models of the birth of galaxies and I scratch my head and wonder "Are the World Trade Center towers more complex than a galaxy?"

The timing of collapse based off the seismic data seems to have been fudged for their reports. Basically, as I understand it, they timed certain kinds of waves as taking 17 s to record. Then through methods I don't think are appropriate, they miraculously find a different kind of wave in only one of the collapses which took less time, but somehow they change the timing for all the collapses.

They did not address the more severe seismic activity before the collapse of WTC7, which was mentioned earlier in this thread.

When confronted with a statement they made in NCSTAR 1-2 that showed they were actually "cooking the books," they just quietly dropped it with no explanation of why or how the statement made it into their report. (Took me awhile to find but here's the statement in question: "The less severe damage case did not meet two key observables: (1)................ (2) the fire-structural and collapse initiation analyses of the damaged towers (NIST NCSTAR 1-6) indicated that the towers would not have collapsed had the less severe damage results been used.")

Now we're discussing how they actually had access to more than the 236 pieces they used in their study. Which brings up a whole host of questions about the meaning of the steel temperatures they had found and about the status of and failure to identify any steel from WTC7 (though FEMA supposedly identified at least one)?

This is a quick list and I'm sure I forgot some, so if anyone has more feel free to add to it. But with just this short list, I see a pattern emerge.

So it may be a case of conspiracy or it just may be a case of extreme delusional hubris.

reply to post by calcoastseeker

Just for clarification sake: NIST's admission of free fall speed is only six months old. Also, there may be other problems to be dealt with, but I, for one, can walk, talk and play Sousa marching music on a kettledrum all at the same time.

I thought I would post this

European Demolition Expert on WTC7
Note the honest reaction.

So tell me do you think his American peers are under a gag order or have been paid off, about WTC7?

Danny Jowenko – Proprietor, Jowenko Explosieve Demolitie B.V., a European demolition and construction company, with offices in the Netherlands. Founded 1980, Jowenko Explosieve Demolitie is certified and holds permits to comply with the Dutch Explosives for Civil Use Act and the German Explosives Act. Jowenko's explosives engineers also hold the German Certificate of Qualifications and the European Certificate for Shotfiring issued by The European Federation of Explosive Engineers. *

Telephone interview with Jeff Hill 2/22/07:

Jeff Hill: I was just wondering real quickly, I know you had commented on World Trade Center Building 7 before.

Danny Jowenko: Yes, that's right.

Jeff Hill: And I've come to my conclusions, too, that it couldn't have came down by fire.

Danny Jowenko: No, it -- absolutely not.

Jeff Hill: Are you still sticking by your comments where you say it must have been a controlled demolition?

Danny Jowenko: Absolutely.

Jeff Hill: Yes? So, you as being a controlled demolitions expert, you've looked at the building, you've looked at the video and you've determined with your expertise that --

Danny Jowenko: I looked at the drawings, the construction and it couldn't be done by fire. So, no, absolutely not.

Jeff Hill: OK, 'cause I was reading on the Internet, people were asking about you and they said, I wonder -- I heard something that Danny Jowenko retracted his statement of what he said earlier about World Trade Center 7 now saying that it came down by fire. I said, "There's no way that's true."

Danny Jowenko: No, no, no, absolutely not.

Jeff Hill: 'Cause if anybody was -- Like when I called Controlled Demolition here in North America, they tell me that , "Oh, it's possible it came down from fire" and this and that and stuff like that --.

Danny Jowenko: When the FEMA makes a report that it came down by fire, and you have to earn your money in the States as a controlled demolition company and you say, "No, it was a controlled demolition", you're gone. You know?

Jeff Hill: Yeah, exactly, you'll be in a lot of trouble if you say that, right?

Danny Jowenko: Of course, of course. That's the end of your -- the end of the story.

Jeff Hill: Yeah, 'cause I was calling demolitions companies just to ask them if they used the term, "Pull it" in demolition terms and even Controlled Demolitions, Incorporated said they did. But the other people wouldn't -- didn't want to talk to me about Building 7 really because obviously 'cause they knew what happened and they didn't want to say it.

Danny Jowenko: Exactly

* Editor's note: WTC Building 7 was 610 feet tall, 47 stories. It would have been the tallest building in 33 states. Although it was not hit by an airplane, it completely collapsed into a pile of rubble in less than 7 seconds at 5:20 p.m. on 9/11, seven hours after the collapses of the Twin Towers.

