911
See other 911 Articles
Title: “Preliminary Results of WTC7 Study Show Fire Could Not Have Caused Collapse” Could’ve Brought Down World Trade Center Building 7
Source:
Activist Post
URL Source: http://www.activistpost.com/2016/09 ... -not-have-caused-collapse.html
Published: Sep 17, 2016
Author: Derrick Broze
Post Date: 2016-11-24 10:55:56 by Deckard
Keywords: None
Views: 25423
Comments: 54
Preliminary results of a two-year study looking into the destruction of World Trade Center 7 indicates that fire could not have caused the collapse. To mark the 15th anniversary of the 9/11 attacks, the collective 9/11 Truth movement gathered in New York City for two days of street actions, outreach, and the “Justice In Focus” 9/11 Symposium. At the symposium, organized by the Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth, the Lawyers Committee for 9/11 Inquiry, and other co-sponsors, there was a heavy emphasis on the possibility of a civil or criminal trial as a means of exposing the truth about the 9/11 attacks. Many 9/11 researchers now focus on the mysterious collapse of building 7. A number of 9/11 family members point to the collapse of WTC7 as a possible crack in the official story that could spark a new national conversation on the events of that day. WTC7 was not hit by a plane that day; however, it collapsed at 5:20 p.m. according to the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), the official cause for the collapse was office fires. A growing number of family members, activists, architects and engineers question the official theory for collapse and are seeking a new investigation into WTC7. In May 2015, a team of researchers from the University of Alaska Fairbanks began a two-year investigation of the collapse of WTC7. Dr. J. Leroy Hulsey, of the University of Alaska Fairbanks, and two Ph.D. research assistants are partnering with the non-profit Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth for a two-year engineering study known as “World Trade Center Building 7 Evaluation.” The researchers are using finite element modeling to evaluate the possible causes of World Trade Center Building 7’s collapse. “We will investigate the collapse. We probably will not be able to tell them what caused it, but I could tell them what did not,” Hulsey told MintPress. I am approaching it like most forensic engineers would. We’re looking at the structure itself, trying to put together all of the details of what was available, and in this case very little was available. Because most of it has been destroyed or it’s locked in vaults somewhere. So I have very little to work with. Hulsey explained that he addresses issues raised by NIST, but will not be reading anything about NIST or other previous studies. “I have to maintain an open scientific mind. I don’t want to be led down a path that others have gone down,” he said. “I will read about it once we reach our final conclusions and then cross-check to make sure we don’t have any issues with respect to the science.” During an interview at the Justice In Focus Symposium, Hulsey said that the team has already investigated the theory that fire caused the building’s collapse. “It is our preliminary conclusions, based upon our work to date, that fire did not produce the failure at this particular building.” When their study concludes in April 2017, Hulsey and his team will allow a panel of experts to analyze the data and submit the study to peer-reviewed journals. The researchers are promising a “completely open and transparent investigation into the cause of World Trade Center Building 7’s collapse,” and will post every step of their scientific process on WTC7Evaluation.org. The WTC7 Evaluation project will also include a review by a committee of technical experts who will vet the research being conducted by Dr. Hulsey and his students. Ted Walter, Director of Strategy and Development for A&E 9/11 Truth, is in charge of working with the professor and raising money to fund the WTC7 Evaluation. Walter told Activist Post that the project began in May 2015 and should should wrap up in April of next year. “They are coming up with different scenarios of how hot the fires could have been in different parts of the building, and then for the next 6 months they will be running tests and scenarios,” Walter told Activist Post. “The last few months, early next year, will be all about putting the findings into a final report.” Stay tuned to Activist Post for updates on Dr. Hulsey’s study. 
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Comments (1-2) not displayed.
.
.
.
#3. To: misterwhite (#2)
Is there proof that fire brought WTC7 down? While I've seen fire cause at least one partial collapse of a steel building (and a relatively small percentage of the building at that), the thought of an uncontrolled fire causing WTC7 collapse so uniformly with all 4 upper corners dropping at the same time is quite peculiar. Was it a controlled demolition? I don't know, but it is peculiar that a fire could have made WTC7 fall the way it did.
Yes it is.
Yes, according to the NIST report. There is zero proof that explosives were involved.
