WTC7: NIST Finally Admits Freefall

In its draft report, released in August 2008, NIST attempted to cover up evidence that WTC7 fell at freefall, but the coverup was transparent.

In its final report, released in November 2008, NIST finally acknowledged free-fall, but couched it in a bizarre framework that continues to deny its clear significance. ae911truth

http://rattube.com/blog1/2008/12/08/...mits-freefall/

for the first couple of seconds, you knob...

that reply was in regard to the NIST 'admitting' freefall.

They never did 'not admit' freefall, you dolt, just for the first couple of seconds. Then it slowed as it came across all the wreckage below. Fuck me drunk, have any of you Truthers actually READ the report?

So why NO resistance for nearly 3 seconds bozo breath?

Been drinking the meths again PW?

Originally Posted by paul w

that reply was in regard to the NIST 'admitting' freefall.

They never did 'not admit' freefall, you dolt, just for the first couple of seconds. Then it slowed as it came across all the wreckage below. Fuck me drunk, have any of you Truthers actually READ the report?

paul do please FRO, you would have difficulty reading the ingredients on a tube of fucking Smarties let alone the contents of a report that talks about physics. You don't understand conservation of momentum, the path of least resistance, the 2nd law of thermodynamics, thermal conductivity, resistance force or why sometimes when you wake up in the morning your bed is all wet. Please don't insult our intelligence and posture as if you have read ANY of the official reports in to 9-11. The closest you've got is the debunking websites you permanently quote from (this can be evidenced from our mother-of-all-threads where you clearly demonstrated your ignorance of the official documents).

Serious question, being as you've read and understood the reports, please can you tell me how exactly a steel framed, concrete 47 storey building can offer NO RESISTANCE for the first 3 seconds of collapse? (i.e. freefall) According to the known laws of physics this is not possible so stop telling people what idiots they are when you haven't the first clue about what anyone is talking about!

As for NIST not admitting freefall, in the draft report (the one put out for comments), they postulated that the speed of acceleration of the collapse of WTC7 was constant (which it clearly was not), what this did was *HIDE* the 3 seconds of freefall in the overall collapse time. If you had read and understood the report you probably should have known this, maybe you didn't understand it, or more likely maybe you didn't read it!

paul I think you would have trouble finding your arse in the dark with a torch, this is quite clearly beyond the scope of your abilities so why don't you just reel your neck in? I am more than willing to admit I may be wrong (something you steadfastly refuse to do), but at the end of the day I am making the effort to try and understand it (rather than just going 'you're wrong, you're wrong ner-ner-ner-ner-ner' and sticking my tounge out). If you are going to argue about science then it helps to do it scientifically mate.

Ashley

"you would have difficulty reading the ingredients on a tube of fucking Smarties..."
"when you wake up in the morning your bed is all wet."
'paul I think you would have trouble finding your arse in the dark with a torch"


That was, without doubt, the worst post Ashley has ever sent...

Ashley, how old did you say you were? Come on, man, even I was embarrassed. We all know you can do better than that, even if you do talk shit.

Perhaps I should have called you a dipshit or a fucking moron or an idiot or a fruit-cake or a fuckwit or a clown or a dickwad or a dickhead or a drug addict or a dick-for-brains or a bastard or a fucking troofer or a paranoid conspiracy nut or a knob-head or a lazy fuck or an utter wanker or a complete tosser or a cretin or just tell you to go fuck yourself or fuck off (in case you didn't suss these are all direct quotes from you in our mega-thread).

You even went so far as to describe the journalist Robert Fisk as a moron, who is next to get the paul w treatment? Pilger? Chomsky?

I think this is a bit of an Alanis Morissette moment with you questioning my insulting you. At least I tried to be funny with mine, rather than just saying 'you are a(n)' and putting one of the above in.

Come one paul I know you can't do better

Ashley

[Thinking Man's Idiot]

Love is the law.

Even for the wankers.

Welcome aboard brothers and sisters.

Hello readers....had a good day? A few drinks, some sex, a light brunch?

Goodness me, this Ashley's a scream...now he's comparing himself to Robert Fisk, John Pilger and Noam Chomsky!

Oh, the ego of Truthers. Not only are they they ones to save us from the nasty, evil enslavement of the NWO, but they're the ONLY ones who know what's actually going on.

