NIST admits freefall speed
- Thread starter gillywibble
- Start date
pretty much and the third "it isn't what they said it was another thing but I'm not going to say what or provide any proof" camp.
@acid what you posted is true I agree(shock horror)
but there computer model program did not account for free fall
It just gets me why not? they had $20,000,000 to spend
well that was the bill to the gov last year.
but there computer model program did not account for free fall
It just gets me why not? they had $20,000,000 to spend
well that was the bill to the gov last year.
Last edited:
I don't get what you are saying as they did not model the collapse, just to the point it started to collapse.
Just to further set the scene - Do the people who believe that the building were brought down by explosives tend to also believe the lunar landings were faked?
The Television Beijing Cultural Centre was different from the WTC in many respects:
- Fireproofing was adequate
- The building was incomplete, and therefore much lighter than it would otherwise have been; this reduced the amount of pressure to the lower floors and consequently reduced the chances of collapse
- The building had not been struck by a large commercial aeroplane travelling at 500mph
- The building was constructed differently to the WTC
And that's just a handful of points.
The WTC's fireproofing was largely inadequate; many sections were not even fireproofed at all. Even the fireproofing material which was actually present, was stripped off 43 of the WTC's 47 core columns by the force of the impact and the subsequent debris from the planes. Consequently, while the fire inside was not hot enough to melt the steel, it was still hot enough to reduce its strength (up to 50%, by some estimates).
No, they weren't "fine and standing true". The top of the North Tower was leaning, as you can see from this photo:
Because they were forced out by the pressure of the collapsing floors above.
Why would they be random? They exploded as the pressure reached them, which is precisely what we'd expect.
Last edited:
Here's a nice little checklist from our friends at www.debunking911.com:
A challenge to conspiracy theorists:
1) Find a steel frame building at least 40 stories high
2) Which takes up a whole city block
3) And is a "Tube in a tube" design
4) Which came off its core columns at the bottom floors (Earthquake, fire, whatever - WTC 7)
5) Which was struck by another building or airliner and had structural damage as a result.
6) And weakened by fire for over 6 hours
7) And had trusses that were bolted on with two 5/8" bolts.
And which, after all seven tests are met, the building does not fall down. Anyone dissecting this into 7 separate events is lying to you.
Anything less than meeting these seven tests is dishonest because it's not comparing apples with apples. Showing a much lighter 4, 5 or even 15 story building which doesn't even take up a city block, and has an old style steel web design leaves out the massive weight the 47 story WTC 7 had bearing down on its south face columns.
Yes, this is "moving the bar", back to where it should have started.
Source.
A challenge to conspiracy theorists:
1) Find a steel frame building at least 40 stories high
2) Which takes up a whole city block
3) And is a "Tube in a tube" design
4) Which came off its core columns at the bottom floors (Earthquake, fire, whatever - WTC 7)
5) Which was struck by another building or airliner and had structural damage as a result.
6) And weakened by fire for over 6 hours
7) And had trusses that were bolted on with two 5/8" bolts.
And which, after all seven tests are met, the building does not fall down. Anyone dissecting this into 7 separate events is lying to you.
Anything less than meeting these seven tests is dishonest because it's not comparing apples with apples. Showing a much lighter 4, 5 or even 15 story building which doesn't even take up a city block, and has an old style steel web design leaves out the massive weight the 47 story WTC 7 had bearing down on its south face columns.
Yes, this is "moving the bar", back to where it should have started.
Source.
pretty much its 'oh look at this bad evidence there were explosions'
and 'oh look at this good evidence that says its complete bull'
How can I put this
there was not a option in the program they used to use free fall
in there calculationsm, there are programs that will
but Nist chose a program that would not take into account free fall
Ok so just for something completley different heres something to think about;
The US government is on the verge of a complete economic failure, the national reserve has printed out more money than they can back in gold reserves, the Chinese economy is growing at an alarming rate, and Texan oil reserves are running out.
A certain government organisation comes up with a plan to implicate a former pawn used by the government to counter the USSR's plans to control Afghanistan, and uses his already increasing anti Western terrorist portfolio to implicate him in what can be called the next pearl harbour.
Altho the short term side effects include damage to the infrastructure and loss of life for US citizens, the long term effects offer the current government greater controll (Patriot Act) and nationwide support of a military movement into the middle east, and most notably oil reserves.