Yes, according to the NIST report. Really - The NIST Report? NIST's WTC 7 Reports: Filled with Fantasy, Fiction, and Fraud NIST's pattern of omissions and distortions: In its 2004 preliminary report, NIST fabricated the myth that debris from World Trade Center Building 1 (the North Tower) created a 10-story hole at a specific location at the base of WTC 7's south face. The following year it propagated that myth in Popular Mechanics, which defended NIST's work. It turns out that NIST "needed" the 10-story hole to exist at this specific location to back up its explanation for the collapse of Building 7. This is an example of reverse engineering, where supposed evidence is constructed to fit a prearranged conclusion. NIST also used its Popular Mechanics (PM) platform to launch a second myth — namely, that Building 7 had a peculiar design, which purportedly made it vulnerable to collapse. The PM article also helped NIST generate two more myths — namely, that diesel fuel tanks stored inside WTC 7 supposedly fueled an imaginary fire on the fifth floor, ostensibly helping to weaken the building at a strategic location, and that certain trusses helped to facilitate the collapse of the entire building by transferring stresses from supposedly damaged columns on the south side of the building. NIST's final 2008 report discarded these self-constructed myths and introduced a new collapse initiation hypothesis that blames WTC 7's destruction on normal office fires. The final report is premised on the same shoddy investigative practices that the agency displayed in its 2004 report and in the 2005 PM article. Indeed, NIST's omissions and distortions are gross enough to discredit both its entire WTC 7 investigation and the agency itself as a viable 9/11 investigator. NIST has consistently ignored evidence that would refute its preconceived conclusion. All the hard evidence demonstrates that Building 7 was brought down by classic controlled demolition. Why the BBC Reported WTC7 Collapse Before it Actually Happened Unless you have an official report that factually documents explosives brought the building down.
Really - no proof? NYPD Officer Heard Building 7 Bombs (NYPD officer Craig) BARTMER: "I walked around it (Building 7). I saw a hole. I didn't see a hole bad enough to knock a building down, though. Yeah there was definitely fire in the building, but I didn't hear any... I didn't hear any creaking, or... I didn't hear any indication that it was going to come down. And all of a sudden the radios exploded and everyone started screaming 'get away, get away, get away from it!'... It was at that moment... I looked up, and it was nothing I would ever imagine seeing in my life. The thing started pealing in on itself... Somebody grabbed my shoulder and I started running, and the shit's hitting the ground behind me, and the whole time you're hearing "boom, boom, boom, boom, boom." I think I know an explosion when I hear it... Yeah it had some damage to it, but nothing like what they're saying... Nothing to account for what we saw... I am shocked at the story we've heard about it to be quite honest." Later in the film, Bartmer highlights the possibility that the attack was run from Building 7, as former German technology minister Andreas von Buelow has also postulated, and that it was then demolished to destroy the evidence. BARTMER: "If the means and the motive are they where would they pull it off from? The Office of Emergency Management was in Building 7. That was a hardened bunker built to withstand just about anything that New York would face. That building had a lot of important shit in it and there was enough stuff in that building to bury evidence on other fronts - financial records, government records. There's no way that that just fell down on its own, I don't believe it." Click here for an MP3 audio clip of Bartmer's statements. Infowars reporter Lee Ann McAdoo talks to Rudy Dent, 32 year veteran of NYC fire department and the NYPD, about his incredible first hand experience of the lies surrounding WTC 7. Yea….REALLY! The NIST Report is filled with as many lies as the "Official" 9/11 Commission Report. It was lied to by the Pentagon, the CIA, the Bush Administration and as for Bush and Cheney…well, no one knows what they told it because they testified in secret, off the record, not under oath and behind closed doors. It didn’t bother to look at who funded the attacks because that question is of “little practical significance“. Still, the 9/11 Commission did brilliantly, answering all of the questions the public had (except most of the victims’ family members’ questions) and pinned blame on all the people responsible (although no one so much as lost their job), determining the attacks were “a failure of imagination” because “I don’t think anyone could envision flying airplanes into buildings ” except the Pentagon and FEMA and NORAD and the NRO. Bullshit. Just because some of the quacks who call themselves scientists say so....I shouuld believe them. Never gonna happen ...
Any honest person would admit that building 7 fell under very suspicious circumstances. Trump should open a new investigation.
Was there proof, evidence, or just a conclusion that fire brought WTC7 down? I understand the 911 commission report made no mention of WTC7 at all.
I think an honest person would admit 7's collapse by fire was peculiar and unprecedented, even if they still think that was the cause of the collapse. Even burning wooden homes, when they collapse, usually don't do it quite so uniformly. Yes it all usually happens at the same moment, but it's usually one corner or side that gives way first which then triggers the rest. WTC7 did not follow that pattern, and of course it was steel constructed, and much bigger. Edit: If it did fall down due solely to fire, I think it's construction would warrant review for safety reasons.
Yes, it is peculiar ! Si vis pacem, para bellum Rebellion to tyrants is obedience to God. There can be no divided allegiance here. Any man who says he is an American, but something else also, isn't an American at all. We have room for but one flag, the American flag... We have room for but one language here, and that is the English language... and we have room for but one sole loyalty and that is a loyalty to the American people."Theodore Roosevelt-1907. I am concerned for the security of our great nation; not so much because of any threat from without, but because of the insidious forces working from within." -- General Douglas MacArthur
An official report doesn't make it true. Just like the false unemployment report that we have all heard for the last several years from the "officials". I do not go to church every time the doors are opened, but I love Jesus Christ. I am only human and fail Him daily. I believe Jesus is the Son of God, was born of a virgin, was crucified on a cross, died for my sins and rose from the dead and that He loves us dearly, and is faithful to forgive us of our sins. But He says that if you deny me in front of your friends I will deny you in front of my Father. Can I get an Amen!
The firemen at the scene could see the building was going to collapse because of the damage it received. Shouldn't you paultards be moving on to something original like what trump and Dick Cheney may have been doing at Bohemian Grove?
More true than the shit filled Yellow Journalism articles and bogus testimonies from the quack self-qualified experts Deckard continually posts lying info from …
I have been busy today....no excuse, really, but I should have done this earlier. Happy Thanksgiving....I hope you had a nice day. Yea, it's me....I haven't been hacked. Don't tell anyone that I posted this to you....I will deny everything. LOL ...
NIST NCSTAR 1A, WTC Investigation, FINAL REPORT on the Collapse of World Trade Center Building 7 At page xxxvii: Structural damage from debris did not cause the collapse.
It seems impossible to explain the 7WTC collapse by gravitational collapse when it was recorded and observed in free fall for over two seconds. I have seen no theory for the collapse of any of the towers which is totally satisfactory. Below is from one of my old posts. I don't get the hold this theory has on people. The amount of people needed to pull off these demolitions with such a domino like precision all while firefighters and cops are swarming the area makes little sense to me. I have not said what did it. I am unable to explain what I observe happen to the two towers, even theoretically. Buildings in gravitational collapse cannot enter free fall. As Dr. Shyam Sunder of NIST put it, "a free fall would be an object that has no structural components below it." Of course, that was about WTC 7 when they still denied any period of free-fall, before the Final Report. The Preliminary Report said: 40 percent longer than the computed free fall time and was consistent with physical principles. That was shattered by the video analysis of David Chandler. Chander went to the end of the collapse event described above, backed the film up 5.4 seconds, and clearly showed that for the first second and a half, the building simply did not collapse. That made the collapse time for 18 stories 3.9s, and the NIST scientific method appeared to be dry labbing. The period of free fall acceleration documented by David Chandler could not be denied existence. Dr. Sunder had correctly stated earlier, "a free fall would be an object that has no structural components below it." Any structure means no free fall. Any structure includes columns, buckled or otherwise. Crushing a column requires energy. Any energy expended for any reason other than downward vertical acceleration rules out free fall. When an illusionist takes the stage and performs an act described as magic, I do not believe I am watching magic. I do not believe he repeals the laws of physics, no matter how good his showmanship, deception or misdirection. Just because I have no compelling explanation other than that it is magic, does not make it magic, nor does it indicate that I should accept that it is magic, or that he levitates, flies, or cuts his assistant in half and puts her back together. I do not believe in magic bullets, even when the government declares one to have performed magical deeds. I do not believe in buildings that achieve free-fall acceleration for 2.25 seconds in defiance of physical principles. I do not believe the laws of physics were different at ground zero, any more than they were with the guy's grits in My Cousin Vinny. The assertion from the Draft Report that the finding was "consistent with physical properties," does not appear in the Final Report. The conclusion is that the (yet another) official version is wrong. After so many wrong official versions, I don't get why yet another wrong version has such a hold on people, or why anyone acts upset when someone states that yet another very faulty explanation is wrong. There are many examples of problems with the investigation and its report. Here is just one more, from a follow up fact sheet of September 2010 where NIST posed, then answered it's own questions. Steel samples were removed from the site before the NIST investigation began. In the immediate aftermath of Sept. 11, debris was removed rapidly from the site to aid in recovery efforts and facilitate emergency responders' efforts to work around the site. Once it was removed from the scene, the steel from WTC 7 could not be clearly identified. Unlike the pieces of steel from WTC 1 and WTC 2, which were painted red and contained distinguishing markings, WTC 7 steel did not contain such identifying characteristics. Any normal human is likely to read that there were no identified, or identifiable, samples to be looked at. Is that what it clearly says? If the steel did not contain such identifying characteristics as those alluded to, does that mean it contained no other identifying characteristics? Does it mean a metallurgist could not distinguish the steel used in WTC 7 from the steel used in WTC 1&2? This appears to be a case of deceptive writing. Appendix C of the FEMA Report was 13 pages of a Limited Metalurgical Examination. Excerpts C.1 Introduction Two structural steel members with unusual erosion patterns were observed in the WTC debris field. The first appeared to be from WTC 7 and the second from either WTC 1 or WTC 2. Samples were taken from these beams and labeled Sample 1 and Sample 2, respectively. A metallurgic examination was conducted. C2. Sample 1 (From WTC 7) Several regions in the section of the beam shown in Figures C-l and C-2 were examined to determine microstructural changes that occurred in the A36 structural steel as a result of the events of September 11, 2001, and the subsequent flres. Although the exact location of this beam in the building was not known, the severe erosion found in several beams warranted further consideration. [...] C.3 Summary for Sample 1 1. The thinning of the steel occurred by a high-temperature corrosion due to a combination of oxidation and sulfdation. 2. Heating of the steel into a hot corrosive environment approaching 1,000 °C (1,800 ºF) results in the formation of a eutectic mixture of iron, oxygen. and sulfur that liquefied the steel. 3. The sulfidation attack of steel grain boundaries accelerated the corrosion and erosion of the steel. [...] C.6 Suggestions for Future Research The severe corrosion and subsequent erosion of Samples 1 and 2 are a very unusual event. No clear explanation for the source of the sulfur has been identified. The rate of corrosion is also unknown. It is possible that this is the result of long-term heating in the ground following the collapse of the buildings. It is also possible that the phenomenon started prior to collapse and accelerated the weakening of the steel structure. A detailed study into the mechanisms of this phenomenon is needed to determine what risk, if any, is presented to existing steel structures exposed to severe and long-burning fires. http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/jom/0112/biederman/biederman-0112.html An Initial Microstructural Analysis of A36 Steel from WTC Building 7 J.R. Barnett, R.R. Biederman, and R.D. Sisson, Jr. JOM, 53 (12), 2001, pp. 18 [Excerpt]
Why is it that you normally worship cops, yet in this case they are liars? Click here for an MP3 audio clip of NYPD Officer Craig Bartmer's statements. Rudy Dent, 32 year veteran of NYC fire department and the NYPD... I'd say this veteran firefighter has more credibility in his little finger than you have ever possessed in your entire lifetime. 9/11 Firefighters: Bombs and Explosions in the WTC The independent commission probing the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on New York and Washington decided not to hear from the worker group that lost more lives than anyone else to the terrorists: The Fire Fighters. [Workday Minnesota] Speaking as the 9/11 panel heard New York officials discuss communications, wrong instructions and other problems that beset rescue workers that fatal day, IAFF President Harold Schaitberger called the city's response "lip service" or worse. [Firefighter Louie] Cacchioli was called to testify privately [before the 9/11 Commission], but walked out on several members of the committee before they finished, feeling like he was being interrogated and cross-examined rather than simply allowed to tell the truth about what occurred in the north tower on 9/11. "My story was never mentioned in the final report [PDF download] and I felt like I was being put on trial in a court room," said Cacchioli. "I finally walked out. They were trying to twist my words and make the story fit only what they wanted to hear. All I wanted to do was tell the truth and when they wouldn't let me do that, I walked out. ... It was a disgrace to everyone, the victims and the family members who lost loved ones. I don't agree with the 9/11 Commission. The whole experience was terrible." [Arctic Beacon] As for the Architects and Engineers whose testimony I have posted in the past - your mindless denial of their expertise makes you intellectually dishonest.
Why is it that you mistakenly suggest that I “normally worship cops” when all I ever do is point out the truth? Furthermore, I dislike anyone who is proven to be liar….that will of course include cops.
Not a mistake - your reputation is that of LF's leading badge-licker. You and paulsen. I dislike anyone who is proven to be liar….that will of course include cops. I've provided the audio testimony of a NYPD cops - yet you call him a liar. You don't like what he says - so you call him a liar. Same shit - different day. Why is it that KooKs are fixated with collapsing buildings? Alcoa Heads, most of whom are HS dropouts, have been arguing aerodynamics, the properties of metal, the heat at which jet fuel burns and murky Zionist conspiracies for more than 15 years and here we stand at the same place; 9/11 was a radical Muslim terrorist attack on America. Leave it at that Kook, it's time to move on.
