WTC7's "Free Fall"

[SAYIT]

Below is the NIST explanation of the "free fall" so often quoted by some "Truthers." Of course, the "Truthers" never manage to explain how it was accomplished - with the possible exception of Dr. Fetzer's silent mini-nukes theory - but who needs facts in the CT World?
Note that the collapse times were calculated from videos taken outside WTC7 which did not record what was happening inside. Note also that the NIST used the qualifier "essentially" in describing the free fall section of the collapse:

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.

Questions and Answers about the NIST WTC 7 Investigation

 

[wihosa]

Wonder why NIST won't release the data they used to formulate their computer model upon which they make this claim?
Oh, that's right, because it's a pile of crap!

 

[n0spam4me]

During Stage 2, the north face descended essentially in free fall, indicating negligible support from the structure below.

I take issue with this, the correct term is that the building fell at a rate indistinguishable from free-fall. Also the "negligible' support isn't, the descent of the building at free-fall acceleration clearly indicates NO resistance under the falling bit. This in turn is indicative of the removal of all resistance out from under it and all at the same time. This stuff is basic Science 101 material.
The proof is abundant that the NIST has published fraud.
now lets bust the NIST for what they have done!

 

[PredFan]

9-11 was an inside job!

 

[n0spam4me]

"Truthers" never manage to explain how it was accomplished

In terms of a crime having been committed, the first thing to do is define the fact that a crime has been committed. In the case of WTC7 we can clearly see that the building falling has all the characteristics of an engineered event. so HOW it was done is a tangent, and what the Truth community is working on is an exercise in consciousness raising in order to get AMERICA to understand the problem here. the events of 9/11/2001 are NOT as described by the talking heads on TV.

 

[SAYIT]

"Truthers" never manage to explain how it was accomplished

In terms of a crime having been committed, the first thing to do is define the fact that a crime has been committed. In the case of WTC7 we can clearly see that the building falling has all the characteristics of an engineered event...

No, it did not, and if you are such a scientific "expert," why do you so consistently (and conveniently) disappear for weeks when Gamolon disputes your silliness? You're a desperate fraud, Spammy, and everyone here knows it.

 

[n0spam4me]

Stage 2 (1.75 to 4.0 seconds): gravitational acceleration (free fall)

This is from the NIST report, and they admit to 2.25 sec of free fall acceleration.
and its a fact that from the video we can see the building falling straight down and keeping its shape as it falls. Under these conditions, the ONLY explanation that fits is a controlled demolition of WTC7. This was not a sequential failure or progressive collapse or anything of the sort, it was an engineered event.

What one faction here wants everyone to believe is that a single point of failure ( column 79 ) led to not only the total destruction of the building, but in the manner observed.

+ the fact that the NIST lied about the structural details of Column 79 .....

 

[Capstone]

Below is the NIST explanation of the "free fall" so often quoted by some "Truthers." Of course, the "Truthers" never manage to explain how it was accomplished - with the possible exception of Dr. Fetzer's silent mini-nukes theory - but who needs facts in the CT World? ...

The "facts" indicate that all physical resistance from the first 8 (or so) floors was completely removed to initiate the "facade's" descent through stage 2 of the NIST group's video analysis. The last remnants of support for the upper 39 floors (following the collapse of the penthouse, which indicated the removal of all internal support) were the external bearing walls. While it's reasonable to believe this final remnant of support could have crumbled and failed under its own weight, it is NOT reasonable to believe that a single sq. inch of it (much less 8 floors worth of it) could have done so against zero physical resistance. It is, therefore, not reasonable to believe the NIST Report's (non)explanation. There is only ONE way to circumvent all physical resistance to the downward motion of a given falling object, and that is to remove all physical material in its path of descent. So, how were 8 floors completely removed for 2.25 seconds of the descent of the upper 39 stories of building 7's bearing walls? *deep breath* All signs point to controlled demolition.

 

[SAYIT]

Below is the NIST explanation of the "free fall" so often quoted by some "Truthers." Of course, the "Truthers" never manage to explain how it was accomplished - with the possible exception of Dr. Fetzer's silent mini-nukes theory - but who needs facts in the CT World? ...

The "facts" indicate that all physical resistance from the first 8 (or so) floors was completely removed to initiate the "facade's" descent through stage 2 of the NIST group's video analysis. The last remnants of support for the upper 39 floors (following the collapse of the penthouse, which indicated the removal of all internal support) were the external bearing walls. While it's reasonable to believe this final remnant of support could have crumbled and failed under its own weight, it is NOT reasonable to believe that a single sq. inch of it (much less 8 floors worth of it) could have done so against zero physical resistance. It is, therefore, not reasonable to believe the NIST Report's (non)explanation. There is only ONE way to circumvent all physical resistance to the downward motion of a given falling object, and that is to remove all physical material in its path of descent. So, how were 8 floors completely removed for 2.25 seconds of the descent of the upper 39 stories of building 7's bearing walls? *deep breath* All signs point to controlled demolition.

The facts indicate no evidence of explosives or a CD were found and 13 years after 9/11 none of the millions of peeps you foil-haters claim were co-conspirators has been exposed. Not one.

 

[Capstone]

The facts indicate no evidence of explosives or a CD were found...

That's a lie. Despite the immediate effort to get as much of the crime-scene evidence as possible the hell out of the country (some 400 truckloads per day, most bound for "the slow boat to China"), FEMA documented a chunk of swiss-cheesified structural steel, which, taken with the R.J. Lee and USGS dust studies, corroborates a body of eyewitness accounts of fluid streams of molten metal among the WTC debris piles ...and the analyses conducted by Jones and Farrer that served as the basis for Harrit's paper on the unreacted thermitic material they found. Just as importantly, along with corroborating other physical and anecdotal evidence for the use of incendiaries/pyrotechnics, FEMA's early documentation contradicts the NIST group's later findings that the WTC fires didn't reach/sustain sufficient temperatures to account for even a purely 'eutectic reaction', much less the requisite physical conditions to account for traces of vaporized lead and melted molybdenum. The hard physical evidence (alone) is as positive for the controlled demolition hypothesis as it is negative for the fire-induced progressive collapse hypothesis.

. . .and 13 years after 9/11 none of the millions of peeps you foil-haters claim were co-conspirators has been exposed. Not one.

Millions of peeps?

Since when does a small but powerful group of governmental and extra-governmental conspirators equate to millions of people?

Never underestimate the influence of money, which holds the power to move people and whole institutions like so many unwitting pawns on a chessboard; but yes, how strange that no-one intentionally complicit in perhaps the most heinous atrocity ever committed by man has stepped into the limelight to accept responsibility for his or her actions!

 

[SAYIT]

The facts indicate no evidence of explosives or a CD were found...

That's a lie. Despite the immediate effort to get as much of the crime-scene evidence as possible the hell out of the country (some 400 truckloads per day bound for "the slow boat to China"), FEMA documented a chunk of swiss cheesified structural steel, which, taken with the R.J. Lee and USGS dust studies, corroborates a body of eyewitness accounts of fluid streams and pools molten metal among the WTC debris piles...

And the existence of molten metal, assuming that is what it was, means what, exactly? Aluminum, BTW, melts at half of steel's melting point. Do you suppose there was aluminum in the Towers?

 

[SAYIT]

. . .and 13 years after 9/11 none of the millions of peeps you foil-haters claim were co-conspirators has been exposed. Not one.

Millions of peeps?

Since when does a small but powerful group of governmental and extra-governmental conspirators equate to millions of people?

Never underestimate the influence of money, which holds the power to move people and whole institutions like so many unwitting pawns on a chessboard; but yes, how strange that no-one intentionally complicit in perhaps the most heinous atrocity ever committed by man has stepped into the limelight to accept responsibility for his or her actions!

Yeah but from what I've seen your CT delusions invariably grow like an out of control Chia Pet to include the perps, those who actually rigged the buildings for a CD undetected (rigging which survived the impact and chaotic fires and still functioned precisely) those who fought the fires, those who cleaned it all up, the media, the courts, the insurers, the investigators, etc, etc, etc...
At some point you must ask yourself: Could this all happen without SOMEONE spilling the beans?

