The virtually free fall speed

[TJM]

Yup.


That would be WTC 7 falling into it's own footprint while heading for Vessey Street.

And that would be WTC 7 on Vessey and WTC 6.

 

[jaydeehess]

Shows pretty clearly that a large part of WTC 7 fell to the south towards #6

 

[triforcharity]

I will agree. Thanks for the pics gentleman!!

 

[jaydeehess]

I will agree. Thanks for the pics gentleman!!

You are welcome of course.

I've seen no hard evidence that it did otherwise. I've seen no videos of WTC 7 falling on other buildings, .damage.

One wonders if still photos count for tempestua

 

[TJM]

[qimg]http://curezone.com/upload/_C_Forums/Conspiracy/13.jpg[/qimg]

Shows pretty clearly that a large part of WTC 7 fell to the south towards #6

Probably a chunk of WTC 7 right there.

 

[jaydeehess]

Could be, hard to tell. Check out the WTC tower debris just to the right of the number 5 in "WTC 5".

There is another picture I have seen, but cannot find at this time, taken from the north east, that shows parts of WTC 7 draped up the north side of WTC 6.
It would be pretty much the opposite angle as this

 

[TJM]

Upon Further Review

Deleted. Not so sure now.

 

[GrimFandango]

It's On

Wonderful.

Here is another tidbit of info you missed.

Well, get on it!!

The ENTIRE building did not fall at FFA. This is a lie.
Only a PORTION of the North Face did.
About 1/3rd the way down the page.

I never said it fell 100% at free fall, I quoted NIST’s report that 105 feet, or 8 stories of the total 47 stories collapsed at pure free fall – that’s 20% of the building’s height that fell at the speed of an object dropped over the side of a building and falling through nothing but air!

And the reality of this admission by NIST is – it is a physical impossibility for 8 massive football field sized floors of a steel framed structure to drop 105 feet at pure free fall – that is, without some well placed and synchronized cutter charges.

And yet, not a single one of them has published a paper proving NIST wrong with math, or physics, or anything.
Yes, I am asking for a paper that is published in something other than bentham, or JONES.

The papers published by the government drones are mostly fluff, with contradictory nonsense pumped up with helium to appear scientific, and appear to prove something, which they do not. The bottom line of all of these wonderful papers is, "a Global Collapse ensued" - great stuff!

They do not prove how diesel and office contents fire can produce molten steel, which was reported by numerous first responders and reporters on the scene, as steel needs 1000 degrees greater temperature than the temperatures that NIST has admitted were present – NIST accounts for this temperature discrepancy by denying the numerous reports of molten steel, to wit: – John Gross and his disingenuous statements that “I never heard of anyone mentioning molten steel”. What a bald faced liar – there are numerous written and recorded report of exactly that – molten steel in the basements of all 3 towers.

And they do not prove how the admitted free fall of WTC7 could have happened, because they would have to re-write Newton's Laws first, and then make up some nonsensical new theory, like their quietly retired "Thermal Expansion" theory... or their "Pancake Theory"... remember those knee-slappers?.

What building collapse was symmetrical?

Are you serious? Do you know what symmetrical means?
All 3 “collapses” were symmetrical. It almost makes some sense with WTC1 and WTC2, as the buildings were in themselves, symmetrical, or square, lending themselves to a symmetrical failure.

But WTC7 was asymmetrical, a trapezoid of 330 feet on the long side, and 140 feet on the 2 short sides. For this asymmetrical structure to collapse symmetrically calls for a failure of all steel columns, simultaneously, or it would have crumbled on edge, and then fallen horizontally – which by the way NIST actually called the collapse a horizontal collapse, when all videos show a vertical collapse, straight down, not side to side.

Which yeilded more energy than thermite of any flavor does.

What types of chemicals were used is open to discussion, there may have been a new unknown chemical used along with some conventional stuff – if it’s the government, they have access to military inventions that we find out about 10 years after they have already used them. However, protected samples of WTC dust have been analyzed to contain unreacted Nano Thermite, a compound of extreme velocity and heat, and available only from government labs.

Didn't fall straight at all. Hit two other buildings.

It fell as straight down as the very best of controlled demolitions that have ever been performed. It did not hit “two of the buildings”, the Verizon Building on its West side, and the US Post Office building on its East side incurred only very minor cosmetic damage, mostly from the debris from WTC1, and are still in use today after minor repairs. The 47 story WTC7 was reduced to a 3 story heap in 7 short seconds, 20% of which were actual free fall

No aircraft, correct. However, the fires that burned more than 3.5 times the rating of the SFRM. It also showed signs of structural instability earlier in the day.

The fires moved from fuel source to fuel source, burning themselves out as they moved to other areas, Once the fire moves on, the steel returns to normal temperatures rapidly, as steel is an excellent conductor of heat. No fire burned in one spot long enough to elevate the steel to anywhere near failure mode.

Well, get on it!!

It’s on, baby

 

[AZCat]

The fires moved from fuel source to fuel source, burning themselves out as they moved to other areas, Once the fire moves on, the steel returns to normal temperatures rapidly, as steel is an excellent conductor of heat. No fire burned in one spot long enough to elevate the steel to anywhere near failure mode.

Really? I'd love to see some calcs to back up this claim.

 

[GrimFandango]

Probably a chunk of WTC 7 right there.

That's a chunk of WTC1

And please notice, that even though WTC5 stood even closer to the collapse of WTC1 that WTC7 did, it did not collapse. There is a massive hole in the middle, but the side walls are still intact, all the way to the roof.

Unlike the tragic, ill-fated, over-insured WTC7, which completely collapsed from 47 to 3 stories in 7 seconds.

 

[TJM]

The ENTIRE building did not fall at FFA. This is a lie.
Only a PORTION of the North Face did.
About 1/3rd the way down the page.