My reputation here is firmly established as a professionally successful debunker of your Yellow Journalism articles,
It is “shit” only to the riff raff – It is “truth” to the intelligentsia. Truth is never boring …
You only proved is it is audio testimony of a NYPD cop. You did not prove it is true.
Your delusions have gotten the better of you - seek help old timer. You don't like what he says - so you call him a liar. Classic Gatslime. No! I said: You only proved is it is audio testimony of a NYPD cop. That’s classic Gatlin. You said: You don't like what he says - so you call him a liar. Now that’s classic Paultard libertarian asshole Deckard.
Because you can' face the TRUTH....you think that I am delusional. No that's funny....really FUNNY!!!
The conclusion was that the evidence provided proof that WTC7 was brought down by the fire created by the contents of the building and the failure of the sprinkler system.
Yep. I believe him. He heard "boom, boom, boom, boom, boom." And to him they sounded like explosions. But, according to the report, "Moreover, the smallest charge capable of initiating column failure "would have resulted in a sound level of 130 dB [decibels] to 140 dB at a distance of at least half a mile." Witnesses did not report hearing such a loud noise, nor is one audible on recordings of the collapse."
Really? And you believe them(NIST)? NIST and Scientific Fraud With regard to the question of science: Far from being supported by good science, NIST’s report repeatedly makes its case by resorting to scientific fraud. Before going into details, let me point out that, if NIST did engage in fraudulent science, this would not be particularly surprising. NIST is an agency of the US Department of Commerce. During the years it was writing its World Trade Center reports, therefore, it was an agency of the Bush-Cheney administration. In 2004, the Union of Concerned Scientists put out a document charging this administration with “distortion of scientific knowledge for partisan political ends.” By the end of the Bush administration, this document had been signed by over 15,000 scientists, including 52 Nobel Laureates and 63 recipients of the National Medal of Science. [10] Moreover, a scientist who formerly worked for NIST has reported that it has been “fully hijacked from the scientific into the political realm,” with the result that scientists working for NIST “lost [their] scientific independence, and became little more than ‘hired guns.’”11 Referring in particular to NIST’s work on the World Trade Center, he said everything had to be approved by the Department of Commerce, the National Security Agency, and the Office of Management and Budget—“an arm of the Executive Office of the President,” which “had a policy person specifically delegated to provide oversight on [NIST’s] work.” [12] One of the general principles of scientific work is that its conclusions must not be dictated by nonscientific concerns – in other words, by any concern other than that of discovering the truth. This former NIST employee’s statement gives us reason to suspect that NIST, while preparing its report on WTC 7, would have been functioning as a political, not a scientific, agency. The amount of fraud in this report suggests that this was indeed the case. According to the National Science Foundation, the major types of scientific fraud are fabrication, falsification, and plagiarism. There is no sign that NIST is guilty of plagiarism, but it is certainly guilty of fabrication, which can be defined as “making up results,” and falsification, which means either “changing or omitting data.” [13] Well, I have yet to read your version of exactly what happened. So I'm keeping an open mind while I'm waiting on you. It's been 15 years. Any idea when your version of the events will be published so I can can compare your evidence with the NIST report?
A preliminary report is just that -- preliminary. The damage to the building and the diesel fuels tanks were considered and rejected. The final report said the 7-hour fire was responsible. "All the hard evidence demonstrates that Building 7 was brought down by classic controlled demolition." You don't have one piece of hard evidence which demonstrates that Building 7 was brought down by classic controlled demolition.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cgOGmUo9O2Y The NIST Final Report on World Trade Center Building Seven contains a simulation of the collapse. The simulation differs significantly from the videos of the collapse taken on 9/11/2001. Neither the simulation nor the explanation proposed by the NIST is consistent with the observed facts. After first denying it, NIST now admits that WTC7 dropped at free fall acceleration for 2.3 seconds. Only an unsupported and unobstructed structure can drop at free fall acceleration. Another mystery of WTC7 is that a collapse supposedly caused by fire was simultaneous rather than progressive. NIST proposes that the interior of WTC7 underwent a progressive collapse, leaving only the facade standing. Then, the facade collapsed simultaneously and intact. This explanation is not credible because the collapse videos do not show any damage to the facade at a time when the interior was supposedly completely destroyed. Only a few windows were broken when beams and floors were supposedly ripping loose and plummeting to the ground level. In addition, the explanation begs the question of why the facade collapsed simultaneously instead of progressively, and why it survived the collapse of the interior, only to fall by itself. Nor does NIST explain free fall acceleration of the facade. If the facade was so flimsy and weak as to collapse at free fall acceleration, why was it strong enough to survive the collapse of the interior? If it was strong enough to survive the collapse of the interior, why did it collapse suddenly, intact, and at free fall acceleration for 2.3 seconds? https://www.nist.gov/el/faqs-nist-wtc-7-investigation Questions and Answers about the NIST WTC 7 Investigation Contact: Michael E. Newman, michael.newman@nist.gov (link sends e-mail), 301-975-3025 September 19, 2011 (updated 6/27/12) [...] The analyses of the video (both the estimation of the instant the roofline began to descend and the calculated velocity and acceleration of a point on the roofline) revealed three distinct stages characterizing the 5.4 seconds of collapse: Stage 1 (0 to 1.75 seconds): acceleration less than that of gravity (i.e., slower than free fall). Stage 2 (1.75 to 4.0 seconds): gravitational acceleration (free fall) Stage 3 (4.0 to 5.4 seconds): decreased acceleration, again less than that of gravity This analysis showed that the 40 percent longer descent time—compared to the 3.9 second free fall time—was due primarily to Stage 1, which corresponded to the buckling of the exterior columns in the lower stories of the north face. During Stage 2, the north face descended essentially in free fall, indicating negligible support from the structure below. This is consistent with the structural analysis model, which showed the exterior columns buckling and losing their capacity to support the loads from the structure above. In Stage 3, the acceleration decreased as the upper portion of the north face encountered increased resistance from the collapsed structure and the debris pile below. NIST admitted that 7WTC achieved gravitational acceleration, or free fall, for 2.25 seconds. That is 2.25 seconds with the lower part of the building offering ZERO resistance to the upper part. Any resistance whatever slows the rate of descent. It is the law of conservation of energy. Also, picture the main towers. Huge steel pieces were ejected horizontally and caused to damaged or became impaled in a building across the street. Consider the resistance the lower portion must have exerted in order for the requisite horizontal force to have been achieved. I have no clue what mechanism could have caused what was recorded for all time on 9/11. A building cannot achieve gravitational acceleration (free fall) in collapse unless there is some force, in addition to gravity, applied. The lower portion of the building will not offer ZERO resistance. One can visibly observe, while the two towers fall, huge clouds of whatever (dust, powder, very fine particles) being formed. Assume one floor crushed the next floor to dust. Now calculate the force required to do that. The bottom floor must offer enough resistance to get crushed or pulverized rather than just move out of the way. Any energy expended on anything but accelerating the upper part downward slows the rate of descent. The initial theory of pancaking of floors was abandoned as physically impossible. The NIST theory ends at collapse initiation. No theory explains how the buildings came down in the precisely measured times, or how any achieved free fall, without repealing the laws of physics.
No theory would also include "controlled demolition" theories. Many things happen in nature which there are no readily available explanations for. But they happen. Anybody around WTC 7 could see it was going to fall from the damage it obtained. No conspiritard theories are necessary.
Large chunks of rubble, which were in free fall, were clearly falling faster than the rest of the twin towers.
NIST provided the times and an explanation. When the pancake theory was proven impossible, it was abandoned. With that, the explanation collapsed. NIST estimated the elapsed times for the first exterior panels to strike the ground after the collapse initiated in each of the towers to be approximately 11 seconds for WTC 1 and approximately 9 seconds for WTC 2. These elapsed times were based on: (1) precise timing of the initiation of collapse from video evidence, and (2) ground motion (seismic) signals recorded at Palisades, N.Y., that also were precisely time-calibrated for wave transmission times from lower Manhattan (see NCSTAR 1-5A). As documented in Section 6.14.4 of NIST NCSTAR 1, these collapse times show that: "... the structure below the level of collapse initiation offered minimal resistance to the falling building mass at and above the impact zone. The potential energy released by the downward movement of the large building mass far exceeded the capacity of the intact structure below to absorb that energy through energy of deformation. Since the stories below the level of collapse initiation provided little resistance to the tremendous energy released by the falling building mass, the building section above came down essentially in free fall, as seen in videos. As the stories below sequentially failed, the falling mass increased, further increasing the demand on the floors below, which were unable to arrest the moving mass." In other words, the momentum (which equals mass times velocity) of the 12 to 28 stories (WTC 1 and WTC 2, respectively) falling on the supporting structure below (which was designed to support only the static weight of the floors above and not any dynamic effects due to the downward momentum) so greatly exceeded the strength capacity of the structure below that it (the structure below) was unable to stop or even to slow the falling mass. The downward momentum felt by each successive lower floor was even larger due to the increasing mass. From video evidence, significant portions of the cores of both buildings (roughly 60 stories of WTC 1 and 40 stories of WTC 2) are known to have stood 15 to 25 seconds after collapse initiation before they, too, began to collapse. Neither the duration of the seismic records nor video evidence (due to obstruction of view caused by debris clouds) are reliable indicators of the total time it took for each building to collapse completely. That 9-second time is the approximate time it would take to drop a ball from the same height as the tower and for the ball to fall through a vacuum offering no resistance and hit the ground. A billiard ball, falling 1368 feet [1WTC] in a vacuum, would take 9.22 seconds to hit the ground. Going through air would take longer. Going through 110 stories of a building would take considerably longer. With any resistance, it would take longer. To go faster would take an added propulsion force to be applied. 100 floors would take 8.79 seconds in a vacuum. If the stories below the collapse offered little resistance, they could not be destroyed and pulverized on the way down. If it offered little to no resistance, it would just move out of the way. Also, if there was little to no resistance, it would be impossible to create the horizontal force needed to throw huge steel pieces hundreds of feet into another building.
Can't you focus on saucers flying around Uranus or something? This shit forever. Stupidity doesn't improve with time.
Which exterior panels? Panels from the top of the building? If those panels peeled away, then yes, they'be be in freefall. You can see large chunks of rubble, which ARE in free fall, clearly falling faster than the rest of the building.
Comments (44 - 54) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/LatestSo what DID cause the collapse and, more importantly, where's the proof?
#4. To: Pinguinite (#3)
#5. To: Pinguinite (#3)
"Is there proof that fire brought WTC7 down?"
#6. To: misterwhite, Pinguinite, A K A Stone (#5)
(Edited)
"Is there proof that fire brought WTC7 down?"
“Truth is treason in the empire of lies.” - Ron Paul
"America is at that awkward stage. It's too late to work within the system, but too early to shoot the bastards."
#7. To: Deckard (#6)
Really - The NIST Report?
Yea….REALLY!
#8. To: misterwhite, Pinguinite, A K A Stone (#5)
There is zero proof that explosives were involved.
“Truth is treason in the empire of lies.” - Ron Paul
"America is at that awkward stage. It's too late to work within the system, but too early to shoot the bastards."
#9. To: Gatlin (#7)
Really - The NIST Report?
The investigation was delayed, underfunded, set up to fail, a conflict of interest and a cover up from start to finish. It was based on testimony extracted through torture, the records of which were destroyed. It failed to mention the existence of WTC7, Able Danger, Ptech, Sibel Edmonds, OBL and the CIA, and the drills of hijacked aircraft being flown into buildings that were being simulated at the precise same time that those events were actually happening. “Truth is treason in the empire of lies.” - Ron Paul
"America is at that awkward stage. It's too late to work within the system, but too early to shoot the bastards."
#10. To: Deckard (#9)
The NIST Report is filled with as many lies as the "Official" 9/11 Commission Report.
#11. To: Gatlin (#10)
#12. To: misterwhite (#5)
Yes, according to the NIST report.
#13. To: A K A Stone (#11)
(Edited)
Any honest person would admit that building 7 fell under very suspicious circumstances.
#14. To: Pinguinite (#3)
" Was it a controlled demolition? I don't know, but it is peculiar that a fire could have made WTC7 fall the way it did. "
#15. To: Gatlin (#7)
an official report
#16. To: Deckard (#0)
#17. To: U don't know me (#15)
An official report doesn't make it true.
#18. To: Deckard (#9)
#19. To: no gnu taxes, Deckard (#16)
The firemen at the scene could see the building was going to collapse because of the damage it received.
"Other than initiating the fires in WTC 7, the damage from the debris from WTC 1 had little effect on initiating the collapse of WTC 7."
#20. To: A K A Stone, Gatlin (#11)
Any honest person would admit that building 7 fell under very suspicious circumstances.
Upon substitution of h = 242 ft. in the above equation, the estimated free fall time for the top of the north face to fall 18 stories was approximately 3.9 s. The uncertainty in this value was also less than 0.1 s.
In Stage 2, the north face descended at gravitational acceleration, as the buckled columns provided negligible support to the upper portion of the north face. This free fall drop continued for approximately 8 stories or 32.0 m (105 ft), the distance traveled between times t = 1.75 s and t = 4.0 s.
Why didn't the investigators look at actual steel samples from WTC 7?
A section of an A36 wide flange beam retrieved from the collapsed World Trade Center Building 7 was examined to determine changes in the steel microstructure as a result of the terrorist attack on September 11, 2001. This building was not one of the original buildings attacked but it indirectly suffered severe damage and eventually collapsed. While the exact location of this beam could not be determined, the unexpected erosion of the steel found in this beam warranted a study of microstructural changes that occurred in this steel. Examination of other sections in this beam is underway.
#21. To: Gatlin (#17)
(Edited)
bogus testimonies from the quack self-qualified experts
Of the 3,000 people killed by the terrorist attacks that destroyed the World Trade Center and damaged the Pentagon, 343 were New York Fire Fighters, all members of Schaitberger's union.
"Since no Fire Fighters were asked to speak, all the people of New York will hear is the opinion of politicians and people who work for politicians" and who are offering an inadequate, at best, future communications system, he added. “Truth is treason in the empire of lies.” - Ron Paul
"America is at that awkward stage. It's too late to work within the system, but too early to shoot the bastards."
#22. To: nolu chan (#19)
#23. To: Deckard (#21)
(Edited)
Why is it that you normally worship cops, yet in this case they are liars?
#24. To: Gatlin (#23)
Why is it that you mistakenly suggest that I “normally worship cops”
“Truth is treason in the empire of lies.” - Ron Paul
"America is at that awkward stage. It's too late to work within the system, but too early to shoot the bastards."
#25. To: Deckard (#0)
#26. To: Deckard (#24)
Not a mistake - your reputation is that of LF's leading badge-licker.
#27. To: Deckard (#24)
Same shit - different day.
#28. To: Deckard (#24)
I've provided the audio testimony of a NYPD cops
#29. To: Gatlin (#26)
My reputation here is firmly established as a professionally successful debunker....
“Truth is treason in the empire of lies.” - Ron Paul
"America is at that awkward stage. It's too late to work within the system, but too early to shoot the bastards."
#30. To: Gatlin (#28)
You only proved is it is audio testimony of a NYPD cop.
“Truth is treason in the empire of lies.” - Ron Paul
"America is at that awkward stage. It's too late to work within the system, but too early to shoot the bastards."
#31. To: Deckard (#30)
You only proved is it is audio testimony of a NYPD cop.
You don't like what he says - so you call him a liar.
Classic Gatslime.
#32. To: Deckard (#29)
#33. To: Pinguinite (#12)
"Was there proof, evidence, or just a conclusion that fire brought WTC7 down?"
#34. To: Deckard (#8)
#35. To: misterwhite, Pinguinite (#33)
(Edited)
The conclusion was that the evidence provided proof that WTC7 was brought down by the fire created by the contents of the building and the failure of the sprinkler system.
“Truth is treason in the empire of lies.” - Ron Paul
"America is at that awkward stage. It's too late to work within the system, but too early to shoot the bastards."
#36. To: Deckard (#35)
"And you believe them(NIST)?"
#37. To: Deckard (#6)
#38. To: no gnu taxes (#22)
Skeptic121
FAQs - NIST WTC 7 Investigation
11. In a video, it appears that WTC 7 is descending in free fall, something that would not occur in the structural collapse that you describe. How can NIST ignore basic laws of physics?
#39. To: nolu chan (#38)
No theory explains how the buildings came down in the precisely measured times, or how any achieved free fall, without repealing the laws of physics.
#40. To: nolu chan (#38)
"A building cannot achieve gravitational acceleration (free fall) in collapse unless there is some force, in addition to gravity, applied."
#41. To: misterwhite (#40)
Large chunks of rubble, which were in free fall, were clearly falling faster than the rest of the twin towers.
6. How could the WTC towers collapse in only 11 seconds (WTC 1) and 9 seconds (WTC 2)—speeds that approximate that of a ball dropped from similar height in a vacuum (with no air resistance)?
#42. To: Hank Rearden (#1)
Not this shit again.
#43. To: nolu chan (#41)
"NIST estimated the elapsed times for the first exterior panels to strike the ground after the collapse initiated in each of the towers to be approximately 11 seconds for WTC 1 and approximately 9 seconds for WTC 2."
.
.
.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]