David Chandler forced NIST to admit "free-fall"

[DGM]

Why do "truthers" continue to make this claim? I've been re-reading the "draft" version of NCSTAR 1-9 and have seen several references to this portion of the collapse. Chapter 12 for instance has several (including graphs).


Where did this "forced to admit" come from?

 

[T.A.M.]

I am still waiting for Cooperman or RedIbis to produce proof of this canard. I suspect I will see little evidence, but I am sure someone (I wonder) will be along shortly with another irrelevant comment.

TAM

 

[DGM]

I am still waiting for Cooperman or RedIbis to produce proof of this canard. I suspect I will see little evidence, but I am sure someone (I wonder) will be along shortly with another irrelevant comment.

TAM

I quoted the specific section and paragraph (for one of many) for cooperman. He never responded.

Doesn't look good for this "truther" lie.

 

[DGM]

I just want to add, For those that consider a "keyword" search reading a report. "Free-fall" is not going to get you anywhere. This is one of those times you'll have to suck it up and actually read the damn thing. Trust me, it won't kill you.

 

[Sam.I.Am]

I just want to add, For those that consider a "keyword" search reading a report. "Free-fall" is not going to get you anywhere. This is one of those times you'll have to suck it up and actually read the damn thing. Trust me, it won't kill you.

But it will kill your fantasies of majikal termites and hush-a-boom bombs...

 

[ozeco41]

Why do "truthers" continue to make this claim? I've been re-reading the "draft" version of NCSTAR 1-9 and have seen several references to this portion of the collapse. Chapter 12 for instance has several (including graphs).


Where did this "forced to admit" come from?

One of the central premises of truther mythology is that "free fall" must mean demolition and that free fall cannot occur in "natural" collapses. Utter nonsense of course but they are not targeting the physics literate sector of society.

So there it is up front in so many of their claims "free fall", implying or explicitly stated as proof of demolition and the complementary part of alleged denial by authorities such as NIST.

 

[R.Mackey]

Why do "truthers" continue to make this claim? I've been re-reading the "draft" version of NCSTAR 1-9 and have seen several references to this portion of the collapse. Chapter 12 for instance has several (including graphs).


Where did this "forced to admit" come from?

Because the Truth Movement isn't about finding answers to valid questions. It's about "teh Pwnage." All they want, all they care about is validation of their own beliefs and self image.

This is part of the reason the Truth Movement is almost entirely confined to the Internet.

 

[adkinsjr]

I just want to add, For those that consider a "keyword" search reading a report. "Free-fall" is not going to get you anywhere. This is one of those times you'll have to suck it up and actually read the damn thing. Trust me, it won't kill you.

Not true, just hit CTRL F

I was just now looking through the draft to find references to "free fall" after I had heard from several truthers that NIST had been "forced" to accept freefall by Chandler. I was also searching this forum to see if any truthers had regurgitated it here.

 

[Orphia Nay]

Free-fall was supposed to be evidence of explosives. Thermite is not an explosive. Yet truthers still want to have their cake and eat it too.

 

[twinstead]

mmmmmm....cake......

 

[adkinsjr]

Why do "truthers" continue to make this claim? I've been re-reading the "draft" version of NCSTAR 1-9 and have seen several references to this portion of the collapse. Chapter 12 for instance has several (including graphs).


Where did this "forced to admit" come from?

I think they're talking about the NIST preliminary report for public comment. I can't link it here because I'm under 15 posts.

The claim is that they were somehow "forced" by Chandler to include a few seconds of freefall in the final report, which they omitted in the prelim. Spooky huh? It's not clear exactly how he "forced" NIST though. It sounds like more "truth" mythology and rumor.

 

[alienentity]

I quoted the specific section and paragraph (for one of many) for cooperman. He never responded.

Doesn't look good for this "truther" lie.

Can you link me to this? The draft versions I have include one dated October 2008, but original draft release was August 08.
Final was November 08 IIRC.

thx

 

[T.A.M.]

Free-fall was supposed to be evidence of explosives. Thermite is not an explosive. Yet truthers still want to have their cake and eat it too.

Well yes, and the PERFECT example of this is from the Thermite High Priest himself.

As I have linked to, and discussed many times, Steven Jones, when confronted and debunked by Dr. Greening via email, in desperation, described that the thermite must have been used simply as FUSES for more TRADITIONAL EXPLOSIVES.

Of course, the problem with this, is that traditional explosives still go BOOM!!!!

