Comment: Let's look at what the lead NIST investigator said then...

(See in situ)

In post: .
In reply to comment: I'll step in here. (see in situ)

Let's look at what the lead NIST investigator said then...

In August 2008 NIST released the draft of their final report for public comment; they then held a technical briefing to allow individuals with certain credentials to pose questions. One question asked was how it was that NIST could have arrived at the conclusion that the rate of the collapse of WTC7 was 40% slower than the rate of free fall when all measurable data shows that the building fell within a few percent of the acceleration of gravity. The lead investigator for NIST, Shyam Sunder, included this in his response:

"A free fall time would be an object that has no structural components below it."

When stating their analysis showed the time it took for the structure to collapse was "roughly 40% more" than what free fall would have been he said, "that is not at all unusual because there was structural resistance that was provided in this particular case and you had a sequence of structural failures that had to take place and everything was not instantaneous.

According to Mr. Sunder, NIST determined in the draft of the final report the following:
- free fall would take 3.9 seconds for WTC7
- their computer model predicted 5.4 seconds
- the slower time was to be expected because (1) there was structural support (2) there was a progression of failures and (3) these failures weren't instantaneous

Now, when the final version of the report came out in November 2008 NIST suddenly changed their mind about free fall and said that it did, in fact, occur. So how is it that the laws of physics, which were clearly described by Mr. Sunder when he stated the conditions required for free fall, suddenly change in 3 months? They completely fudged the data to cover up the existence of free fall. When this was pointed out to them they tried to defend their data and insist free fall did not, and could not, occur due to the existence of structural support. Then, they just decided to admit that it did happen, even though they said it wasn't a possibility, and just shrugged it off.

How can anyone take the investigation of the collapse of the towers that day seriously when this is the sick joke we have parading as "scientific analysis" of the events?

I'm reaching up and reaching out.
I'm reaching for the random or what ever will bewilder me.
And following our will and wind we may just go where no one's been.
We'll ride the spiral to the end and may just go where no one's been.
Spiral out.