Merged Freefall is not evidence for Controlled Demolition

[tsig]

[delete

 

[LSSBB]

Question:

Some here say there was never any free fall. Both NIST and your favorite Chandler agree that there was a period of free fall. That is not saying anything about the interior. Obviously something was going on inside because we know/could see the penthouse fall. However, the north, west, and east face and roof fell together with the roofline. I am unsure if there is any video of the south face collapse. And, since we can see the roof and roofline come down together w/ the N,W,and E faces -- different videos -- the S face must have come down at least as fast and probably at the same rate since we cannot see the opposite side, the S face/wall, 'sticking up' in the 'background. Therefore the period of free fall (NIST 2.25s, Chandler 2.5s) occurred for the entire 'visible' building.

Does anyone disagree with this and do we all agree there was a period of free fall?

Stick with me, I want things to progress fairly quickly from here. Thx.

Look at the acceleration graphs of the WTC7 exterior that have been presented, including NIST'S. How long does the acceleration stay EXACTLY equal to 'g'? That's what it would have to be at if it were freely falling. None of the graphs, NONE, show an acceleration EXACTLY equal to 'g' for longer than an instant, as the acceleration passes 'g' then goes up and comes back down through 'g', in some graphs more than once.

That is not evidence of a Freely Falling exterior.

 

[tsig]

Is the sole reason controlled demolition is dismissed is because there were 'no' explosions?

It is understood that maybe there have been no CDs that actually fell at free fall, at least for the entire collapse. That does not mean it cannot be done. The goal in a CD is to demolish the structure, not generate free fall. I contend that if the goal was to have a structure fall at free fall speed, a good demolitionist could make it happen. I mean if a fire can make it happen, why not a demolitionist?

Well if you want to argue that they were CD's because they didn't look like CD's go right ahead.

 

[alienentity]

Question:

Some here say there was never any free fall. Both NIST and your favorite Chandler agree that there was a period of free fall. That is not saying anything about the interior. Obviously something was going on inside because we know/could see the penthouse fall. However, the north, west, and east face and roof fell together with the roofline. I am unsure if there is any video of the south face collapse. And, since we can see the roof and roofline come down together w/ the N,W,and E faces -- different videos -- the S face must have come down at least as fast and probably at the same rate since we cannot see the opposite side, the S face/wall, 'sticking up' in the 'background. Therefore the period of free fall (NIST 2.25s, Chandler 2.5s) occurred for the entire 'visible' building.

Does anyone disagree with this and do we all agree there was a period of free fall?

Stick with me, I want things to progress fairly quickly from here. Thx.

I don't agree with this statement.
1) There is no video of the S face, because it was off limits to the public. But your assertion that 'it must have come down at least as fast' is crude and imprecise. If there were a difference in height of 3 feet between the front and the back (from the video perspective), with the N face leading, you wouldn't be able to tell that from a viewpoint below the top of the building.
The videos take from afar don't have enough resolution to see relatively small (but structurally significant) events; just take the formation of the kink as one example. Close-up videos show the formation in much better detail.

2) The S face may have started down first, but we'll never know this 100% for sure. As the collapse progressed the building tilted and rotated quite severely to the South, so that hypothesis is supported by the evidence. But your supposition is not correct. If you're not able to deal with major issues like this one, your error rate is going to kill you. We've all seen this before, I don't think you're going to escape such errors in logic either.

3) Your conclusion 'Therefore the period of free fall (NIST 2.25s, Chandler 2.5s) occurred for the entire 'visible' building.' is fundamentally incorrect. First, you can't see the S side, and have no business pretending that you know what happened to it. Nobody can do that without getting into make-believe.
Secondly, there is a discernible progression of collapse along the N wall, if you scrub a video frame-by-frame back and forth. Part of the progression is a 'compression' of the floors, where the dimensions noticeably change at the onset of global collapse. Not surprisingly this occurs roughly under the second mechanical PH, as the 'kink' begins to form in the upper part of the N wall.

All this happens during a few frames, I can't remember exactly the interval because it's been a long while but I'll link to my video on the subject so you can see for yourself. Meanwhile the NW corner, which is incidentally where David Chandler made his single measurement, doesn't move down. It does oscillate a little, and I think Femr2 and NIST have documented some of this oscillation.

All these events occurred at a time when NO explosions are recorded on any videos, so we can rule out any kind of explosive controlled demolition. The onset of collapse was not 'simultaneous' either; there was a progression of internal then E-W collapse. Yes, it happened quickly, but it wasn't exactly uniform across the N face itself. So it's not possible that you can say the whole building was going thru the same motion at the same time - it just wasn't doing that.
Was it all in freefall together? Hard to say, I'm not even sure if the technology exists to measure all the points of the visible building to determine that. And we can't see large portions of the building anyway, so this can never be known for a certainty.
What we can see is a progressive collapse with no explosions. For me that is sufficient for a general understanding of it.

Here are a couple of relevant videos. I just reviewed them and when you look at the second one, watch the motion relative to the NW corner. You can see that spot stay stationary even while other areas are collapsing. It ain't simultaneous, which is why that meme is so easy to falsify. Yet here you are, David, making that same incorrect claim.... now is the time for you to correct yourself.

 

[jaydeehess]

Is the sole reason controlled demolition is dismissed is because there were 'no' explosions?

No, but its a biggee. One can postulate thermite as accounting for no loud explosions but there was no evidence, bright light for instance, of thermite, nor can the relatively slow cutting action if thermite be timed to cause a 'controlled' demolition of such magnitude.

It is understood that maybe there have been no CDs that actually fell at free fall, at least for the entire collapse. That does not mean it cannot be done. The goal in a CD is to demolish the structure, not generate free fall. I contend that if the goal was to have a structure fall at free fall speed, a good demolitionist could make it happen. I mean if a fire can make it happen, why not a demolitionist?

Perhaps, maybe a good demolition team could, given enough lead time, design a collapse and have the structure actually achieve free fall. However if that was a goal one has to try and deduce a reason why such a goal would be desirable, especially if it is to occur only a second before collapse is complete.

Then again, one would require a reasoning for collapsing the structure in the first place. Why? To destroy documents, evidence of some sort? This would be the least reasonable way one could come up with to do such a thing. Although, given that this us put forth by truthers I have to wonder why Jennings and Hess were not thrown under the bus by truthers. There's your patsies. Obviously they were in the CIA or FBI offices feeding documents into the office fire and wiring up the explosives/thermite to bring the building down several hours after they got out.
...... And now Hess is dead <<spooky music background>>

Sorry David, the sarcasm is not directed at you. I get a bit frustrated going over this again.

 

[GlennB]

Perhaps, maybe a good demolition team could, given enough lead time, design a collapse and have the structure actually achieve free fall. However if that was a goal one has to try and deduce a reason why such a goal would be desirable, especially if it is to occur only a second before collapse is complete.

Which is one of the many critical points truthers never answer -

"All support was simultaneously removed over several storeys to achieve the observed result, a period of free-fall"

"Er, but why would they bother? Just a couple of storeys would have done the CD job easily. Just like real-life CD's. Also, it's likely nobody would have noticed the free-fall part. Did The Perps want to get noticed?"

Truthers never consider the real-life implications of their claims.

 

[jaydeehess]

Truthers never consider the real-life implications of their claims.

Ain't that the truth (pun fully intended).

Windows blow out followed by dust = bald contention of squibs
Reports of molten metal/steel = bald contention of thermite
Or the absolutely hilarious;
Hurricane hundreds of miles offshore not mentioned in newscasts= TPTB in collusion with MSM hiding the fact that HAARP was used to discombobulate the WTC complex.

 

[david.watts]

Last night after getting back to my place I wrote a lengthy response to your postings. However I was not able to post it as I could not get to the JREF website. Every time I tried, it would hang up and 'cycle' and would never actually display allowing me to post. I would get some error msg about the server. Other websites would come up fine but not this one.

Anyway, after getting up today I am glad I was unable to post my reply. With a lot of thought I understood just how each point I was trying to make would be rebutted. In fact, I now realize there is nothing I can write that you (the collective group) has not already addressed and you have an answer in waiting for everything; not that I always agree. I kind of expected that but I thought if I could find something/anything that would show you that your position is based, at least in part, on something that is false or simply unreasonable, I might be able to get some of you to rethink the collapse. But I now realize, that no matter how reasonable and logical that I think I am being, you will think the same as to yourselves; and you should.

Note: I have learned a lot here especially about the reasons why you believe what you do. And you have made many valid points. Much of that reasoning is sound. But I think a lot of it starts from a faulty base, e.g., the NIST report which I think is not sound. What I am saying is, I believe your reasoning is good, but it begins at invalid points. Kind of like you say my "proof" is valid, i.e., it holds and can not be disproved the way it is written. But, the basis is false: mainly that free fall does not prove CD. If that is correct, you are correct and I am not.


