eots
no fly list
The NIST REPORT is without question not a fact driven document or investigation..
Navigation
Install the app
How to install the app on iOS
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
More options
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
The NIST 9-11 Report on the WTC Collapse
- Thread starter Mr. Jones
- Start date
The NIST REPORT is without question not a fact driven document or investigation..
KokomoJojo
VIP Member
- Oct 2, 2013
- 2,180
- 185
- 85
keep telling ya you aint real good at this are ya!
So the government has first hand knowledge huh?
nice!
KokomoJojo
VIP Member
- Oct 2, 2013
- 2,180
- 185
- 85
Hey guys....
Great thread, I've read it twice.... what a fight! I just love all these conspiracy theorists. Great story, and they tell it with such enthusiasm, as if they actually have the facts behind them.... hilarious!
The NIST REPORT is without question not a fact driven document or investigation..
after 7 years they still couldnt get a collapse to model out like a demolition LMAO
eots
no fly list
Right, seven years and millions of dollars.... only to be corrected by a high school physics teacher!
they have been corrected by many highly educated and experienced physicist etc...wo is this high school physics teacher strawman you speak of and what observations do you feel he was incorrect on ?...the numbers of dollars spent and the time wasted is hardly a validation of the NIST collapse theory
E.L.C.
Member
- Oct 29, 2013
- 89
- 3
- 6
Hey eots (nice to meet you)....
You misunderstand.... I'm not saying the physics teacher was incorrect, I'm saying he was absolutely correct!
In its July 2008 Draft Report for Public Comment, the NIST initially claimed (lied) that WTC 7 collapsed 40 percent slower than free fall acceleration.
A high school physics teacher named David Chandler objected to the NISTs claim, pointing out that based on video footage of the destruction of WTC 7, the NISTs claim contradicted a publicly visible, easily measurable quantity.
Responding to the criticism, the NIST changed its story in its Final Report issued in November 2008, finally admitting that WTC 7 had in fact descended at free fall. According to the NIST This free fall drop continued for approximately 8 stories, or 32.0 meters (105 ft)". The NIST did not bother attempting to explain how the free fall of WTC 7 could have occurred.
However, Mr. Chandler does explain how free fall could have occurred.... the ONLY way it could have occurred.
In the case of a falling building, the only way it can go into free fall is if an external force removes the supporting structure. None of the gravitational potential energy of the building is available for this purpose, or it would slow the fall of the building."
The collapse we see cannot be due to a column failure, or a few column failures, or a sequence of column failures. All 24 interior columns and 58 perimeter columns had to have been removed over the span of 8 floors low in the building simultaneously to within a small fraction of a second, and in such a way that the top half of the building remains intact and uncrumpled.
So it was either a controlled demolition, or a miracle.... I don't believe in miracles.
You misunderstand.... I'm not saying the physics teacher was incorrect, I'm saying he was absolutely correct!
In its July 2008 Draft Report for Public Comment, the NIST initially claimed (lied) that WTC 7 collapsed 40 percent slower than free fall acceleration.
A high school physics teacher named David Chandler objected to the NISTs claim, pointing out that based on video footage of the destruction of WTC 7, the NISTs claim contradicted a publicly visible, easily measurable quantity.
Responding to the criticism, the NIST changed its story in its Final Report issued in November 2008, finally admitting that WTC 7 had in fact descended at free fall. According to the NIST This free fall drop continued for approximately 8 stories, or 32.0 meters (105 ft)". The NIST did not bother attempting to explain how the free fall of WTC 7 could have occurred.
However, Mr. Chandler does explain how free fall could have occurred.... the ONLY way it could have occurred.
In the case of a falling building, the only way it can go into free fall is if an external force removes the supporting structure. None of the gravitational potential energy of the building is available for this purpose, or it would slow the fall of the building."
The collapse we see cannot be due to a column failure, or a few column failures, or a sequence of column failures. All 24 interior columns and 58 perimeter columns had to have been removed over the span of 8 floors low in the building simultaneously to within a small fraction of a second, and in such a way that the top half of the building remains intact and uncrumpled.
