NIST says WTC came down "essentially in free fall"

[Kevin Fenton]

The full quote is:
"Since the stories below the level of collapse initiation provided little resistance to the tremendous energy released by the falling building mass, the building section above came down essentially in free fall as seen in videos."
So remember, when discussing the WTC collapse, from now on we should eschew "at (virtual) free fall speed" and such like in favour of the officially-approved "essentially in free fall". Given that it has the stamp of approval from a body as august as NIST, I'm sure nobody here will want to quibble.

In the same section they go on to offer an explanation for the squibs/venting:
"The falling mass of the building compressed the air ahead of it, much like the action of a piston, forcing material, such as smoke and debris, out the windows as seen in several videos."
That would be a good explanation for the squibs/venting if they were immediately below the collapse section, wouldn't it?

And, best of all:
"NIST found no corroborating evidence for alternative hypotheses suggesting that the WTC towers were brought down by controlled demolition by explosives planted prior to September 11, 2001."
How hard did they look? Maybe somebody should ask. Why would they want to add the caveat "planted prior to September 11, 2001"?

"NIST also did not find any evidence that missiles were fired at or hit the towers. Instead, photographs and videos from several angles clearly showed that the collapse initiated at the fire and impact floors and that the collapse progressed from the initiating floors downwards, until the dust clouds obscured the view."
What sort of reasoning is that? Surely, if anyone had planted explosives there, they would have set them off from the impact areas? What sort of fuckwit would plant explosives and then set them off from somewhere else?

http://wtc.nist.gov/NISTNCSTAR1-6.pdf
Page 320/402

[pauldp]

1. "NIST found no corroborating evidence "

It's hard to find something that has been shipped off to China and melted down.

Also, synonyms for "essentially" include "basically" "fundamentally"
and "in essence". In case you like variety.

[petgoat]

2. That weasel caveat bothered me too.

NIST: "No corroborating evidence for...explosives planted prior to
September 11, 2001."

Since Van Romero said a few charges in key points would do it, it seems
to me any explosives could have been planted in the wee hours of 9/11.

[philb]

3. Qestions

Why would air be vernted 4 floors below the outwardly expelled materials, to an area with no sign of collapse given the concrete slab floors? Did it all somehow go down an elevator? If so, how did it get out? If so, it seems it would a lot easier to be expelled through the windows of the floor area where the air was rather than compressed through a small passage. This seems totally implausible to me.


The photos and videos I've seen don't appear consistent with the ones NIST seems to have looked at- regarding what happened to the top floors. It appears to me they exploded early in the collapse.
I see no evidence of the pattern NIST suggests.

[Kevin Fenton]

4. Venting

"Why would air be vented 4 floors below the outwardly expelled materials, to an area with no sign of collapse given the concrete slab floors? Did it all somehow go down an elevator? If so, how did it get out? If so, it seems it would a lot easier to be expelled through the windows of the floor area where the air was rather than compressed through a small passage. This seems totally implausible to me."
NIST (for some reason best known to itself) seems to think that there was no venting 4 (or more) floors below the outwardly expelled materials.

I think somebody here suggested it went down an elevator and through the windows, but I can't remember who and I can't find it now. I remember a claim that venting is common in controlled demolitions, but I don't remember any photos or links being produced to back this up.