Safe Mode: On
NIST states that WTC7 went into freefall 1.75 seconds after its colapse started.

Fact, WTC7 final report pg45 or pg87 on a PDF viewer. Fact, free fall is verifiable through observation. Fact, disagree, then you now disbelieve the official government authority, NIST.. Fact, unfortunately all the lovely proof through CGI & physics engines cannot be proven fact or disproved, because they haven't been released due to 'public safety'.
Fact, get the report here:
http://www.nist.gov/manuscript-publication-search.cfm?pub_id=861610

-

Added: Mar-4-2013 Occurred On: Mar-4-2013
By: rozza2012
In:
Politics
Tags: WTC7, 9/11, NIST, free fall
Location: New York, New York, United States (load item map)
Views: 782 | Comments: 33 | Votes: 0 | Favorites: 0 | Shared: 0 | Updates: 0 | Times used in channels: 2
You need to be registered in order to add comments! Register HERE
Sort by: Newest first | Oldest first | Highest score first
Liveleak opposes racial slurs - if you do spot comments that fall into this category, please report them for us to review.
  • .

    No FreeFall in 1, 2 and most of 7? (14 second progressive collapse starting with penthouse, Truthers usually edit that part out)
    No FreeFall in any real controlled demos
    No Booms No Bangs No flashes
    No 'Nano Engineered Thermite'

    FreeFall theory DOA

    Posted Mar-4-2013 By 

    (5) | Report

    • Comment of user 'cdnbud' has been deleted by author (after account deletion)!
    • @cdnbud

      Don't believe me, believe science.

      Posted Mar-4-2013 By 

      (0) | Report

    • @ManMadeGod you better tell the government authority tasked with explaining WTC7's collapse, NIST, that their observation is 'DOA', or are you some tin-foiler who never believes the authorities.

      Posted Mar-5-2013 By 

      (0) | Report

    • @ManMadeGod

      No "Nano engineered thermite"?

      Maybe you should have a look at this peer reviewed analysis of the WTC "dust" from the collapses. Of course, it isn't NIST doing the reporting, because they never even entertained the possibility of explosives being involved....so they didn't look.

      "Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe"

      http://www.benthamscience.com/open/tocpj/articles/V002/7TOCPJ.htm

      Posted Mar-5-2013 By 

      (0) | Report

    • @ManMadeGod

      What does "no freefall in any real controlled demos" mean?

      NIST says there was freefall for about 2 seconds and then the rate of collapse was slightly less than freefall. For there to have been any freefall to begin with, all of the building's supporting columns at ground level would have had to have collapsed at precisely the same moment. NIST doesn't say why, or how that could have happened. I wonder why?

      Posted Mar-5-2013 By 

      (0) | Report

  • .
    Curious about 911 but don't know which 'Guru' to trust?

    Just ask them if they think 'they' faked the moonlandings

    If they say 'yes', then you know you're dealing with a kook.

    Kooks of a feather flock together.

    Posted Mar-4-2013 By 

    (4) | Report

  • Fact: Poster is an idiot.

    Posted Mar-4-2013 By 

    (3) | Report

  • I distrust anyone who attempts to shut down a debate or discussion by repeatedly using the word "fact".

    Posted Mar-4-2013 By 

    (2) | Report

  • I see no problem.
    Concrete & Steel structures burn and crumble all the time.
    That's why it's safer to sleep in your car.

    z

    Posted Mar-4-2013 By 

    (0) | Report

  • So NIST stating freefall 1.75 seconds AFTER the start of the decent of the north wall means what? Truthers like to claim freefall is caused by explosive demolition(w/o ever porving a CD in freefall), so did they not set the explosives off until 1.75 seconds after it started its collapse? Does Rozza2012 now agree with the NIST report?

    Freefall cant been seen just through observations, it takes knowledge of physics and applying the correct math along with measurements. Also who needs computers More..

    Posted Mar-4-2013 By 

    (0) | Report

    • @barogers619 It means the structure went from supporting at least 100% of it's weight, it was standing, to 0%, thus allowing the material that was the buildings structure to accelerate at free fall 1.75s 2.2 metres after the 'penthouse' area initiated the collapse.

      Posted Mar-5-2013 By 

      (0) | Report

    • @rozza2012 So according to you ,the structure was supporting 100% of its weight all the way up to 1.75 seconds into the collapse? How can it support 100% of its weight and yet still be collapsing? Thats some back woods engineering there buddy!!

      The penthouse collapsed a full six seconds before the outer wall and 7.75 seconds before freefall was attained. Why do you insist on leaving out the east penthouse as the first visible signs of collapse?

      Posted Mar-5-2013 By 

      (0) | Report

  • Comment of user 'INEVITABLE-COLLAPSE' has been deleted by author (after account deletion)!
  • i guess they figured everyone was brainwashed enough first and would do nothing.
    This is the literal "smoking gun", that WTC 7, hit by no airplane, not even significant debris, was brought down by demolition. THAT's the only thing missing from the report "The building was brought down by demolition".

    Posted Mar-4-2013 By 

    (-1) | Report

    • @Fine_Just_Fine It was hit by significant debris. One entire side was caved out by debris to the point that the corner struts were bowing out. It suffered massive internal fires which weakened it massively. If you think this is the smoking gun, then you have to believe the rest of the report, which agrees with what I'm saying and not you. If you think this is evidence of anything other than the original story, you seem to not understand what this report is saying.

      Posted Mar-4-2013 By 

      (1) | Report

    • @Fine_Just_Fine Funny how all you truthers have managed to escape this process of brain washing while the majority of people have succumbed to it.

      Whats your secret?

      Posted Mar-4-2013 By 

      (0) | Report

    • @barogers619 What's yours? Explain something to me: "MAGIC PASSPORT". Go ahead, try.

      Posted Mar-4-2013 By 

      (0) | Report

    • @Fine_Just_Fine Damn I was hoping to get your secret recipe for anti-brainwashing soup, I guess some other day, huh?

      I am not a person that believes in unrealistic subjects like magic and silent explosives; I tend to stick with reality like physics, math, science, and logic so i cant answer for the "magic" part that you believe in.

      As for the passport, whats so hard to comprehend about it? You act like that was the FIRST ever passport that survived a plane crash. Guarantee you t More..

      Posted Mar-4-2013 By 

      (0) | Report

    • @barogers619 in like new condition, no doubt.

      Posted Mar-4-2013 By 

      (0) | Report