So it was either a controlled demolition, or a miracle.... I don't believe in miracles.
Last edited:
E.L.C.
Member
- Oct 29, 2013
- 89
- 3
- 6
Just to be clear....
As late as August 2008 the NIST continued to claim (lie) that the time it took the upper floors of WTC 7, the only floors visible on the videos, to come down “was approximately 40 percent longer than the computed free fall time and was consistent with physical principles." This statement implied that any assertion that the building did come down at free fall, assuming a non-engineered collapse, would not be consistent with physical principles (basic laws of Newtonian physics). Explaining why during a WTC 7 Technical Briefing in August 2008, the NIST’s Shyam Sunder said “A free fall time would be the fall time of an object that has no structural components below it. The time that it took for those 17 floors to disappear was roughly 40 percent longer than free fall. And that is not at all unusual, because there was structural resistance that was provided in this particular case. And you had a sequence of structural failures that had to take place. Everything was not instantaneous.”
In its final report though, which came out in November 2008, the NIST admitted the very free fall that it previously implied would be inconsistent with physical principles (basic laws of Newtonian physics) in a non-engineered collapse. The NIST described “a freefall descent over approximately eight stories (105 feet) at gravitational acceleration....", meaning a violation of one or more laws of physics had occurred.
In other words.... It had to be either an engineered free fall collapse (controlled demolition), or a non-engineered free fall collapse (a miracle). Not surprisingly, there has been no statement from the NIST clarifying their position since the Final Report was issued. Unlike there initial Draft Report though, the Final Report makes no mention of their explanation being consistent with physical principles (basic laws of Newtonian physics).
As late as August 2008 the NIST continued to claim (lie) that the time it took the upper floors of WTC 7, the only floors visible on the videos, to come down “was approximately 40 percent longer than the computed free fall time and was consistent with physical principles." This statement implied that any assertion that the building did come down at free fall, assuming a non-engineered collapse, would not be consistent with physical principles (basic laws of Newtonian physics). Explaining why during a WTC 7 Technical Briefing in August 2008, the NIST’s Shyam Sunder said “A free fall time would be the fall time of an object that has no structural components below it. The time that it took for those 17 floors to disappear was roughly 40 percent longer than free fall. And that is not at all unusual, because there was structural resistance that was provided in this particular case. And you had a sequence of structural failures that had to take place. Everything was not instantaneous.”
In its final report though, which came out in November 2008, the NIST admitted the very free fall that it previously implied would be inconsistent with physical principles (basic laws of Newtonian physics) in a non-engineered collapse. The NIST described “a freefall descent over approximately eight stories (105 feet) at gravitational acceleration....", meaning a violation of one or more laws of physics had occurred.
In other words.... It had to be either an engineered free fall collapse (controlled demolition), or a non-engineered free fall collapse (a miracle). Not surprisingly, there has been no statement from the NIST clarifying their position since the Final Report was issued. Unlike there initial Draft Report though, the Final Report makes no mention of their explanation being consistent with physical principles (basic laws of Newtonian physics).
Last edited:
KokomoJojo
VIP Member
- Oct 2, 2013
- 2,180
- 185
- 85
Right, seven years and millions of dollars.... only to be corrected by a high school physics teacher!
Director of NIST: Disclosure of WTC7 data "might jeopardize public safety"
http://cryptome.org/nist070709.pdf
yeh theirs!
KokomoJojo
VIP Member
- Oct 2, 2013
- 2,180
- 185
- 85
Last edited:
daws101
Diamond Member
- Banned
- #592
Just to be clear....
