Merged Freefall is not evidence for Controlled Demolition

[Mark F]

jaydeehess replies:
"Explaining a short period of acceleration near 'g' (both above and below) is of academic interest to a small group. 9/11 conspiracy theorists and 9/11 conspiracy debunkers. That's about it!"
Granted, but surely this should also be of interest to a forum specifically on 9/11 conspiracy theories, in a thread specifically on what a period of free fall proves.

"I personally see no particular use for knowing, let alone hypothesizing, the minutia of a time period of 2.25 seconds in a collapse that had started 15+ seconds earlier. By that time the dynamic interactions within the structure are quite chaotic. There is no way to truly determine what was specifically happening inside the structure either. How anyone could possibly get details correct beyond what the NIST fea illustrated , with any confidence in its veracity, is beyond me."
This is a fine point - it challenges specifically the claims that (i) NIST's simulation doesn't account for the 2.25 seconds in a way that is relevant to explaining the cause of the collapse and (ii) that we can make any particularly confident claim about what even could explain the 2.25 seconds. But as a layperson - which I am and, as far as I can tell, you are as well - it is at least somewhat important to know that experts themselves are convinced that this is a good enough reason not to pursue this particular question any further.

Again, why do we really care that NIST does not account for 2.25 seconds of near, at and over FFA for one portion of a building 15 seconds after the collapses began? BFD. As already pointed out to you the collapse event was complete chaos by that point. Even if there were a way to know exactly how this occurred with absolute, irrefutable certainty, so what? What possible use would this knowledge be? What would it change?

Absolutely nothing.

This whole subject is just so much mental masturbation which exists for the sole purpose of keeping what is left of the 9/11 Truth Movement on life support.

Let's pull the plug. It is time to let grandpa go.

 

[LSSBB]

jaydeehess replies:
"Explaining a short period of acceleration near 'g' (both above and below) is of academic interest to a small group. 9/11 conspiracy theorists and 9/11 conspiracy debunkers. That's about it!"
Granted, but surely this should also be of interest to a forum specifically on 9/11 conspiracy theories, in a thread specifically on what a period of free fall proves.

"I personally see no particular use for knowing, let alone hypothesizing, the minutia of a time period of 2.25 seconds in a collapse that had started 15+ seconds earlier. By that time the dynamic interactions within the structure are quite chaotic. There is no way to truly determine what was specifically happening inside the structure either. How anyone could possibly get details correct beyond what the NIST fea illustrated , with any confidence in its veracity, is beyond me."
This is a fine point - it challenges specifically the claims that (i) NIST's simulation doesn't account for the 2.25 seconds in a way that is relevant to explaining the cause of the collapse and (ii) that we can make any particularly confident claim about what even could explain the 2.25 seconds. But as a layperson - which I am and, as far as I can tell, you are as well - it is at least somewhat important to know that experts themselves are convinced that this is a good enough reason not to pursue this particular question any further.

The thing is, that 2.25 seconds is an 'average' of acceleration that is roughly equal to free fall acceleration. It doesn't even prove the building is freely falling. There is no basis for an argument with NIST, because nothing needs to be explained as far as the observation. If anything, NIST should be taken to task for stating there was a defined period of freefall when observations do not support that claim.

 

[Clayton Moore]

Sure, IV is untrue. Global collapse was at least 14.6 seconds, which is far longer than free fall.

QED. Thanks for posting.

15 seconds? Free fall would have been what?

 

[ozeco41]

"free fall" is of no significance. No engineer/physicist considering the global collapse of a building would be surprised to find bits of the building falling at around free fall.

The problem is two fold:
1) The truther created myth is that free fall not only indicates CD but that it only occurs with CD. AND
2) Debunkers giving credence to the nonsesne by responding to it. (But hard to avoid )

Those are the false foundations on which all of this "CD discussion" rests.

Partly our fault as debunkers because we don't resist the temptation to show truthers how wrong they are. So the downside is that we give pseudo credibility to their nonsense.

