The 9/11 Forum

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HGiF_Hb1xoc

Last year forced David Chandler forced NIST to admit that there was a 2,25-2,28s long period of
freefall during the collapse of WTC7.
However NIST won't admit that these period of freefall occurred at the very start of the collapse (NIST did choose to pick up artificially early start time,but as far as we know there's no such a thing recorded in the collapse videos).

What does this freefall period mean?

It means that for the first 2,28sec of the global collapse there was no resistance from the crushed parts of the building.

Let's look at this number closely.




How many floors of the WTC7 didn't offer any resistance?

A freefalling object (the upper block of WTC7) would travel the distance of 25,50m (t=2,28s, 24,80m for t=2,25s)

A height of WTC7 floor was 3,89m.

So WTC7 suffered a freefall collapse over a span of 6,6 (6,4) stories!

Well,this number isn't exciting by itself,but if you know what to look for..it immediately stuns you!

What?

Remember the last summer and the leaked NIST report?

The report states:

"At 4:38 p.m. all of the windows between 13-44A and 13-47C were open, and the fires responsible for opening the windows had died down to the point where they could no longer be observed."



"Just prior to the collapse of the building at 5:20:52 p.m. a jet of flames was pushed from windows in the same area. The event that caused this unusual behavior has not been identified."

"These pulses continued for about 6 s"

video of that event here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_IAcuITqh6E



Well,6 seconds is about the time what I would expect from burning thermite charge,which could be used to cut some core column in that area,i.e. the pulse tells us the 13th floor could be attacked.

Let's say that there were cuts at the 13th floor!

Then,why did the building suffer a freefall collapse over the span of 6-7 stories?

Maybe one cut at core column wasn't enough.So,we're left with two cuts at the core column ..and that's when the 6-7 stories figure comes to play a role!

What was 7 (6) stories below the 13th floor?
Answer:the 6th floor!A mechanical one,where would some demolition preparation go unnoticed!

Remember Barry Jennings?




this part is important: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VQY-ksiuwKU#t=1m55s

Oh,what a coincidence!He witnessed explosion on the 6th floor!

___________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Recap:At the onset of the WTC7 collapse there was a 2,28s long period of freefall,hence the upper block of WTC7 fell at freefall speed for about 25m.

The distance of 25m is the same as the distance between the 13th and 6th floor.
There was an unusual jet of flames pushed from the windows at the 13th floor before the collapse,the 6th floor was a mechanical floor,Barry Jennings witnessed a collapse of stairway at the 6th floor.....

This is consistent with predemoltion weakening at the 13th and 6th floor.

any opinions?

Why is this thread static ?

NIST have confirmed 2.25s of free-fall.
A period of free-fall very close to the stated 2.25s can be confirmed very easily, by any of us I am sure, regardless of any argument about 'start time'.

The descent of WTC 7 is FUNDAMENTAL to answering 'most' questions relating to 9/11.

I am sure we are all fully aware of the implications of a 2.25s period of free-fall in physics terms.

I will be forming opinion about regular members of this forum who decide to avoid discussion of this point to full completion.

So, to progress this thread, I will be clear:

2.25s of free-fall during the descent of WTC 7 is direct proof that the building was intentionally brought down.

See also dr G.'s it's official, faster than freefall thread

The question whether freefall is a proof of CD is not a trivial one. Even CDs in general are with <g acceleration

But more interesting is that there doesn't exist a natural collapse as symmetrical as wtc7's one, there doesn't exist a wtc7-like collapse as the result of fire. There doesn't exist a wtc7-like symmetrical collapse due to a single column failure. Even if wtc7 (1980s building) was an architectural freak I think it is a big challenge to create a building that collapses symmetrically with near g. A CD makes sense.

einsteen wrote:See also dr G.'s it's official, faster than freefall thread

The question whether freefall is a proof of CD is not a trivial one. Even CDs in general are with <g acceleration

But more interesting is that there doesn't exist a natural collapse as symmetrical as wtc7's one, there doesn't exist a wtc7-like collapse as the result of fire. There doesn't exist a wtc7-like symmetrical collapse due to a single column failure. Even if wtc7 (1980s building) was an architectural freak I think it is a big challenge to create a building that collapses symmetrically with near g. A CD makes sense.

The post was worded more to invoke response than state a firm position. Thanks for the response.

I've outlined the purpose in more detail here:
http://the911forum.freeforums.org/wtc7-drop-calculation-from-windows-t110.html

Other related topics could include the vast disparity between the behaviour of the building and the NIST model, or determination of the physical number of column failures and the simultaneity of failures to result in such a near symmetrical descent of the fascade.

any freefall period proves zero resistance from the building.
zero resistance means zero destruction from gravity.
so, for at least 2.3 seconds, something else besides gravity was destroying the building. and, of course, the entire descent was nearly freefall, so the building offered nearly zero resistance, so gravity can only be held responsible for not leaving the disconnected bits hanging in the air..

i'm good at math where a zero is on one side of the equation.

however, i do know what the other side says. they say that only the shell of the building was in freefall, because the inside fell first, as evidenced by the penthouse's demise.
before that(in history, not the descent timeline), they said it was diesel fuel tanks that were responsible. whatever the excuse, it's always 'obvious' to debunkers.

point out that ANY freefall means ZERO building beneath, whether it's just the 'shell' or the whole building, means ZERO resistance which means the bottom was being knocked out ahead of gravity's ability to speed things earthward.

faster than freefall could only be achieved by 'pulling' the roof earthward with cables attached from ground to roof, or by putting rockets on the roof to drive the building down. i would be very surprised if the building actually managed to outpace gravity's acceleration.

newton wrote:any freefall period proves zero resistance from the building.
zero resistance means zero destruction from gravity.
so, for at least 2.3 seconds, something else besides gravity was destroying the building. and, of course, the entire descent was nearly freefall, so the building offered nearly zero resistance, so gravity can only be held responsible for not leaving the disconnected bits hanging in the air..

It's important to be as accurate as possible in this place.
The period of free-fall was 'indistinguishable from' free-fall, and certainly not a constant zero during the period.
Within a 'D' scenario, it is more likely that resistance was removed for the 7/8 floors in question almost 'instantly' (during the 'initiation' period), rather than throughout the >2s period.
The rest of the descent occurred at a staggering rate of knots, but it cannot accurately be described as 'nearly free-fall'. As the mode of destruction was the more traditional 'bottom-up' approach, the mass of the entire building gained enourmous KE during the period of I/F free-fall which, given that internal structure resistance was effectively nullified during 'initiation', means that the rest of the descent can be expected to occur 'rapidly'.

however, i do know what the other side says. they say that only the shell of the building was in freefall, because the inside fell first, as evidenced by the penthouse's demise.

Irrelevant. Even if the internal structures 'fell' 1000 years before the external shell of the building began to descend, it makes zero difference to the physics of the behaviour of the external shell itself. (And there is zero proof of total internal structure failure. Even NISTs own documentation and model animations include roughly intact 2/3 internal structure at the point of I/F free-fall beginning. A most blatant contradiction.)

faster than freefall could only be achieved by 'pulling' the roof earthward with cables attached from ground to roof, or by putting rockets on the roof to drive the building down. i would be very surprised if the building actually managed to outpace gravity's acceleration.

'Faster than free-fall' data observations can be achieved in a number of ways, including:
* 'Jolts' from internal structures already descending.
* Negative pressure, caused by rapid consumption of oxygen, creating a slight vacuum effect.
* Source video perspective and foreshortening error.

I'm not suggesting these are the actual cause, just highlighting other possibilities. I'm sure there are additional possibilities.

It important to notice that the penthouse collapsed at freefall speed, too

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JjQyXLRpULU

It's a methode using adjustments in the color levels.Very powerful tool.I was unable to identify other internal collapses then the EP collapse, of course the NIST¨s internal collapse happens between 7th and 14th floor.

The real internal collapse probably took place between the 5th (mechanical floor) and the 13th floor (SEC)......

I will not go into detail, because this is evidently of no interest to the majority of forum members (no offense here).

peterene1 wrote:I will not go into detail, because this is evidently of no interest to the majority of forum members (no offense here).

WTC 7 is the most important point of focus for all study of 9/11. Always has been, and always will be.

I would be grateful if you used this forum as the place you go into ultimate detail, if only for the minority.

Ok, I'll try to put up a small what I know list here in this week.