Building 7 freefall is a smoking gun, the cherry on top of hundreds of suspicious circumstances. Good post.

What do we do with this information?

I think some folks want a new investigation.

NIST also deliberately produced a fraudulent research, they state that the visible 18 stories feel at 5.4s because they chose a fictitious starting time on purpose while the correct analysis leaves no doubt that those same stories fell in 3.9s; literally pure free-fall

A better insight for those of you that are confused about this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DPwwcXF_V0c&t=4536

EDIT: Wow, look at the people that have 0 grasp on what perspective induced error means downvoting this.

A fictitious starting time? Ironically, the video you show is the edited version which ignores the collapse starting before what most 9/11 theorists claim. Ironic disinfo claims are ironic. It's extremely obvious in this video that the collapse starting long before any of the time measurements made by conspiracy theorists.

According to the description that NIST gives, they calculated the collapse time of the 18 visible stories from the moment that the roofline starts descending until it disappears.

As the video I linked clearly shows, the bowing is not present in the horizontal view (at least not as downardas as the other perspective looks like) thus it is not part of the moment that the roofline starts descending until it disappears. If you don't understand this then you should learn how perspective works and how sometimes it leads you into error.

The 18 stories collapsed in 3.9s, period. Your "disinfo" attempt at shifting what NIST itself even stated as their measurement parameters is pathetic at best.

EDIT: So that you understand better how ignorant your argument is, you are talking about the start of the building collapse, which we will agree that it started moments before the east penthouse collapse. What I am talking here and what I addressed about NIST was their measurement of time that it took for the 18 floors to collapse from the moment the roofline started descending until it disappeared. This is not what you addressed and you would do well to correct it.

You're partially correct, I thought you were claiming, as many do, the free fall relevant to the universal collapse. However, those 18 stories still took 5,4 seconds to fall, not the 3.9 you falsely claim. This Is blatantly obvious from any video you watch, edited or otherwise.

free fall relevant to the universal collapse

You have yourself acknowledged freefall, not that it is any longer in any sort of dispute, but i fail to see how you can even argue the point any longer, you either have a tenuous grasp on the most basic of scientific principles or have an agenda, probably the latter, as you are coming out with constant falsehoods and outright lies in most of your posts.

You have already discredited yourself numerous times, i doubt anyone is taking you seriously any more.

I have never discredited myself. Only your failed attempts to do so. Here is a very clear example of my point.

Additionally, you ignored what I said In my comment. Even if you were correct, which you clearly are not, how were the supposed charges set off invisibly and silently?

Additionally, you ignored what I said In my comment

No i did not, i will post it again for you, why don't you answer the question?

You are clearly wrong as explained here for you, however lets ignore the times for just a moment, just for the sake of argument.

Freefall actually happened, this is scientific fact, how then do you explain the structure falling through the path of most resistance at the speed of gravity?

how were the supposed charges set off invisibly and silently

I never said they used charges, you did, they did find active thermitic material in the dust, this is well documented and should have been fully investigated, NIST didn't bother.

So any new investigation should focus on that and the eyewitness and video evidence of explosions throughout the day.

Again, wrong on multiple points. First, thermitic charges are extremely loud and bright and would have been incredibly obvious. Second, only a single reviewed paper found anything remotely close to 'thermite ' in the dust, and they found it in a very common form in very small amounts, and the paper was posted on a completely bunk review site.

I am not wrong, it is well documented, The authors of the peer-reviewed Active Thermitic Materials paper, which documents the discovery of said materials, but lets ignore that for now.

Can you explain the extreme temperatures at all three demolition sites, the molten steel and concrete, how do you explain this away?

No, it has not been peer reviewed. Bentham Science is a bunk site, as I stated earlier. It is infamous for publishing fake papers on subjects like phrenology, and "peer reviewing" randomly generated papers as well. Their own editor-in-chief quit after the publishing of the Thermitic Materials Paper because it was nonsense and she wasn't willing to be associated with a company that lied so blatantly and without her consent.

So no, the paper is not peer reviewed, at least not by any with the tiniest modicum of a positive reputation.

As for molten metal, aluminum melts at 400 degrees, concrete spalls at 400-500, and then we have this comment from a physicist:

This, by the way, is a place where Jim Hoffman makes a serious mistake; in his paper on the dust butt, he fails to note that he has to ADD THE HEAT BACK IN when he’s totaling things up at the end. This is a violation of conservation of energy, the First Law of Thermodynamics (and a foundational law of physics). The energy dissipated during the fall is about 250 or 300 GJ, and the leftover energy at impact is about 600 GJ. So it’s about a quarter kiloton of TNT for the North tower and about a fifth of a kiloton for the South tower; that’s still a hell of a lot of energy, more than sufficient to liquefy a pretty healthy chunk of steel, and it doesn’t change the fact that there’s a lot more energy in the office contents.

So that was easy.

Absolutely pathetic

Thanks for responding to my points in an intelligent manner. Oh. Right. Instead, you stuck to a snarky remark.

Thanks for responding to my points in an intelligent manner.

Likewise

Not really, no.

Exactly, everything you have come out with has been nonsense, nothing based on scientific evidence, that is freely available to you and you can not even begin to contemplate that NIST has been involved in a massive cover up, there are thousands of inconsistencies, falsehoods and plain incompetence in the report.

It is all starting to unravel.

You're still avoiding responding to my points and sticking to insults. Jesus, is anyone here capable of having a conversation without being condescending?

It is not an argument if you are coming out with constant lies.

Literally none of my comment was a lie.

Ok

Nice retort! Thanks for the intelligent conversation!

Ok, don't get mad, it's just the internet, go away from the keyboard for a bit and calm down.

Where did I give the impression I was upset? You continue with condescension.

exclamation point is a punctuation mark usually used after an interjection or exclamation to indicate strong feelings or high volume (shouting), and often marks the end of a sentence

As i said, go clam down and maybe make a snack and watch some TV for a bit, you are getting worked up unnecessarily.

I'm still not worked up, and you're still condescending. Did you not learn your manners as a child?

Ok, probably just your vocabulary that was lacking then, that actually makes more sense, have a good day.

Cute! Another personal attack. Really shows your intelligence, eh? You practically ooze condescension. I hope you don't have a particularly nice day, because you're not a particularly nice person. Auf wie.

Freefall actually happened, this is scientific fact, how then do you explain the structure falling through the path of most resistance at the speed of gravity?

Now answer that question, you have ignored this multiple times now.

No I haven't. As I showed you very clearly in the video I posted here, you have to take into account the initial buckling as part of the fall, as that is the time period in which the supports at the bottom of the building are giving way, which is exactly what NIST claims.

For the sake of argument, i said don't bother with times, so you still have not even come close to giving any reasonable answer to explain freefall, you can not quote NIST's research as they have not made it public and has been shown to be false.

However, those 18 stories still took 5,4 seconds to fall, not the 3.9 you falsely claim. This Is blatantly obvious from any video you watch, edited or otherwise.

It took 3.9s, if you argue this you have no understanding of how to correctly measure vertical changes.

In the video that I just linked, he literally starts the clock for 5.4s backwards. This means that from the moment the 18 stories disappeared the clock is 5.4s, he then reverses the video and the clock keeps counting 1.5s AFTER the building was already standing still.

Warning, do not get mixed up with the "visible 18 stories" reference, as the one NIST used only shows 18 stories, and the correct vantage point David uses shows more than 18 stories.

I am not just partially correct, I am absolutely correct. The 18 stories collapsed in 3.9s and anyone can verify this by measuring the video with the correct vantage point for vertical changes measures which is an horizontal view.

No. Nist measured until the north face was out of frame. In his example, the north face was clearly still in frame at his false mark. You can still see a significant portion of the face when he stops the clock.

No. Nist measured until the north face was out of frame. In his example, the north face was clearly still in frame at his false mark. You can still see a significant portion of the face when he stops the clock.

I clearly said:

Warning, do not get mixed up with the "visible 18 stories" reference, as the one NIST used only shows 18 stories, and the correct vantage point David uses shows more than 18 stories.

Your reply clearly shows that you have decided to be willfully ignorant. This discussion was over before it began, you should stop now.

Not to mention, on top of all your nonsense, it doesn't matter anyway, because there is no evidence, free fall or not, of any form of demolition on the support columns in the north face. If there was any, it would be incredibly obvious and visible.

Not to mention, on top of all your nonsense, it doesn't matter anyway, because there is no evidence, free fall or not, of any form of demolition on the support columns in the north face. If there was any, it would be incredibly obvious and visible.

First you attack my argument with an ignorant comment, to which I addressed and proved to you how wrong you were. You have still yet to correct your mistake.

Then you insist that the 18 visible stories collapsed in 5.4s after I clearly posted a video section explaining how incorrect that measurement is.

Then I explain to you that the correct form of measurement for vertical changes is an horizontal view, not from below like NIST did, to which I clearly warn about David's video showing more than 18 stories (which I shouldn't explain, but apparently there are people that are simply too limited to understand, like you) which you still ignored and even attacked that point as your pathetic debunking statement.

Now, after being proved wrong and incorrect at every turn, you claim that all I said is nonsense and it doesn't matter because there is no evidence.

Well, there is, any person with a drop of common sense will know that the pure free-fall collapse is itself evidence of a demolition. Your argument that "it would be incredibly obvious and visible" is the most ignorant points any debunker can use to disprove anything;

• One, being the fact that to expect criminals to not be carefull to make it look like a collapse instead of a demolition (including making the charges make less noise) is just ludacris ludicrous and plain ignorant. Any criminal will always try to make his crime not look like a crime, at least a crime that will not point the fingers at him.

• Two, despite the evident caught explosion sound before of the east penthouse collapse (which is an explosion since the rest of the building collapse hardly produced any sound at all), all of the WTC7 recordings are far from the building and even blocked by other buildings, GREATLY REDUCING any further explosion sounds that came from the building especially when we take into account the city noise present in that day, cars wailing and so on.

Just because you believe in fantasy doesn't make it true, it just means that you think science is the same as religion. We, however, use facts, correct studies and evidence to make our points.

Two, despite the evident caught explosion sound before of the east penthouse collapse[1]

That tiny thing? Hahaha you call me incompetent and insult my intelligence, yet you claim that was even close to the volume of explosives used in demolition? Ignoring the fact that it fell from the bottom, not the top. Ignoring the fact that it fell as one piece without any visibly obvious explosions on the outer columns. Ignoring the fact that there was no chain of equally loud explosions. These are all things present at REAL demolitions. I encourage you to watch one some time.

to expect criminals to not be carefull to make it look like a collapse instead of a demolition

This is not an excuse. Thermite or no thermite, explosive charges or no explosive charges, there are NO VISIBLE DETONATIONS on the exterior face of WTC7. How do you destroy these supports? Invisible bombs? Magic? Thermite is both incredibly bright and incredibly loud, so that theory is immediately out the window. Detonation charges are the same way (not to mention the buildings collapse looks nothing like a conventional demolition), so that theory is also out.

What does that leave? Oh. Right. The collapse of the supports due to weakening by fire, followed by the progressive collapse of the building.

Every reply you made in this discussion has been an escalation of sadness. You have no grasp on how to argument your points, you state your mistakes as facts and you keep jumping around your delusion as if repeating it many times over will make me believe in it.

You are like a broken recorder repeating what NIST wrote without even understanding what those words mean. Keep being you, this discussion was over a long time ago.

Cute. You're unwilling to hold up your side of the debate, so you decide you've won. Funny how this happens every time you fail to argue these same point, and ignore and side-step around mine.

[deleted]

Cease your insults at once, I'm tired of it.

Then you insist that the 18 visible stories collapsed in 5.4s after I clearly posted a video section explaining how incorrect that measurement is.

Then you insist that the 18 visible stories collapsed in 3.9 seconds after I clearly posted a video section explaining how incorrect that measurement is.

Why did you reply 3 times to this comment? And just how retarded are you after it clearly shows that the BOWING DOES NOT OCCUR DOWNWARDS BUT INSTEAD SIDEWAYS THUS IT IS NOT PART OF THE FALL AT ALL?

Just stop, I can only handle so much stupidity in one day. If you want to be a complete ignorant then so be it, just stop trying to spread your completely flawed and delusional views, there are other people that actually don't ignore facts and don't believe in fantasies.

It doesn't matter what direction the bloody bowing is. If a building begins bowing, it means it's structural support is collapsing. The direction is merely an indication of what supports are failing. In this case, we already know that the core of the building has long started collapsing, so the bowing of the north face, sideways, down, or otherwise, is clearly the initial stages of its fall.

And you CONTINUE to ignore every other point I've made.

And you CONTINUE with personal attacks, which CONTINUES to undermine any sort of respect I, or any reading this, may have for you.

[deleted]

Wow, you sure get angry easily. You might want to calm down, dude. It's a conversation on the internet and you clearly have anger issues. You can't even address any of the other points I made. Are you afraid or incapable? Who knows. Stick to the personal insults though; they make you look very professional and intelligent.

[deleted]

Yes, yes. I already read that. I decided not to take advice from someone who clearly has anger issues and is incapable of responding fully to the comments I've made.

Again, though, you should really stop with the personal attacks. They're not very flattering of your personality.

[deleted]

I think your keyboard is broken. You keep accidentally copy-pasting the same insult over and over again. At least, I hope it's that, because we both know you're nice and polite and would never do that on purpose, would you?

[deleted]

Ooh. Bold. Fancy. You know, instead of all this nonsense that makes you seem like a child throwing a fit, you could A) stop replying with the same canned response and personal attack, or B) actually address the many points I made that you continue to ignore.

[deleted]

Please stop spamming this comment repeatedly. It's against the rules of this site, and it's rather unbecoming of you.

[deleted]

Well, this will be an interesting test to see how competent the mods are. Peace.

Then I explain to you that the correct form of measurement for vertical changes is an horizontal view, not from below like NIST did

Again, though. This is irrelevant. First, you do not have to look at something directly to judge the speed of collapse. Things fall at the same speed no matter the angle. Second, they started their measurement at the wrong time, as I showed you. Third, the universal collapse of the building took more than 16 seconds. No matter how you slice it, the primary collapse was nowhere near free fall except for a very small period of time, and again, this is explained.

[deleted]

Ooh, personal attacks! Usually when one resorts to personal attacks, it's because they are incapable of continuing the argument. Thank you for wasting my time and ignoring everything I've said. You have once again proved yourself to be unable to have a proper discussion without resorting to an ad hominem.

[deleted]

Cease your personal insults at once, I am tired of this.

And stop replying multiple times to the same comment, that is annoying and retarded as fuck.

Poor you. I couldn't edit for some reason, so I made another post. Get over it.

I'm not kidding. One more violation and I'll have to ban you. Enough is enough.

Please refrain from making personal attacks. You have been warned.

Freefall is direct evidence of a controlled demolition, what part of that do you not understand? This is well understood basic science, to try brush off a freefall event on a skyscraper as some sort of non event is, at best, academically incompetent.

No it isn't. There is only a single thing it is scientifically evidence of; during those 2.25 seconds, there was no support. This is easily explained as the supports in the bottom of the building having just given way. As the buildings collapse reaches the supports that have yet to collapse, it begins to slow down, further showing my point.

there was no support. This is easily explained as the supports in the bottom of the building having just given way.

Explain what you are going on about, how is this even possible? How did all the supports just give way at the very bottom of the building, all at once to to small office fires, that were not even mention on the bottom floors, even by NIST.

explain how a localized slump and collapse manages to take out ALL the core columns and ALL the perimeter columns simultaneously across the whole building.

not possible, WTC7 should have caved in and tilted over then collapsed.

You are clearly wrong as explained here for you, however lets ignore the times for just a moment, just for the sake of argument.

Freefall actually happened, this is scientific fact, how then do you explain the structure falling through the path of most resistance at the speed of gravity?

The same way NIST does, and the way generally deemed correct by scientific consensus. The core of the building had already begun collapsing, as evidenced in the video by the complete inward collapse of the penthouses. The only section that ever briefly fell at free fall was the outer section of the building, the "tube", as it had no physical support whatsoever.

and the way generally deemed correct by scientific consensus

This is a complete lie and you know it, NIST have refused to release their data models, so what scientific consensus are you referring to? Nobody outside of NIST has seen the data, it is not peer reviewed.

The only section that ever briefly fell at free fall was the outer section of the building, the "tube", as it had no physical support whatsoever

This makes absolutely no sense at all, you are literally ignoring the fundamentals of basic science, regardless, how do you explain every single exterior column failing within a fraction of a second of each other?

This makes absolutely no sense at all

What did you expect from a debunker that doesn't even know the difference between perspective bowing and actual vertical movement from an horizontal vantage point as the only correct form of measurement for vertical changes?

A better argument ;)

It's the downvote brigade. No worries. Remember: the reason why we bring this up is we want a new investigation that actually accounts for the various evidence that we can all agree on. For example, we know WTC 7 was in freefall for at least part of the collapse. NIST admits it. Now what? It's really important that we remain focused and have a goal in mind, and that we stick with what is provable. NIST did what NIST had to do. Whether fraud or error or blackmail, we just don't know.

the girder ends had additional stiffener plates added to them, above and beyond normal building codes, to avoid any possible buckling.

Indeed and well documented it was one of the most structural redundant buildings in NYC

Larry Silverstein - We built in enough redundancy to allow entire portions of floors to be removed without affecting the building's structural integrity, on the assumption that someone might need double-height floors

MORE than 375 tons of steel - requiring 12 miles of welding - will be installed to reinforce floors for Salomon's extra equipment

So?

[deleted]

Data for the last 941 comments (MAX 1000)

To summon this bot, the first line of your comment should be: /u/user_history_bot USERNAME

This bot needs a hover option like Autowiki bot has. This massive comment format pops up all the time and it's terrible. Useful bot, though.

I think some folks want a new investigation.

No it isn't. There is only a single thing it is scientifically evidence of; during those 2.25 seconds, there was no support. This is easily explained as the supports in the bottom of the building having just given way. As the buildings collapse reaches the supports that have yet to collapse, it begins to slow down, further showing my point.

This bot needs a hover option like Autowiki bot has. This massive comment format pops up all the time and it's terrible. Useful bot, though.

there was no support. This is easily explained as the supports in the bottom of the building having just given way.

Explain what you are going on about, how is this even possible? How did all the supports just give way at the very bottom of the building, all at once to to small office fires, that were not even mention on the bottom floors, even by NIST.

Not really, no.

Ok

exclamation point is a punctuation mark usually used after an interjection or exclamation to indicate strong feelings or high volume (shouting), and often marks the end of a sentence

As i said, go clam down and maybe make a snack and watch some TV for a bit, you are getting worked up unnecessarily.