The classic was when that untruthful and physics incompetent agent of AE911 - D Chandler - challenged NIST about free fall and NIST responded. A hard call for NIST seeing as more lies by Chandler was the inevitable outcome whichever way NIST turned. The problem which arises so often when honest people respond to untruthful agenda pushers.

Then NIST compounded the problem by responding in partial depth acknowledging free fall. - and others then did the inevitable and went into more detail and found that "free fall" was only a rough average.

AND far too many forgetting to ask "So what?"

 

[Clayton Moore]

I'd love for a CD proponent to model exactly what it would take for demolitions to remove several floors' worth of resistance to fall ALL AT ONCE, including the noise and visual characteristics that would accompany such an event.

If only they had a couple of thousand engineers on their side busily doing the necessary work...

This is the idiocy of 9/11 in a nut shell. Asking how it could be down WITH explosives to prove it happened WITHOUT explosives.

 

[jaydeehess]

15 seconds? Free fall would have been what?

Do the math!

 

[LSSBB]

deleted

 

[Playing Games]

Tell him to switch to being a Bigfoot believer, it is not as bad as disrespecting those who were murdered on 911 by spreading lies without thinking and apologizing for 19 murderers.
"NIST revised its report to show that there actually was a period of free fall."
and
"NIST failed to revise their computer simulation to show how free fall could

Tell him on the bright side, he can use the same evidence he has for 911 lies, for Bigfoot. 12 years and this is the best 911 truth had, silent explosives, invisible thermite products, and no clue what physics is.

I'm a Bigfoot believer

 

[The Big Dog]

15 seconds? Free fall would have been what?

Do the math Clayton

 

[jaydeehess]

This is a fine point - it challenges specifically the claims that (i) NIST's simulation doesn't account for the 2.25 seconds in a way that is relevant to explaining the cause of the collapse

I fail to see how any detail of the sequence of collapse that occurs almost at the end of that collapse, can possibly tell anyone anything about the proximate cause of the collapse. Its a ridiculous premise. That 2.25 seconds came after the initial 10+ seconds of collapse and was followed by less than 2 seconds before collapse was finished. There is a reason why NIST concentrated on the first visible signs of collapse in their investigation of the cause.

and (ii) that we can make any particularly confident claim about what even could explain the 2.25 seconds. But as a layperson - which I am and, as far as I can tell, you are as well - it is at least somewhat important to know that experts themselves are convinced that this is a good enough reason not to pursue this particular question any further.

NIST was tasked with finding out what caused the collapse in order to determine if changes to codes could be made to lower the chance of a similar occurance. There is nothing in the dying moments of such a chaotic sequence that is of any use to that task.
The truth movement wishes to claim, with nothing more than a handwave argument, that this last moment period of near free fall indicates explosives were used. When were they used in order to produce this? After the structure had already come apart internally over a period of at least, at least, 10 seconds, AND after the final collapse involving the north facade had been underway for several more seconds?
By that time the structure was, definately, about to be a rubble pile , with or without explosives.


All that aside , did you ever address my point concerning the data that shows that the points measured achieved greater than free fall acceleration? It indicates quite clearly that there must be something other than simple 1d vertical forces and motions involved and that thus it follows that AE911T's simple 1d analysis is of no value.

Consrquently it invalidates every premise you originally posted as 'given'. Odd you had nothing to say about that.

 

[Robrob]

This is the idiocy of 9/11 in a nut shell. Asking how it could be down WITH explosives to prove it happened WITHOUT explosives.

That it couldn't have been done with explosives (as opposed to plane impact and fires), doesn't that kind of put a damper on your POV?

 

[Justin39640]

Now that you mention it, this 'freefall' thing didn't start the conspiracy fever; it's one of the artifacts of it.
Both Niels Harrit and Stephen Jones have remarked that they were initially drawn into the web of woo upon discovering building 7 and noticing that it, in their uneducated opinions, looked like a controlled demolition.

Back in those days it was fashionable for conspiracists to edit the video so it contained no audio and began just before global collapse. That way it had the strongest similarity to a real CD if one didn't notice the omissions.
Hmmm, not much has changed in all those years - it's still being misrepresented, but now with added 'freefall' and magic 'nanothermite'.
The woo just grows over time, left to itself.

Where were these people on 9/11? I knew about the collapse of 7WTC within minutes of it happening (was driving home from work) and everyone was still calling it the Solomon Bros Building. They only heard about it years later? *** holes.

 

[kid meatball]

Granted, but surely this should also be of interest to a forum specifically on 9/11 conspiracy theories, in a thread specifically on what a period of free fall proves.

It is, and has been analyzed to death in this forum. I'm pretty sure the consensus is some amount of internal structure lead the collapse, the penthouse structures, and gained enough momentum to pull the rest of the building, the facade, down faster than if it were no longer connected to the internal structures. None of us know for sure that this is the case as there was no video of the interior as it fell, and a simulation can never be as exact as the real event. There is just too much chaos in an event like this.

 

[jaydeehess]

This is the idiocy of 9/11 in a nut shell. Asking how it could be down WITH explosives to prove it happened WITHOUT explosives.

Somewhat similar to the idiocy of trying to prove that NIST is incorrect to prove explosives were involved.

 

[Mark F]

No particular reason that I have not participated since 2008. The reason I returned was because I saw a reference to JREF and that reminded that I had been here before. I had condensed some things NIST had stated regarding WTC7 into a short, simple proof. So I decided to post it here to see if anyone here could disprove it. To argue against the proof is to argue against NIST. But, I see a lot of people do not agree. But, I have yet to see it disproved. And thanks for the welcome back to the forums.

How can anyone disprove that which you have not proved?

 

[ozeco41]

How can anyone disprove that which you have not proved?

Exactly.

We may need to keep reminding him...

I'm opposed to the "reversed burden of proof" trick so beloved by truthers who cannot construct a proper argument. I won't fall fall for it or play his truther trick game.

BUT even I would be prepared to show him what is wrong with his arguments if ever he posts a genuine one.

He has all the advice he needs on his original claim viz:
A) every claim of FACT is wrong; PLUS
B) the "Logical AND" structure of his argument demands that every fact be correct.

So a comprehensive "FAIL" at this stage.

 

[david.watts]

Hello again everybody,

Some of you believe that the proof is incorrect because some or all of the elements stated are not correct. Well, let's start here with II.:

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

What is it about this that NIST is not correct about?

 

[Justin39640]

Hello again everybody,

Some of you believe that the proof is incorrect because some or all of the elements stated are not correct. Well, let's start here with II.:

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

What is it about this that NIST is not correct about?

The NIST is saying that true free fall would be that the building was at gravitational acceleration from the very moment it started to move downwards, which it wasn't. It started to collapse slower than, and sped up to, gravitational acceleration. It then decelerated. If it was truly in free fall it would have taken less than 4 seconds for 18 floors to disappear. It took 5.6 seconds which means the building wasn't in true free fall.

Sunder was trying to explain that to be in true free fall the building would need to have no support under it from the moment it started to move, which wasn't the case.

And remember, we don't post for your benefit. We post this stuff in case there's any dunderheads out there that might think your ideas have any validity, which they don't.

 

[kid meatball]

Hello again everybody,

Some of you believe that the proof is incorrect because some or all of the elements stated are not correct. Well, let's start here with II.:

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

What is it about this that NIST is not correct about?

All of them need to be correct for your proof to be correct. If one is correct, it stands alone as a fact. Try making the other four points correct and we can talk.

 

[ozeco41]

Hello again everybody,

Some of you believe that the proof is incorrect because some or all of the elements stated are not correct. Well, let's start here with II.:

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

What is it about this that NIST is not correct about?

The core technical claim - "free fall is only possible if there are no structural components below providing resistance" is close enough to true - the exceptions quite remote/unlikely.

Whether NIST was right or wrong is irrelevant and the NIST references only lead to confusion. Rely on the physics and drop your secondary goal of "prove NIST wrong".