The NIST predecisional WTC7 Report part5 of 5

[alienentity]

Anyway, back to the catchword 'freefall'. IMHO the word is now being misused as in 'freefall=controlled demolition'.

That assumption is incorrect.

There is no proof at all that a period of freefall proves CD. It only shows that structure is failing - the assumption that WTC7 could not have experienced freefall due to fires is an unfounded assumption.

Engineers have stated otherwise, and given the reasons. Most truthers just ignore this, I think partly 'cause it's hard to understand. Oh well...

[achimspok]

Of course, free fall isn't equal CD. Free Fall just means NO RESISTANCE = no bowing, no breaking, no sagging, no crumbling = just falling. It proofs the structure is failing, right! In the case of WTC7 about 80 columns at once. Oh well, it's hard to understand. Engineers have stated otherwise??? Reasons??? Until now all debbies just denied free fall ever happened. But maybe a very hot and rapid office fire opened the building like a zipper.

Btw the fall of the EPH is much more interesting.

[alienentity]

Please give the source calculations, and also cite the sections of the NIST reports to support this video.

There are no proper references in the video to corroborate to, the way it is currently made.

[achimspok]

I don't know what you talking about?!!!! The source calculation is simple: Free fall from the height of the roof (green graph).

I don't think the NIST reports will support my video but every time I criticized the NIST reports I also name and show the source. What documents are you missing? I will try to give you a download link.

[alienentity]

Well, you talk about 47 floors, but the trusses weren't on the ground floors, and we don't know exactly when the internal collapse began as it is not visible.

Following that, I think it's very interesting the way you've presented it (enhancing the deflections) but in my opinion they move too fast to be the PH itself - it could easily be a pressure wave travelling thru the building - remember windows were blown out after the PH starts collapsing.

[alienentity]

In any case I don't understand why there is such an obsession with freefall, since you'd expect something to fall close to that speed once other support has already collapsed internally.

The main puzzle for me is why people think they see a CD when there are no explosions and pressure waves BEFORE the building goes down, as in known CD's.

It just doesn't fit CD, no matter what speed it fell at.

I wish I could run that Physics toolkit software, but I have a Mac. Oh well...

[achimspok]

I wouldn't use the terminus "obsession". I would use "observation" and of course some kind of obsession to deny it. This is the most suspect part after the hot spots and the disappeared rubble.

And no one see or saw or just want to see a CD!!! But there were recorded explosion sounds, there was free fall, there were hot spots, there were witnesses and so on and so on and so on... And NIST deny every single part of it instead of investigate it. They simply do a near to absurd simulation...

[alienentity]

I hardly think it is correct to say NIST deny every single part of it.

In fact they DID investigate CD. I know you've read the report, so you should know exactly what they looked at.

Also, they published the 2.25 sec freefall in the final report. In the first release for public comment, it was not broken down, but was included in the contentious 5.4 second interval when the parapet wall fell until it went out of sight.

Hot spots? Who's denying it? Molten metal, that's anecdotal.

[achimspok]

Hot spots? Who's explaining it?

And of course the hot spots were hot enough to believe in molten metal described "like lava" by the witnesses. Right, Gross of NIST said it was anecdotal like Sunders said the was no 100db explosion sound ever recorded.

Of course, if someone decided to bring the building(s) down then he wouldn't do that in the usual way of CD, would he? He wouldn't care the way it fall. He first would try to hide the signs and sounds of a usual CD, wouldn't he?

Not every...

[alienentity]

There are a number of assumptions in your ideas, I don't think they are justified. Also, your analogies are not helpful (I'm not a fan of analogies btw) If you want to go to analogies, the one I make regarding the truth movement is, a man is found dead, shot in the chest. Massive loss of blood.On autopsy it's found he had abnormal levels of arsenic in his blood.

Coroner concludes: bled to death by gunshot

Conspiracy theorists conclude: he was poisoned to death. Gunshot wound incidental.

[achimspok]

...and any real thinking people would suspect that the poisen and the shot aren't just coincedence bur maybe would lead to the same reason / source / killer. I would investigate it at least. And maybe I will find that he always used insecticide as toothpaste.

Of course the debbies ignore the poisen and don't ask who pulled the trigger. It was an innocent bullit, wasn't it?

[alienentity]

At least you're smart enough and honest enough to accept some of the basic realities, even if you are unrealistic in your expectations of NIST, I think.

Closeup video recorded NO LOUD explosions, or explosive flashes from squibs. Therefore, it is not plausible that explosives removed structure as CD theorists claim. That method WOULD have been audible.

Possible motive for demolishing building 6 and 7? Speculation only. There is not a shred of evidence that a plot existed. Sorry.

[achimspok]

Building 6 was demolished by debris. Never heard anything else. Btw floor 3 without fire conditions stopped the collapse of 3 burning floors above (WTC7 had the same fire resistance rating and no pre-fabricated column-trees). Maybe that's why I'm a little bit surprised that floors 11-13 fell through 10 without fire conditions. I suspected this result for a long time because according to the NIST Interim Report they hardly needed FIVE floors of unsupported column lenght to support their theory.

[alienentity]

Hot spots - well documented. There were fires smoldering for weeks. Ironically, it is truthers who are arguing (again) against the strongest evidence, for the obscure and unproven: molten steel above possible molten 'metal'

1) there were digital cameras in 2001. Why is there not ONE SINGLE picture showing molten metal pools? There were pictures being taken all over the place all the time.....there isn't ANY good evidence, anecdotes aside. The anecdotes cannot prove temps either way.

[mooners40]

@alienentity "Under certain circumstances it is conceivable for some of the steel in the wreckage to have melted after the buildings collapsed. Any molten steel in the wreckage was more likely due to the high temperature resulting from long exposure to combustion within the pile than to short exposure to fires or explosions while the buildings were standing. " direct quote from nist - they think that steel can melt in an office fire - and you morons buy that - at what temp does steel melt?

[alienentity]

Hotspots

2) Truthers are loath to accept that fuels, plastics and other combustibles could have sustained the debris fires, and that mythical nanothermite (which has already been removed as a candidate for good reason) is the ONLY thing that could have done this.

This just doesn't make sense, sorry. We already know for a FACT that combustible materials were available in the debris. That is the most likely fuel.

Temps were hot, but no evidence they were 2000c or more. NONE.

[achimspok]

1) combustibles need oxygene 2) enclosing temperature means no oxygene 3) 1100-1400°F surface temperatures one week later 4) WTC6 cold 5) a lot reports about molten steel including demolition experts and Leslie Robertson 6) strange erratic molten cuts in WTC7 column (9/11 memorial) 7) carbonized paper in "meteorite" 8) the horse shoe ...

Debbies are loath to accept that fuel burns rapidly and that thermite isn't mythical. Any other explanation than another catoon-like chain of coincedences?

[alienentity]

This is just WTC7. When you compare that with the towers, CD just falls away as the likely cause - WTC7 appears to have started to collapse from floor 7 to 14, obviously on the E side.

A typical CD (remember, that's what it's claimed WTC7 fits) removes support SIMULTANEOUSLY in the lowest section to start.

That clearly didn't happen.

With the towers, it's even LESS like CD:

Collapse initiated 3/4 up the buildings

Very messy with wide debris field damaging many buildings.

Neither fits CD

[achimspok]

Typical CD? No! Floor 7 to 14 is what NIST concluded. No evidence. E side, right! We can exclude the gash and corner damage but have to look at 3 core columns maybe simultanously in the lowest section and may be below the 7th floor, right?

Towers? Still no explanation of the basement damage (not to say "explosions" as reported by many witnesses) since ALL 3 EXPRESS SHAFTS were blocked by cabins at B1. Debs still believe in mythical vapor clouds falling in seconds, passing the cabins and BANG!

[achimspok]

...murder would place all evidence for murder all around him like Atta.

[achimspok]

...not because it would be impossible for a building to collapse that way. May be it would be possible BUT the so called "debunkers" often criticize the so called TM for "the most improbable" theory. How probable was a several hours fire on 3 floors around one column leading to pancaking, an unsupported length of 5 floors, to buckling, to upwards progression, falling, hitting, crushing, horizontal progression, TOTAL FREE FALL COLLAPSE... Come on! This scenario sounds like a cartoon.

