Merged Freefall is not evidence for Controlled Demolition

[Justin39640]

The "silly logic" is NIST's "silly logic."

NIST doesn't associate "free fall" with controlled demolition. That's your silly logic. Also, after the NIST reports were released, people did much more accurate measurements and it was shown the building was accelerating faster than gravitational acceleration for a brief period.

Do you think that means they installed upside down rockets on the roof in addition to demolitions?

Mark F, The proof is valid. But, maybe you can disprove it. Please make a valid attempt.
Thanks

He just did.

 

[The Big Dog]

Mark F, The proof is valid. But, maybe you can disprove it. Please make a valid attempt.
Thanks

I already did, WTC7 was not in freefall.

QED

 

[MarkLindeman]

I already did, WTC7 was not in freefall.

Eh, too subtle under the circumstances. I'd rather agree that the NIST report refers to a period of free fall, point out that it offers an explanation, and conclude that kid meatball won the thread approximately 8 minutes in. But it's a matter of taste.

 

[The Big Dog]

Eh, too subtle under the circumstances. I'd rather agree that the NIST report refers to a period of free fall, point out that it offers an explanation, and conclude that kid meatball won the thread approximately 8 minutes in. But it's a matter of taste.

How the hell is he going to learn? Plus, they said that (for one small part of the WTC7 that was under observation) there were periods that exceeded free fall.

 

[Mark F]

Mark F, The proof is valid. But, maybe you can disprove it. Please make a valid attempt.
Thanks

I don't have to. This topic has been done to death. As I recall there is quite a bit of discussion on this currently active thread.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=267933

While you may be new to this and think you have made some great revelation, most of the rest of us regard this as tired old news, so long ago discredited it is hardly worth the bother.

We for example all understand that "free fall" is not a characteristic of CD and no one has ever proven a single case of free fall during a CD. Thus your primary argument is invalid before it leaves the gate.

Secondly, the rest of us know that - for a brief moment at least - 7 World Trade exceeded free-fall. How does that fit into your CD hypothesis?

PS

I should add that since I am not the one making claims the burden of proof is not mine, it is yours. You have not made a prima facie case and I reject your attempt to reverse the burden of proof.

 

[Macgyver1968]

Spank me and call me jaded...but I smell a 5 year old sock.

 

[beachnut]

Gosh, NIST showed WTC7 was in free fall. I'm just taking their word for it.

The explosives stuff, or controlled demolition stuff was made up by 911 truth. Like a fantasy, and now you need proof their fantasy is not real? Sounds like a Bigfoot like belief, one based on nothing.

Here is how it works, you provide the evidence, and prove it was CD. You can't, case closed. That was quick.

lol, the old 911 truth lies. Did the 911 truth tell you it took over 16 seconds for WTC 7 to collapse, and that the internal structure was collapsing first?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BV7TPvk__kE
oops, faster than free fall.

Falling faster than Free fall, is what the IQ of one does who believes in 911 truth woo.

Did you know the interior of WTC 7 was collapsing before the facade fell? Is that a NO? OR what?

There were no explosives used on WTC 7; I don't need to prove it, you need to prove otherwise, and the OP is not full of anything but woo from 911 truth. Fantasy junk made up out of ignorance.

Do you still believe in explosives 7 stories ahead the WTC collapse? Where have you been"?

What did it? Thermite?

 

[The Big Dog]

Secondly, the rest of us know that - for a brief moment at least - 7 World Trade exceeded free-fall.

This is not strictly accurate. here is what NIST said:

The analyses of the video (both the estimation of the instant the roofline began to descend and the calculated velocity and acceleration of a point on the roofline) revealed three distinct stages characterizing the 5.4 seconds of collapse:

* Stage 1 (0 to 1.75 seconds): acceleration less than that of gravity (i.e., slower than free fall).
* Stage 2 (1.75 to 4.0 seconds): gravitational acceleration (free fall)
* Stage 3 (4.0 to 5.4 seconds): decreased acceleration, again less than that of gravity


This analysis showed that the 40 percent longer descent time—compared to the 3.9 second free fall time—was due primarily to Stage 1, which corresponded to the buckling of the exterior columns in the lower stories of the north face. During Stage 2, the north face descended essentially in free fall, indicating negligible support from the structure below. This is consistent with the structural analysis model which showed the exterior columns buckling and losing their capacity to support the loads from the structure above. In Stage 3, the acceleration decreased as the upper portion of the north face encountered increased resistance from the collapsed structure and the debris pile below.

The North Face is not the entire building, and this occurred because much of the structure supporting that facade had already collapsed (at less than free fall)

 

[Mark F]

Spank me and call me jaded...but I smell a 5 year old sock.

