Jones Beene wrote: > Much was made by NIST in the televised Public Relations extravaganza > back in August about the "fact" that they had debunked the freefall > "theory"... as it was only a theory anyway - and not based on "real > science". > > Essentially NIST had to say this - and very firmly- from the start of > their presentation - as even NIST and everyone else agrees that > "freefall" indicates controlled demolition and ONLY controlled demolition.
Have you attempted to estimate the difference between pancake collapse and freefall? With very little work it becomes clear that after the collapse starts, the time required to break support columns *must* be insignificant -- either the building collapses at (nearly) free-fall speed, with supports breaking as the shock waves travel through them, or it doesn't collapse. *Any* "hesitation" during collapse is going to translate into the collapse ceasing. WTC1 and WTC2 sure looked like they collapsed from the top down, with a large "blob" of floors initiating the collapse by falling onto the floor below. Those buildings should have -- and did -- collapse at free-fall speeds, regardless of whether anyone "blew the bottom out" to start with. But, again, they collapsed TOP-DOWN, as every video shows. Whether any of my comments apply to WTC7 is not clear, as its collapse looked rather different on video. In any case, there is something which *could* retard the collapse: The building was full of air. It takes time to push the air out, and that can slow the collapse. However, the "air cushion" is the same regardless of whether you're talking about controlled demo or collapse due to any other cause; thermite doesn't push the air out. > Freefall is not possible under any other scenario, This has been asserted many times since 9/11. However, it's not true. As I said, pancake collapse from the top down will result in (nearly) free-fall collapse speeds -- so fast that it will look like free-fall on video. It's simple conservation of momentum which assures this: The extra mass "picked up" at each new floor makes an insignificant difference in the speed of the falling "bolus" after it's accumulated a few floors. > such as their proposed > 'gradually-weakening' computer simulation. They had to make the strong > case for NO freefall. > > As it turns out, today we learn that they are playing the American > public for fools - once again - with more of the same Bush-league > anti-science propaganda, thinly disguised. > > The timing study was redone by the original scientist, this time using > NIST numbers and the identical video, and guess what - freefall indeed ! > > It turns out, NIST had tried to sneak in an "average" of the complete > collapse [down to ground level] time frame - as disproving the very > significant 3 seconds of absolute freefall of the top 29 floors - which > is all that can be seen in the video to begin with. > > What were they [NIST] thinking? That everyone would fold up tents and go > home, following the powerful "take-away" message from NIST that there > was no freefall ! - and then everything would be hunky-dory thereafter? > > This all important 3 seconds can only happen with controlled demolition. > Period. > > This is damning, and may be evidence of criminal conduct on the part of > the top officials at NIST. > > http://utube.smashits.com/video/gC44L0-2zL8/WTC7-in-Freefall.html