TAM

 

[alienentity]

Well yes, and the PERFECT example of this is from the Thermite High Priest himself.

As I have linked to, and discussed many times, Steven Jones, when confronted and debunked by Dr. Greening via email, in desperation, described that the thermite must have been used simply as FUSES for more TRADITIONAL EXPLOSIVES.

Of course, the problem with this, is that traditional explosives still go BOOM!!!!

TAM

And they still get detected by bomb-sniffing dogs. Another canard chases its own tail into oblivion

 

[T.A.M.]

And they still get detected by bomb-sniffing dogs. Another canard chases its own tail into oblivion

and they still take up a crapload of space...not easy to hide, even when dressed up in disguise like a windowwasher or the like.

TAM

 

[Miragememories]

I just want to add, For those that consider a "keyword" search reading a report. "Free-fall" is not going to get you anywhere. This is one of those times you'll have to suck it up and actually read the damn thing. Trust me, it won't kill you.

That should tell you something right there.

Well maybe you might explain how and where the NIST admitted the existence of free fall from;

August 21st, 2008, approximately 7 years after 9/11

NIST NCSTAR 1-9 Vol2 cs for Public Comment
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS

"The theoretical time for free fall (i.e., neglecting air friction), was computed from,

where t is the descent time (s), h is the distance fallen (ft), and g is the gravitational acceleration constant, 32.2 ft/s2 (9.81 m/s2). Upon substitution of h = 242 ft. in the above equation, the estimated free fall time for the top of the north face to fall 18 stories was approximately 3.9 s. The uncertainty in this value was also less than 0.1 s.

Thus, the actual time for the upper 18 stories to collapse, based on video evidence, was approximately 40 percent longer than the computed free fall time and was consistent with physical principles. The actual collapse time of the upper 18 floors of the north face of WTC 7 (the floors clearly visible in the video evidence) was 40 percent greater than the computed free fall time. This was consistent with physical principles."

PRINCIPAL FINDINGS

"The collapse time of the upper 18 stories of the north face of WTC 7 (the floors clearly visible in the video evidence) was 40 percent greater than the computed free fall time. This is consistent with physical principles."

The NIST did not make the free fall acknowledgement until their final report
after public comment;

NIST WTC7 FINAL - 1A Report 1-29-09_FINALREV
SUMMARY

"The observed descent time of the upper 18 stories of the north face of WTC 7 (the floors clearly visible in the video evidence) was 40 percent greater than the computed free fall time.

A more detailed analysis of the descent of the north face found three stages: (1) a slow descent with acceleration less than that of gravity that corresponded to the buckling of the exterior columns at the lower floors, (2) a freefall descent over approximately eight stories at gravitational acceleration for approximately 2.25 s, and (3) a decreasing acceleration as the north face encountered resistance from the structure below."

MM

 

[DGM]

That should tell you something right there.

Well maybe you might explain how and where the NIST admitted the existence of free fall

NCSTAR 1-9 Vol 2 Chapter 12.5.3

Hope this helps you.

BTW A simple understanding of what you just posted would help.

 

[Miragememories]

NCSTAR 1-9 Vol 2 Chapter 12.5.3

Hope this helps you.

BTW A simple understanding of what you just posted would help.

How does this represent an admission that there was a period of free fall?

"Thus, the actual time for the upper 18 stories to collapse, based on video evidence, was approximately 40 percent longer than the computed free fall time and was consistent with physical principles."

BTW A simple understanding of what you just posted would help.

MM

 

[DGM]

I think they're talking about the NIST preliminary report for public comment. I can't link it here because I'm under 15 posts.

The claim is that they were somehow "forced" by Chandler to include a few seconds of freefall in the final report, which they omitted in the prelim. Spooky huh? It's not clear exactly how he "forced" NIST though. It sounds like more "truth" mythology and rumor.

The "draft" version is the version that they are talking about. The problem is NIST did not show enough emphasis for them. The data has always been there. (Just not in "truther" speak). Chandler did in fact "force" them to explain it more thoroughly (put more in to layman's terms).

 

[DGM]

How does this represent an admission that there was a period of free fall?

"Thus, the actual time for the upper 18 stories to collapse, based on video evidence, was approximately 40 percent longer than the computed free fall time and was consistent with physical principles."

BTW A simple understanding of what you just posted would help.

MM

I know numbers and math are a problem for you. You do have to actually read the chapter.

BTW: Were you thinking the whole building when you posted what you did?