So, where does that leave us? Well, I would like to continue the discussion at least in part to see how you are able to explain certain things away. And you can do the same to me.

What do you think?

 

[beachnut]

Last night after getting back to my place I wrote a lengthy response to your postings. However I was not able to post ...
So, where does that leave us? Well, I would like to continue the discussion at least in part to see how you are able to explain certain things away. And you can do the same to me.

What do you think?

Have you retracted all your lies from OpEdNews? Why not? Why do you spread lies about 911? What do you think?

We are not supporters of some "official story", or MSM articles. Skeptics forum should be the clue. You got the wild claim of CD, and fail to support it. You like to quibble and make up scenarios to support your failed logic of CD. You need to present evidence of CD. Making up your versions of scenarios of buildings falling and ideas of why is there free-fall, etc, is not evidence, it is speculation based on nonsense.

Bring evidence of CD, or answer the OP in some way.

 

[jaydeehess]

What it comes down to David, is that there is a null hypothesis in play, that 19 radical Islamic terrorists borrowed from two terrorist plkaybooks, suicide vehicle bombs and aircraft hijacking, combined the two and carried out the attacks of 911 that resulted in the death and destruction seen by millions around the world live and recorded.

Then comes along a fringe group with a definite political world view that includes a shadow world govt which is actually the perpetrator of the death and destruction seen.
THAT is, in its various and sundry forms, an extraordinary claim. As such then, to replace the null hypothesis it will require truly extrodinary proof. The evidence put forth so far is extrodinary only in how truly bad and/or underwhelming it is.
This thread deals with but one unsubstantiated claim by AE911T, that free fall is definitely indicative of controlled demolition.

In fact although extrodinary proof is required, AE911T spends it money almost entirely on advertising campaigns and endorses flawed reports made by unqualified persons in their ranks. Not only does this not meet the requirement of extrodinary proof, it casts a pall of doubt on the veracity and quality of anything this organization says or produces.

Similarly Pilots for 911 Truth, who produced complete nonsense 'papers' on their website and who, rather than produce a purely technical brief outlining why they conclude that the DFDR of flight 77 does not in any way accurately reflect the flight path of the aircraft seen, choose instead to harass and insult govt officials and anyone who deigns to disagree with them.

Judy Wood; cannot reproduce the effect she claims was in effect,cannot demonstrate that the effect, or device creating it, even exists, nor do more than give a handwaving description of a fantastical device that simply does whatever she chooses it needed to do.

 

[DGM]

But I think a lot of it starts from a faulty base, e.g., the NIST report which I think is not sound. What I am saying is, I believe your reasoning is good, but it begins at invalid points.

My base started on 9/11/01. There has never been a reason to suspect anything other than what was witnessed (and reported) that day.

Logic dictates a reason for actions. "Truthers" have never been able to put together a coherent reasoning for their suspicions.

 

[GlennB]

What do you think?

I think that if you truly believe that all the WTC 1+2 concrete was reduced to fine dust then you're swimming in a sea of delusion.

Seriously, it's that bad.

You seem to have little capacity for assimilating facts. So - present some evidence to support your apparent belief that all the WTC 1+2 concrete was reduced to fine dust.

 

[jaydeehess]

I think that if you truly believe that all the WTC 1+2 concrete was reduced to fine dust then you're swimming in a sea of delusion.

Seriously, it's that bad.

You seem to have little capacity for assimilating facts. So - present some evidence to support your apparent belief that all the WTC 1+2 concrete was reduced to fine dust.

Actually no, that would be off topic. However a new thread would be quite in order if the topic is to change.

 

[LSSBB]

Last night after getting back to my place I wrote a lengthy response to your postings. However I was not able to post it as I could not get to the JREF website. Every time I tried, it would hang up and 'cycle' and would never actually display allowing me to post. I would get some error msg about the server. Other websites would come up fine but not this one.

Anyway, after getting up today I am glad I was unable to post my reply. With a lot of thought I understood just how each point I was trying to make would be rebutted. In fact, I now realize there is nothing I can write that you (the collective group) has not already addressed and you have an answer in waiting for everything; not that I always agree. I kind of expected that but I thought if I could find something/anything that would show you that your position is based, at least in part, on something that is false or simply unreasonable, I might be able to get some of you to rethink the collapse. But I now realize, that no matter how reasonable and logical that I think I am being, you will think the same as to yourselves; and you should.

