• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

CD = Free Fall?

Shoof said:
It was posted as recently as August of 2008 at www.nist.gov/public_affairs/factsheet/wtc_qa_082108.html.

I'll dig around for a cached version of this, as NIST has subsequently removed that from their website.
Click to expand...
So what?

WTC7 did not "enter freefall". A portion of the north wall did and possibly exceeded free fall for a brief period. Details here in other threads.

So what? As far as the collapse of WTC7 is concerned the whole issue is irrelevant.

If your objective is to find nit pick details where you can claim NIST was wrong again so what? What is your purpose?

The only reason you can claim to "prove NIST wrong" is because NIST originally made a relevant and broad claim about collapse mechanisms. Than a physics ignorant clown challenged person named Chandler pursued the idea of "free fall" And the basis of his pursuit of the issue was wrong. NIST possibly then made an error in PR in that they acknowledged that a portion of WTC7 seemed to act in free fall for a brief period.

Now get that in perspective. The brief period of free fall was irrelevant to collapse and the sort of minor detail that any of us qualified engineers and physicists would not find unusual in such a collapse. Details don't matter.

NIST went the step further and explained it for non-physics literate truth nutters. True to form those truthers them made loaded emotive claims about NIST "admitting" something. Hogwash!

Sure NIST should by them have known better. No matter how far you go explaining to truthers some simple facts those same truthers will misrepresent what you say AND try to take it a step further in misrepresentation.

Why are you interested in this bit of mechanics irrelevancy? Even if you "prove" NIST wrong to satisfy your own ego do you think that any of us here who are physics savvy will pay the slightest bit of attention to your none discovery?

Hint: Why don't you explore something worth the effort?
 
Last edited:
ozeco41 said:
So what?

The only reason you can claim to "prove NIST wrong" is because NIST originally made a relevant and broad claim about collapse mechanisms. Than a physics ignorant clown named Chandler pursued the idea of "free fall" And the basis of his pursuit of the issue was wrong. NIST possibly then made an error in PR in that they acknowledged that a portion of WTC7 seemed to act in free fall for a brief period.
Click to expand...

Hey, Chandler is not physics ignorant, he is physics challenged.

I pity the students who learned their science from that man.
 
ElMondoHummus said:
Neither. They were correct in their assertion. The Chandler finding is limited to only a portion of the building for a portion of the collapse. Their assertion applied to the entire collapse, and is demonstrably correct.

BTW, loaded language, like the term "the false claim", really tips your hand. If you're going to play the skeptic, you need to learn to use less leading terms. It makes your goal blatantly obvious.

Just some friendly advice.

Thanks again to all of you for the various pieces of advice, and the respectful, mature discourse. And, for those of you concerned about my mental well-being, I assure you that I will seek professional help if our discourse becomes overwhelming to my fragile mind.

@ ElMondoHummus: NIST asserting that free fall did not happen appears to be a statement attempting to assert that free fall did not occur. Whether there was 2.25 seconds of free fall, or 6.9 seconds, I'm not understanding how you are interpreting their statement as only applying to the 'entire collapse'. 'Did not enter free fall' seems pretty self-explanatory.

For example, if I'm a traffic cop, and I clock you on radar at 100mph as you are traveling between LA and San Diego, and you go in to court and say, "Hey judge, I traveled the x miles in x minutes---and there was a traffic cam that took a picture of my car leaving LA and arriving in San Diego---so, I could not have driven my car at 100mph," would that sort of logic stand up in court or fool the judge?

Cheers,

Kurt
Click to expand...
 
Hi Macgyver. FYI---just because my computer is on on my desktop, doesn't necessarily mean that I'm sitting in front of it.

I'm not certain of exactly what happened on 9/11. There's a lot of questions surrounding the events of that day, and many of them haven't been adequately answered, which is why I'm here speaking with all of you cordial, talkative and accommodating experts.

It's also comforting to be surrounded by so many welcoming and knowledgable skeptics at once, and hopefully your collective insights and supportive comments will enable me to get some resolution on a number of troubling questions.
 