 

[Capstone]

And the existence of molten metal, assuming that is what it was, means what, exactly? Aluminum, BTW, melts at half of steel's melting point. Do you suppose there was aluminum in the Towers?

Another dodge. What a surprise.

The swiss-cheesified steel and the elements found in the three independent studies I mentioned don't merely confirm the conditions for molten metals in general; they confirm that structural iron, lead, and molybdenum had specifically been melted, and therefore, that the temperatures asserted by the NIST group were woefully insufficient to account for the physical evidence found at the scene of the crime. Whether the streams and pools of molten metal observed by so many independent witnesses were aluminum, steel, or a mixture of various metals with elements from other types of debris (as was probably the case), we know the conditions must have prevailed to account for the evidence.

Yeah but from what I've seen your CT delusions invariably grow like an out of control Chia Pet to include the perps, those who actually rigged the buildings for a CD undetected (rigging which survived the impact and chaotic fires and still functioned precisely) those who fought the fires, those who cleaned it all up, the media, the courts, the insurers, the investigators, etc, etc, etc...
At some point you must ask yourself: Could this all happen without SOMEONE spilling the beans?

Anyone who's even superficially acquainted with some of the tactics and methods used in the planning and execution of clandestine operations, as well as the compartmentalized nature of the hierarchies within the sort of lettered agencies (foreign and domestic) known to have carried-out many such activities over the years, could easily see how the lid's been kept on the 9/11 false flag operation as well as it has been for the past 13 years. The doctrine of plausible deniability entails that many 'useful idiots' (including a number of high-level officials and players both inside and outside of government) are kept in the dark, even as they're prompted to act in the interest of the operation's planners; anyone suspected of learning sensitive information along the way becomes immediately prone to premature death by accidental or apparently natural causes; and since the courts can only act on the information/evidence presented to them, such constricted bodies of power are easily manipulated by those who bring the cases before them. Where everyone's on a 'need-to-know' basis, and very few beyond the agents directly involved in certain aspects of the operation need to know, there aren't as many to keep quiet as there would be otherwise.

Workmen and palleted materials accessing the buildings' interior columns in the wee hours of the morning would have been easy to pass-off as routine maintenance, repairs, or renovations (especially in light of the questions surrounding the company responsible for providing security to the WTC complex), all without involving a large number of people.

 

[SAYIT]

And the existence of molten metal, assuming that is what it was, means what, exactly? Aluminum, BTW, melts at half of steel's melting point. Do you suppose there was aluminum in the Towers?

Another dodge. What a surprise.

The swiss-cheesified steel and the elements found in the three independent studies I mentioned don't merely confirm the conditions for molten metals in general; they confirm that structural iron, lead, and molybdenum had indeed been melted, and therefore, that the temperatures asserted by the NIST group were woefully insufficient to account for the physical evidence found at the scene of the crime. Whether the streams and pools of molten metal observed by so many were aluminum, steel, or a mixture of various metals with elements from other types of debris (as was probably the case), we know the conditions must have prevailed to account for the evidence.

Yeah but from what I've seen your CT delusions invariably grow like an out of control Chia Pet to include the perps, those who actually rigged the buildings for a CD undetected (rigging which survived the impact and chaotic fires and still functioned precisely) those who fought the fires, those who cleaned it all up, the media, the courts, the insurers, the investigators, etc, etc, etc...
At some point you must ask yourself: Could this all happen without SOMEONE spilling the beans?

Anyone who's even superficially acquainted with some of the tactics and methods used in the planning and execution of clandestine operations, as well as the compartmentalized nature of the hierarchies within the sort of lettered agencies (foreign and domestic) known to have carried-out many such activities over the years, could easily see how the lid's been kept on the 9/11 false flag operation as well as it has been for the past 13 years. The doctrine of plausible deniability entails that many 'useful idiots' (including a number of high-level officials and players both inside and outside of government) are kept in the dark, even as they're prompted to act in the interest of the operation's planners; anyone suspected of learning sensitive information along the way becomes immediately prone to premature death by accidental or apparently natural causes; and since the courts can only act on the information/evidence presented to them, such constricted bodies of power, are easily manipulated by those who bring the cases before them. Where everyone's on a 'need-to-know' basis, and very few beyond the agents directly involved in certain aspects of the operation need to know, there's not as many people to keep quiet as there would be otherwise.

