Flickr
Youtube
Facebook
Twitter
| Two Seconds That Will Live in Infamy (June 2009 Update) |
 |
 |
| Written by Dwain Deets | |||
| Saturday, 06 June 2009 00:00 | |||
|
"Openness in Government" Requires That NIST Reconsider Significance of WTC 7 Free-Fall Because of the changing situation in Washington DC, the opportunities for bringing to the attention of key policymakers factual evidence about the destruction of the WTC high-rises are changing as well. This update comes at a time when the filling of the NIST director position may be the next opportunity to engage the Senate, as the Senate will be called on for confirmation once a nominee is named. Thus far, a nominee has not been announced. – 6/6/2009 The National Institute for Standards and Technology (NIST), the government agency responsible for investigating and reporting on the destruction of World Trade Center Building 7, tried to avoid admitting that there was any free-fall acceleration when the building came down on September 11, 2001. All the way to their draft final report on August 26, 2008, nearly seven years after the event, the NIST report's lead authors held firmly to their position that free-fall did not occur. Once NIST received comments on its draft report, it was more or less forced to accept the indisputable facts based on the publicly available videos proving that free-fall had occurred. David Chandler, a high school physics teacher and AE911Truth researcher, provided the most compelling argument in a video seen widely on YouTube, "The Free-fall Acceleration of Bldg 7." In their final report, issued November 20, 2008, the NIST report's authors stated they had made a more detailed examination, and found a 2.25-second period in which the center roofline exhibited a "free-fall drop for approximately 8 stories." Chandler had measured a 2.5-second period. The NIST report did not state the significance of a free-fall drop. The significance is that during that period of free-fall, all of the gravitational energy (also known as potential energy) is being converted into energy of motion (also known as kinetic energy). There is no energy available for doing other work, such as breaking up structural columns, or causing structural pieces to be hurled out of the way. The graphic chart is an illustration depicting these points. NIST tried to hide its admission of free-fall from public view by not listing it in the press release announcing the changes it made in response to public comments. Admitting to free-fall leads directly to the question, What source of energy eliminated the 8 stories of heavy, interlocked structural steel? The NIST report's authors didn't explain. They tried to hide their dramatic change of position, that WTC7 did display a period of free-fall. However, gravitational forces alone can't come close to explaining that. (The word chart below summarizes these points.) The two attached figures are suggested as aids in explaining the NIST free-fall issue when only a few minutes with a key person are available. There will be occasions as the wheels of government move on, where such windows of opportunity will open. If we are alert, we can seize these opportunities. One example involves the U.S Senate in connection with the vacancy at NIST. The nominee will need to be confirmed by the Senate. When that nominee is announced, the opportunity to brief senators on our relevant concerns will briefly open, and NIST free-fall will be an ideal topic. In the words of the title, "Two Seconds that Will Live in Infamy," the assertive attitude corresponds to a positive expectation towards President Obama's promise to "reestablish transparency and openness in government." The processes are in place to re-open NIST's assessments of the WTC's destruction. If this promise is actually fulfilled, then the chances are very good these two seconds will indeed live in infamy.
|
