WTC building 7

[irosie91]

NIST admits free fall, a fact not in dispute

yes they did ..for 2.5 sec

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 http://wtc.nist.gov/media/NIST_NCSTAR_1A_for_public_comment.pdf), 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 http://wtc.nist.gov/NCSTAR1/PDF/NCSTAR%201A.pdf) and detailed in Section 12.5.3 of NIST NCSTAR 1-9 (available at http://wtc.nist.gov/NCSTAR1/PDF/NCSTAR%201-9%20Vol%202.pdf).

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.
that freefall is effect not cause and it's short duration is of no diagnostic importance.

so you are saying that a structure that collapses in a fire that is not uniformly raging in the building would allow this building to collapse perfectly straight down? lol. how can you believe in such random "miracles" of chance? not to mention all the building never deviated from the straight down the line target as they were intended to do? it's either a perfect demo job or God himself had a hand in such handy perfect demo work.

more stupidity----the fire in building went on for HOURS----not one hour --not just two hours------MANY HOURS -----fire spreads-----why would you assume that it was not raging thruout by the time the building went down------besides----what
difference would it make if someone did do something to help it along in order to
END the disaster (I am not suggesting that anyone did---just asking SO WHAT?----all kinds of things get done to contain fires-----are you disappointed that all of
manhattan did not get destroyed?)-------planes hijacked by your people crashed into the buildings--------that is what happened)

to be accurate and so eots cannot use the red herring argument (no planes hit etc.) it was wtc 1 that hit wtc7 and is the major cause of it's collapse. the cd angle is pure fantasy.

if 1 hit seven it would have had to hit it equally on all sides for it to fall straight down. no?

1 did not bang 7 down like a big fist descending from heaven. ----one dropped hot stuff on 7 and the collapse of 1 created an energy wave that damaged
7 ------then 7 stood there burning for a long time -----the collapsed

 

[irosie91]

guys the video of the building falling is evidence enough for any with a brain to see it was a demo job

no its not------demo jobs show evidence of implosion

 

[eots]

guys the video of the building falling is evidence enough for any with a brain to see it was a demo job

no its not------demo jobs show evidence of implosion

such as..

 

[irosie91]

An emergency responder caught in the building between the 6th and 8th floors says he heard two loud booms. Isn't that evidence that there was an explosion?
The sound levels reported by all witnesses do not match the sound level of an explosion that would have been required to cause the collapse of the building. If the two loud booms were due to explosions that were responsible for the collapse of WTC 7, the emergency responder-located somewhere between the 6th and 8th floors in WTC 7-would not have been able to survive the near immediate collapse and provide this witness account.

that ^^ is my understanding of demo jobs-----big explosion leading to immediate
implosion -------not the place to be when it occurs -----bangs in building burning?------things exploding hear and there from intense heat

 

[irosie91]

guys the video of the building falling is evidence enough for any with a brain to see it was a demo job

no its not------demo jobs show evidence of implosion

such as..

inward collapse----squish in

 

[haissem123]

that's another thing if a building falls down none of it fall outward? especially since most of the fire would have been internal not toward the outer walls for cement and steel doesn't burn like furniture etc.. the building would have never fallen like that. how come nobody can find even one building in all this time that has ever fallen from fire and earthquakes even like this? because it doesn't happen perfectly like that. how stupid do you people have to be.

 

[daws101]

NIST admits free fall, a fact not in dispute

yes they did ..for 2.5 sec

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 http://wtc.nist.gov/media/NIST_NCSTAR_1A_for_public_comment.pdf), 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 http://wtc.nist.gov/NCSTAR1/PDF/NCSTAR%201A.pdf) and detailed in Section 12.5.3 of NIST NCSTAR 1-9 (available at http://wtc.nist.gov/NCSTAR1/PDF/NCSTAR%201-9%20Vol%202.pdf).