I never said it fell 100% at free fall, I quoted NIST’s report that 105 feet, or 8 stories of the total 47 stories collapsed at pure free fall – that’s 20% of the building’s height that fell at the speed of an object dropped over the side of a building and falling through nothing but air!

No, but you implied it and triforcharity corrected you on it. You'll have to do better than word games here. And it seems that the height grew 3% from last night. Have you found new data?

As you can see, NIST has admitted to real, honest to goodness free fall of the massive WTC7 to the tune of 8 full stories, an incredible amount equal to over 17% of the total height of the 47 story structure. You can read it for yourself at - whoops I can't post links yet, training wheels and all that, maybe you can Google NCSTAR1 1-9 Vol 2.pdf

 

[GrimFandango]

Really? I'd love to see some calcs to back up this claim.

Me too, I just love to get into a debate over mathematical calculations.

But hey, what about that free fall thingie?

1/5 of the building falling as fast as a bowling ball dropped out of a Cessna?

I know you wish you could continue to deny that physically impossible fact. It's just not fair that NIST was forced to admit it, right there in their NCSTAR1 Report.

 

[TJM]

That's a chunk of WTC1

Likely true.

And please notice, that even though WTC5 stood even closer to the collapse of WTC1 that WTC7 did, it did not collapse. There is a massive hole in the middle, but the side walls are still intact, all the way to the roof.

And the part of the building that used to occupy that "massive hole in the middle" went... where did it go?

Unlike the tragic, ill-fated, over-insured WTC7, which completely collapsed from 47 to 3 stories in 7 seconds.

More like 14 to 18 seconds, depending on the source.

 

[GrimFandango]

No, but you implied it and triforcharity corrected you on it. You'll have to do better than word games here. And it seems that the height grew 3% from last night. Have you found new data?

Sorry, but I never implied it.

And the 3% discrepancy? NIST has used generalities to describe this event, so I take a wee bit of license from them.

I know, let's say it was 15%, just for fun... How do you explain 15% of this massive building falling at absolute free fall speed?

 

[NYCEMT86]

<Snip>

The fires moved from fuel source to fuel source, burning themselves out as they moved to other areas, Once the fire moves on, the steel returns to normal temperatures rapidly, as steel is an excellent conductor of heat. No fire burned in one spot long enough to elevate the steel to anywhere near failure mode.

The only thing you got right in that entire statement is highlighted.


Lets the rest of it down.


You seem to believe that the only form of heat transfer that can occur in a fire is direct contact, when in fact you will find conduction, convection, and radiation. All of which can raise the temperature of steel. As the fire spreads to one source of fuel to another, this will produce superheated gases that will eventually build up in a improperly ventilated room and cause a flashover or backdraft (but in the case of the WTC, most likely flashover). You can have an entire room on fire in the matter of minutes and raise the air temperature to 1000*F easily.


What is normal temperatures you are referring to? Room temperature? Because once this steel cools after being heated, it will NOT retain its original strength. Not only does the steel member expand, it also weakens welds and bolts to the point of failure.

 

[TJM]

Sorry, but I never implied it.

The quote function is a beautiful thing.

And the 3% discrepancy? NIST has used generalities to describe this event, so I take a wee bit of license from them.

More likely you're just indulging in a bit of hyperbole.

I know, let's say it was 15%, just for fun... How do you explain 15% of this massive building falling at absolute free fall speed?

It's in the nist report that you mentioned in your first post. Surely you've read it?

 

[AZCat]

Me too, I just love to get into a debate over mathematical calculations.

So where are your calculations? Please post them. And your assumptions - we'd be lost without them.

 

[GrimFandango]

It's in the nist report that you mentioned in your first post. Surely you've read it?

Yes I have, and they do not explain how it achieved the impossible free fall speed - through the path of greatest resistance. They just grudgingly admit that it did, for 108 feet, fall at free fall speed, the speed of an object falling through the path of least... wait - NO resistance, but the atmosphere.

 

[GrimFandango]

The only thing you got right in that entire statement is highlighted.


Lets the rest of it down.


You seem to believe that the only form of heat transfer that can occur in a fire is direct contact, when in fact you will find conduction, convection, and radiation. All of which can raise the temperature of steel. As the fire spreads to one source of fuel to another, this will produce superheated gases that will eventually build up in a improperly ventilated room and cause a flashover or backdraft (but in the case of the WTC, most likely flashover). You can have an entire room on fire in the matter of minutes and raise the air temperature to 1000*F easily.


What is normal temperatures you are referring to? Room temperature? Because once this steel cools after being heated, it will NOT retain its original strength. Not only does the steel member expand, it also weakens welds and bolts to the point of failure.

1000 degrees? I'll accept that. But for a short period of time, you must admit that. Fires are very stubborn things, and they simply refuse to burn when the fuel source has been consumed. And the fuel source in the upper floors of WTC7 was office contents - desks, chairs, carpet, paper.

And brief periods of 1000 degree F heat is not sufficient to compromise the massive steel beams to failure mode. Again I call your attention to the properties of steel, which wicks heat away from the fire and dissipates it all directions through out the structure. Many other much hotter and longer burning high rise fires have not resulted in the catastrophic collapse as WTC7.

Sorry I can't post some of my tasty comparison photos, but I'm a newbie

 

[GrimFandango]

So where are your calculations? Please post them. And your assumptions - we'd be lost without them.

Selective quoting is your game, eh?

You conveniently missed the rest of my retort:

"But hey, what about that free fall thingie?

1/5 of the building falling as fast as a bowling ball dropped out of a Cessna?

I know you wish you could continue to deny that physically impossible fact. It's just not fair that NIST was forced to admit it, right there in their NCSTAR1 Report."

So, what about it?