As late as August 2008 the NIST continued to claim (lie) that the time it took the upper floors of WTC 7, the only floors visible on the videos, to come down was approximately 40 percent longer than the computed free fall time and was consistent with physical principles." This statement implied that any assertion that the building did come down at free fall, assuming a non-engineered collapse, would not be consistent with physical principles (basic laws of Newtonian physics). Explaining why during a WTC 7 Technical Briefing in August 2008, the NISTs Shyam Sunder said A free fall time would be the fall time of an object that has no structural components below it. The time that it took for those 17 floors to disappear was roughly 40 percent longer than free fall. And that is not at all unusual, because there was structural resistance that was provided in this particular case. And you had a sequence of structural failures that had to take place. Everything was not instantaneous.
In its final report though, which came out in November 2008, the NIST admitted the very free fall that it previously implied would be inconsistent with physical principles (basic laws of Newtonian physics) in a non-engineered collapse. The NIST described a freefall descent over approximately eight stories (105 feet) at gravitational acceleration....", meaning a violation of one or more laws of physics had occurred.
In other words.... It had to be either an engineered free fall collapse (controlled demolition), or a non-engineered free fall collapse (a miracle). Not surprisingly, there has been no statement from the NIST clarifying their position since the Final Report was issued. Unlike there initial Draft Report though, the Final Report makes no mention of their explanation being consistent with physical principles (basic laws of Newtonian physics).
KokomoJojo
VIP Member
- Oct 2, 2013
- 2,180
- 185
- 85
Just to be clear....
As late as August 2008 the NIST continued to claim (lie) that the time it took the upper floors of WTC 7, the only floors visible on the videos, to come down “was approximately 40 percent longer than the computed free fall time and was consistent with physical principles." This statement implied that any assertion that the building did come down at free fall, assuming a non-engineered collapse, would not be consistent with physical principles (basic laws of Newtonian physics). Explaining why during a WTC 7 Technical Briefing in August 2008, the NIST’s Shyam Sunder said “A free fall time would be the fall time of an object that has no structural components below it. The time that it took for those 17 floors to disappear was roughly 40 percent longer than free fall. And that is not at all unusual, because there was structural resistance that was provided in this particular case. And you had a sequence of structural failures that had to take place. Everything was not instantaneous.”
In its final report though, which came out in November 2008, the NIST admitted the very free fall that it previously implied would be inconsistent with physical principles (basic laws of Newtonian physics) in a non-engineered collapse. The NIST described “a freefall descent over approximately eight stories (105 feet) at gravitational acceleration....", meaning a violation of one or more laws of physics had occurred.
In other words.... It had to be either an engineered free fall collapse (controlled demolition), or a non-engineered free fall collapse (a miracle). Not surprisingly, there has been no statement from the NIST clarifying their position since the Final Report was issued. Unlike there initial Draft Report though, the Final Report makes no mention of their explanation being consistent with physical principles (basic laws of Newtonian physics).
yep nist had 8 years to fudge numbers to get their model to "collapse" like the real building and at best is a MAJOR
Not even close to the same, roof and sides wrinkle on the model before it even begins to come down.
they wont release their data because of what they had to do to get the right 1/3 to look like that.
Last edited:
daws101
Diamond Member
- Banned
- #596
In a video, it appears that WTC 7 is descending in free fall, something that would not occur in the structural collapse that you describe. How can you ignore basic laws of physics?
In the draft WTC 7 report (released Aug. 21, 2008; available at WTC Disaster Study), NIST stated that the north face of the building descended 18 stories (the portion of the collapse visible in the video) in 5.4 seconds, based on video analysis of the building collapse. This time period is 40 percent longer than the 3.9 seconds this process would have taken if the north face of the building had descended solely under free fall conditions. During the public comment period on the draft report, NIST was asked to confirm this time difference and define the reasons for it in greater detail.
To further clarify the descent of the north face, NIST recorded the downward displacement of a point near the center of the roofline from first movement until the north face was no longer visible in the video. Numerical analyses were conducted to calculate the velocity and acceleration of the roofline point from the time-dependent displacement data. The instant at which vertical motion of the roofline first occurred was determined by tracking the numerical value of the brightness of a pixel (a single element in the video image) at the roofline. This pixel became brighter as the roofline began to descend because the color of the pixel started to change from that of the building façade to the lighter color of the sky.
The approach taken by NIST is summarized in Section 3.6 of the final summary report, NCSTAR 1A (released Nov. 20, 2008; available at WTC Disaster Study) and detailed in Section 12.5.3 of NIST NCSTAR 1-9 (available at WTC Disaster Study).
The analyses of the video (both the estimation of the instant the roofline began to descend and the calculated velocity and acceleration of a point on the roofline) revealed three distinct stages characterizing the 5.4 seconds of collapse:
Stage 1 (0 to 1.75 seconds): acceleration less than that of gravity (i.e., slower than free fall).
Stage 2 (1.75 to 4.0 seconds): gravitational acceleration (free fall)
Stage 3 (4.0 to 5.4 seconds): decreased acceleration, again less than that of gravity
This analysis showed that the 40 percent longer descent timecompared to the 3.9 second free fall timewas due primarily to Stage 1, which corresponded to the buckling of the exterior columns in the lower stories of the north face. During Stage 2, the north face descended essentially in free fall, indicating negligible support from the structure below. This is consistent with the structural analysis model which showed the exterior columns buckling and losing their capacity to support the loads from the structure above. In Stage 3, the acceleration decreased as the upper portion of the north face encountered increased resistance from the collapsed structure and the debris pile below.
Questions and Answers about the NIST WTC 7 Investigation
In the draft WTC 7 report (released Aug. 21, 2008; available at WTC Disaster Study), NIST stated that the north face of the building descended 18 stories (the portion of the collapse visible in the video) in 5.4 seconds, based on video analysis of the building collapse. This time period is 40 percent longer than the 3.9 seconds this process would have taken if the north face of the building had descended solely under free fall conditions. During the public comment period on the draft report, NIST was asked to confirm this time difference and define the reasons for it in greater detail.
To further clarify the descent of the north face, NIST recorded the downward displacement of a point near the center of the roofline from first movement until the north face was no longer visible in the video. Numerical analyses were conducted to calculate the velocity and acceleration of the roofline point from the time-dependent displacement data. The instant at which vertical motion of the roofline first occurred was determined by tracking the numerical value of the brightness of a pixel (a single element in the video image) at the roofline. This pixel became brighter as the roofline began to descend because the color of the pixel started to change from that of the building façade to the lighter color of the sky.
The approach taken by NIST is summarized in Section 3.6 of the final summary report, NCSTAR 1A (released Nov. 20, 2008; available at WTC Disaster Study) and detailed in Section 12.5.3 of NIST NCSTAR 1-9 (available at WTC Disaster Study).
The analyses of the video (both the estimation of the instant the roofline began to descend and the calculated velocity and acceleration of a point on the roofline) revealed three distinct stages characterizing the 5.4 seconds of collapse:
Stage 1 (0 to 1.75 seconds): acceleration less than that of gravity (i.e., slower than free fall).
Stage 2 (1.75 to 4.0 seconds): gravitational acceleration (free fall)
Stage 3 (4.0 to 5.4 seconds): decreased acceleration, again less than that of gravity
This analysis showed that the 40 percent longer descent timecompared to the 3.9 second free fall timewas due primarily to Stage 1, which corresponded to the buckling of the exterior columns in the lower stories of the north face. During Stage 2, the north face descended essentially in free fall, indicating negligible support from the structure below. This is consistent with the structural analysis model which showed the exterior columns buckling and losing their capacity to support the loads from the structure above. In Stage 3, the acceleration decreased as the upper portion of the north face encountered increased resistance from the collapsed structure and the debris pile below.
Questions and Answers about the NIST WTC 7 Investigation
KokomoJojo
VIP Member
- Oct 2, 2013
- 2,180
- 185
- 85
In a video, it appears that WTC 7 is descending in free fall, something that would not occur in the structural collapse that you describe. How can you ignore basic laws of physics?