[alienentity]

I agree it is not very intuitive to grasp it.

I agree that it was a very unusual, improbable event. The very idea that this building got clobbered with flaming debris, and happened to have a rather eccentric structure as it did, was a highly unlikely event.

But once those very unlikely factors are mixed together, the outcome wasn't so hard to comprehend.

I applaud you for at least accepting that it was some kind of progressive failure, however strange.

[alienentity]

It eventually comes down to one's tolerance for examining the details, I think, and keeping an open mind to the possibility that it could have occurred the way it appeared, and didn't necessarily require a deliberate effort.

That's a personal judgment one has to make, or not. In my case there just isn't enough hard evidence to make a good case for CD, in in fact too MUCH evidence against CD (lack of squibs, explosions, classic CD artifacts etc..) to make CD the MOST likely explanation.

[achimspok]

CD investigation? NIST stated a RDX charge would be too loud. (Btw, an A-bomb would be too bright.) The best reason to suspecet CD: One column PUFFed the bunker down in seconds.

If you find a corpse in the street with a hole in the head and there would be ONLY ONE very unusual possibility for an accident, would you investigate murder? Let's say, in lifetime the corpse had a lot of money & secrets & benefiting enemies with a lot of money & secrets...

It's a personal judgment one has to make.

[alienentity]

Back to your assumptions:

RDX not plausible. Yes, it would be too loud. So what? Don't assume the 'demolition people' gave a crap how loud it would be.

The problem with the loudness is that it simply doesn't fit the observed facts of the collapse. Neither does nanothermite, since that explodes just like a high-explosive.

Both conventional explosives AND nanothermite are therefore eliminated, by simple deduction.

Has nothing to do with WHODUNIT, just follows the facts as they are known.

[achimspok]

No, the D-men won't give a crap because it wasn't that legal. Btw the RDX-sound-idea is just based on the assuption that something fell on the transfer trusses at the 7th floor.

There are recorded explosion sounds and the D-men maybe prefered the good old basement. You wouldn't see fashes, you wouldn't hear a fart, you wouldn't get seismic records. But maybe columns 81,80,79 would fail about at the same time. That's what they did. NIST waving with column 79 and a very strange chain reaction.

[CNN911Fakes]

Thanks achimspok

[rushfan9thcmd]

Freefall speed, squibs, pyroclastic flows.....these are not fire collapse characteristics. Those that died that day and those that continue to die as a result of this day deserve the truth no matter how painful or disruptive it would be. Healing will never occur until the truth is told. By the way, if anyone can show me a true video of what hit the Pentagon, Ill kiss your backside on the evening news. Any takers???

[katananja]

Nice video

[nehorlavazapalka]

So where are the squibs?The penthouse collapsed at free-fall speed,shouldn't that produce a sufficient air flow?Does it mean that the piston theory on WTC 1 and 2 squibs is inncorrect?

[KingKil33]

What does the "p.c." stand for in the title?

[achimspok]

"Predecisional and Confidential" or "political correct"?

[MandoMohan]

This one is a good looking vid...That compu voice-over, though, through parts 1-4 and some of part 5 is totally annoying. I wonder why you made that choice? Why not use your own voice? Maybe you're a robot!

No Planes Hit The Towers.

(Or anywhere else, for that matter).

[achimspok]

You can hardly blame a robot voice to interprete the meaning of the apparently obvious. That's all.

[MandoMohan]

Wot?

Is this some sort of 'doudle speak'?

[achimspok]

Orwellian doudle speak? "Truth is Lies"? Noop! The contrary! I criticized the dramatic timbre of speaker voices in different so called documentaries. Some horrible music + slow motion of a collapse + some killer-voice telling you "...the connections failed ...causing the tower to collapse."

Sorry, I criticized it in german and some asked to do it in english. I did it (as good and as quick as I can without wasting time or money). You have to clean your earwax. I give a f*** on entertainment.

[mysticalgroove]

ha, amazing what a bit of contrast and adjustments can do, you can clearly see it falling through the building, great work!

[scottishcreamthe1st]

aye! have u seen this one?

watch?v=RjNB9MGSoWc

[mysticalgroove]

yup