Why some people think 9/11 was an inside job
Comments
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
A statement that "saying fire brought down the building isn't an explanation" is misleading.
The argument that the steel in the green x area is still buckling defies the laws of physics and contradicts the observed behavior of the building.
For the building to collapse as it did on 9/11, all x spots had collapsed red and green ( fact).
One half of the building collapsed and other half still buckling, which makes no sense (remember, it's the eight-floor collapse all sides) that started the final collapse.
Freefall occurs when an object accelerates downward due to gravity alone, without any external force or support (which means no resistance, no steel supports anywhere there).
However, now it seems that you are fleeing from the Freefall discussion too that you initiated. It appears that you have changed your mind or simply do not want to engage in that conversation any longer.
0 -
-
It is difficult to imagine in your mind exactly what happened here, but I hope this crude image will provide some clarity. The event that occurred was that the entire floor system in that black box collapsed, extending from one end of the building to the other, with all corners affected. Subsequently, the upper portion of the building could no longer support itself, bottom eight floors had collapsed and rest of the building contents began pouring through the open hole at free fall.
Reality
The building scientific measurements show it happened this way, not the way NIST has it in the second image.
The sink begins at 10 seconds of the building. The collapse of the building is underway.The sink in the building can be attributed to the collapse that occurred at the bottom.
0 -
-
Advertisement
-
The collapse is now well underway, with a significant event at 11 seconds. Second building disappears from view.
At this point, the building is literally coming down way before this, and then the west side windows shatter and NIST thinks the bottom area is still buckling? Its a joke doesnt match the video.
Looking at the collapse of the roofline, you can immediately see the poor quality of the NIST model.This dip in the roofline is caused by the collapsing of eight floors.
0 -
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
We can demonstrate why the NIST theory is completely flawed by analyzing the evidence presented in the WTC7 collapse video and comparing reality to their finite collapse model for Building 7.
1) The second building on the roof is supported by the main steel core, which acts as a crucial load-bearing component. The core distributes the weight of the building evenly, reducing stress on the foundation and minimizing the risk of structural failure. First and foremost, physical video evidence provides a reliable and trustworthy account of the events that transpired.
2) Second screenshot. When the second roofline building and the front face of the building begin to drop, it indicates that the structural integrity has been compromised on the west side now.
3) In the third screenshot, we see a comparison between the second screenshot and the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) version of the same collapse. NIST has concluded that the dip observed in the second screenshot is not caused by the collapse at the bottom. Instead, they believe that it is only a stage in the process of collapse.
....................................................................................................................................................................
NIST's analysis claims in their report what you see happening here on the right side would be a freefall collapse. This statement is nonsensical and defies the laws of physics. It is equivalent to saying that when a person jumps out of an airplane and experiences freefall, they will still reach the ground at the same rate, regardless of any objects they hit along the way. Debunkers like yourself simply do not know what freefall is if you think steel colliding with steel and floors all the way down to the bottom would cause it ( dont know anything)
a scenario where steel collides with steel and floors all the way down. This statement implies that steel is not falling freely and encountering collisions with steel and floors throughout its descent.NIST is simply creating an illusion in their final report, as they have failed to demonstrate the occurrence of freefall in their modeling. Furthermore, the timing of the actual collapse does not align with their reality. It is important to take a closer look at what is happening in the first GIFs, as there is a clear sign of a significant west collapse that has already started.
0 -
32. 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 NIST ignore basic laws of physics?
In the draft WTC 7 report (released Aug. 21, 2008; available at http://www.nist.gov/el/disasterstudies/wtc/wtc_draftreports.cfm), 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 NIST NCSTAR Report 1A, Section 3.6, and detailed in NIST NCSTAR Report 1-9, Section 12.5.3.
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.
Before coming back and claiming nonsense, it is important to examine the claim made by the NIST (National Institute of Standards and Technology).