Hell of a responsibility for a bunch of nutjobs, eh?

Problem is, he's completely wrong, as usual. Chomsky has made it plain on many occasions that he doesn't believe 9-11 was an inside job, and that science explains the building collapses. You want Proof? Google 'Chomsky 9-11 Conspiracy', and you'll have pages of it. You will also find numerous videos of him explaining why he is NOT an inside job supporter (and Truthers whining he's a stooge of the NWO...Lol!)

As for Pilger, same deal. Both he and Chomsky ignore the inside-job nonsense, but argue the Bush administration used the event for their own advantage, something the Truthers simply cannot comprehend. Nor will you find any links to 9-11 Truther sites on their official internet sites. Hmm, wonder why?

Now, to Mr Fisk. He wrote an article in 2007 asking questions (many of the ones suggested by Truthers) about 9-11 being an 'inside job'. He wanted answers, but guess why: to stop the 'ravers' (his quote) coming to his lectures.

Get that? He simply wanted answers so the Truther idiots would stop annoying him, yet Truthers like Ashley, unable to see any difference between this and supporting the inside job claim, use this as him SUPPORTING the theory!

Ashley, darling, could you please find his follow up article, the one where he SUPPORTS the theory of an inside job? I'm sure all the readers here will be fascinated to read it. Take your time, sunshine, we can wait...

And while we are at it, during my time searching for for above, I came across this article,
'We See Conspiracies That Don't Exist
The Physics of 9/11 By MANUEL GARCIA, Jr.
(http://www.counterpunch.org/physic11282006.html)

According to Counterpunch, Manuel a native New Yorker who works as a physicist at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in California with a PhD Aerospace & Mechanical Engineering, from Princeton His technical interests are generally in fluid flow and energy, specifically in gas dynamics and plasma physics; and his working experience includes measurements on nuclear bomb tests, devising mathematical models of energetic physical effects, and trying to enlarge a union of weapons scientists.

Clearly, he supports the official view of the collapses and is therefore, in your opinion, another of the 'clueless idiots'. Here is some of his stuff...it's a bit too complicated for me, sunhsine, so could you point out his mistakes for us all? Anyway, here he is...

"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 a similar height in vacuum (with no air resistance)?" (NIST FAQ #6)

The suspicion behind this question is that the Towers were weakened by surreptitious, controlled demolitions. In this view, the structure below the impact zone (where airplanes collided, exploded, and fires burned) "should have" provided resistance to the descent of the block above the impact zone, slowing or even stopping the collapse.

The NIST response is that the lower structure was only designed to hold up the weight above any given floor statically, not dynamically. The force imparted by the collision of the upper block was beyond the limits of the lower structure to resist. The lower structure was essentially crumbled by a "hammer" of descending material, and the mass of this hammer increased during the course of the collapse.

Let's explore further.

¦ Problem 1, Force Balance

Once the framing in the impact zone has failed, the upper block is accelerated by gravity until it crashes into the lower structure below the impact zone. Labeling the mass of the upper block m, and its speed v, the block would have a momentum m*v and an energy of (1/2)*m*v^2. Its weight would be m*g, where g is the constant of gravitational acceleration (9.81 meters/second^2).

The balance of forces on the upper block as it impacts the lower structure is presented here as the impulse momentum form of Newton's 2nd Law:

The time rate of change of momentum = The sum of the forces,

[m*v(final) - m*v(initial)]/dt = F - m*g.

Here, positive direction, velocity and force are taken to be vertically upward; dt is a label for "delta t", a very brief time interval during which the impact occurs and the momentum changes from m*v(initial) to m*v(final); and F is the force of resistance by the lower structure. If A is the net horizontal cross-sectional area of the load-bearing columns of the lower structure, then F/A is the average compressive stress across that area.

This type of force balance is applied to the impact at each floor, sequentially, by redefining m as the mass above it, v(initial) as the outcome of the alternating floor impacts and free falls during prior compaction, and v(final) as the outcome of the latest impact.

We can regroup the terms of the force balance as follows:

F = m*g + m*[v(final) - v(initial)]/dt,

F = m*g*[1 + {v(final) - v(initial)}/(g*dt)],

F/(m*g) = 1 + {v(final) - v(initial)}/(g*dt).