Shoof said:
...For example, if I'm a traffic cop, and I clock you on radar at 100mph as you are traveling between LA and San Diego, and you go in to court and say, "Hey judge, I traveled the x miles in x minutes---and there was a traffic cam that took a picture of my car leaving LA and arriving in San Diego---so, I could not have driven my car at 100mph," would that sort of logic stand up in court or fool the judge?
...
Click to expand...
Deal: If you don't waste time with false analogies we won't waste time explaining why they are false. :(

(Try them on YouTube or other forums where the audience may be less astute.)
 
Shoof said:
Hi Macgyver. FYI---just because my computer is on on my desktop, doesn't necessarily mean that I'm sitting in front of it.

I'm not certain of exactly what happened on 9/11. There's a lot of questions surrounding the events of that day, and many of them haven't been adequately answered, which is why I'm here speaking with all of you cordial, talkative and accommodating experts.

It's also comforting to be surrounded by so many welcoming and knowledgable skeptics at once, and hopefully your collective insights and supportive comments will enable me to get some resolution on a number of troubling questions.
Click to expand...

So basically, you have no answer to my question. Nice dodge.

Since you're on your computer now...answer me this..

Why was WTC7 CD'ed?

Edit: Don't play coy...you offered $1000 to debunkers that could prove you wrong. State your position.
 
Last edited:
Shoof said:
I'm not certain of exactly what happened on 9/11. There's a lot of questions surrounding the events of that day, and many of them haven't been adequately answered, which is why I'm here speaking with all of you cordial, talkative and accommodating experts.
Click to expand...

10 years later and you still aren't certain of what happened that day and are still looking for answers? I've heard this song and dance so many times and it's total bs...

Why does it take over 10 years for you to figure out what happened that day? What have you been doing for the last 10 years to figure it out except being spoonfed by conspiracy theorists and running around the internet trying to convert people? You could have gotten a degree in engineering and more, in that time. Why does it take 10 years for you to find answers that most other people have no trouble finding at all?
 
Last edited:
Hi All,

12) (In lieu of the redundancy of #10 & #12) Does the false claim made by the NIST---after their sole control of the investigation for nearly six years---that WTC 7 did not enter freefall exhibit incompetence or intentional deception?

Courtesy of Jim Hoffman, who cached the NIST FAQ page from August of 2008:

QUESTION: In videos, it appears that WTC 7 is descending in free fall, something that would not occur in the structural collapse that you describe. How can you ignore basic laws of physics?

NIST RESPONSE: WTC 7 did not enter free fall. According to NIST analysis of WTC 7 video, the building collapsed 18 stories in 5.3 seconds. If the building exhibited free fall, this process would have taken just 3.9 seconds. The actual collapse time exceeded the free fall time by 40 percent."

"If the building exhibited free fall, this process would have taken just 3.9 seconds." Is this not another false statement, proven by later NIST findings? In the NIST 3-stage explanation of the descent of the top 18 stories, they appear to state that the building exhibited freefall and that those 18 stories took longer to fall than 3.9 seconds. However, there FAQ statement appears to assert that free-fall and 5.3 seconds are mutually exclusive---which they are not.

So, what I'm trying to discern here is---was this gross incompetence, or willful obfuscation of the later acknowledged truth?

Cheers,

Kurt
 
Stop JAQ'ing off and answer the questions posed to you. Or are you too afraid to face the truth? From someone who was willing to put up $1000...you sure do seem like a coward to me.
 
The Platypus said:
10 years later and you still aren't certain of what happened that day and are still looking for answers? I've heard this song and dance so many times and it's total bs...

Why does it take over 10 years for you to figure out what happened that day? What have you been doing for the last 10 years to figure it out except being spoonfed by conspiracy theorists and running around the internet trying to convert people? You could have gotten a degree in engineering and more, in that time. Why does it take 10 years for you to find answers that most other people have no trouble finding at all?
Click to expand...

Thank you so much for your advice.

It is not possible for me to do an independent investigation at this time, as the City of New York has made the building plans of WTC 7 inaccessible due to reasons of public safety---which seems ironic---and the NIST refuses to release all of their relevant modeling data for peer review, citing national security---which seems ironic and odd, as well.

Do you have a suggestion as to how---in spite of these peculiar hurdles---I might go about completing a full and authoritative investigation into the destruction of WTC 7 in conjunction with other skeptics?

Cheers,

Kurt
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom