How come WTC 1 & 2 fell faster than WTC7?

[mikelewis]

According to the siesmic data, the WTC2 collapse seismic signature lasted 10 seconds; WTC1 lasted 8 seconds. Now, we of course know that this does not mean that the buildings actually took this short of time to fall as this would be impossible. As a result, people have been adding seconds so that the guess is roughly about 15 secs or so. What we do know for sure is that for 10 and 8 seconds respectively, the collapse of the buildings shook the ground sufficiently to register on the richter scale. WTC 7 also registered its collapse on the Richter scale. That event lasted 18 seconds. Since we are adding time to the others, this would put the total collapse time at roughly 25 seconds for WTC7 unless of course this phenomenom only applied to the Towers. So my question is, how come the collapse signature for WTC's 1 & 2 were shorter than that of WTC7 when WTC7 was half the height? Wouldn't it make sense that the signatures for WTC 1 & 2 should be longer than WTC7 since the debris had farther to fall and there would have been more of it? How can buildings that are taller fall faster than those that are shorter?

[janedoe]

1. Simple: WTC1 and WTC2 didn't fall; they were blown up.

They used bigger bombs in WTC1 and WTC2. Dust particles, 100 microns or less, don't make a "thud" when they land.
WTC7 was a conventional demolition.

In both WTC towers, perhaps the seismic signature was the duration the explosives were going off.

[Christophera]

13. I'd Agree, Seismic Signature Duration IS Explosion Period

100 micron particles do not thud at impact, therefore the explosive coupling to the ground via the foundation commincated the shock waves measured.

Also, the seismic signature at plane impact is disproportionate. No way is there suffcient ground coupling or energy present at the foundation when a plane travelling horiziontally impacts the tower 800 feet up. The building flexes enough to absorb 70% of the impact energy.

[Make7]

14. Or perhaps you think it was the collapse time.

janedoe previously wrote:
So, what proof do we have of the actual collapse time, not the time it took the dust to settle, but the duration of changing forces banging on the ground? Knowing this answer will make it a lot easier for us to calculate it. ;)
Perhaps the following evidence will help:


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=49321&mesg_id=50155

It's difficult to keep track of what the evidence is supposed to show, isn't it?

-Make7

[rman]

2. duration of seismic data vs duration of collapse

It may be that the seismic signature of the WTC7 collapse lasts 25 seconds, but visually the collapse takes much less time; some 6 seconds.

[janedoe]

3. But, the blasting had to begin well before the actual collapse. (n/t)

[rman]

4. Doesn't mean WTC7 fell slower then WTC1 and 2,

contrary to the OP's claim.

[janedoe]

5. OP?

Who's the OP?

[rman]

6. Opening Post(er); you in this case.

Though granted, if the seismic data of the WTC7 collapse lasts longer then the actual collapse (visually), it might indicate that there's something fishy about the collapse (not that there isn't much doubt about it already).

[mikelewis]

8. Actually, it does mean that...

IF there were no bombs and the NIST is right, that Kerosene and flimsey contstruction brought the building down, the seismic reading would have come from the floors pancaking onto eachother. The majority of the Richter signatures could not have come from the debris hitting ground since it was mostly dust and small debris. If there were no bombs, this pancaking went on for roughly 10 seconds less than WTC7 which seems a bit absurd, wouldn't you agree. There were more floors in the towers and they were taller than WTC7 so one would think this would take a lot longer for them to collapse. The NIST is suggesting that the initial collapse catalyst caused progressive failure through each level of the building. This pancaking could be the only thing that was registering since the beginning of the collapse coincides with the beginning of the seismic data. If the signature was debris hitting the ground, this would have registered 10 seconds after since it takes that long for debris to free fall from that hieght. The seismic data of the collapse event begins 9:59:04 and lasts 10 seconds. According to the NIST, the collapse begins at 9:58:59. There's no way the debris could have hit the ground in 5 seconds when it takes 10 seconds for it to free fall. I hate to nit pick seconds here but they seem to want to be precise and thier account doesn't make any sense.

[rman]

9. All i'm saying is, if you watch the video footage of the WTC7 collapse,

it is over some 6 seconds after the building starts to collapse. This is shorter then the WTC1 and 2 collapses.

I'm not denying or discarding the seismic data, i'm just pointing out what the visual data shows.
If there's a conflict between the two sets of data, it's all the more interesting.

[Make7]

7. But that only applies to WTC7?

Not the "bigger bombs" of the Twin Towers?
____________________

So the seismic data is not accurate for the collapse time of WTC7, but it is for WTC1 and WTC2?

So let me ask you - what is the correct time for the collapse of WTC7? And how exactly did you arrive at that time?

-Make7

[hack89]

10. WTC 7 fell in two distinct phases...

first one end collapsed and then the rest of the building collapsed as the initial collapse removed the horizontal support needed to keep it upright. Don't you remember that the first failure was vertical and not horizontal like WTC 1 and 2?

[mikelewis]

12. Could you explain what you meant by a horizontal failure and how

this would make the collapse faster?

[philb]

15. So did WTC2

Firefighters described red flashes, explosions, top tilting

later the bilding comes down; some said there were things going on
in this sequense as long as 2 minutes.

[Christophera]

11. Concrete Will Shatter But Steel Will Not

and that shattering will allow instant descent.

WTC 7 had to have thermite attached to most columns about every second floor in order for it to have the appearance it does, falling like a curtain on the last act.

WTC 1 & 2 had rectangular, tubular, steel reinforced cast concrete cores. Free fall and total pulverization must be explained within a feasable scenario, here it is.

http://algoxy.com/psych/9-11scenario.html

there are going to be disinfos saying "What concrete core." Ask them to post proof of the multiple steel core columns the FEMA lie says were in the center of the buildings. Ask them to explain where the steel core columns are in this photo.



They'll try to say, "That is a core column." Ask them why floor beams are attached. Ask them why it looks like the spire is outside the the corner of the rectangular core? Ask them where the rest of the columns are? Ask them why NO picture of the demolition shows the full length core columns that FEMA says were there.

Of course you won't get good answers, but asking is important.