• 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?

Case

New Blood
C
Joined
Jun 28, 2008
Messages
14
Hi all,

Quick question for you guys- this question came about from the WTC 7's "2.2 secs of free fall speed" concern raised by Richard Gage/Truther community at large...

Does a 'free fall' collapse automatically mean controlled demotions? In other words, can a building that has been controlled demolitioned NOT fall at free fall acceleration?

Regardless of your answer, do you have any proof that I can use for a discussion with Truthers....maybe a youtube video or other link? I looked and looked for an answer to this here but no luck.

Thanks,

-Case
 
I don't have a link handy, but maybe you can google it:

David Chandler (yes, THE David Chandler who, in truther speak, "forced" NIST to "admit" free-fall) has analysed a number of videos of actual explosive demolitions (those where you hear awesomely loud BANG BANG BANG BANG BANG BANGs just before collapse begins; but don't let me distract you...) and found that none exhibit free-fall.

Elsewhere I read, I think it was Femr2 writing, that the occasional odd CD shows brief periods of freefall, while most do not.

I think it is fair to state that freefall can occur both in natural and intentional collapses, but is the exception in boith cases.

In other words: The presence freefall is not a criterion that helps to distinguis natural from intentional collapses.
 
Nice to see a moron shoot himself in the foot by actually getting somethng right.
 
Here is an explanation of how freefall can happen in a natural collapse. In essence, the 9/11 Truth folks believe in only two forces: gravity and structural resistance. By setting up this paradigm they can assert that only CD can eliminate all resistance to create freefall. But what if there are other forces at play in a natural collapse? And yes, Oystein is right that few buildings collapse at freefall, whether they collapse naturally or through controlled demolition. Here's a link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2MER5PhIDt0
 
The whole issue of "Freefall == CD" is a truth movement created false meme. You are supposed to take it for granted that it is true "Free fall THEREFORE must be CD".

It simply isn't true but that's where the problem of understanding comes into play.

Any honest person with a reasonable grasp of basic physics can see why the meme "free fall == CD" is not true.

Unfortunately it is not easy to explain to people who do not have that inbuilt understanding of basic physics.

Chris Mohr did a good job with his responses to Gage.
 
Case said:
Hi all,

Quick question for you guys- this question came about from the WTC 7's "2.2 secs of free fall speed" concern raised by Richard Gage/Truther community at large...

Does a 'free fall' collapse automatically mean controlled demotions? In other words, can a building that has been controlled demolitioned NOT fall at free fall acceleration?

Regardless of your answer, do you have any proof that I can use for a discussion with Truthers....maybe a youtube video or other link? I looked and looked for an answer to this here but no luck.

Thanks,

-Case
Click to expand...

Tell the truthers to jump out of a plane, after they hit the ground, ask them if freefall automatically means controlled demolitions.
 
I want to thank you all for some great answers! (well, most of you ;)

This question is in reference to this $1,000 challenge issued by Kurt Benshoof and posted in Seattle Weekly: http ://blogs.seattleweekly.com/dailyweekly/2011/09/911_truther_offering_1000_to_d.php

(I am not yet allowed to post links, so forgive the segmentation)

In a nutshell, his challenge is this:
"I off[er] you $1,000 cash for 30 minutes of your time if you can logically explain---without the use of controlled demolition---the 2.2 seconds of gravitational free fall of WTC 7 that the National Institute of Standards and Technologies admitted to have occurred. Nothing fancy required. No calculus, no complicated formulas, just 8th-grade science class Scientific Method with the basic understanding of Newton's Laws of Motion that we started seeing in After School Special cartoons when we were five years old."

Given the wording of this challenge, responding to it will be easier than he thinks. The challenge does not require judging, grading, peer review- or even my opponent accepting what I say. It just says "logically explain". Obviously, when I recite that facts as science best understands it, he'll want to debate the NIST explanation for the 2.2 secs of FFA. Kurt's position can be summarized as "WTC 7 could not have gone into immediate free fall acceleration without some type of controlled demolition. The burden of proof is on YOU to prove otherwise."

Yes, I know what you're thinking- the burden of proof lies with the claimant. Believe me, he and I have gone round and round on this.

He refuses to answer the question "If 2.2 secs of FFA is wrong, what speed should have WTC7 fallen during a gravational collapse?" and he won't respond with a straight answer. (ie- "0.0 m/sec- because it shouldn't have fallen!!")

When I press him for a working controlled demolition theory, he says that's not his job to speculate and that he doesn't have the expertise- "That will all come out 'during a REAL investigation'."

I've read many posts here on JREF on 9/11 and I know this drill by now. The attempt to shift burden of proof, the cherry picked data, incomplete answers. I've seen it all. This guys thinks that because he can dangle a grand in the air he can distort logic and science.

Anyhow, cutting to the chase- After a week of email discussion, I have tried to force the debate for November 9th, 2011 to occur at the offices of Seattle Weekly. The journalist who's covering this story is suddenly very unenthusisatic about covering it (unfairly portraying us both as nutjobs- yay journalism!), and Kurt hasn't responded to confirming the date.

-Case
 
Last edited:
Case said:
I want to thank you all for some great answers! (well, most of you ;)

This question is in reference to this $1,000 challenge issued by Kurt Benshoof and posted in Seattle Weekly: http ://blogs.seattleweekly.com/dailyweekly/2011/09/911_truther_offering_1000_to_d.php

(I am not yet allowed to post links, so forgive the segmentation)

In a nutshell, his challenge is this:
"I off[er] you $1,000 cash for 30 minutes of your time if you can logically explain---without the use of controlled demolition---the 2.2 seconds of gravitational free fall of WTC 7 that the National Institute of Standards and Technologies admitted to have occurred. Nothing fancy required. No calculus, no complicated formulas, just 8th-grade science class Scientific Method with the basic understanding of Newton's Laws of Motion that we started seeing in After School Special cartoons when we were five years old."

Given the wording of this challenge, responding to it will be easier than he thinks. The challenge does not require judging, grading, peer review- or even my opponent accepting what I say. It just says "logically explain". Obviously, when I recite that facts as science best understands it, he'll want to debate the NIST explanation for the 2.2 secs of FFA. Kurt's position can be summarized as "WTC 7 could not have gone into immediate free fall acceleration without some type of controlled demolition. The burden of proof is on YOU to prove otherwise."

Yes, I know what you're thinking- the burden of proof lies with the claimant. Believe me, he and I have gone round and round on this.

He refuses to answer the question "If 2.2 secs of FFA is wrong, what speed should have WTC7 fallen during a gravational collapse?" and he won't respond with a straight answer. (ie- "0.0 m/sec- because it shouldn't have fallen!!")

When I press him for a working controlled demolition theory, he says that's not his job to speculate and that he doesn't have the expertise- "That will all come out 'during a REAL investigation'."

I've read many posts here on JREF on 9/11 and I know this drill by now. The attempt to shift burden of proof, the cherry picked data, incomplete answers. I've seen it all. This guys thinks that because he can dangle a grand in the air he can distort logic and science.

Anyhow, cutting to the chase- After two weeks of email discussion, I have tried to force the debate for November 9th, 2011 to occur at the offices of Seattle Weekly. The journalist who's covering this story is suddenly very unenthusisatic about covering it (unfairly portraying us both as nutjobs- yay journalism!), and Kurt hasn't responded to confirming the date.

-Case
Click to expand...

Don't count on it. Troofers have an annoying habit of hand waving away facts that don't mesh with their religion. :covereyes
 
If a truther, or anybody else sets a challenge like that and the only requirement is to convince him, with out anything as complicated as evidence and calculations, then we have a problem: The standard that is required is his own personal satisfaction, that is by its nature biased towards what he may or may not already assume to be the truth.

The simple answer is always this: If the structual support has gone, through any means, be it CD, fire, or a huge plane compromising stability, then free fall will happen. Gravity is like that.
 
Case said:
Hi all,

Quick question for you guys- this question came about from the WTC 7's "2.2 secs of free fall speed" concern raised by Richard Gage/Truther community at large...

Does a 'free fall' collapse automatically mean controlled demotions? In other words, can a building that has been controlled demolitioned NOT fall at free fall acceleration?
Click to expand...

I don't know of ANY CD that does show freefall. There is no prize in a a CD for making the building fall fast, in fact since it would increase the likelyhood of debris being scattered and higher shocks on neighboring buildings its likely CDs would try to be a slow as possible, not as fast.

Freefall is claimed by twoofers as proof of CD but they have to date not shown any that are.........
Click to expand...
 
Case said:
Given the wording of this challenge, responding to it will be easier than he thinks. The challenge does not require judging, grading, peer review- or even my opponent accepting what I say. It just says "logically explain".
Click to expand...


best of luck......all you'll get is a handwave no matter how solid your proof. twoofer logic is an oxymoron.
 
Case said:
Given the wording of this challenge, responding to it will be easier than he thinks. The challenge does not require judging, grading, peer review- or even my opponent accepting what I say. It just says "logically explain". Obviously, when I recite that facts as science best understands it, he'll want to debate the NIST explanation for the 2.2 secs of FFA. Kurt's position can be summarized as "WTC 7 could not have gone into immediate free fall acceleration without some type of controlled demolition. The burden of proof is on YOU to prove otherwise."



-Case
Click to expand...

It's worse than you think. What he's arguing is it's impossible for free-fall through an intact structure. He's ignoring the first 8-9 seconds of the collapse.

Tell you what. You get him to admit that the interior of the building started to collapse 8-9 seconds before the free-fall and I will explain the 2.2 seconds of (near) free-fall. We can split the grand.
 
Case said:
...
In a nutshell, his challenge is this:
"I off[er] you $1,000 cash for 30 minutes of your time if you can logically explain---without the use of controlled demolition---the 2.2 seconds of gravitational free fall of WTC 7 that the National Institute of Standards and Technologies admitted to have occurred. Nothing fancy required. No calculus, no complicated formulas, just 8th-grade science class Scientific Method with the basic understanding of Newton's Laws of Motion that we started seeing in After School Special cartoons when we were five years old."