Note: I have learned a lot here especially about the reasons why you believe what you do. And you have made many valid points. Much of that reasoning is sound. But I think a lot of it starts from a faulty base, e.g., the NIST report which I think is not sound. What I am saying is, I believe your reasoning is good, but it begins at invalid points. Kind of like you say my "proof" is valid, i.e., it holds and can not be disproved the way it is written. But, the basis is false: mainly that free fall does not prove CD. If that is correct, you are correct and I am not.


So, where does that leave us? Well, I would like to continue the discussion at least in part to see how you are able to explain certain things away. And you can do the same to me.

What do you think?

I come to my conclusion independent of the NIST report. I by no means think it is perfect, and for all I know JSanderO may be correct in that other factors beside column 79 were involved, and FEMR2 is right and they did a poor job of deeply analyzing the collapse imagery.

That said, I see their conclusion as plausible, and have yet to see anything that significantly overturns that. Come back when you've done your own fire and collapse simulation and then we'll talk.

 

[alienentity]

Last night after getting back to my place I wrote a lengthy response to your postings. However I was not able to post it as I could not get to the JREF website. Every time I tried, it would hang up and 'cycle' and would never actually display allowing me to post. I would get some error msg about the server. Other websites would come up fine but not this one.

Anyway, after getting up today I am glad I was unable to post my reply. With a lot of thought I understood just how each point I was trying to make would be rebutted. In fact, I now realize there is nothing I can write that you (the collective group) has not already addressed and you have an answer in waiting for everything; not that I always agree. I kind of expected that but I thought if I could find something/anything that would show you that your position is based, at least in part, on something that is false or simply unreasonable, I might be able to get some of you to rethink the collapse. But I now realize, that no matter how reasonable and logical that I think I am being, you will think the same as to yourselves; and you should.

Note: I have learned a lot here especially about the reasons why you believe what you do. And you have made many valid points. Much of that reasoning is sound. But I think a lot of it starts from a faulty base, e.g., the NIST report which I think is not sound. What I am saying is, I believe your reasoning is good, but it begins at invalid points. Kind of like you say my "proof" is valid, i.e., it holds and can not be disproved the way it is written. But, the basis is false: mainly that free fall does not prove CD. If that is correct, you are correct and I am not.


So, where does that leave us? Well, I would like to continue the discussion at least in part to see how you are able to explain certain things away. And you can do the same to me.

What do you think?

I think it's about time you just put forward a clear statement about your hypothesis and your evidence for it.
If you have quibbles about the NIST reports, post them in a relevant thread or new thread. (they might be OT to this thread).

 

[jaydeehess]

In short, most debunkers do not hold the NIST collapse scenarios as sacrosanct and neither does NIST. All of their collapse sequences are given as their most probable scenario based on their research and experience.

I too do not toss out JSO's hypothesis but I do have some issues with it that I doubt could ever be addressed.

However, I have seen nothing of substance come from the 'truth' movement, especially in light of the extrodinary claims they produce.

 

[alienentity]

Yikes, I see it's been 14 days since David came to the forum. What has come out of it?
What revelations has he brought to the table?

I was hoping he might at least have some interesting analysis of his own; if we were really lucky even a new FEM.

For all the gnashing of teeth that the 9/11 truth movement has produced about 'freefall' it's breathtaking to see how little actual work they've done to build an alternative model. One might think the obsession might have prompted them to commission a university to study it as a research project, maybe with some seed money from AE911Truth's large annual income.

I dunno David, you might be a nice guy and all but I don't see anything here. 2 weeks is enough time to speak your mind, so I don't think I'm too hasty.

 

[Robrob]

With a lot of thought I understood just how each point I was trying to make would be rebutted. In fact, I now realize there is nothing I can write that you (the collective group) has not already addressed and you have an answer in waiting for everything; not that I always agree. I kind of expected that but I thought if I could find something/anything that would show you that your position is based, at least in part, on something that is false or simply unreasonable, I might be able to get some of you to rethink the collapse. But I now realize, that no matter how reasonable and logical that I think I am being, you will think the same as to yourselves; and you should.

Very well put. It highlights how 12 years later Truthers have been unable to come up with more than a handful of easily disproven claims.

But I think a lot of it starts from a faulty base, e.g., the NIST report which I think is not sound.

Rather than using emotion and feeling, why not provide actual examples of the factual errors you find in the NIST report.

 

[ozeco41]

Last night after getting back to my place I wrote a lengthy response to your postings. However I was not able to post it as I could not get to the JREF website.

The server response last night AU time was very slow.

