CD = Free Fall?

[Shoof]

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.

I'm most definitely a coward, but I'm not sure that that admission is going to answer the questions that I posed to all of you kind hearted skeptics.

 

[Macgyver1968]

I'm most definitely a coward, but I'm not sure that that admission is going to answer the questions that I posed to all of you kind hearted skeptics.

Yes you are...you have been asked by me and numerous other members to elaborate on what you think happened on 9/11...but you refuse to do so. To me that says "coward".

Prove us wrong. Give us a detailed account of what you think happened that day.

 

[The Platypus]

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

So you are blaming your own mental deficiency and 10 years of doing nothing productive about your lack of understanding, on the big bad gov't that is stopping you from beating your dead horse. More songs and dances, as usual...

Weird how you can't find satisfactory information about 9/11 in 10 years, but clearly you have no trouble finding, memorizing and reciting 911 conspiracy theory rhetoric.

 

[Macgyver1968]

Well..I'm going to bed...for someone so confident in their ideals that they were willing to put up $1000 to back them up...this noobie truther seems like a giant Edit:coward to me.

I'll let the others deal with you...I'm done.

 

[The Platypus]

Well..I'm going to bed...for someone so confident in their ideals that they were willing to put up $1000 to back them up...this noobie truther seems like a giant pussy to me.

I'll let the others deal with you...I'm done.

LMAO, I just spit my coffee laughing. This guy is playing games, games he didn't even invent, he is never going to up $1000 to anyone no matter what and i'm have no doubt he even knows it.

Gotta go change my shirt now.

 

[ElMondoHummus]

@ 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

Rather predictable response. One which betrays a lack of knowledge of what occurred on that day, as well as what Chandler demonstrated.

Here, I'll use an analogy. Take a look at this picture:

That's an experimental turboprop aircraft called the XF-84H. Obscure little thing. Not many were produced, and it failed to live up to its expectations, so its program was cancelled.

It once held the distinction of being the fastest single-engine propeller driven aircraft ever created, only barely beaten out nearly 40 years later. The expectations were to achieve 670 MPH by design; practical testing had it actually get up to 520 MPH. Speedy aircraft. But not supersonic; even by design, it's top speed was supposed to be Mach 0.9, and the 520 MPH it achieved ended up being Mach 0.7 at the altitude it flew at. So, it didn't quite hit the Mach 1.0 speed.

Yet, by your logic, the jet is supersonic.

Yes. Your logic.

Go back and read what wrote back there:

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.

Now read about the XF-84:

... propeller, consisting of three steel, square-tipped blades turning at a constant speed, with the tips traveling at approximately Mach 1.18.

Part of 7 World Trade's north face fell for a fraction of time at a rate equal to that of free fall. The tips of the propeller on the XF-84 manage to reach Mach 1.18.

You understand now how I am "...interpreting their (sic) statement as only applying to the 'entire collapse"? I say this because they came out and said it:

• In Stage 1, the descent was slow and the acceleration was less than that of gravity. This stage corresponds to the initial buckling of the exterior columns in the lower stories of the north face, as seen in Figure 12-62. By 1.75 s, the north face had descended approximately 7ft.
• In Stage 2, the north face descended at gravitational acceleration, as exterior column buckling progressed and the columns provided negligible support to the upper portion of the north face. This free fall drop continued for approximately 8 stories (105ft), the distance traveled between times t = 1.75 s and t = 4.0 s.
• In Stage 3, the acceleration decreased somewhat as the upper portion of the north face encountered resistance from the collapsed structure and the debris pile below. Between 4.0 s and 5.4 s, the northwest corner fell an additional 130 ft.

NCSTAR 1-9 Vol 2, p. 602

See what they're saying? See how they say that the first "stage's" acceleration was "less than that of gravity"? See how they say that in Stage 3, acceleration decreased and "encountered resistance"? Note that they're saying the "gravitational acceleration" descent was isolated to just a portion of the total collapse? And note how they differentiate between the entire north face and the upper portion of it?

The difference between "part" and "the whole thing" cannot be any clearer. You should not ignore this point. And if you view yourself to be honest, you should not try to obsfucate this point in future posts. NIST is very clear and precise in what they're saying. They're saying that the "free fall" portion of the collapse is isolated in both time and area of the building affected.

