Re: Freefall Acceleration of WTC 7

New video posted in November 2008 shows the collapse of WTC7 from a closer vantage point. We can analyze the new video with high school physics.

Category:

News & Politics

Tags:

• WTC7
• WTC-7
• WTC
• demolition
• World
• Trade
• Center
• AE911Truth
• 9/11

[Skeptic121]

Full disclosure: I made a mistake labeling several of the stills in this video, the times are incorrect. Also, I really do not know the floor height. I looked on the Emporis Database and found 173.74 meters as the roof height. Problems: not all floors are the same height. The first several floors are not really floors and we don't know how high they were.

NIST appears to have the blueprints, but I cannot find them. Can anyone else?

Thanks!

[ctcole77]

3 QUESTIONS 911 TRUTHERS DON'T WANT YOU TO ASK THEM:

911 TWOOFER # 1: "A steel building has never collapsed due to fire." What happened to the Windsor Tower in Madrid in 2005?

If flight 77 was a missile and not a plane, what knocked down the pole lights outside the Pentagon?

Since demolition experts estimated it would take over 100 men 4-6 months to place explosives in WTC 1, 2, & 7, how come no one witnessed any strange construction activity, wires, or boxes?

[Skeptic121]

@ctcole77

To answer Q1: The Windsor Tower did nothing remotely like WTC7. A few parts of it dropped, but not at free fall acceleration and not simultaneously. Q2: an aircraft hit the Pentagon.

Q3: Government covert services can afford demolition specialists who know more than civilian demolition contractors and face fewer safety regulations!

Remember, the original "official story" of WTC7 was demolished for safety.

Then, they went with the lame "fire collapse" excuse. Why? see next

[Skeptic121]

(cont) The original "official story" was "demolished for safety" as we hear from the construction workers on the CNN video as they walk away from the building.

"Keep your eye on that building; it'll be coming down" and "the building's gonna blow up". I think Giuliani is such a sissy he had a panic attack and changed the story to the lame "fire collapse". HE would swallow "fire collapse" but men of action cannot. A "chick flick" can mistake an AK47 for an M16 but not an action flick.

[ctcole77]

@Skeptic121

WRONG!

The steel in the Windsor Tower DID FAIL DUE TO FIRE.

Only the parts that were constructed out of reinfiorced concrete survived the fire - which is why the building didn't collapse.

But the fact remains that the structural steel did fail in the Wndsor Tower.

You didn't even answer question 2.

So NatGeo is a "govt. covert witness"?

Blame it on the new wookie order?

Is that how you answer questions that refute your magical theories?

911 TRUTH = STRAWMAN

[Skeptic121]

@ctcole77 Well, you're being nasty like a little girlie boy who needs her piano keys pounded; I'll be glad to help! I'm guessing YOU wouldn't mind if a movie got the AK and M16 confused!

I said the Windsor Tower did not collapse anything like WTC7. Indeed, it did not. You might be right about the concrete but the fact remains, Windsor Tower did not collapse ANYTHING like WTC7.

I did answer Question 2; maybe if you read R E A L S L O W you can see it.

I'd love to meet you in person...

[proudfootz]

Yes, WTC7 matches a demolition and does not match a fire-induced collapse.

[shyland2]

You're not getting it.

Free fall means extremely low resistance to collapse. That it happened evenly for several several seconds implies ALL of the support, 20+ stories' worth, basically vanished simultaneously. (Actually they cut as many as they can then blow the rest.)You don't get that in a fire.

If a single beam retained any strength at all, no freefall...and no perfectly square roof line.

A beautiful job of demolition...most of them are less picture-perfect than what we see here.

[Elivyndyr]

@Skeptic121

We'd all love to meet COINTELPRO agents in prison.

[SciMethod]

@shyland2 Roughly 8 floors of WTC7 provided no observable resistance.

"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." Source: The final version of NIST's Report on WTC7 - wtc.nist.gov/NCSTAR1/PDF/NCSTA­R%201A.pdf (p. 45 / p. 87 PDF)

[SciMethod]

@ctcole77

The Windsor Tower in Madrid did not completely collapse.

The Pentagon claims cannot be considered as being pertinent to the investigation at the WTC.

Danny Jowenko, a controlled demolition expert has chimed in with a much different estimate.

Your distracting comments have no bearing whatsoever on the fact of measurable rate of freefall acceleration of WTC7. NIST itself blessed this in its final report after calling it "impossible" just a couple months before the report's release.

[zenoist2]

The official story is that the steel melts and BENDS.

BENDS = RESISTANCE = NO FREE FALL .

But there was free fall as NIST kindly explained.

End of story.

[imbrd]

regardless, it is impossible to achieve a Constant Acceleration w/o a constant outside force acting on the object- especially when its going through the path of greatest resistance(support beams). And combined w/ the obvious sounds of explosions heard throughout the day, it would b plain silly to assume that no explosives were actually used to bring down quite magnificently the wtc7 building in that fashion