I kind of expected that but I thought if I could find something/anything that would show you that your position is based, at least in part, on something that is false or simply unreasonable, I might be able to get some of you to rethink the collapse. But I now realize, that no matter how reasonable and logical that I think I am being, you will think the same as to yourselves; and you should.

Two big errors there david.

1) The FIRST ERROR is that it is not about how logical you THINK you are OR how logical each of us THINKS we are.

It is that the logic supporting the main tenets of the accepted explanation - the so called "official story" - are IN FACT correct - nothing to do with "belief" OR "thinks" AND not only is the truther side not logical - there is not in fact a truther side position supported by any reasoning that is valid.

In no way is this a comparison of two "sides" - there actually is only one side. It is that simple.

Sure some of our debunkers are better and some not as good at explaining and all of us can have our bad days BUT the underlying reality is that there is no valid claim of significance coming from the truth side. So the challenge for honest truthers is to come to understanding what really happened in as much detail as each person needs for their own satisfaction. And if you want too much detail it simply is not available.

2) The SECOND ERROR is that none of us currently responding to you are basing our understanding on NIST. I advise you to forget NIST and comprehend WTC collapses. One reason is that whether the NIST reports were right or wrong they were written years after 9/11 and they cannot change what happened years earlier. The evidence for how the collapse mechanisms worked is available in the public domain. The reasoning based on that evidence says "CD was not Needed" AND there is no truther evidence that there was CD which outweighs the opposing evidence. PLUS all truther claims are based at least in part on untruth and once those false parts are rebutted ALL truther claims collapse.

Note: I have learned a lot here especially about the reasons why you believe what you do...

It is not about belief...try thinking "objective facts and reasoning".

And you have made many valid points. Much of that reasoning is sound.

Please don't make that sort of claim unless you are prepared to say which bits of reasoning are wrong and why. The best you can legitimately say otherwise is "I agree with points a, b, d, g BUT am not yet convinced on c,e and f.

But I think a lot of it starts from a faulty base, e.g., the NIST report which I think is not sound...

It doesn't start from NIST and what you THINK doesn't count. If YOU want to include NIST then you will need to say which bits are wrong and why they are wrong. Easier to leave NIST out of it.

What I am saying is, I believe your reasoning is good, but it begins at invalid points.

Most of it is valid - now you be explicit - what starting points are invalid??? Who used those invalid starting points - I certainly didn't?

Kind of like you say my "proof" is valid, i.e., it holds and can not be disproved the way it is written. But, the basis is false: mainly that free fall does not prove CD. If that is correct, you are correct and I am not.

you have drifted into foggy thinking. IIRC the only "Proof" you have posted is about an abstract model. I didn't think you had posted a CD claim in this current discussion. - correct me if I'm wrong.

So, where does that leave us? Well, I would like to continue the discussion at least in part to see how you are able to explain certain things away. And you can do the same to me.

What do you think?

Keep posting, BUT drop the loaded language "explain things away" - the only con men in this 9/11 stuff are named Gage, Chandler et al. We will explain things to the best of our differing abilities but no con tricks.

 

[JSanderO]

The server response last night AU time was very slow.

Two big errors there david.

1) The FIRST ERROR is that it is not about how logical you THINK you are OR how logical each of us THINKS we are.

It is that the logic supporting the main tenets of the accepted explanation - the so called "official story" - are IN FACT correct - nothing to do with "belief" OR "thinks" AND not only is the truther side not logical - there is not in fact a truther side position supported by any reasoning that is valid.

In no way is this a comparison of two "sides" - there actually is only one side. It is that simple.

Ozzie,

This statement is self serving a bit there mate. You can't stop a debate by declaring there is only one side... Now this is in fact reality.. but that is determined when the mistakes and false observations, logic, science and so forth are surfaced. The position held by the side with the false observations or false logic or junk science etc. loses the debate. Each side of a debate such as the instant one, thinks their logic, observations and science are spot on. The debate is about discovering or demonstrating which side has bunk and therefore loses the debate.

I don't think truther presentations stand up to scrutiny for any number of reasons. And it's like being a little bit pregnant... if part of the presentation fails, the entire position has no foundation and falls (collapses).

TSz tries to make scientific / engineering arguments. But his work has shown to be flawed and so it collapses. Same with Harrit, Jones and so forth. These presentations do not stand up, though they have tried to knock down the observations, logic and science/engineering of the non CD proponents. But they fall because truther presentations are knocked down by logic, accurate observations and sound science /engineering... not the reverse.