Skip to content


NIST admit their report on WTC-7 is not consistent with basic principles of physics


By Dark Politricks

This snippet of David Ray Griffins essay is specifically about the 2.25 second free fall decent of WTC-7 which if one believes the official 9/11 story means that a miracle occurred when this building collapsed as it ignored the laws of physics for over 2.25 seconds.

To those of you who still believe the official story behind the collapse of this building I suggest reading the following essay of mine and make sure you watch the following video as it’s referenced in this article as well as proving the 2.25 freefall collapse and explaining why only controlled demolition could have caused it.

David Ray Griffin

WTC 7’s Descent in Absolute Free Fall

Even if some readers question whether the two previously discussed features of the collapse of WTC 7, when understood within the framework of NIST’s fire theory, imply miracles, there can be no doubt about a third feature: the now-accepted (albeit generally unpublicized) fact that WTC 7 came down in absolute free fall for over two seconds.

Although members of the 9/11 Truth Movement had long been pointing out that this building descended at the same rate as a free-falling object, or at least virtually so, NIST had long denied this. As late as August 2008, when NIST issued its report on WTC 7 in the form of a Draft for Public Comment, it claimed that the time it took for the upper floors – the only floors that are visible on the videos – to come down “was approximately 40 percent longer than the computed free fall time and was consistent with physical principles.”52

As this statement implied, any assertion that the building did come down in free fall, assuming a non-engineered collapse, would not be consistent with physical principles – meaning basic laws of Newtonian physics. Explaining why not during a “WTC 7 Technical Briefing” on August 26, 2008, NIST’s Shyam Sunder said:

“[A] free fall time would be [the fall time of] an object that has no structural components below it. . . . [T]he . . . time that it took . . . for those 17 floors to disappear [was roughly 40 percent longer than free fall]. And 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. Everything was not instantaneous.”53

In saying this, Sunder was presupposing NIST’s theory that the building was brought down by fire, which, if it could have produced a collapse of any type, could have produced only a progressive collapse.

In response, high-school physics teacher David Chandler, who was allowed to submit a question at this briefing, challenged Sunder’s denial of free fall, stating that Sunder’s “40 percent longer” claim contradicted “a publicly visible, easily measurable quantity.”54 Chandler then placed a video on the Internet showing that, by measuring this publicly visible quantity, anyone understanding elementary physics could see that “for about two and a half seconds. . . , the acceleration of the building is indistinguishable from freefall.”55 (This is, of course, free fall through the air, not through a vacuum.)

In its final report on WTC 7, which came out in November 2008, NIST – rather amazingly – admitted free fall. Dividing the building’s descent into three stages, NIST described the second phase as “a freefall descent over approximately eight stories at gravitational acceleration for approximately 2.25 s[econds].”56 NIST thereby accepted Chandler’s case – except for maintaining that the building was in absolute free fall for only 2.25, not 2.5, seconds (a trivial difference). NIST thereby affirmed a miracle, meaning a violation of one or more laws of physics.

Why this would be a miracle was explained by Chandler, who said: “Free fall can only be achieved if there is zero resistance to the motion.”57 In other words, the upper portion of Building 7 could have come down in free fall only if something had suddenly removed all the steel and concrete in the lower part of the building, which would have otherwise provided resistance (to make a considerable understatement). If everything had not been removed and the upper floors had come down in free fall anyway, even if for only a fraction of a second, this would have been a miracle – meaning a violation of physical principles. Explaining one of the physical principles involved, Chandler said:

“Anything at an elevated height has gravitational potential energy. If it falls, and none of the energy is used for other things along the way, all of that energy is converted into kinetic energy – the energy of motion, and we call it ‘free fall.’ If any of the energy is used for other purposes, there will be less kinetic energy, so the fall will be slower. In the case of a falling building, the only way it can go into free fall is if an external force removes the supporting structure. None of the gravitational potential energy of the building is available for this purpose, or it would slow the fall of the building.”58

That was what Sunder himself had explained, on NIST’s behalf, the previous August, saying that a free-falling object would be one “that has no structural components below it” to offer resistance. But NIST then in November, while still under Sunder’s leadership and still defending its fire theory of WTC 7’s collapse, agreed that, as an empirical fact, free fall happened. For a period of 2.25 seconds, NIST admitted, the descent of WTC 7 was characterized by “gravitational acceleration (free fall).”59

Besides pointing out that the free fall descent of WTC 7 implied that the building had been professionally demolished, Chandler observed that this conclusion is reinforced by two features of the collapse mentioned above:

“[P]articularly striking is the suddenness of onset of free fall. Acceleration doesn’t build up gradually. . . . The building went from full support to zero support, instantly. . . . One moment, the building is holding; the next moment it lets go and is in complete free fall. . . . The onset of free fall was not only sudden; it extended across the whole width of the building. . . . The fact that the roof stayed level shows the building was in free fall across the entire width. The collapse we see cannot be due to a column failure, or a few column failures, or a sequence of column failures. All 24 interior columns and 58 perimeter columns had to have been removed . . . simultaneously, within a small fraction of a second.”60

For its part, NIST, knowing that it had affirmed a miracle by agreeing that WTC 7 had entered into free fall, no longer claimed that its analysis was consistent with the laws of physics. Back in its August draft, in which it was still claiming that the collapse occurred 40 percent slower than free fall, NIST had said – in a claim made three times – that its analysis was “consistent with physical principles.”61 In the final report, however, every instance of this phrase was removed. NIST thereby almost explicitly admitted that its report on WTC 7, by affirming absolute free fall while continuing to deny that either incendiaries or explosives had been employed, is not consistent with basic principles of physics.

Accordingly, now that it is established that WTC 7 came down in absolute free fall for over two seconds, one cannot accept the official theory, according to which this building was not professionally demolished, without implying that at least one miracle happened on 9/11.

George Monbiot, as we saw, described members of this movement as “morons” who “believe that [the Bush regime] is capable of magic.” Unless Monbiot, upon becoming aware of NIST’s admission of free fall, changes his stance, he will imply that al-Qaeda is capable of magic.

Matthew Rothschild said he was “amazed” at how many people hold the “profoundly irrational and unscientific” belief that “Building 7 . . . came down by planted explosives.” Given the fact that progressive members of the 9/11 Truth Movement “so revere science on such issues as tobacco, stem cells, evolution, and global warming,” Rothschild continued, it is “more than passing strange that [they] are so willing to abandon science and give in to fantasy on the subject of 9/11.”

NIST’s report on WTC 7, however, provided the final proof that the 9/11 Truth Movement had been right all along – that those progressives who credulously accept the Bush-Cheney administration’s explanation for WTC 7’s collapse are the ones who “abandon science and give in to fantasy on the subject of 9/11.”

View the full essay at Dark Politricks

Related Posts with Thumbnails

Posted in conspiracy, Dark Politricks Articles, False Flag, Science.

Tagged with 911, conspiracy, False Flag, NIST, Physics, Science, Twin Towers, WTC-7.

Support #altnews & keep Dark Politricks alive

Any support to keep this site running would be much appreciated! If you see any adverts that interest you then please visit them as it helps me without you even needing to give me any money. A few clicks is all it takes to help keep the servers running and #altnews alive!

Please remember I have written hundreds of articles for this site and I host numerous amounts of material that has been taken offline by their original hosters which would be unavailable for viewing if it wasn't for this site. Therefore I would kindly ask you to help support me so that the site can continue doing what I think is an important job as well as reporting on stories the mainstream media would rather you didn't know about. I personally think it is important to host material such as removed reports that show that even FOX News once repoted on Israeli spy rings following the 9.11 hijackers before September 11th Or publishing the original Liberal Democrats Freedom Bill which was removed from their site once they enacted some watered down rubbish instead once they got into power.

However if you don't want to use the very obvious and cost free ways (to you) to help the site and keep me writing for it then please consider making a small donation, especially if you have a few quid sitting in your PayPal account doing nothing useful!


8 Responses

Stay in touch with the conversation, subscribe to the RSS feed for comments on this post.

  1. psikeyhackr says

    Dr. Sunder of the NIST said the north tower came down in 11 seconds. The remains of the core know as “The Spire” took the total to 25 seconds. But if there had been 110 masses floating in air the Conservation of Momentum alone would have made the collapse take 12 to 14 seconds depending on how the mass was distributed. A bottom heavy structure would take longer to collapse simply because the greater mass toward the bottom would be more difficult to get moving.

    So why hasn’t the physics profession been demanding accurate data on the distributions of steel and concrete for years? 9/11 is a scientific farce. This should have been resolved by 9/11/02.

Continuing the Discussion

  1. September Clues and the No Planes conspiracy theory « Dark Politics linked to this post on August 16, 2010

    [...] building that collapsed that hadn’t had a plane hit it, collapsed so quickly that there is a demonstrable 2.4 second period where the collapse was at free fall speed. The laws of physics dictate that this is impossible unless some kind of demolition had taken place [...]

  2. 9.11 and the clash of civilisations | Dark Politricks linked to this post on September 12, 2010

    [...] wasn’t hit by a plane yet fell at breakneck speed into its own footprint later on that day. A collapse that for 2.4 seconds was at free fall speeds, a fact admitted by NIST and one which meant that they had to remove the label from their report [...]

  3. September Clues and the No Planes conspiracy theory | Dark Politricks linked to this post on September 12, 2010

    [...] building that collapsed that hadn’t had a plane hit it, collapsed so quickly that there is a demonstrable 2.4 second period where the collapse was at free fall speed. The laws of physics dictate that this is impossible unless some kind of demolition had taken place [...]

  4. Watching WTC-7 freefall for 2.24 seconds | Dark Politricks linked to this post on September 26, 2010

    [...] NIST has agreed/confirmed the finding that the upper part of WTC 7 free fall drops (acceleration 9.82 m/s²) for 2.25 seconds during the collapse, i.e. there is no support/resistance of the upper part above floor 16, when it displaces downward abt 32 meters. See e.g. figure 3.15 in the report (also below) [...]

  5. 9.11 sceptics versus logic, reason and scientific principles | Dark Politricks linked to this post on October 23, 2010

    [...] the major flaw in the NIST report into the collapse is that they had to admit that their report is not consistent with basic principles of physics due to a 2.25 second period during the collapse in which the building collapses at freefall speed [...]

  6. What we know about 9.11 ten years on « Dark Politics linked to this post on September 10, 2011

    [...] was no mention of WTC-7 at all, the building not hit by a plane that fell at free-fall speed for 2.5 seconds, that witnesses claim to have heard a countdown preceding the collapse as well as the sound and [...]

  7. 9.11, WTC-7 and the Pentagon attacks that have led to 11 years of war « Dark Politics linked to this post on September 11, 2012

    [...] The NIST admits that there is a 2.4 second period during the collapse in which the building falls at freefall speed which defies the laws of physics and which meant that they had to remove their previous claim that the report was consistent with scientific principles. [...]



Some HTML is OK

or, reply to this post via trackback.



css.php