Workmen and palleted materials accessing the buildings' interior columns in the wee hours of the morning would have been easy to pass-off as routine maintenance, repairs, or renovations (especially in light of the questions surrounding the company responsible for providing security to the WTC complex), all without involving a large number of people.

Really? You obviously know precious little about union and L&I control of large buildings and of just what would have been entailed in rigging those buildings, not to mention how it all would have withstood the high speed impact of a large airliner and the ensuing chaotic, jet fuel induced fires.

 

[Capstone]

Really? You obviously know precious little about union and L&I control of large buildings and of just what would have been entailed in rigging those buildings, not to mention how it all would have withstood the high speed impact of a large airliner and the ensuing chaotic, jet fuel induced fires.

It's clear to me that you've known precious little about the overwhelming majority of crap you've spouted on this board. There's documentation (and newspaper verification) that a mysterious, private (that is to say, non-union) elevator company (all traces of which quickly disappeared after 9/11) had won the contract for top-to-bottom renovations to the elevator systems in buildings 1 and 2 and had recently completed the jobs before the attacks. With ample reason for unfettered access to the interior columns, operators within the front-company could have easily rigged the buildings in accordance to predetermined impact zones (which would have later been ensured by precision RC guidance of the aircraft/drones).

Next...

 

[SAYIT]

Really? You obviously know precious little about union and L&I control of large buildings and of just what would have been entailed in rigging those buildings, not to mention how it all would have withstood the high speed impact of a large airliner and the ensuing chaotic, jet fuel induced fires.

It's clear to me that you've known precious little about the overwhelming majority of crap you've spouted on this board. There's documentation (and newspaper verification) that a mysterious, private (that is to say, non-union) elevator company (all traces of which quickly disappeared after 9/11) had won the contract for top-to-bottom renovations to the elevator systems in buildings 1 and 2 and had recently completed the jobs before the attacks....

And with that claim you go from sincere 9/11 CT Loon to full-fledged over-the-edge wackadoo. Congrats.

 

[Capstone]

And with that claim you go from sincere 9/11 CT Loon to full-fledged over-the-edge wackadoo. Congrats.

This from a schmuck whose preferred conspiracy theory ignores things ranging from basic common-sense principles to the friggin' laws of the physics.

So, tell me, SAYIT, what do you feel is the wackadoodliest aspect of my suggestion there?

The notion that remote flying technology had been developed for large passenger jets prior to September 11, 2001, maybe?

. . .Raytheon is one of several companies looking to use new satellite technology that could someday allow jets to be landed by people on the ground, in much the same way that hobbyists bring in their model airplanes by remote control. The company announced Monday that its technology had guided a Federal Express 727 to a safe landing on a New Mexico Air Force base in August [2001]— all without the need of a pilot. Raytheon says the technology, primarily designed to help navigation, could be useful in a remote landing system. ...

If so, I suppose the aircraft/drones could have been fitted with a variation of one of the many missile guidance systems available at that time, perhaps one that utilized laser or radar retransmission devices that could have been pre-planted in the buildings by the very same demolition team(s) that placed the explosives.

All speculation, of course, but unlike your officially-authorized speculative tripe, at least it's loosely based on critical observations of the "collapses" and the physical evidence collected at the crime scenes. Plus, it doesn't call for the utter disregard of Newton's Third Law of Motion.

Oh, I'll wear the wackadoodle badge with a wink and a smile, precisely because it was presented to me by the likes of you!

 

[SAYIT]

And with that claim you go from sincere 9/11 CT Loon to full-fledged over-the-edge wackadoo. Congrats.

This from a schmuck whose preferred conspiracy theory ignores things ranging from basic common-sense principles to the friggin' laws of the physics.

So, tell me, SAYIT, what do you feel is the wackadoodliest aspect of my suggestion there?