After the collapse of one of the most iconic american structers, and damage to the nations most protected installation the US invades iraq and we all know the rest.
Now this may be considered ridiculous, and its jsut a theory, but who can provide and concrete proof that something along the lines of this didnt happen.
JFK made a national address that talked about a major call for security coming in the near future, and said that it would be used for the wrong reasons by secretive societies within the government.
Finally, im not standing by this as an answer to anything, nor am i putting this forward as an explanation, i jsut want to raise the point that if this where in any means true, it would give more of a solid ground for some of the conspiracy theories to stand on. I feel that many of theories are instantly denied or treated as insanity purely due to the radical thinking that goes behind them, or because of how the differ so vastly from what people are willing to accept as normality.
The US government is on the verge of a complete economic failure, the national reserve has printed out more money than they can back in gold reserves, the Chinese economy is growing at an alarming rate, and Texan oil reserves are running out.
A certain government organisation comes up with a plan to implicate a former pawn used by the government to counter the USSR's plans to control Afghanistan, and uses his already increasing anti Western terrorist portfolio to implicate him in what can be called the next pearl harbour.
Altho the short term side effects include damage to the infrastructure and loss of life for US citizens, the long term effects offer the current government greater controll (Patriot Act) and nationwide support of a military movement into the middle east, and most notably oil reserves.
After the collapse of one of the most iconic american structers, and damage to the nations most protected installation the US invades iraq and we all know the rest.
Now this may be considered ridiculous, and its jsut a theory, but who can provide and concrete proof that something along the lines of this didnt happen.
JFK made a national address that talked about a major call for security coming in the near future, and said that it would be used for the wrong reasons by secretive societies within the government.
Finally, im not standing by this as an answer to anything, nor am i putting this forward as an explanation, i jsut want to raise the point that if this where in any means true, it would give more of a solid ground for some of the conspiracy theories to stand on. I feel that many of theories are instantly denied or treated as insanity purely due to the radical thinking that goes behind them, or because of how the differ so vastly from what people are willing to accept as normality.
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 27 Sep 2004
- Posts
- 25,821
- Location
- Glasgow
It depends on which alternative events you are referring to but there is a possibility that all is not as it seemed in the collapse but we're talking orders of magnitude so unlikely as to be barely worth considering. If your point is that what is logical is not always true then I'd agree but it is certainly much more likely.
So just to get this straight AcidHell2 is making an absurd statement when he asks about pre-set detonators but suggesting that there was a detonation carried out by means unknown to the rest of the World and apparantly unidentifiable is fine?
Give or take but there is no conclusion and it's doubtful there ever will be.
and why does this matter as they only modelled upto the point of collapse?
In regards to the demolitions being absurd theory, does anyone here work for a demolitions company?
If so can they honestly say that they have seen or understand every single type of demolition material?
The US spends trillions on top secret military weapons research, it makes sense to me that something they would develop is a type of demolition that is much more effective that anything currently availble, if not for anything other than to make strategic missiles and smart bombs more effective.
If so can they honestly say that they have seen or understand every single type of demolition material?
The US spends trillions on top secret military weapons research, it makes sense to me that something they would develop is a type of demolition that is much more effective that anything currently availble, if not for anything other than to make strategic missiles and smart bombs more effective.
but the computer model didn't simulate the collapse, so you are saying the building was in free fall before it collapsed?
during the colapse freefall or not the computer couldn;t keep up with all the stuf that was happening, if the computer could handle the simulation why would an option that "forces" it to forces it's simulation into freefall be more accurate than the model just running and calculating the speed of every pice due to it's collisions and failures. if the building entered freefall the computer would hopefully also get the building going freefall, in not it wouldn''t. forcing freefall would be falsifying the simulation.
the buildings are still a building. you would still have to destroy thousands of supporting columns with thousands of septate devices, all wired together, you could not predict it would come down vertically, as demolition of that precision requires pretty mcuh everything to be stripped out and weaked.
how on earth does rigging up numerous explosives inside a large sky scraper relate to missiles?
unless this missile carries an engineering team and that can go unnoticed for several weeks.
but there is no conclusion and it's doubtful there ever will be.
Nutter + planes = fallen buildings... There you go, sorted
and completely assumption based and hardly worth thinking about as you can't prove either way. What we can prove is the CT like demolition ect.