Friday, 9 September 2016

Basic 911 Forensic Proofs: WTC7 - NIST Finally Admits Freefall (Part III) + Observations

Part III of this series fully explores the implications of NIST's admission that WTC7 entered actual freefall and critiques the foundations of their "investigation."

When something is at freefall acceleration there can be NO resistance to the falling body. It is travelling at the MAXIMUM allowable rate under the force of gravity. To travel faster would require a push or an attractor.

If ANY resistance is encountered then the rate of fall necessarily slows. In the case of WTC7, any intact columns, or even wildly bent ones, or 'fire damaged' ones, would slow the fall and cause a lopsided collapse. What was seen indicates the complete simultaneous failure of all 82 columns of this building to allow for the symmetrical freefall collapse.

The only comparable examples to such falls are Controlled Demolitions where such buildings are extensively rigged with explosives, and where, despite the explosives, MOST of these DO NOT actually enter into complete freefall acceleration for the duration of the demolition. Examples of real world Controlled Demolitions falling at the same rate as WTC7 (and the Towers) can be found in the article:

Collapse Rates of the WTC Consistent With Controlled Demolition

Furthermore, there were witnesses to heavy duty explosions going off inside WTC7 that occurred before any of the Towers came down - explosions that likely led to the destruction of the building:

Barry Jennings Interviews (WABC-TV, 2001 / LTW, 2007)

The only viable explanation for the collapse of WTC7 is through a controlled demolition. There is NO other way to account for the simultaneous removal of all the column resistance to allow for the freefall acceleration.

Related Info:

Canadian Civil Engineering Researchers Disprove Official Explanation of WTC 7’s Destruction (peer reviewed)

Architects and Engineers: Solving the Mystery of Building 7 - w/ Ed Asner

[Posted at the SpookyWeather blog, September 9th, 2016.]

No comments: