• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

WTC7, The 2.25 seconds, what caused it?

More to the point, what are you getting at?

Just answering questions, dude.


I haven't proposed any theory ever on this forum, and I never will.

Having said that, why can't I demonstrate the Government's current official conspiracy theory is very, very, very, very, very, very weak and lacks(and I'm being kind) transparency.
 
Having said that, why can't I demonstrate the Government's current official conspiracy theory is very, very, very, very, very, very weak and lacks(and I'm being kind) transparency.

No idea. Why don't you tell us. If you can't tell us then how do you know that it is weak? It is usual to end a question with a question mark. What you call the official theory fits the facts. Why is it weak? Did 19 terrorists hijack planes and fly them into buildings thus causing fires which caused the buildings to collapse? If you don't believe that story then what is your alternative story?
 
Not necessarily.

Dude, what are you getting at? Just spit it out and ask me.

What I am getting at is trying to reconcile what seem to be contradictory statements from you.

We both agree that "free-fall" is just a measurement of acceleration, yes? And that acceleration at sea level is 9.8 m/s, yes? Just now you stated that an acceleration of 9.8 m/s can be achieved in directions other than straight down and by means other than gravity in a situation of zero resistance. But earlier in this thread you had stated:

Gravity is the correct answer, as the 2.25 seconds of freefall can be under the influence of gravity only. Otherwise, it's not free fall.

And,...

Absolutely positive. Now pay attention. Read the words. Free fall, by definition, can be under the influence of gravity ONLY.

You also acknowledge that 7 World Trade Center twisted and leaned as it fell, meaning it was moving in more than one direction. Now gravity works straight down so if the building is twisting and leaning as it collapses there have to be forces other than just gravity at work, yes? There are interactions going on within the structure that are causing it to accelerate in more than one direction. Can we agree on that? That has to mean more than just gravity was impacting the velocity of the structure as it fell, so there is more than one mechanism acting resulting in the measured acceleration.

In other words, it isn't just gravity. This was a 3D event, not a simplistic 1D straight up-and-down affair.

Doesn't that rather complicate how one would interpret the disputed 2.25 seconds near the end of a 42 second collapse event?

Rather than continue I would like to stop at this point and wait for your feedback, to confirm points of agreement and where additional understanding may yet be needed - from either side.
 
Last edited:
Having said that, why can't I demonstrate the Government's current official conspiracy theory is very, very, very, very, very, very weak and lacks(and I'm being kind) transparency.

In what ways?

All you are doing so far is playing "Anomaly Hunter". And playing it badly at that.

You concentrate on a few grains of sand (the anomalies) and ignore the beach (the evidence supporting the so-called official conspiracy theory).
 
Doesn't that rather complicate how one would interpret the disputed 2.25 seconds near the end of a 42 second collapse event?

Try asking a legitimate question if you're capable. That would be one without the highlighted lies.

"disputed" - No one disputes the free fall other than you, other posters here and likely "debunking" sites.

"near the end" - No one claims the free fall occurred at any time beyond the moment the building began its descent (other than the same usual suspects).

"42 second collapse event" - No one claims the collapse took more than 6.5 seconds +/- 1.0 seconds (other than the same usual suspects). NIST claims 5.5 seconds.
 
So none of the pantomime debunkers are going to show us how this fire and column 79 caused 8 stories to give away all of it's structural integrity at exactly the same time??

Why am I not surprised? :shock:

I know, lets argue the semantics and claim that freefall is in dispute, even though this could have been mentioned within the first pages rather than 6 pages later if it was true. lol

That way, pantomime debunkers can ignore the 2.25 seconds of free fall.
 
Try asking a legitimate question if you're capable. That would be one without the highlighted lies.

"disputed" - No one disputes the free fall other than you, other posters here and likely "debunking" sites.

"near the end" - No one claims the free fall occurred at any time beyond the moment the building began its descent (other than the same usual suspects).

"42 second collapse event" - No one claims the collapse took more than 6.5 seconds +/- 1.0 seconds (other than the same usual suspects). NIST claims 5.5 seconds.

NIST claims 5.5 seconds for 18 floors.....

In the draft WTC 7 report (released Aug. 21, 2008; available at WTC Disaster Study), 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 WTC Disaster Study) and detailed in Section 12.5.3 of NIST NCSTAR 1-9 (available at WTC Disaster Study).

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


18 floors took ~5.4 seconds...

The building was 47 floors.
 
Bob, it is evidencet you REALLY haven't read the report and are simply mouthing TRUTHERISMs



Table 5–3. Timeline for major WTC 7 collapse observations
Time(s) Observations

- 3 Dust and/or smoke are observed being pushed across West Broadway from the east side of the building.
0 The east edge of the east penthouse starts to move downward; the east penthouse folds roughly 40 percent of the way across from the east edge; the two sections of the east penthouse appear to rotate into the roof, with the east section disappearing first.
0.6 Glass breaks in windows 40-44B and 40-44D; additional windows open on this floor over the next couple of seconds.
1.3 The northeast corner of the east penthouse disappears from view; evidence suggests that the east section of the east penthouse had broken into two additional pieces along an east-west line.
1.6 The southern part of the eastern section of the east penthouse disappears from view, appearing to rotate into roof about an east-west line.
1.9 A small section at the east end of the north screenwall detaches and falls away; it may have fallen through the opening in the roof created by the descending east penthouse.
2.0 The western section of the east penthouse disappears from view; it appears to rotate into the roof about a north-south line; a tear-drop shaped light variation covering several floors on the building façade begins to propagate downward on the north face; a bright area in the windows on the east side of the 46th and 47th floors is attributed to sunlight shining through the open roof.
2.0 Additional windows start to open between Columns 43 and 45 on the 40th to 45th floors.
3.4 A small piece of debris falls away from an area at the eastern end of the screenwalls.
3.8 Earliest view of a small portion of the area at the base of WTC 7 indicates that a dust cloud has already formed.
≈5 The tear drop shaped light variation on the north façade moves out of sight near the 33rd floor.
6.9 The beginning of the global collapse of WTC 7 was detected on the north face; the roofline below the east penthouse location and the eastern end of the screenwall start dropping simultaneously; the eastern end of the north wall rotates northward and a kink develops near Column 47.
8.0 Windows open over multiple floors on the west side near Column 55; the amount of damage grows rapidly; dust flows from open windows
8.3 A small object, likely part of the south wall, falls away from the east end of the screenwalls.
8.5 The east end of the screenwall disappears behind the north face parapet.
9.2 Dust begins to flow from open windows on the east side near the top of the building.
9.3 The west penthouse disappears from view below the north face parapet.
12.0 The upper portion of the building breaks up as it collapses.
13.5 The upper portion of WTC 7 disappears into a dust cloud created by the collapse
 
NIST claims 5.5 seconds for 18 floors.....

In the draft WTC 7 report (released Aug. 21, 2008; available at WTC Disaster Study), 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 WTC Disaster Study) and detailed in Section 12.5.3 of NIST NCSTAR 1-9 (available at WTC Disaster Study).

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


18 floors took ~5.4 seconds...

The building was 47 floors.
So you agree there was definitely 2.25 seconds of free fall as per NIST report??

So other than gravity causing it, what do you think initiated it?
 
What I am getting at is trying to reconcile what seem to be contradictory statements from you.

We both agree that "free-fall" is just a measurement of acceleration, yes?

No(with all due respect), I think that is an incorrect way to view it and often leads to other misunderstandings in physics. Free fall is a motion where the only force acting on it is the object’s weight. On Earth we have other forces that act upon it, such as air resistance and gravity. In the WTC7 example, it’s just gravity due to the fact the mass of the object(wtc7 structure) renders air resistance negligible. I hope I’m not confusing you more.

And that acceleration at sea level is 9.8 m/s, yes?

For the points in our discussion, yes. but remember that 9.8m/s measurement is in a vacuum, not all objects fall at 9.8 m/s on Earth.


Just now you stated that an acceleration of 9.8 m/s can be achieved in directions other than straight down and by means other than gravity in a situation of zero resistance.

Yes, (e.g. Big Giant pushing it), but this is not the case with WTC 7. NIST, nor do I, believe there was some other force besides gravity acting on it.

But earlier in this thread you had stated:



And,...

Yes, these statements are correct. I, perhaps, should have added, ‘on Earth’ to the second comment to be perfectly precise.


You also acknowledge that 7 World Trade Center twisted and leaned as it fell, meaning it was moving in more than one direction. Now gravity works straight down so if the building is twisting and leaning as it collapses there have to be forces other than just gravity at work, yes?

“Forces”, no. During the 2.25 seconds, it’s onlythe force of gravity at work causing the structure to free fall. No other force is assisting it’s free fall. Stage 1 and 3 had other forces which caused it’s motion to twist and lean a bit, as well as, impede it from achieving free fall, but none of these forces could have assisted it to reach gravitational acceleration or free fall.

There are interactions going on within the structure that are causing it to accelerate in more than one direction. Can we agree on that?

Not sure. I think this may be where we are having a misunderstanding. How are you using the word “accelerate”, are you using it as an ‘increase in speed’, or as ’changing velocity’?

That has to mean more than just gravity was impacting the velocity of the structure as it fell, so there is more than one mechanism acting resulting in the measured acceleration.

Yes and No. In stage 2, yes, more than just gravity was impacting the velocity(speed and direction of motion) of the structure, but, no, only the force of gravity was contributing to its increase of speed(magnitude of its velocity). A change in velocity is a change in speed, direction, or both. So, the structure can have two causes of change in velocity at the same time, one, a twisting affect that was caused by a force before free fall began, but not contributing to an increase in speed during free fall, and two, the force of gravity which can be both(in this case both), changing speed and direction.

 
In other words, it isn't just gravity. This was a 3D event, not a simplistic 1D straight up-and-down affair.

Doesn't that rather complicate how one would interpret the disputed 2.25 seconds near the end of a 42 second collapse event?

Perhaps an example will help. Imagine you’re on a flat planet, with the same gravity as Earth, but with no air resistance, you have a gun with it’s barrel parallel to the ground and hold another bullet in your hand at the same hieght as the bullet in the gun. If you fire the bullet in the gun while simultaneously releasing the bullet in your hand, which bullet will hit the ground first?

The bullet fired from the gun has the horizontal and the vertical motion, whereas, the bullet dropped from your hand only has the vertical motion. Why do both bullets hit the ground at the same time.

Rather than continue I would like to stop at this point and wait for your feedback, to confirm points of agreement and where additional understanding may yet be needed - from either side.

I do appreciate your manner in this post, and I apologise if I’ve been snappy towards you previously. This is the kind of dialogue I would rather carry on. You treat me with respect, and I’ll be glad to treat you with respect.
 
No(with all due respect), I think


“Forces”, no. During the 2.25 seconds, it’s onlythe force of gravity at work causing the structure to free fall. No other force is assisting it’s free fall. Stage 1 and 3 had other forces which caused it’s motion to twist and lean a bit, as well as, impede it from achieving free fall, but none of these forces could have assisted it to reach gravitational acceleration or free fall.
/


The columns and structural members coupled to the foundation lost that coupling... Was every column over 8 floors made to "disappear?" With explosive devices which could explain this? NO no evidence supporting THAT. The best fit explanation is there was structural frame distortion causing misalignment of the columns at about the 8th flr effectively rendering the floors above with nothing to resistor hold them up.
 
The columns and structural members coupled to the foundation lost that coupling... Was every column over 8 floors made to "disappear?" With explosive devices which could explain this? NO no evidence supporting THAT. .

I’m not sure I understand. Are you asking if I think explosives were used to make the eight floors disappear? If so, I don’t know, I’m making no presumptions, I’m just saying what would need to happen for this free fall to occur. I don’t know what caused the eight floors to no longer provide any measurable resistance, but if we were given the imput data used in NIST’s computer simulations, we might be able to understand how this could have occured better.



The best fit explanation is there was structural frame distortion causing misalignment of the columns at about the 8th flr effectively rendering the floors above with nothing to resistor hold them up.

Are you suggesting all the steel column splices(where two columns are connected ) broke away, more or less at the same time, allowing the above columns to shift all together off its lower supporting columns?
 
if we were given the imput data used in NIST’s computer simulations, we might be able to understand how this could have occured better.

They know how it occurred and that's why they're keeping the data classified. It's also why they didn't bother to explain the free fall.
 
They know how it occurred and that's why they're keeping the data classified. It's also why they didn't bother to explain the free fall.


Sure is odd.

For the life of me, I can't figure out how the release of the input and results files "might jeopardise public safety". NIST already explained how it occurred, so how can the input and result files jeopardise public safety any more than they already have published in their report? It's essentially, just the data after all supporting their conclusions.

Just doesn't make any sense. Stinks, actually.


Why would anyone not support the call for the release of this data?
 
For the life of me, I can't figure out how the release of the input and results files "might jeopardise public safety".

Don't be naive, that's an incredibly lame excuse. In fact, if NIST's theories are 100% correct, keeping the data unavailable is what really jeopardizes public safety.

NIST already explained how it occurred, so how can the input and result files jeopardise public safety any more than they already have published in their report? It's essentially, just the data after all supporting their conclusions.

Just doesn't make any sense. Stinks, actually.

It makes all the sense in the world for the criminal fraudsters. Either they used concocted data (we already know about some of that) or just made up the results of their alleged computer simulations. So it protects their obvious fraud.

Why would anyone not support the call for the release of this data?

Government won't because exposing the OCT as a fraud would expose its agenda under pretext of 9/11 as a fraud. Then there are the shills and the cognitive dissonant. The former defend government crimes and the latter are just too terrified. You can see the lame excuses regarding the classified 28 pages, as well as the call for a real investigation.
 
Sure is odd.

For the life of me, I can't figure out how the release of the input and results files "might jeopardise public safety". NIST already explained how it occurred, so how can the input and result files jeopardise public safety any more than they already have published in their report? It's essentially, just the data after all supporting their conclusions.

Just doesn't make any sense. Stinks, actually.


Why would anyone not support the call for the release of this data?

Why do you want the data released?

To what end?
 
Why do you want the data released?

To what end?

Thanks for the joke Maus, I usually don't respond to any of your posts but that one really made me laugh hysterically. I appreciate good humor.
 
Thanks for the joke Maus, I usually don't respond to any of your posts but that one really made me laugh hysterically. I appreciate good humor.

That is funny, almost incriminating. I should have listened to your advise about him early on. He’s not here to discuss and analyse, he's got some other agenda. Really didn’t want too, but was forced to push the ignore button, just to keep from wasting any more of my time.
 
That is funny, almost incriminating. I should have listened to your advise about him early on. He’s not here to discuss and analyse, he's got some other agenda. Really didn’t want too, but was forced to push the ignore button, just to keep from wasting any more of my time.

Not an answer.

Do you have a need to know or not?

Or is thos just another complaint about the NIST that has nothing to do with the accuracy or veracity of thw report?
 
Last edited:
Thanks for the joke Maus, I usually don't respond to any of your posts but that one really made me laugh hysterically. I appreciate good humor.

I notice you didn't respond to the collapse times posts.

Have you read the NIST?

Your posts indicate a lack of understanding.
 
I’m not sure I understand. Are you asking if I think explosives were used to make the eight floors disappear? If so, I don’t know, I’m making no presumptions, I’m just saying what would need to happen for this free fall to occur. I don’t know what caused the eight floors to no longer provide any measurable resistance, but if we were given the imput data used in NIST’s computer simulations, we might be able to understand how this could have occured better.


Are you suggesting all the steel column splices(where two columns are connected ) broke away, more or less at the same time, allowing the above columns to shift all together off its lower supporting columns?

That's not my hunch. I think the load transfer structures on flrs 5,6 & 7 fails and this pretty much involved all the support for the tower above... There weren't many columns above 7/8 which coupled to the foundation and those got pushed or pulled out of alignment... so the tower dropped from floor 8.
 
That's not my hunch. I think the load transfer structures on flrs 5,6 & 7 fails and this pretty much involved all the support for the tower above... There weren't many columns above 7/8 which coupled to the foundation and those got pushed or pulled out of alignment... so the tower dropped from floor 8.

You’ll have to excuse me, and with all due respect, I don’t have any idea what “load transfer structures" your referring to on floors 5,6,7. Could you please elaborate, and show me on the steel framing plans what your referring too? The reason I ask, is because there aren’t any “load transfer structures”, perhaps we are misunderstanding each other as to what and where these structures actually are within WTC7.

Again, with all due respect, “There weren't many columns above 7/8 which coupled to the foundation” and "tower dropped from floor 8” is not only incorrect according to the steel framing plans, but doesn’t reflect NIST’s simulations and report.


Before we carry on, please answer a few questions so we can get on the same page.


First, could you tell me how many of the "columns above 7/8” weren’t "coupled to the foundation”?


Second, by “coupled”, I am presuming you mean, supported directly by the foundation. Is this correct?


Third, is this your hypothesis or NIST’s hypothesis? If it’s NIST’s hypothesis, could you please show me where NIST hypothesized the “tower dropped from floor 8”?


 
Back
Top Bottom