Stage 1 according to NIST
Stage 2 ( second gif) NIST is writing a whole bunch of gibberish here, and yet their modeling is showing an entirely different collapse scenario to a freefall one. Negligible support is nonsense wording too, freefall means zero support freefall refers to a situation or state where someone or something is falling freely, without any support or resistance. In mathematics, a freefall is often represented by a line dropping straight down without any other forces acting on it.. NIST clearly does not understand what freefall means, as it has claimed the presence of resistance to the collapse, even if it is only a small amount. This lack of understanding is concerning and calls into question the accuracy of NIST's conclusions regarding the 9/11 World Trade Center seven collapse. They appear to be fabricating information as they go, see very obvious to the eye lot of resistance happening on that west side ( right side)
0 -
-
-
The NIST report only focuses on what would happen on the east end of the building and does not show the same level of analysis for the floors on the west end. NIST has acknowledged the existence of Stage 2 free fall in their final report. This confession has necessitated a revision of the existing models.
Reality requires the collapse of steel columns on the east side (left side), where the penthouse collapsed. However, it is necessary for this collapse to be mirrored similarly on the west side (right side) of the building at the bottom too.
Even if you don't believe the controlled demolition hypothesis is the correct one, NIST says free fall happens.
What should happen to their models then?
What you are seeing here should have occurred across the bottom from east to west on eight floors at the bottom of seven, way earlier than they believe. NIST only shows this level of failure on the east side and then claims in stage 2 that the west part of the building (see in the first gif) is still in the process of collapse.
The bottom area highlighted in red arrows (gif one) should have already collapsed, like gif 2 earlier. However, this has not occurred in the NIST model.
How does the upper half of the collapsing structure descend through the collapsed part at the bottom at freefall?
One of the key factors contributing to the inability of the NIST building to descend in free fall during stage 2 is the presence of steel and concrete, which provide resistance. During this stage, there was a significant interaction between the falling upper floors and the bottom area of the building, as you can see in the first gif.
.Freefall here refers to a situation where the upper half of a building descends completely freely through a gap, without any resistance or support from steel columns or a floor system on those eight floors. In this particular situation, which took place over a 100-foot drop, there was no infrastructure in place to prevent the top half of the seven building from falling.
NIST has never explained the eight-floor gap at the bottom. However, there are those who believe that this gap can be attributed to controlled demolition. It is hard to explain such a significant collapse through natural means alone. Proponents of the controlled demolition theory argue that only a deliberate and controlled process could have resulted in the deliberate removal of these floors. There are much harder questions to answer about how they got into the 47-story building. With freefall and the official investigation not revealing what happened correctly, what other options remain?
Post edited by Cheerful S on0 -
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
This is not an accurate statement. While one can choose to ignore certain aspects, the undeniable fact is that freefall did occur.
This is a measurable and scientifically verified fact that has now been confirmed by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST).
In this context, the claim being made is that when a building collapsed, a significant portion of the structure was not there.
Why is there a 8-floor hole in the building at the bottom?
The presence of an 8-floor hole in the building at the bottom raises suspicions about the cause of the collapse. This detail is one of the main reasons why people look at freefall as scientific evidence for controlled demolition.
The NIST model focuses on the progressive failure of the floors, highlighting how each floor's failure contributed to the overall collapse. However, the report claims that the collapse was primarily due to the fire damage and structural damage sustained to the building.
People have pointed out an issue with the NIST model of progressive collapse, stating that it does not accurately match the sequence of collapse stages depicted in the video. This discrepancy matters greatly, as it directly impacts the timeline and the sequence of failures that should occur.
The problem is not clearly seen by most individuals. Eight floors are in the stage of collapsing before the next stages.
Does NIST think that the second building drops for no reason at all earlier on the roof? Why would it drop there was no collapse there on the right side at the bottom?
Both images are matching timelines of the collapse event.
However, what many people overlook is the presence of approximately half of the eight floors in the NIST model at the bottom that still hold, even if they are weakened. significant pressure as the building pushes down upon itself. How does the upper half of the building come through all that still holding there, at freefall, it cant. It appears that controlled demolition is very likely, based on what we see here.Go ahead got a new explanation of the freefall that matches the video.
0
