The final NIST report on WTC7 concedes freefall (acceleration at 9.81 m/s^2) for ~2.25 seconds. They re-did the analysis and tracked a point midway along the roofline of the building. My analysis followed the NW corner of the building. The fact that two points so widely spaced underwent simultaneous freefall with instantaneous onset indicates that support was knocked out across a major portion, if not all, of the building for at least 8 stories. There are another 8 stories, by the way, where resistance was minimal. The velocity didn't stabilize until it was descending at ~30 m/s.
Welcome to the Forum.
I feel compelled to point out that, in NIST's actual collapse hypothesis, the support (the core) in fact was knocked out for over ten stories in the region you claim, and there was no remaining support from below at the perimeter. NIST did not require any explosives for this condition to arise.
NIST was forced to revisit the issue because their own analysis (two data points to find an average acceleration over an interval in which there was not constant acceleration) was so transparently fraudulent. No competent physicist or engineer could endorse such a procedure, and the professionals at NIST apparently agree with me. There are plenty of competent people at NIST and they seem to have triumphed over the political hacks that are running the NIST investigation (i.e. the NIST coverup).
I don't believe this is true. NIST acknowledged your observation, but that is because it appears to be correct, within the limits of experimental error. What is at issue is the
interpretation of that observation. NIST certainly does not agree with you that explosives are the only thing that could cause it, and neither do I.
Apparently I can't leave links when I'm new to the forum, and I don't plan to hang around this forum after this post, but I just wanted to point out to you guys that your argument is now not with me but with NIST.
You are required to have 15 posts before including links, however an abbreviated link is welcome in the meantime.
In any case, I disagree. What you have found is an
effect. NIST agrees with that effect. What you are now claiming instead is a
cause, but you have not demonstrated that your cause is the one and only explanation. Until you do so, our argument remains with you.
To stimulate further discussion, may I also point out that we have accepted the possibility of very high accelerations, approaching 1
g, all along. See
this thread for an example of such a discussion, concluding that the actual descent rate could indeed wind up within the margin of error of "free fall," yet have nothing whatsoever to do with explosives. I remind readers that the thread starter is under no circumstances a "government stooge" or what have you, but instead approached the problem from the opposite initial viewpoint.
Furthermore, supposing there were explosives used, one expects their placement would result in a very similar core damage sequence to the one that NIST found likely as a result of fire. This suggests that NIST and a typical CD hypothesis would be indistinguishable on the basis of a roofline velocity test. Instead we look to other tests, such as the sound and blast effect on windows, and these rule conclusively against explosives.
Feel free to propose your own hypothesis if you think you have a better one. I have yet to hear one that is even vaguely plausible.
