WTC-7 Collpased at Freefall. What Does That Mean?



The form #17 does not exist or it is not published.
WTC-7 Collpased at Freefall. What Does That Mean?

WTC-7 Collpased at Freefall. What Does That Mean?

(There are 8 articles in this section)

The collapse of WTC Building 7 represents one of the worst structural failures in modern history. The official story contends that fires weakened the structures, resulting in a gravitational collapse. The evidence, obvious to so many researchers but omitted from NIST's Final Report, supports a very different conclusion – one that points squarely to explosive controlled demolition.

If WTC 7 was intentionally brought down, then clearly it becomes a 'smoking gun" that must be investigated. Who were the terrorists that had access to this highly secure building, occupied in part by the CIA, FBI, Dept of Defense, IRS, SEC, and others, and the technology required to prepare it for demolition?

Now let us ask: Did NIST's explanation of how this initiating event led to the observed collapse of the entire building also contradict its own data? The short answer: "Yes."  For a more detailed answer, we must first assume, for the sake of argument, that column #79 buckled and that this event did lead to NIST's hypothesis for how the complete collapse of WTC 7 occurred. NIST presumed that a localized collapse of the northeast section of the building set off a progressive collapse of the core, and that this 7.6-second core collapse sequence (see NIST's time line) occurred while…
In 2008, the final report on World Trade Center Building 7 by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) abandoned two myths that the 2005 Popular Mechanics article had misleadingly presented as the foundation of the official explanation for WTC 7's destruction. The first myth it discarded was the sensational story about the non-existent 10-story gouge. The second myth was about a non-existent seven-hour-long diesel fuel fire.
The 2005 Popular Mechanics article referred to in PART 1 and PART 2 propped up NIST's myths about WTC 7 in yet other ways. It said, for instance, that NIST was continuing to investigate two possible contributing factors that may have helped the (non-existent) 10-story gouge destroy the building.The first of these two alleged contributing factors, according to PM, was the supposed ability of the trusses on Floor 5 and Floor 7 to transfer stress from the damaged south face to the rest of the building.
Considering the lack of evidence, as we outlined in Part 1, NIST's early insistence on the 10-story gouge, as dramatized in the 2005 Popular Mechanics magazine article, makes no sense, until you realize that the agency was reverse engineering its theory for the demise of Building 7. In other words, because NIST's 2004 preliminary report contended that the east penthouse could cave in (as the videos show) if column 79 were to buckle, it had to make up a story to account for the failure of that column in order to sell its theory to the scientific community and to…
In its infamous 2005 article, "Debunking the 9/11 Myths," Popular Mechanics quoted NIST director Shyam Sunder asserting that falling debris from the North Tower poked a huge "gouge" in the front of WTC 7: "The most important thing we found was that there was, in fact, physical damage to the south face of building 7." Sunder went on to say, "On about a third of the face to the center and to the bottom ― approximately 10 stories ― about 25 percent of the depth of the building was scooped out." [Emphasis added]
The United States government's official investigator of the destruction of the three skyscrapers on September 11, 2001, is the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), an arm of the Department of Commerce. The agency became highly politicized during a Clinton-era restructuring. "In essence," recalls a NIST whistleblower, "we lost our scientific independence, and became little more than 'hired guns.'"
The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) maintained in its August 2008 Final Draft Report, and the associated technical briefing, that WTC Building 7 took 40% longer to collapse than if it had been in free-fall. NIST Project Leader Shyam Sunder explained that WTC 7 could not have come down in free-fall, because there was resistance to the fall provided by the steel structure underneath. But a determined high school physics teacher in central California, David Chandler, demonstrated that NIST was using fraudulently manipulated data to try to show a slower rate of collapse. David Chandler - "There is…
Published on Feb 16, 2013 In its draft report, released in August 2008, NIST attempted to cover up evidence that WTC7 fell at free fall, but the cover-up was transparent. In its final report, released in November 2008, NIST finally acknowledged free fall, but couched it in a bizarre framework that continues to deny its clear significance. This video displays the brazenness of the NIST WTC7 cover-up. [The WTC7 series has elicited a number of questions from people unclear on the details of how I did the measurements, compared to how NIST did them and how the representatives of NIST…