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.
that freefall is effect not cause and it's short duration is of no diagnostic importance.

so you are saying that a structure that collapses in a fire that is not uniformly raging in the building would allow this building to collapse perfectly straight down? lol. how can you believe in such random "miracles" of chance? not to mention all the building never deviated from the straight down the line target as they were intended to do? it's either a perfect demo job or God himself had a hand in such handy perfect demo work.

more stupidity----the fire in building went on for HOURS----not one hour --not just two hours------MANY HOURS -----fire spreads-----why would you assume that it was not raging thruout by the time the building went down------besides----what
difference would it make if someone did do something to help it along in order to
END the disaster (I am not suggesting that anyone did---just asking SO WHAT?----all kinds of things get done to contain fires-----are you disappointed that all of
manhattan did not get destroyed?)-------planes hijacked by your people crashed into the buildings--------that is what happened)

to be accurate and so eots cannot use the red herring argument (no planes hit etc.) it was wtc 1 that hit wtc7 and is the major cause of it's collapse. the cd angle is pure fantasy.

if 1 hit seven it would have had to hit it equally on all sides for it to fall straight down. no?

since only the north face fall straight down( and to be accurate) wtc7 did not collapse directly on to wtc7, (as you wish it did) what did happen if that huge chunks of wtc1 were ejected laterally and because of the great height difference between wtc1 and wtc7 smashed into the south side of wtc7 creating a huge gash and knocking the building out of trim preventing a as straight down fall.
in short you're talking out your ass.

 

[daws101]

guys the video of the building falling is evidence enough for any with a brain to see it was a demo job

that should read anyone suffering from delusions would think it was a demo job.

 

[haissem123]

yes they did ..for 2.5 sec

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 http://wtc.nist.gov/media/NIST_NCSTAR_1A_for_public_comment.pdf), 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 http://wtc.nist.gov/NCSTAR1/PDF/NCSTAR%201A.pdf) and detailed in Section 12.5.3 of NIST NCSTAR 1-9 (available at http://wtc.nist.gov/NCSTAR1/PDF/NCSTAR%201-9%20Vol%202.pdf).

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.
that freefall is effect not cause and it's short duration is of no diagnostic importance.

so you are saying that a structure that collapses in a fire that is not uniformly raging in the building would allow this building to collapse perfectly straight down? lol. how can you believe in such random "miracles" of chance? not to mention all the building never deviated from the straight down the line target as they were intended to do? it's either a perfect demo job or God himself had a hand in such handy perfect demo work.

more stupidity----the fire in building went on for HOURS----not one hour --not just two hours------MANY HOURS -----fire spreads-----why would you assume that it was not raging thruout by the time the building went down------besides----what
difference would it make if someone did do something to help it along in order to
END the disaster (I am not suggesting that anyone did---just asking SO WHAT?----all kinds of things get done to contain fires-----are you disappointed that all of
manhattan did not get destroyed?)-------planes hijacked by your people crashed into the buildings--------that is what happened)

to be accurate and so eots cannot use the red herring argument (no planes hit etc.) it was wtc 1 that hit wtc7 and is the major cause of it's collapse. the cd angle is pure fantasy.

if 1 hit seven it would have had to hit it equally on all sides for it to fall straight down. no?

since only the north face fall straight down( and to be accurate) wtc7 did not collapse directly on to wtc7, (as you wish it did) what did happen if that huge chunks of wtc1 were ejected laterally and because of the great height difference between wtc1 and wtc7 smashed into the south side of wtc7 creating a huge gash and knocking the building out of trim preventing a as straight down fall.
in short you're talking out your ass.

why would we get rid of all the steel evidence so rapidly? before it was analyzed especially independently? ask yourselves who would do that and why? don't try to say we wanted to get back and show are u.s. strength crap. please spare us.

 

[haissem123]

the evidence was hidden and destroyed. plane and simple no pun intended. how come no plane was found at pentagon? again plain and simple like all you morons

 

[irosie91]

guys the video of the building falling is evidence enough for any with a brain to see it was a demo job

no its not------demo jobs show evidence of implosion

such as..

inward collapse----squish in

Daws----tell me the truth------does my description of demolition by
implosion as "squish in" give away the fact that I is a girl???

