NIST admits freefall speed

gillywibble

gillywibble

gillywibble

Caporegime
Joined
28 Jun 2007
Posts
52,812
Location
Tamworth, UK
In response to this comment in World Trade Center Dust Contains Evidence of Explosives

RDM said:
That is what I love about conspiracy theorists. The blatant lies used to try and support their rubbish. WTC7 had a bit more damage than "a few office fires" and had been left to burn untended for many hours before collapsing. The freefall speed bit has been rubbished so many times too, especially considering that for it to be true parts of the buildings would have had to fall even faster, pray tell what was the accellerating force?
Click to expand...

I thought some may find this interesting.




Some of the NIST responses are interesting too, but of course you can and will draw your own conclusions.
 
Can anyone quickly - satirically if you wish - sum up the past discussion on this for those who had better things to do? :p
 
Nix said:
Can anyone quickly - satirically if you wish - sum up the past discussion on this for those who had better things to do? :p
Click to expand...

CT start the clock after the top of the tower clearly starts falling. It does not fall at freefall speeds. It is close due to the pancake effect. But certainly not freefall.
 
I'm not going to watch the videos. Explain why I should care about "free fall speed" maybe?
 
The narrator certainly raises some interesting points, specifically that the investigators originally denied free-fall and then changed their minds when people questioned the draft report.

However, he's a high school science teacher, not a world-renowned structural engineer with a PHD. This is shown at 3:45 in video 3 when he claimed that near free fall requires complete removal of all columns simultaneously. This is not true, and can be shown by detailed plastic analysis of potential collapse mechanisms. However, the narrator is probably not capable of performing this analysis.

As always, I'd like to see/read a response or rebuttal from NIST, or from a different independent engineer.
 
*Moangroan* said:
Because demolished buildings free fall......collapsing buildings dont.....
Click to expand...

since when? they still ahve lots of structure to break.

a lot of the CT calculations are wrong and using the times they use, is actually faster than free fall. Did the us government fit rockets as well?
 
The report in question is here:

http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/factsheet/wtc_qa_082108.html

Having read some of the report, I'm almost convinced that the narrator in the OP is talking BS.

I'd also like to highlight this particular conclusion from pg49:

blastevents.png



edit: some more useful information, answering many of the key questions raised by the doubters:
http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/factsheet/wtc_qa_082108.html
 
Last edited:
If it would have taken so much to fail a critical colun... then how come a jet managed it...


Personally I'm convinced this attack was atleast known in advanced if not actually a domestic job.

My dad had 3 people from his department due in 2 seperate meetings in the WTC on that day (international standards committee/ISO), both meetings were postponed, just one being postponed would be highly unusual due to the timetables involved, both certainly raises eyebrows.
 
Last edited:
Rroff said:
If it would have taken so much to fail a critical colun... then how come a jet managed it...
Click to expand...

Firstly, we're not talking about the same structure here and the collapse mechanisms are broadly different.

Secondly, it's a jet aircraft. They travel quickly. They therefore carry lots of kinetic energy. They also carry lots of highly explosive jet fuel...
 
Last edited:
Rroff said:
If it would have taken so much to fail a critical colun... then how come a jet managed it...
Click to expand...

Brilliant :D

a) Don't you think that a jumbo jet moving at 550mph has quite a lot of momentum?

b) Don't you think that an enormous and very hot fire might have weakened the columns somewhat?
 
I was merely playing devils advocate on that point... :P

A jet doesn't have the structure even at high speed to do it... look on youtube - I think one of richard hammonds engineering connections even covered it - even a fairly small amount of mildly reinforced concrete survived barely scratched with a fighter plane plowing into it at 500+MPH, the plane meanwhile completely disintergrated except for the wingtips.

It would have required a very hot and very focused fire to do it, the chances of spread out burning jet fuel causing it is slim tho not impossible...
 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_jxrJR26IdY

The supports didn't even take the brunt of the impact, the building shell would have dissipated a lot of it...

And I don't buy the bs about the fire protection being dislodged by the impact... theres no way burning jet fuel did that...

I'm not screaming conspiracy... just saying something ain't right.
 
Rroff said:
I was merely playing devils advocate on that point... :P

A jet doesn't have the structure even at high speed to do it... look on youtube - I think one of richard hammonds engineering connections even covered it - even a fairly small amount of mildly reinforced concrete survived barely scratched with a fighter plane plowing into it at 500+MPH, the plane meanwhile completely disintergrated except for the wingtips.

It would have required a very hot and very focused fire to do it, the chances of spread out burning jet fuel causing it is slim tho not impossible...
Click to expand...

fighter plane, jet passenger plane, just slightly different size.
 
Rroff said:
And I don't buy the bs about the fire protection being dislodged by the impact... theres no way burning jet fuel did that...
Click to expand...

why wouldn't it dislodge it? high speed impact certainly would. The fire protection was also sloppily applied and did not meat requirements.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom