9-11

[SWP's back]

It would be impossible for the columns just to buckle. Only way this can occur if they are made of brittle material. If the columns could not provide enough support for the load on top, we would see this as gradual collapse. The building would start to fall and possible pick up speed. Never should it reach free fall. The floors below still have structural integrity and they would provide resistance slowing the rest down. Free fall implies the support provided by the columns was removed instantaneously (close) and not gradually.

WTC 1 and 2 were never in a state of free fall

Who the fuck is saying they were? WTC7 is in question.

The whole fall took 15 seconds with 2.25 seconds of freefall

 

[BulgarianPride]

WTC 1 and 2 were never in a state of free fall

Who the fuck is saying they were? WTC7 is in question.

The whole fall took 15 seconds with 2.25 seconds of freefall

Please point to link of how this data was gathered.

 

[Banned Tosspot]

<a class="postlink" href="http://www.debunking911.com/pull.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.debunking911.com/pull.htm</a>

 

[SWP's back]

Who the fuck is saying they were? WTC7 is in question.

The whole fall took 15 seconds with 2.25 seconds of freefall

Please point to link of how this data was gathered.

Earlier in the thread

 

[THEBLUEDONKEY]

It would be impossible for the columns just to buckle. Only way this can occur if they are made of brittle material. If the columns could not provide enough support for the load on top, we would see this as gradual collapse. The building would start to fall and possible pick up speed. Never should it reach free fall. The floors below still have structural integrity and they would provide resistance slowing the rest down. Free fall implies the support provided by the columns was removed instantaneously (close) and not gradually.

WTC 1 and 2 were never in a state of free fall

Who the fuck is saying they were? WTC7 is in question.

I hear what you are saying but its not true to say that it would be impossible for them to buckle, unlikely but not impossible, the NIST breakdown shows thus

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

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.

My point though is, even if the building did hit freefall what does that actually prove in terms of conspiracy, inside job etc ?

 

[i kne albert davy]

At no point should a building lose its complete integrity unless its support columns were blown out. Basically "dropped" in the air. The fire can not remove all the support provided by the structure. The collapse should of been gradually, with increasing velocity but unable to reach free fall. Free fall implies it falls the at the accelerating of gravity. How would this occur?

Was this period of freefall not put down to the theory that the support columns had buckled to the point they no longer provided the support for the structure above ?

It would be impossible for the columns just to buckle. Only way this can occur if they are made of brittle material. If the columns could not provide enough support for the load on top, we would see this as gradual collapse. The building would start to fall and possible pick up speed. Never should it reach free fall. The floors below still have structural integrity and they would provide resistance slowing the rest down. Free fall implies the support provided by the columns was removed instantaneously (close) and not gradually.

Brittle materials snap mate red hot RSJ's buckle believe me.

 

[bluemanc]

RIP the innocent victims of the terrorists.

 

[BulgarianPride]

WTC 1 and 2 were never in a state of free fall

Who the fuck is saying they were? WTC7 is in question.

I hear what you are saying but its not true to say that it would be impossible for them to buckle, unlikely but not impossible, the NIST breakdown shows thus

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

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.

My point though is, even if the building did hit freefall what does that actually prove in terms of conspiracy, inside job etc ?

But NIST models have been shown to not match the data. Watch them videos. It is a very solid explanation, and he is using science.

It would imply something external, other than fires, was the cause of the collapse.

 

[THEBLUEDONKEY]

Who the fuck is saying they were? WTC7 is in question.

I hear what you are saying but its not true to say that it would be impossible for them to buckle, unlikely but not impossible, the NIST breakdown shows thus

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

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.

My point though is, even if the building did hit freefall what does that actually prove in terms of conspiracy, inside job etc ?

But NIST models have been shown to not match the data. Watch them videos. It is a very solid explanation, and he is using science.

It would imply something external, other than fires, was the cause of the collapse.

By what kind or margins does the NIST models not match the data ? And also what data are you comparing the models? video footage ? If so how are you accounting for the numbers of variables present when using video footage? Also even if NIST are proved to have made mistakes in what way does that prove that outside factors must have been present ? All it is proof of is that a perfect model does not exist to explain in exacting detail the exact global collapse of WTC 7 or at least NIST did not find one

 

[Skashion]

By what kind or margins does the NIST models not match the data ? And also what data are you comparing the models? video footage ? If so how are you accounting for the numbers of variables present when using video footage? Also even if NIST are proved to have made mistakes in what way does that prove that outside factors must have been present ? All it is proof of is that a perfect model does not exist to explain in exacting detail the exact global collapse of WTC 7 or at least NIST did not find one

Why is the prospect of twenty-five minutes worth of videos so deeply uninviting and yet posting questions, already answered, so enticing? One would think you are merely posting to put forward the impression to the more ignorant observer that you're making a refutation but you are not doing.