Given the wording of this challenge, responding to it will be easier than he thinks. The challenge does not require judging, grading, peer review- or even my opponent accepting what I say. It just says "logically explain". Obviously, when I recite that facts as science best understands it, he'll want to debate the NIST explanation for the 2.2 secs of FFA. Kurt's position can be summarized as "WTC 7 could not have gone into immediate free fall acceleration without some type of controlled demolition. The burden of proof is on YOU to prove otherwise."
...
Click to expand...

First, I think no answer in this thread actually halps you to answer the challenge - only to point out why the challenge is moronic.

So let me try to address the challenge.

But first, I need to ask: Did you carelessly add the word "immediate" , or is it a part of how the challenge is worded and presented?

I am asking, because the north face of WTC7 did not go into "immediate" freefall!

The true sequence is roughly this:
1. Building is already showing signs of creep for hours before the final collapse
2. Minutes before release, the roofline can be seen moving
3. Visible collapse release starts with the east penthouse falling into the core.
4. After a few seconds, the west penthouse follows
5. A fraction of a second later, the north and west face fall more or less in unison, at less than freefall, with increasing acceleration (for like 1.75 seconds, if I rememmber correctly).
6. Only after this period of increasing acceleration is freefall reached and roughly maintained for something like 2 seconds.

So there are 5 distinct phases of ongoing, progressive collapse before freefall is observed. It is easy to explain logically why freefall was possible: In particular during the 5th phase, increasing acceleration is caused by progressive loss of vertical support of the north face; in all likelihood, perimeter columns across the two faces snapped in rapid succession, till they provided no (or negligible) resistance.

Congrats to 1000 bucks :)
 
Oystein said:
First, I think no answer in this thread actually halps you to answer the challenge - only to point out why the challenge is moronic.

So let me try to address the challenge.

But first, I need to ask: Did you carelessly add the word "immediate" , or is it a part of how the challenge is worded and presented?

I am asking, because the north face of WTC7 did not go into "immediate" freefall!

The true sequence is roughly this:
1. Building is already showing signs of creep for hours before the final collapse
2. Minutes before release, the roofline can be seen moving
3. Visible collapse release starts with the east penthouse falling into the core.
4. After a few seconds, the west penthouse follows
5. A fraction of a second later, the north and west face fall more or less in unison, at less than freefall, with increasing acceleration (for like 1.75 seconds, if I rememmber correctly).
6. Only after this period of increasing acceleration is freefall reached and roughly maintained for something like 2 seconds.

So there are 5 distinct phases of ongoing, progressive collapse before freefall is observed. It is easy to explain logically why freefall was possible: In particular during the 5th phase, increasing acceleration is caused by progressive loss of vertical support of the north face; in all likelihood, perimeter columns across the two faces snapped in rapid succession, till they provided no (or negligible) resistance.

Congrats to 1000 bucks :)
Click to expand...
[truther mode] So how does that explain falling at FREE-FALL SPEED THROUGH AN INTACT BUILDING? Don't you know anything about PHYSICS?[/truther mode]

:rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
DGM said:
[truther mode] So how does that explain falling at FREE-FALL SPEED THROUGH AN INTACT BUILDING? Don't you know anything about PHYSICS?[/truther mode]

:rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Hehe

That truther would have missed 100% of the explanation: That the building wasn't intact anymore; that it had already suffered progressive damage and destruction during time scales of hours, minutes, seconds and fractions of a second before freefall finally occurred.
 
Oystein said:
Hehe

That truther would have missed 100% of the explanation: That the building wasn't intact anymore; that it had already suffered progressive damage and destruction during time scales of hours, minutes, seconds and fractions of a second before freefall finally occurred.
Click to expand...
And we already figured this out because?..................................he was focussing on the 2.2 seconds.


They are a one trick pony.

:rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
I thought the standard claim was that the buildings came down "faster than free-fall."
 
Case said:
Hi all,

Quick question for you guys- this question came about from the WTC 7's "2.2 secs of free fall speed" concern raised by Richard Gage/Truther community at large...

Does a 'free fall' collapse automatically mean controlled demotions? In other words, can a building that has been controlled demolitioned NOT fall at free fall acceleration?

Regardless of your answer, do you have any proof that I can use for a discussion with Truthers....maybe a youtube video or other link? I looked and looked for an answer to this here but no luck.

Thanks,

-Case
Click to expand...

For WTC1,2 the floors were 12 feet apart. The collapsing block from above encountered structural resistance every 12 feet. In between floors the top would free fall for 12 feet of air until the next floor's structure. So it's not surprising that for WTC1,2 the total collapse time was freefall + structural resistance every 12 feet, not freefall acceleration

For WTC 7, the interior columns collapsed oh 6-8 seconds before the exterior collapsed, even slower than WTC1,2 for a total global collapse to grade much less than freefall acceleration.

If the claim that free fall acceleration is evidence of CD, then the actual slower collapse times prove that WTC1,2,7 were not CD'd since all three fell at slower than free fall acceleration.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom