NIST admits WTC7 freefall

scienceplease · Post by **scienceplease** » Thu Dec 11, 2008 2:36 pm

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V0GHVEKrhng[/youtube]

NIST does admit that there was 2 and half seconds of free fall of building No 7.

Q:How much distance does an object fall in 2 and a half seconds if starting at rest?

A: Just over 30 meters or 98 feet or about 9 stories
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_far_will_ ... .5_seconds

That the building was in free fall over that distance means that all the perimeter columns for nine stories were somehow moved entirely out of the way very quickly.

To illustrate just how quickly it we can break down the distance involved during each interval

1st second 4.9 meters
2nd second 14.7 meters
last .5 second 11.025 meters

Keep in mind that all the columns around the tower had to get out of the way at the same time (simultaneously).

Have a look at what NIST has to say about this.

http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/rele ... 82108.html
http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/rele ... ideos.html

How close do the models conform to reality?

A couple of comments
1. The model does not conform to reality in that the outer walls display a good deal less rigidity than the available real life videos.
2. The model videos do not show the complete collapse.

From what I can tell the model videos stop when it is glaring obvious that it does not conform to reality, and that if any more was shown even the most ignorant among us could not be fooled.

Furthermore the models do not show or explain the 2.5 second free fall

So there were have it. NIST admits FREEFALL. So how did a steel frame building suddenly lose all its strength? This fact overwhelmingly proves that WTC7 must have been destroyed with at least some assistance of explosives. And if No 7 was 'blown up' then the twin towers were also, given all the circumstances.

The implication that the persons who could have otherwise been rescued from the twin towers were murdered. (Even if planes were actually hi-jacked)

They could have been rescued since, as one fireman reported by radio; "two hoses will do it". (Putting out the flames in WTC2).[/youtube]

scienceplease · Post by **scienceplease** » Sun Dec 14, 2008 11:33 am

Now get the podcast

http://visibility911.libsyn.com/index.p ... _id=412641#

bigyin · Post by **bigyin** » Sun Dec 14, 2008 9:53 pm

Just watched the videos a few times and my initial reaction was it bore no resemblance to what actually happened to the building that we see collapsing in the videos taken on the day. They are very un-convincing in their explanation of the collapse sequence. And why do they stop half way through the sequence ?

scienceplease · Post by **scienceplease** » Sun Dec 14, 2008 10:07 pm

bigyin wrote:Just watched the videos a few times and my initial reaction was it bore no resemblance to what actually happened to the building that we see collapsing in the videos taken on the day.

Can you be more specific? Which particular video taken on the day? Are you claiming more TV fakery?

bigyin · Post by **bigyin** » Mon Dec 15, 2008 12:19 am

Can you be more specific? Which particular video taken on the day? Are you claiming more TV fakery?

No I'm claiming more NIST bs

scienceplease · Post by **scienceplease** » Mon Dec 15, 2008 8:48 am

bigyin wrote: No I'm claiming more NIST bs

Tony, I think I'm out of here. This isn't the forum for me.

KP50 · Post by **KP50** » Mon Dec 15, 2008 9:26 am

scienceplease wrote:
bigyin wrote: No I'm claiming more NIST bs
Tony, I think I'm out of here. This isn't the forum for me.

Correct me if I'm wrong but I think he is agreeing with you that the NIST report is a painfully inadequate scientific analysis of the observed events at WTC7.

scubadiver · Post by **scubadiver** » Mon Dec 15, 2008 10:16 am

scienceplease wrote:Are you claiming more TV fakery?

Why are you being so presumptious?

bigyin · Post by **bigyin** » Mon Dec 15, 2008 2:14 pm

Ok sorry if I've not made myself clear.

I have looked at the videos shown on the NIST web site which show their computer model of how the building came down.

I have also looked at the videos taken on 911 from various angles which show WTC 7 coming down.

To me the building in the NIST videos is not behaving the same as the building shown in the 911 videos.

The NIST model shows one side of wtc7 collapsing completely before the rest of the building followed on, whereas on the day the whole thing just came down in one fell swoop. I didnt see any evidence that one side fell first and then the rest being dragged down.

dewstru · Post by **dewstru** » Mon Dec 15, 2008 3:40 pm

A lot of thet youtube went over my head, I think I need a dummies guide, anyone help?. Are NIST counting the collapse from the point when that far end section of the penthouse appeared to fall into the main WTC7 building several seconds before the other penthouse section went?

Disco_Destroyer · Post by **Disco_Destroyer** » Mon Dec 15, 2008 3:52 pm

10 Second FreeFall Reggae 9-11 Truthers Song (Three Shoes Posse)

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ng-2qyqV0GU[/youtube]

Nice to have Billy Connolly on this board

scienceplease · Post by **scienceplease** » Mon Dec 22, 2008 9:25 am

Meanwhile, a mechanical engineer and Richard Gage from ae911truth have both stated on radio that NIST's WTC7 model is wrong

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X2IVgrnb80I[/youtube]

- Fire model not matching observations (esp location and duration fire)
- Overly simplistic analysis of structural connections
- NIST's model of collapse shows tipping and warping of exterior (which was not observed)
- And the real damming statement: NIST are not sharing model data to allow further analysis of their results.