Your jaded

 

[ozeco41]

Can you disprove this simple proof?

It isn't a proof but here, briefly, are the key errors:

I. Given that “free fall is impossible for a naturally collapsing building” due to the structural components below providing resistance; (David Chandler, Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth)(1.)

Both claims are false - the main one being "Given that “free fall is impossible for a building” due to the structural components below providing resistance;" is true if there are resisting structural elements and false if there are not. So it is a "come in suckers" statement with an unstated implied premise. The second claim - i.e. with the "Natural collapse" limit inserted "Given that “free fall is impossible for a naturally collapsing building” due to the structural components below providing resistance;" is also false. Both CD and "natural collapse" (whatever that is supposed to mean) may show some parts of a building in free fall. Free fall is of zero value distinguishing "CD" from "natural". THEN Chandler is a person known to be incompetent in applying physics at the level of complexity presented by WTC collapse AND a demonstrably untruthful person.

II. And given that NIST agrees, “free fall” is only possible if there are “no structural components below” providing resistance; (Shyam Sunder, NIST)(2.)

Two points - the issues is truth or otherwise of the claim for CD. What NIST says is irrelevant. THEN the quote mined answer is taken out of context. It is not a global truth. Put simply the misquotation of NIST is not a valid step in the logic of the claim.

III. Therefore, NIST understands that it requires no structural resistance below for a building to free fall.

misleading use of part truth. It is not "a building" - the free fall was part of a building. (It is relatively easy to achieve free fall for part of a building. Difficult to do for the whole building. And that is a key "lie by innuendo" practised by the truth movement. Get them to show how - even with CD - they can achieve free fall of a building. Too complex for this first rebuttal BUT the truther setting of "WTC in free fall" is a false dichotomy.)

IV. Given that NIST showed WTC7 was in free fall, and therefore there was no structural resistance from the structural components below;(3.)

The fact of evidence stands alone - the truth of it does not rely on NIST. It is true BUT given the use of multiple "lies by inference" in the claim to be valid logic it should explicitly state "... from the structural components below that part of the building which was in free fall". (even that is not "bulletproof" but good enough for this first round rebuttal.)

V. And given that the only way for there to have been no structural resistance below allowing WTC7 to free fall, would have been to remove all structural resistance at once and that can only be done with a controlled demolition;

Both claims false viz "at once" and "only...controlled demolition" A collapse mechanism is a collapse mechanism - it has no cognitive ability to know whether it was started by "CD" or "naturally".

VI. Therefore, the free-falling WTC7 was a controlled demolition.

since none of the supporting steps are valid the claim is not made out.

Q.E.D

Yes it is QED - but QED "no prima facie" case - or in lay language "no case to answer".

 

[thedopefishlives]

Since when?

To be fair, the proof is valid, provided the premises are true. That, however, is the problem. The things he takes as "given" aren't givens at all, they're Truther distortions of the truth or outright lies. Therefore, while the proof is perfectly valid, it's also perfectly useless because the premises are worthless.

 

[ozeco41]

Well, how else do you "remove ALL structural resistance at once."?

False premise as explained in my previous post.

The "silly logic" is NIST's "silly logic."

Two points - what NIST says is irrelevant - if NIST said "Santa's custard did it" it would not be true. Nothing NIST said years later can change what happened. Stop confusing the objective "CD or not?" does not depend on whether NIST explained it right or wrong.

Gosh, NIST showed WTC7 was in free fall. I'm just taking their word for it.

Part of WTC7 was in free fall - approximately free fall actually - it went over "G" briefly according the the most accurate measurements we have seen. And that much is fact whether or not NIST OR Chandler got it right.

Mark F, The proof is valid.

Hogwash. See my previous post. Every step of the claim is in error.

But, maybe you can disprove it.

He doesn't have to disprove it. It is your claim. YOU have to prove it. You haven't proved it. So even if the burden was on us to "disprove" there is nothing to disprove.

Please make a valid attempt.

Actually some of us would even though it is your burden of proof. BUT we cannot "disprove it" until you give us a case to answer. Ball in your court.

Thanks

Don't be hypocritical BUT thanks anyway.

 

[ozeco41]

To be fair, the proof is valid, provided the premises are true. ... Therefore, while the proof is perfectly valid, it's also perfectly useless because the premises are worthless.

That is an interesting definition of "proof".

I usually take a "Proof" to consist of:
A) elements of facts verified (or verifiable) by evidence;
B) linked by a logical structure of argument.

So the simple "logical structure" may be correct but the other half of the "proof" is wrong. The concept that the facts are not part of the 'proof' is new to me.

 

[Arus808]

Gosh, NIST showed WTC7 was in free fall. I'm just taking their word for it.

wrong. they said the NORTH FACE of the building was in free fall for 4 seconds.

Since when was the NORTH FACE of a building an entire building?

Fail on your part and fail at reading properly.

 

[leftysergeant]

What fools like idiot boy Chandler and little Dickie Gage over lolok is that the so-called free-fall only occurred along one edge of a structure that was the last remnant of a structure which had already been effectively destroyed. The back wall was no longer supported by the right. Its own weigh appears to have carried it over the rest of the rubble.

When an unsupported wall breaks, the pieces tend to come down at freefall.

Little Dickie and the bearded weirdo would have a lot more credibility if they ever had to actually assemble the crap the design.

 

[DC]

What's up with it? its not proof at all of what you claim it to be, that is whats up with it.

 

[Porkpie Hat]

Can you disprove this simple proof?
I. Given that “free fall is impossible for a naturally collapsing building” due to the structural components below providing resistance; (David Chandler, Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth)(1.)

Perhaps you could show where and how Chandler has proven free fall is impossible for a natural collapse.

Steel has and does fail in fires.

Structural failures can lead to collapses.

The rate of those collapses is, in part, determined by the amount of structural integrity lost to local failures.

Unless you can prove those statements incorrect, your main premise is nothing but fallacious garbage.

 

[Gord_in_Toronto]

Looks like someone forgot to tell Con Ed and the US courts.

US appeals court rules negligence was not cause of 3rd building collapse in Sept. 11 attacks

http://www.montrealgazette.com/news...use+building+collapse+Sept/9246249/story.html

Con Ed had claimed negligence resulted in part because Tower 7's tenants were allowed to install diesel backup generators.


The fuel burned for hours in the building after hijacked planes struck the two nearby towers, flinging debris into the smaller skyscraper. Con Edison had maintained that fuel from the diesel tanks heightened the fire's intensity.


The fire department decided to let Tower 7 burn because it was unable to reach adequate water supplies, there were no people in the building and 343 firefighters had already been killed that day, the appeals court noted.

You're welcome.

 

[Horatius]

Can you disprove this simple proof?

I can disprove it with one video, supplied by (but clearly not understood by) A&E 9/11 themselves.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pmdcMb5D9gM


Pause that at about 9 seconds, and look at what is happening to a section of the building that covers about 6-8 stories down near the base.

That's 6-8 stories of support columns all buckling and failing virtually instantaneously, across the width of the north face of the building.

As explained here:

This is not strictly accurate. here is what NIST said:

The analyses of the video (both the estimation of the instant the roofline began to descend and the calculated velocity and acceleration of a point on the roofline) revealed three distinct stages characterizing the 5.4 seconds of collapse:

* Stage 1 (0 to 1.75 seconds): acceleration less than that of gravity (i.e., slower than free fall).
* Stage 2 (1.75 to 4.0 seconds): gravitational acceleration (free fall)
* Stage 3 (4.0 to 5.4 seconds): decreased acceleration, again less than that of gravity


This analysis showed that the 40 percent longer descent time—compared to the 3.9 second free fall time—was due primarily to Stage 1, which corresponded to the buckling of the exterior columns in the lower stories of the north face. During Stage 2, the north face descended essentially in free fall, indicating negligible support from the structure below. This is consistent with the structural analysis model which showed the exterior columns buckling and losing their capacity to support the loads from the structure above. In Stage 3, the acceleration decreased as the upper portion of the north face encountered increased resistance from the collapsed structure and the debris pile below.

The North Face is not the entire building, and this occurred because much of the structure supporting that facade had already collapsed (at less than free fall)

...the period of freefall occurred well after the onset of general collapse (which A&E9/11 lies about, btw), and just about matches the timing of the buckling shown in that video.



One would think a bunch of "professionals" like A&E9/11 claim to be would have noticed this, and addressed it already, but they didn't and they haven't. Go ask them how they explain this, and see what they have to say.

 

[jaydeehess]

WTC7 was never in a sustained free fall. The measured point achieved ff only as it was actually passing through that rate and that measured point went beyond ff acceleration.
Here's a given;
Given that it is impossible for an object to achieve greater than g acceleration in simple vertical motion it follows that some other mechanism was in play.
Given that there is no mechanism specific to the use of explosives/ controlled demolition presented by Chandler or AE911T that accounts for this , the premise that the data set proves CD is not supported. If some mechanism of internal collapse leveraged an addition to the force on the facade, or if rotational effects caused an higher acceleration these can easily be part of a so called natural collapse.

Furthermore, AE911T simply contends ffa requires CD but can present no study of structural failures indicating that ffa is specific to CD and cannot occur without the use of explosives. Even the bald contention fails in that it is a strictly 1d proposition for what was a 3d event over a time period of 16+ seconds.