The notion that remote flying technology had been developed for large passenger jets prior to September 11, 2001, maybe?

. . .Raytheon is one of several companies looking to use new satellite technology that could someday allow jets to be landed by people on the ground, in much the same way that hobbyists bring in their model airplanes by remote control. The company announced Monday that its technology had guided a Federal Express 727 to a safe landing on a New Mexico Air Force base in August [2001]— all without the need of a pilot. Raytheon says the technology, primarily designed to help navigation, could be useful in a remote landing system. ...

If so, I suppose the aircraft/drones could have been fitted with a variation of one of the many missile guidance systems available at that time, perhaps one that utilized laser or radar retransmission devices that could have been pre-planted in the buildings by the very same demolition team(s) that placed the explosives.

All speculation, of course, but unlike your officially-authorized speculative tripe, at least it's loosely based on critical observations of the "collapses" and the physical evidence collected at the crime scenes. Plus, it doesn't call for the utter disregard of Newton's Third Law of Motion.

Oh, I'll wear the wackadoodle badge with a wink and a smile, precisely because it was presented to me by the likes of you!

My acceptance of the NIST findings, incomplete and flawed as they might be, is based on comparing then to any of the alternative scenarios which your now-defunct 9/11 CT Movement (PBUI) produced. If you applied half the cynicism to the CTs that you do to the US gov't investigation you would be an ex-"Truther." You cling desperately to concepts like remote-controlled aircraft/drones and CD rigging which was done by unseen (and still silent) ninjas and which survived the high-speed aircraft impact and ensuing fires.
Me, I've applied Occam's razor to both the official story and the myriad of conspiracy stories. The 'bomb' theory. The 'thermite' theory. The 'thermate' theory. The 'nano-thermite' theory. The 'orbiting projected energy weapons platform' theory. The 'holographic plane' theory. All the classics.
The official story works better than any of them, more closely matches the facts, and doesn't involve the absolutely ludicrous degree of complexity and elaboration that the various conspiracy versions do. All the conspiracy theories I've looked at are just awful, awful explanations condemned by a litany of theory killing holes to virtual impossibility.

 

[n0spam4me]

2 of 6 NIST s WTC 7 Reports Filled with Fantasy Fiction and Fraud

The OFFICIAL ( that is taxpayer funded ) report(s) are collectively a CROCK!
and its been pointed out MANY times that in order for the official story to be true, the laws of physics would have had to be violated multiple times.

 

[Capstone]

. . .Me, I've applied Occam's razor to both the official story and the myriad of conspiracy stories.[...]The official story works better than any of them, more closely matches the facts, and doesn't involve the absolutely ludicrous degree of complexity and elaboration that the various conspiracy versions do. ...

Occam's Razor suggests that the simplest explanation for observed phenomena (this includes any physical evidence on hand) should be preferred over needlessly complex explanations. It does not justify an explanation that provides no explanatory power whatsoever for several aspects of a given observed phenomenon, solely on the grounds that such a non-explanation might be the *simplest one available (*in more than one sense of the term).

The Official Conspiracy Theory™ offers no explanation for the presence of physical materials that were found on the ground and in the dust that collectively prove certain conditions prevailed−conditions that could only be explained by the use of incendiaries/pyrotechnics during the so-called "collapses" on 9/11/01.

Just one of many other examples I could cite would be the flight speed of UA175, which was documented by the NTSB on the day of the attacks.

As noted and asked in 2010 by Ret. NASA Senior Executive and Associate Fellow of the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Dwain Deets:

"Based on analysis of radar data, the National Transportation and Safety Board reported the ground-speed just before impact as 510 knots. This is well beyond the maximum operating velocity of 360 knots, and maximum dive velocity of 410 knots. [...] Which organization has the greater responsibility for acknowledging the elephant in the room? The NTSB, NASA, Boeing, or the AIAA? Have engineers authored papers, but the AIAA or NASA won’t publish them? Or, does the ethical responsibility lie not with organizations, but with individual aeronautical engineers? Have engineers just looked the other way?"

To my knowledge, to this very day, the OCT remains silent on this observed (and documented) phenomenon.

ETC., ETC., ETC.,...