 

[daws101]

guys the video of the building falling is evidence enough for any with a brain to see it was a demo job

no its not------demo jobs show evidence of implosion

such as..

red herring! asked and answered iroise don't fall for that older than dirt ploy ..eots does that when his ass is in a crack.

 

[haissem123]

stand down orders for jets not to intercept planes done by the vice president who made a killing with haliburton and so did the rest of them. follow the money morons. it leads right back to the guys who started the oil wars again

 

[daws101]

that's another thing if a building falls down none of it fall outward? especially since most of the fire would have been internal not toward the outer walls for cement and steel doesn't burn like furniture etc.. the building would have never fallen like that. how come nobody can find even one building in all this time that has ever fallen from fire and earthquakes even like this? because it doesn't happen perfectly like that. how stupid do you people have to be.

false ! that all depends on the design of the building...you're not very good at this are you?

 

[daws101]

the evidence was hidden and destroyed. plane and simple no pun intended. how come no plane was found at pentagon? again plain and simple like all you morons

a plane was found at the pentagon! speaking of morons ,,

 

[haissem123]

the evidence was hidden and destroyed. plane and simple no pun intended. how come no plane was found at pentagon? again plain and simple like all you morons

a plane was found at the pentagon! speaking of morons ,,

yeah where? nobody saw shit. did they cart a couple of piece of debri in?

 

[haissem123]

yeah and jet fuel melts steel and metaled steel breaks at the same time perfectly allowing structure to collapse vertically. lol

 

[daws101]

so you are saying that a structure that collapses in a fire that is not uniformly raging in the building would allow this building to collapse perfectly straight down? lol. how can you believe in such random "miracles" of chance? not to mention all the building never deviated from the straight down the line target as they were intended to do? it's either a perfect demo job or God himself had a hand in such handy perfect demo work.

more stupidity----the fire in building went on for HOURS----not one hour --not just two hours------MANY HOURS -----fire spreads-----why would you assume that it was not raging thruout by the time the building went down------besides----what
difference would it make if someone did do something to help it along in order to
END the disaster (I am not suggesting that anyone did---just asking SO WHAT?----all kinds of things get done to contain fires-----are you disappointed that all of
manhattan did not get destroyed?)-------planes hijacked by your people crashed into the buildings--------that is what happened)

to be accurate and so eots cannot use the red herring argument (no planes hit etc.) it was wtc 1 that hit wtc7 and is the major cause of it's collapse. the cd angle is pure fantasy.

if 1 hit seven it would have had to hit it equally on all sides for it to fall straight down. no?

since only the north face fall straight down( and to be accurate) wtc7 did not collapse directly on to wtc7, (as you wish it did) what did happen if that huge chunks of wtc1 were ejected laterally and because of the great height difference between wtc1 and wtc7 smashed into the south side of wtc7 creating a huge gash and knocking the building out of trim preventing a as straight down fall.
in short you're talking out your ass.

why would we get rid of all the steel evidence so rapidly? before it was analyzed especially independently? ask yourselves who would do that and why? don't try to say we wanted to get back and show are u.s. strength crap. please spare us.

they did! not some went to build a ship lots if steel sat at fresh kills for more than a decade ..

 

[daws101]

guys the video of the building falling is evidence enough for any with a brain to see it was a demo job

no its not------demo jobs show evidence of implosion

such as..

inward collapse----squish in

Daws----tell me the truth------does my description of demolition by
implosion as "squish in" give away the fact that I is a girl???

yeah kind of! not to worry eots hates to have his ass handed to him by a woman .
it happens so often you'd think he'd be used to it by now.

 

[daws101]

stand down orders for jets not to intercept planes done by the vice president who made a killing with haliburton and so did the rest of them. follow the money morons. it leads right back to the guys who started the oil wars again

speculation and totally specious
it's clear you got noting or why would you use the lame follow the money ploy.