The bolded part is most interesting, fear is keeping people from saying anything but they know the truth.

Originally posted by calcoastseeker

This phrase "free fall speed" is driving me nuts!

the phrase is free fall ACCELERATION. the building is GAINING SPEED, as it goes through itself.
as soon as the kink is formed, the HVAC, 'other' PH, roof, facade, within 0.5 seconds from each other, have free fall ACCELERATION for 100+ft. ALL support was INSTANTLY taken away, AS WE SEE by the EVEN decent
if there was a progression from east to west
WE WOULD SEE IT
the roof WILL NOT support itself while columns fail below it. the facade is a non supporting structure, and IS attached to the perimeter columns it will not stand while the columns fail behind it...how do you get,'EVERY' column to act the same way, at the same time, unless they are under the 'SAME' conditions, and acted on by the 'SAME' force???

as soon as the kink is formed, the 'ENTIRE' building,evenly falls at 9.8m/s^2 for 2.25 seconds,(t=1.75s to t=4.0s [NICSTAR 1A 3.6])

Acceleration of gravity...at 4.0s of the collapse, the 'ENTIRE'building is falling faster than 80 ft.a second...'ONLY' possible by removing 'ALL' resistance...nothing in the way

Originally posted by calcoastseeker
This subject has been debated ad nauseum for the last 7-8 years and as we all know we have other serious issues.

just another quick comment

what could be a MORE serious issue, that the GOV. being complicit in the events of 9-11....anything ELSE going on now, is a distraction from this event.

How are YOU going to feel, knowing that the PEOPLE you are suppose to TRUST and PROTECT, lent a hand, and then, bent over backwards to COVER IT UP

I f this knowledge came out now, proof positive, it will be the straw that broke the camels back......you think people are pissed abut the way things are now...just wait

reply to post by Blue_Jay33

Blue_Jay33, do you have a link to where you are quoting from?

I'm wondering when it's from... I see he mentions the FEMA report, but I'm wondering if he has read the NIST report on WTC7, and if he's made any comments about that.

Thanks in advanced.

reply to post by NIcon


NIcon, yesterday I knocked a bird out of the air by spitting very forcefully at it! My spit traveled about 20 or 30 feet before hitting the bird square in the chest and knocking it out.

Before you call BS, did you know that I actually have a technical report, complete with accompanying digital photographs and DVD video of me doing this, all put together by physics professionals? I would discuss it with you but I'm afraid I'm not convinced that you are qualified to examine the physics regarding the fluid dynamics of the spit traveling through the air, etc.

Sometimes you just have to move your common sense out of the way to look at these things, rather presumptuously and arrogantly, or else your paranoia of someone lying to you would surely inhibit your ability to think rationally. People would think, because it doesn't happen every day, that you can't spit a bird out of the air. But it happened, and given enough time, I'm sure someone will do it again. I'm not screwing with you either, I am dead serious. If I can upload the video, etc. I will do it. I can post the math later for anyone interested. I herd sheep!

reply to post by bsbray11

bsbray, that would be very interesting to see.

My first assumption would be that the bird would have spit back at you a split second before being knocked out. Since the bird was reeling to and fro from the salivary projectile, I would assume its own projectile missed you and rather hit your house (assuming, of course, you did this near your house) which, seeing as the bird's saliva is rife with the avian bird flu virus, would in turn have destroyed up to 30% of the south side of your house (assuming of course, you did this near your house, and assuming you were on the south side) which in turn started a raging fire.

Then I would assume that, though the neighbors could not see, your house was totally engulfed in flames which was being fed by massive amounts of common household items (assuming of course, you did this near your house, and assuming you were on the south side, and assuming you live in a typical ranch style home in a typical suburb, and assuming, of course, you are a pack rat) Then I would assume that after 7 hours of this massive fire, of which the neighbors were unaware (note: they did see the smoke but I suppose they thought you were barbecuing)(assuming of course you like barbecuing and the neighbors were aware of this), the central stud of you're home gave way causing you're 8' X 10' velvet painting of Elvis to fall and take out all the other studs.(assuming of course, you did this near your house, and assuming you were on the south side, and assuming you live in a typical ranch style home in a typical suburb, and assuming, of course, you are a pack rat, and assuming you like to barbecue, and assuming you like Elvis and representations of him executed on velvet)

I would then assume that after all the studs had fallen in your home that the outer shell of your home then fell in precisely .054 seconds. (assuming of course, you did this near your house, and assuming you were on the south side, and assuming you live in a typical ranch style home in a typical suburb, and assuming, of course, you are a pack rat, and assuming you like to barbecue, and assuming you like Elvis and representations of him executed on velvet, and assuming your house was only one story tall)

And then I assume that the Macon, Georgia local government came with a big street sweeper and swept all the debris of your house away and sold it to Portland, Maine as firewood (assuming of course, you did this near your house, and assuming you were on the south side, and assuming you live in a typical ranch style home in a typical suburb, and assuming, of course, you are a pack rat, and assuming you like to barbecue, and assuming you like Elvis and representations of him executed on velvet, and assuming your house was only one story tall, and assuming you live in Macon, GA) Then I would assume that Bart, the local fire inspector, came to find what caused all of this destruction but found nothing to investigate, so instead he went to the local Math Club to come up with some neat doodles and graphs, which in no way resemble Elvis. (assuming of course, you did this near your house, and assuming you were on the south side, and assuming you live in a typical ranch style home in a typical suburb, and assuming, of course, you are a pack rat, and assuming you like to barbecue, and assuming you like Elvis and representations of him executed on velvet, and assuming your house was only one story tall, and assuming you live in Macon, GA, and assuming there's a guy name Bart in Macon, GA and assuming there is a Math Club in the same city)

So that would be my first assumption when you said you knocked a bird out of the sky with your spit.

Edited to correct my theory: Having a 8' x 10' velvet painting of Elvis does not by necessity mean that you like Elvis. Apologies if offend thee by Elvis did I.

[edit on 10-4-2009 by NIcon]

Originally posted by NIcon
reply to post by bsbray11

 

bsbray, that would be very interesting to see.

Well, I'm going to try to upload the video or at least some photos later this week since you don't seem to believe me. Before I do, do you think you can show what NIST was able to conclude specifically in their WTC7 report?

reply to post by bsbray11

That'll take some time but I'm sure I can come up with a pretty power point presentation or something of the sort for you.

reply to post by NIcon


Be sure to leave in all the "probably" 's and "maybe" 's too, so we can know when they were hypothesizing, and when they were actually demonstrating something.

I don't think I'll be the only one looking forward to it.

reply to post by bsbray11

bsbray... sorry, I came up with an animated gif to show my understanding of events.... I hope that's alright. The pic at the link below is rather large (it's 459KB) but I think it covers everything that happened that day..... the timing is not quite correct. Some periods are extremely condensed and some are extended, but you'll get the idea. Also everything is not mapped out as correctly as it could be, so please give me a little latitude, as I did not go page by page through the report when I came up with this.



Let me know if this is close to your DVD of the poor bird.....

reply to post by NIcon


Woah, you knew the report better than I expected you to!

Eh, it's kind of like the bird... I'll have to get back to you on that.

Originally posted by NIcon
bsbray... sorry, I came up with an animated gif to show my understanding of events.... I hope that's alright. Also everything is not mapped out as correctly as it could be, so please give me a little latitude, as I did not go page by page through the report when I came up with this.

Well clearly you didn't read the report did you???

All that effort and the debunkers will be attacking you for pointing to Column 79 at the top of the building, instead of around the 12th or 13th floor where NIST claimed that it failed!!!

You were also missing Silverstein's 'pull' quote coming from a distant office off the screen...

Dude, we all expect far more research next time you decide to make a mockery of the official story!!!

(By the way, nice job. If you don't mind, I've already saved the .gif onto my hard drive to pass around.)

reply to post by tezzajw

Sorry, tezzajw, to include the Silverstein variable that you mentioned would require a massive computer with at least 256K of ram and would take days, if not months, to run. This was just the preliminary model for public release. Be sure to watch for the full book report which will go further into details and contain some pretty pictures, too. As of now, the report is expected to be released at noon on August 23, 2011. Public comment will be taken until 12:05 pm that same day and the final book report will be issued at 12:10.

As for the error you pointed out about the precise location of Column 79's failure, I reviewed my modeling and have found you are correct. I have issued an addendum to correct this error, which can be downloaded at any time from my hard drive at C:\NIST\WTC7\errors\if_they_can_do_it_why_cant_I.pdf. Be sure to download and review this correction, as, if you mention the error again in the future it will surely show that you can't do research, thus you're opinion can not be trusted.

(By the way, feel free to download the pic and spread freely. I uploaded it to a public server and made it available world-wide, just so I can pull an Associated Press on everyone and sue for copyright infringement.)