It can't get any clearer. You'll get a pass on your next post:

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.

... because you had not had this explained to you yet. However, it has been now, so you should recognize your error and compose future posts accordingly.

The building did not "exhibit" free fall. Only part of it did. And only for a short period of time.

So to answer your question:

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

Cheers,

Kurt

No, NIST never beat their wife to begin with.

 

[carlitos]

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?

I'll just give it one try.

Do you have evidence for the highlighted claim?

FYI, ignoring triforcharity's responses is pretty cowardly.

 

[cjnewson88]

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?

Dude!! You really do not get it do you? Let me rephrase this for you:

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 [Source, Page Number] exhibited incompetence and/or intentional deception.
Stop loading your questions, stop JAQing, just stop. Don't hide your claim in a question, just state the claim, and provide a source of reference.

 

[cjnewson88]

mmm I just read something that confused me. According to NIST (or at least the quote above by Elmondo) - Stage 2 fell at free fall. It fell 105ft in 2.25 seconds. Next, in Stage 3, slower than free fall, fell 130ft in 1.4 seconds.. Stage three fell faster than Stage 2, however stage 3 was not "free fall"..

edit: ok I just answered by own question.. clearly it should specify it was "accelerating" at free fall, I was dumb enough to think of things in constant speed lol sorry..

 

[Oystein]

That may be what he intended, but it's far from clear, and why I asked "what 7s?" earlier.

You asked, I gave you an answer, you rejected that answer out of hand, and in a rather gruffy tone.

Rather poor.

...
As requested earlier I may place a list of graph links up somewhere for reference.

Maybe the Resources for debunking 9/11 Conspiracy Theories would be good for that?

 

[ozeco41]

mmm I just read something that confused me. According to NIST (or at least the quote above by Elmondo) - Stage 2 fell at free fall. It fell 105ft in 2.25 seconds. Next, in Stage 3, slower than free fall, fell 130ft in 1.4 seconds.. Stage three fell faster than Stage 2, however stage 3 was not "free fall"..

edit: ok I just answered by own question.. clearly it should specify it was "accelerating" at free fall, I was dumb enough to think of things in constant speed lol sorry..

You are forgiven. Discussing with truthers is a severe mental health risk.

Remember that they don't understand the basics 100% of the time.

So if "we" have an occasional lapse it is understandable.

 

[Oystein]

@ ElMondoHummus: NIST asserting that free fall did not happen...

You make a claim here and have failed to back it up. You linked to a page where NIST does NOT make that claim. Or, if they ever did, they don't make that claim any longer.

So what purpose do you have when you pull out irrelevancies that are no longer on record?

Please make your claims, back them up with evidence, then we can talk.
Even better if you could explain what your claims mean with regard to the Big Picture of "how did WTC7 fall?"

 

[Oystein]

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

a) Whatever answer you get - it will not advance your understanding of what happened on 9/11 one bit. So what is the purpose of your question?

b) Saying that "WTC 7 is descending in free fall" is of course very inaccurate, which, to an engineers, is not much different from "false". By and large, for most of the time, most of the building, and most of its height, there was no freefall. Essentially, NIST was right all along: By and large, WTC7 did not drop in free fall. Please tell me if you agree with this assessment, and if not, give reasons!

c) A brief period of ábout freefall of part of the building is not relevant, and is consistent with the collapse sequence that NIST proposes. If you disagree, you must explain why a brief episode of partial freefall means that NIST's conclusions are false, and significantly so.

 

[Oystein]

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

There is again a sweeping claim implied in your question.

Please make that claim explicit, and back it up with evidence! Then we have something to talk about!

 

[cjnewson88]

c) A brief period of ábout freefall of part of the building is not relevant, and is consistent with the collapse sequence that NIST proposes. If you disagree, you must explain why a brief episode of partial freefall means that NIST's conclusions are false, and significantly so.

This, I believe, is the crux of the entire thing. How does a section of the building briefly accelerating at near free fall prove NIST wrong and substantiate controlled demolition?

Without asking more questions, please state your claim, with evidence to support, why a controlled demolition is the only plausible explanation, why only controlled demolition would produce free fall acceleration, and how this was so excellently orchestrated that they could control a progressive collapse with no significant sounds, visible giveaways, witnesses, or traces of explosives in the debris pile.

Thanks.

 

[Clayton Moore]

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

Of course it does. Each of the three buildings fell in less than twenty seconds. 75% of the people in America have no idea WTC7 also was destroyed on 9/11.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Odp1FO0Vmuw&feature=player_embedded

 

[Dave Rogers]

It never crossed my mind that there may be rules and regulations for how I ask a question on this forum. If following those rules are a requirement of this forum, can someone politely direct me to where that information is detailed?

Until I see those rules and regulations---if they exist---any of you are welcome to respond to, or ignore, any or all of my questions.

There are no rules or regulations detailing the way in which questions must be asked. Nor are there rules or regulations requiring any questions to be addressed. There are only individual posters who may choose to post what they like. Please feel free to go on asking dishonestly phrased complex questions as long as you wish, but be informed that many, if not all, of us will simply choose not to answer them.

Dave

 

[Dave Rogers]

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

Neither.

Let's look at the actual acceleration data, shall we?



What's clear from this is that there is no period of freefall. There is a portion of the graph for which the acceleration is close to 1G. There are two possibilities here; either the errors in the measurement are comparable with or greater than the fluctuations in the acceleration, in which case we cannot determine the maximum acceleration to a better precision than somewhere between 0.8G and 1.2G, or the errors in the measurement are less than the fluctuations in the acceleration, in which case we can only identify four points at which the varying acceleration is instantaneously equal to 1G. It's imprecise and incorrect to claim that a part of the collapse was in freefall, therefore. Freefall has a very specific meaning; it means that the only significant force acting on a body is gravity. Clearly, in the above graph, either there are other significant time-varying forces acting on the body under observation, or the measurement is not accurate enough to determine that a period of freefall occurred.

So my response would be that NIST's initial statement, that the building did not enter freefall, is in the strictest sense correct; and since the NIST report was written for qualified professionals, it was appropriate that it should be worded this accurately. NIST's subsequent "admission" that the building exhibited a period of near-freefall acceleration is a vague, loosely-worded and scientifically worthless observation, which I would regard as having been thrown out as a sop to truthers in a misguided attempt to get them to stop making worthless pronouncements about things they don't understand.

Dave

 

[Scott Sommers]

This is one of the most confusing and disordered threads I have seen here in a long time. Even though the original post was quite clear about its intention, our new found JREF friend Shoof seems to have thrown the whole thing into chaos. I'm not an engineer or physical scientist and generally ignore the more technical threads, and even I know that all this free fall stuff has already been addressed.

Much of this goes to emphasize points I have previously made. We all know what's been talked about before, and by 'we', I include the Truther intelligentsia like Tony Szamboti, femr2 and that crowd. But outside the confines of this URL, virtually none of the Truther community knows there really was no free fall in the sense that Dick Gage says there was. So every time some new name appears from Truther World, particularly those names trying to position themselves among the new bright minds of the 9/11 Truth movement, it starts all over. It all starts over because absolutely no one hears about this unless they check it out here on JREF. Out new found Truther friend isn't going back to Facebook friends or the guys he chats with on whatever forums he chats on to report there really was no free fall - or better yet - there was no thermite at the WTC (because we all know that's where he's going with this). And as much as they do know, they'll think our new friend was such a dude yelling over and over and over and over about how that "NIST don't know about that WTC 7 free fall".

But then again, who really cares?

9/11 Truth are the heroes of our age. They're changing hearts and minds all over the world. They're the only souls left who really dare to challenge the Satanic murder machine decimating the USA and our planet. 9/11 Truth...9/11 Truth...fighting the tyranny since before they were born!!! 9/11 Truth...be a hero in your own mind!!!!

 

[triforcharity]

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

This assinine question has already been answered.

We (the collective people who live in reality) accept the investigationS of NIST et al. It YOU (the collective people who live in KookLand) do not accept the many that were done, please feel free to contact Gage et al. and do your own.