Before each building was perturbed, the upper block did not have any motion, v(initial) = v(final) = 0, and the magnitude of the upward-directed, resisting force of any part of the structure was equal to the weight of material above it; F/(m*g) = 1.

When an upper block drops through an impact zone that has lost structural strength, and crashes into the rigid lower structure, it imparts a dynamic force in addition to its weight. The dynamic force is the second term in the last expression for F. The total force, F, acts during the time interval dt during which the momentum of the upper block is reduced (in magnitude) from m*v(initial) to m*v(final). Clearly, the lower structure will crumble when F is greater than the maximum force it can support, or when F/A is greater than the maximum stress it can withstand.

¦ Problem 1, Numerical Example of Progressive Collapse

Free fall without air resistance from a height H takes time T, given by

T = square root [(2*H)/g].

At any time 0 < t < T during the free fall, the velocity is given by

v(t) = -g*t, (negative sign for downward direction),

and position is given by

h(t) = H - (1/2)*g*t^2.

So, for H = 440 m (=1443 feet) the free fall time is T = 9.5 s, and the velocity slamming into the ground is -92.9 m/s = -208 mph.

What actually happened in the buildings? We consider a suggestive numerical example.

With the onset of failure, the upper block drops through a space of L = 3 meters, taken to be the distance between floors. Starting from rest at time t = 0, the block reaches a velocity of v = -7.7 m/s at t = 0.78 s. The descending block makes contact with the topmost stationary floor of the lower structure.

We will assume these floor structures to be dL = 1 meter thick (1 meter = 3.28 feet). Each floor structure is a framework of steel below and within a layer of concrete. The floors spanned a distance of between 10 m and 20 m between the outer square perimeter (63.4 m a side) and the core support along the axis of the building, which housed elevator shafts, stairwells and support columns, within a rectangular area of [42 m x 27 m].

Impact is a very brief process whose duration is dt = 1/100 s. During the impact, energy ripples through the floor structure as elastic waves in the steel and concrete; the velocity of these stress waves is V(steel) = 1900 m/s and V(concrete) = 930 m/s; the wave speed is a property of the material (P-waves). The waves traverse the thickness of the floor structure in a time dL/V = 5/10,000 s for steel and 1/1000 s for concrete, so they can bounce between 10 to 20 times across the 1 m thickness; and they can run along the span of the floor within 0.005 to 0.01 s.

The waves alert the volume of the floor structure to the imposition of a new load, and infuse that volume with much higher stress. The floor structure is deflected downward a distance d = -0.077 meters (3 inches) during impact. In becoming stressed, the floor structure absorbs some of the energy of the descending block, slowing it by dv = 0.5 m/s (in this example). Within dt = 1/100 s, the floor structure has transmitted the force of the new load to its joints with the building's core and periphery.

Recalling the last form of the force balance, and inserting the numbers from this example, we find the magnitude of the total reaction force to be

F/(m*g) = 1 + dv/(g*dt) = 1 + 0.5/(9.81*0.01) = 6.1,

a load of six times the weight of the upper block.

I continued this particular calculation, floor by floor, as a sequence starting from rest: free fall for 3 m, impact delays transit for 0.01 s and decreases descent velocity by 0.5 m/s, free fall for 3 m, transit delay and velocity decrement as before, and so on. The block reaches the ground in 10 s with a total of 87 floor impacts. The collapse of 344 m (1128 feet) accelerates from -7.2 m/s (-16 mph) after the initial impact, to -46 m/s (-104 mph) at the ground."

So, Ashley, that's it...obviously, according to you, he's got it COMPLETELY WRONG. As for me, it's all a little bit too complicated. Anyway, I'm sure all the readers here will be FASCINATED with your reply debunking this...

Also, check out this comment from Alexander Cockburn, in his article 'The Age of Irrationality, The 9/11 Conspiracists and the Decline of the Anmerican Left':
"What is the goal of the 9/11 conspiracists? They ask questions, yes, but they never answer them. They never put forward an overall scenario of the alleged conspiracy. They say that's not up to them. So who is it up to? Who do they expect to answer their questions? When answers are put forward, they are dismissed as fabrications or they simply rebound with another question."
http://www.counterpunch.org/cockburn11282006.html

Now, who does that remind me of...

In your repeating of my abuse, you missed out 'cocksucker'.

I'm sure I called you that. I think it's the one I got banned for.