In the draft WTC 7 report (released Aug. 21, 2008; available at WTC Disaster Study), NIST stated that the north face of the building descended 18 stories (the portion of the collapse visible in the video) in 5.4 seconds, based on video analysis of the building collapse. This time period is 40 percent longer than the 3.9 seconds this process would have taken if the north face of the building had descended solely under free fall conditions. During the public comment period on the draft report, NIST was asked to confirm this time difference and define the reasons for it in greater detail.
To further clarify the descent of the north face, NIST recorded the downward displacement of a point near the center of the roofline from first movement until the north face was no longer visible in the video. Numerical analyses were conducted to calculate the velocity and acceleration of the roofline point from the time-dependent displacement data. The instant at which vertical motion of the roofline first occurred was determined by tracking the numerical value of the brightness of a pixel (a single element in the video image) at the roofline. This pixel became brighter as the roofline began to descend because the color of the pixel started to change from that of the building façade to the lighter color of the sky.
The approach taken by NIST is summarized in Section 3.6 of the final summary report, NCSTAR 1A (released Nov. 20, 2008; available at WTC Disaster Study) and detailed in Section 12.5.3 of NIST NCSTAR 1-9 (available at WTC Disaster Study).
The analyses of the video (both the estimation of the instant the roofline began to descend and the calculated velocity and acceleration of a point on the roofline) revealed three distinct stages characterizing the 5.4 seconds of collapse:
•Stage 1 (0 to 1.75 seconds): acceleration less than that of gravity (i.e., slower than free fall).
•Stage 2 (1.75 to 4.0 seconds): gravitational acceleration (free fall)
•Stage 3 (4.0 to 5.4 seconds): decreased acceleration, again less than that of gravity
This analysis showed that the 40 percent longer descent time—compared to the 3.9 second free fall time—was due primarily to Stage 1, which corresponded to the buckling of the exterior columns in the lower stories of the north face. During Stage 2, the north face descended essentially in free fall, indicating negligible support from the structure below. This is consistent with the structural analysis model which showed the exterior columns buckling and losing their capacity to support the loads from the structure above. In Stage 3, the acceleration decreased as the upper portion of the north face encountered increased resistance from the collapsed structure and the debris pile below.
Questions and Answers about the NIST WTC 7 Investigation
anyone can time the fall in free software unless they are a total tard.
it was PUBLICALLY PROVEN ON CAMERA, NIST ADMITTED FREEFALL.
High school physics teacher (truther) kicks Phd Eng Ass around the block!
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iGMvnwjUizY"]WTC7: NIST Finally Admits Freefall (Part I) by David Chandler[/ame]
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aU6KPGvAdx4"]WTC7 NIST Finally Admits Freefall by David Chandler Part 3 [/ame]
The 40% is the speed it took their model, not the real building.
SUCKER!
Last edited by a moderator:
E.L.C.
Member
- Oct 29, 2013
- 89
- 3
- 6
In a video, it appears that WTC 7 is descending in free fall, something that would not occur in the structural collapse that you describe. How can you blah blah blah....
Yeah yeah, I read that.... the "explanation" that didn't explain anything, very similar to the "careful investigation" of the possible use of explosives that didn't investigate anything.
The NIST says the upper portion of WTC 7 fell in a symetrical non-engineered collapse at gravitational acceleration for 2.25 seconds, or 105 feet in "Stage Two" of it's non-investigation.... What a load!
The NIST, you, and really anyone who wants to can add all the "Stages" they like, but it will never make the "Official-Magical-Reverse-Conspiracy-Theory" you support consistent with physical principles when it comes to that 2.25 seconds on September 11, and even adding a million "Stages" won't change the laws of physics.
It's a ridiculously impossible notion that the upper portion of WTC 7 could have fallen straight down through eight stories of intact existing structural components beneath it (matter literally falling through matter) at gravitational acceleration for 2.25 seconds, or 105 feet, in a manner virtually indistinguishable from the predicted result for the same size portion of a similarly damaged building falling the same distance through thin air....
Deal with it.
Last edited:
E.L.C.
Member
- Oct 29, 2013
- 89
- 3
- 6
Not just one, but several "firsts" in the history of architecture on 9/11....
1. First time a steel framed building ever collapsed due to fire.... Never before or since 9/11 has any steel framed build ever collapsed due to fire.
2. First time a non-engineered gravitational collapse ever completely pulverized all the contents of a building to dust.... Desks, chairs, carpet, glass, concrete, computers, file cabinets, people, etc. all reduced to dust.
3. First time a non-engineered gravitational collapse ever caused steel to melt.... Metallurgical studies on WTC steel reveal intergranular melting of steel structural building components making solid steel girders appear like Swiss cheese.
4. First time a non-engineered gravitational collapse ever caused concrete to melt.... Guns from WTC 6 now on display at the NYC police museum encased in molten concrete.
5. First time a non-engineered gravitational collapse ever resulted in a eutectic reaction.... A liquid eutectic mixture containing primarily iron and oxygen, rich in sulfur, observed to have attacked steel structural building components.
6. First time a non-engineered gravitational collapse ever occured at "free fall" gravitational acceleration.... WTC 7 observed falling for 2.5 seconds (105 feet) at "free fall" gravitational acceleration.
That's a lot of firsts! Any others?
1. First time a steel framed building ever collapsed due to fire.... Never before or since 9/11 has any steel framed build ever collapsed due to fire.
2. First time a non-engineered gravitational collapse ever completely pulverized all the contents of a building to dust.... Desks, chairs, carpet, glass, concrete, computers, file cabinets, people, etc. all reduced to dust.
3. First time a non-engineered gravitational collapse ever caused steel to melt.... Metallurgical studies on WTC steel reveal intergranular melting of steel structural building components making solid steel girders appear like Swiss cheese.
4. First time a non-engineered gravitational collapse ever caused concrete to melt.... Guns from WTC 6 now on display at the NYC police museum encased in molten concrete.
5. First time a non-engineered gravitational collapse ever resulted in a eutectic reaction.... A liquid eutectic mixture containing primarily iron and oxygen, rich in sulfur, observed to have attacked steel structural building components.
6. First time a non-engineered gravitational collapse ever occured at "free fall" gravitational acceleration.... WTC 7 observed falling for 2.5 seconds (105 feet) at "free fall" gravitational acceleration.
That's a lot of firsts! Any others?
Last edited:
Montrovant
Fuzzy bears!
Not just one, but several "firsts" in the history of architecture on 9/11....
1. First time a steel framed building ever collapsed due to fire.... Never before or since 9/11 has any steel framed build ever collapsed due to fire.
2. First time a non-engineered gravitational collapse ever completely pulverized all the contents of a building to dust.... Desks, chairs, carpet, glass, concrete, computers, file cabinets, people, etc. all reduced to dust.
3. First time a non-engineered gravitational collapse ever caused steel to melt.... Metallurgical studies on WTC steel reveal intergranular melting of steel structural building components making solid steel girders appear like Swiss cheese.
4. First time a non-engineered gravitational collapse ever caused concrete to melt.... Guns from WTC 6 now on display at the NYC police museum encased in molten concrete.
5. First time a non-engineered gravitational collapse ever resulted in a eutectic reaction.... A liquid eutectic mixture containing primarily iron and oxygen, rich in sulfur, observed to have attacked steel structural building components.
6. First time a non-engineered gravitational collapse ever occured at "free fall" gravitational acceleration.... WTC 7 observed falling for 2.5 seconds (105 feet) at "free fall" gravitational acceleration.
That's a lot of firsts! Any others?
First time a pair of skyscrapers were ever run into by a couple of passenger jets?
Similar threads
- Replies
- 16
- Views
- 743
- Replies
- 3
- Views
- 98
- Replies
- 47
- Views
- 602
Latest Discussions
- Replies
- 42
- Views
- 281
- Replies
- 34
- Views
- 178
Forum List
-
-
-
-
-
Political Satire 8545
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
ObamaCare 781
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Member Usernotes 485
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-