WTC 7 Free Fall Collapse

jpbalkenende Says:

Aug 4, 2008 - Too late teehee! I apologized before that muahaha! I was probably confused by AmericanHero's comment.

kems789 Says:

Aug 4, 2008 - Check out your message inbox. I sent two, because the comments won't let me give you links for some reason.

Kreatorix Says:

Aug 4, 2008 - Unfortunately my english is not good enough to understand here the refinements. For me - against wordconspiracy ideology -- this video is the most impressively, that forces me, to force my brain. W h o write me good arguments ? How should an big "implositon-bomb" come under this house ? Extra question : Did someone Geiger(radioactive) measures after 9.11. ? Bye

Victor44143 Says:

Aug 13, 2008 - TYPE IN PATTON NEW SPEECH IRAQ

fievel3782 Says:

Aug 17, 2008 - hahaha OWNED

bobbygnosis Says:

Aug 22, 2008 - NIST's WTC 7 report disclaimer No. 3: . . . the NIST director has determined that certain evidence . . is voluntarily provided . . not directly related to the building failure . . and that disclosure of that information would inhibit the voluntary provision of that type of information. In other words: we aren't telling you all of our information. Only what we feel like. We can't check their work because they're not providing us with all of their information. Criminal investigation.

jpbalkenende Says:

Aug 26, 2008 - @Kreatorix This vid is bullshit. The Irving trust building is 100m. Meaning the collapse they measured was 85m because WTC 7 is 186m. You can't directly compare floors that is retarded. Both the John Hancock building, the WFC Shanghai and Tapei 101 have 100/101 floors. Yet the Tapei 101 is 100m taller to the roof than the Hancock and the WFC is 150m taller to the roof.

peckerwood321 Says:

Aug 30, 2008 - The Irving trust building is 99 meters yes...but the measurement they chose was from the top of WTC7 to the 21st floor of Irving Trust. The 21st floor of Irving trust is 80m from the ground...so therefore, the height of WTC7(184m) minus the 80m of Irving Trust from ground to 21st floor gives 104 meters. So technically WTC7 travelled 104m in 4.5s...for a rate of fall of 10.27m/s*2. Acceleration due to gravity being 9.81m/s*2 Elementary mathematics FTW

jpbalkenende Says:

Aug 30, 2008 - @pecker Well you are wrong. The timer doesn't initiate at the start of the collapse and it's also you can see by their markings that they don't measure the top part of the WTC 7 (penthouse) I (actually wiki) was wrong about the height of wtc 7 though it is not 184m it's 174m (their own source says this plus a couple of others) discounting the penthouse it's closer to 165m. I'll accept your 80m from measurement but that but that means they measured 85m of fall instead of 100.

peckerwood321 Says:

Sep 1, 2008 - Wiki gets their info from NIST for the height of WTC7 as being 185.928m, and Emporis as 174m. Also your calculation of at least 10m for the height of the penthouse is incorrect. It's height is 3.048m So even taking the lowest figure of 174m-80m-3.048m, you still get 90.952m in 4.5s for a fall rate of 8.98m/s*2. 186m-80m-3.048m = 102.952m in 4.5s for a fall rate of 10.17m/s*2 Never mind structural resistance, an object falling just through the air would take longer to hit the floor.

Victorian9322 Says:

Sep 5, 2008 - i just found out about this today from a teacher who believes in conspiracy theories. it has been 7 years and i just found out.

AkronXXI Says:

Sep 10, 2008 - How many explosive experts agree with the controlled demoltion theory of 9/11? Answer: None Question: Are a theologian, 3 college students, and an architect more qualified to assess 9/11 then structural engineers and explosive experts? Answer: I hope not.

Fizbanic Says:

Sep 11, 2008 - a few things that are missing here. first you assume that the distance is a exact 100 meters, How exactly did you come up with that Mathematically? Explain as you seem to play with math easily. second you need to find out what the Terminal Velocity is of a weight that is something that I doubt anyone has on record. Therefore you cannot even begin to come close to begin comfronting the speed at which the building collapses when you are missing an important info.

ahset Says:

Sep 11, 2008 - none? Akron, please watch this video of Dutch demolitionist Jowenko being interviewed about wtc7. watch?v=k3DRhwRN06I

LUKAvac2 Says:

Sep 27, 2008 - no no, one column i think no.79 buckle, and there u go. buckle of one column dure to one new thing, thermal ekspanzion. that is what i belive in, jea for shure :)

LUKAvac2 Says:

Sep 27, 2008 - ur mine friend and jpbalkenende is faker.

LUKAvac2 Says:

Sep 27, 2008 - yes yes. LOL

LUKAvac2 Says:

Sep 27, 2008 - ALELUJA !!!!!!!!

Jamescobrien Says:

Sep 29, 2008 - Well Fiz, you see the scientists already did experiments on gravity a long time ago. They figured it all out like ages ago... So I guess you never went to school... Welcome to the U.S.S.A.

Spenix Says:

Oct 5, 2008 - The official NIST theory of thermal expansion reminds me of a school workbook I had in 2nd grade. The book was entitled "Seven is Magic".

punctualbird Says:

Oct 17, 2008 - This video fails to discuss the collapse of the Penthouse, suggesting an internal collapse, an exponential failure of the system from the inside out. This building was uniquely designed, damaged, and burned in a way that it failed. It's surprizing at first, until you do actual research. Then it's just a structural failure.

CrasyFingers Says:

Nov 5, 2008 - WTC7 was 186 meters tall Time squared = (distance x2) / acceleration 372 / 9.8 = 37.96 The square root of 37.96 is 6.16 The rate of free fall for building 7 would have been 6.16 seconds, not 6.8.

tandemthinking Says:

Nov 6, 2008 - Problem: Free-fall is motion with no acceleration other than that provided by gravity. Acceleration due to gravity is a constant=9.8m/sec. squared. The formula d=1/2a(t squared). Finds distance with respect to time when acceleration is constant. Plug in the numbers (100=d), (4.15sec.=t) and solve for a. The number I came up with is 11.6127m/sec squared. Way faster than acceleration due to gravity. That is some vacuum you guys got there.

kvaka009 Says:

Nov 19, 2008 - 4.5 seconds not 4.15 seconds

tandemthinking Says:

Nov 19, 2008 - that's what the video tells you, pause at 0:37 and you can clearly see that they stopped the vid at 4.15 sec. So not only is the concept misconceived, their math is messed up as well! And even if it was 4.5 sec. that would make a=9.8765 m/sq. sec. The acceleration of gravity (9.8m/sq sec.) is constant for a reason, it does not fluctuate. The tower resisted somewhat, but not as much as it might normally because the east penthouse took out the inside.