Freefall?

[William Rea]

I have seen many truthers claim the WTC collapsed in 8.4 seconds, a quick google search reveals truthers spreading this lie throughout numerous forums:
http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&safe=off&q=8.4+seconds+wtc&btnG=Search&meta=

8.4 seconds is of course, less than freefall from the roof of a WTC tower, which would be 9.2 seconds.

After about 180 search items the relevancy of the search fails so an initially impressive 262,000 hits becomes much less impressive.

 

[William Rea]

WAIT. WAIT. WAIT. This is far too simplistic. There must be another, far more complicated explanation as to why some debris fell faster than the rest of the building. Isn't there? Isn't it more likely that precisely placed explosives were planted prior to the phantom plane impacts, and then subsequently detonated in such a way as to MIMIC these otherwise rational, observed collapse phenomena just to fool intelligent people into believing actual physics laws normally associated with natural building collapses weren't violated even though they obviously were due to the sheer amount of actual explosives used in these wholly Unnatural collapses?

Are explosive blasts unidirectional?

Is it not possible that some of the debris has been accelerated downwards (sideways in terms of the horizontal reference direction we seem to be adopting).

The falling debris and smoke would have g + explosive acceleration and the rising debris would have explosive acceleration - g. The debris truely ejected in the reference direction (parallel to the floor) would fall on a parabolic trajectory.

 

[Gravy]

Please point out which multi-ton debris section you believe may have been propelled downward in any direction by explosives, and explain why:

1) There is no seismic record of this event.

2) There are no witnesses or audiovisual recordings of this event.

3) The debris does not travel "faster than freefall."

Going to present your best case at some point, William, or are you content to claim that we don't know what we're talking about, without providing a shred of evidence?

Well? We're waiting.

 

[Gravy]

The esteem that you are held in on this forum would suggest that you are intelligent enough to understand this so I can't figure out why you question it. YOU were the one that opened this with the "is intellectual sloth really a virtue where you live" link. Are you still claiming that 267 hits on Google is evidence of good intellectual rigour? Seriously? I cannot believe this from the great JREF debunker Gravy! By the way, it dropped to 181 hits when I last pressed the link.

It is 267 examples more than I can muster but that is rather like saying that 267 is a significantly larger proportion of 1,000,000 than 1 is. In less than ten seconds I found 11,000,000 hits for the word Gravy, so what?

I complain about the methods that the "JREF orthodoxy" that you call "skeptic" uses because, they demonstrate time and again the arrogance, hypocrisy and intellectual shallowness of the vast majority of people on here. You don't want to acknowledge it exists but, seem to find succour in looking across t'internet at Loose Change amongst others and patting yourselves on the back at how superior you are. That's what you get wrong and it is what I demonstrate time and again.

This is the last time I'll state it Gravy, I now don't give a ***** if the truth movement farts unicorns or if JREF snorts dynamite up it's nose. I genuinely came here with an open mind about 911 and was vilified by the members. I am not alone in this, I know that the Conspiracy Forum is currently under observation from the owners because of its general behaviour.

I have no interest in your challenge or your rather childish goading; "Give us your very best evidence, William. Are you up to it?
I say you're not". I gave up trying to learn anything about 911 in here long ago and now prefer to spend what little time I set aside to spend in the Conspiracy Thread pointing out how it does not live up to the standards it sets for what is generically termed the "Truth Movement".

Why don't I go somewhere else, well I have in a way. I spend more time in the Politics Forum now, where I have yet to be personally vilified in any way close to the way that I ever was in here. Maybe its because over there there is no orthodoxy that lacks self confidence trying to impose its will?

You castigated a forum member for providing one example. I showed you that the example is one of many. Don't like being proven wrong? That's your problem.

I see that you are unable to provide any evidence that our arguments are false. Zero. That's what I thought. Just trolling, then?

 

[pagan]

Maybe my english isn't sufficient, I ment that in an office building there may be explosive materials that when set on fire, exposed to heat or pressure, may cause an explosion. Such explosions would however not account for all the debris and debris cloud.

CD as I understand it would not have all debris, regardeless of size, hurdling "faster than freefall" downwards.

/S

If your English is insufficient? Så kan du alltid använda hjältarnas....

Besides, cut the crap, you are talking mumbo-jumbo. The only explosions involved were the ones planted.
Looking at the many videos, it becomes absolutly clear that explosives were used. If you want scientific evidence?
Visit the journal of 911 scholars.

 

[Panoply_Prefect]

If your English is insufficient? Så kan du alltid använda hjältarnas....

Visst...Well then, perhaps it was your english that was insufficient.

Looking at the many videos, it becomes absolutly clear that explosives were used. If you want scientific evidence?
Visit the journal of 911 scholars.

Sorry, I dont see it. Does debris from ordinary CD fall faster than the free falling main building body?

Cheers,

S

 

[William Rea]

Please point out which multi-ton debris section you believe may have been propelled downward in any direction by explosives, and explain why:

1) There is no seismic record of this event.

2) There are no witnesses or audiovisual recordings of this event.

3) The debris does not travel "faster than freefall."

Going to present your best case at some point, William, or are you content to claim that we don't know what we're talking about, without providing a shred of evidence?

Well? We're waiting.

Did I say explosives had been used, no I don't think so.

And this demonstrates exactly what I was talking about in my other post Gravy. I am tagged as unorthodox so assumptions are made about my posts. I haven't said ANYTHING that contavenes any physics or science and yet you immediately make an attack.

Didn't take much for me to demonstrate it did it?

Thanks for making my point for me.

Repeating the childish goading doesn't lend it any further air of authority either.

 

[William Rea]

You castigated a forum member for providing one example. I showed you that the example is one of many. Don't like being proven wrong? That's your problem.

I see that you are unable to provide any evidence that our arguments are false. Zero. That's what I thought. Just trolling, then?

Lol, I'm not going to get into a does so, doesn't so exchange with you Gravy. It's you that takes the moral high ground so you'd better get a better defence for it than that.

Are you accusing me of trolling directly or not, not quite clear is it. Make the accusation directly and we'll take it to the Moderators if you have a problem.

As an aside did you spot the other double standard? Oh yes, I am the unorthodox contributor so my sarcasm about the quality of evidence is "Castigating". If I agree with the orthodoxy it is overlooked and passively accepted (I'll be charitable on this occaision and say not directly condoned by people who should know better).

BTW, did you check all 267 too see how many root sources there might be? You do understand that on the internet there are networks that link to repeat articles many times don't you?

 

[Cl1mh4224rd]

Besides, cut the crap, you are talking mumbo-jumbo. The only explosions involved were the ones planted.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2674646408572574875

This is a video of an electrical transformer on fire, which explodes. From the video's description: "The mineral oil inside started to boil from the heat, gushing from the sides and causing the explosion."

 

[Gravy]

If your English is insufficient? Så kan du alltid använda hjältarnas....

Besides, cut the crap, you are talking mumbo-jumbo. The only explosions involved were the ones planted.
Looking at the many videos, it becomes absolutly clear that explosives were used. If you want scientific evidence?
Visit the journal of 911 scholars.

Wow. That's plain insanity. pagan, you are absolutely wrong. If you care to learn about this subject, you've come to a good place.

Do you care? If so, are you willing to stick with a learning process?

 

[A W Smith]

You asked a question. I answered it. then my example was multiplied 680 times

Originally Posted by sophia8
The 9/11 CTers are always going on about how the WTC collapsed "faster than freefall". Have any of them ever proven this? That is, told us the speed of a object free-falling through the air, and then told us the precise speed of fall of the WTC?

Which CTers and where have they claimed it?

from
Scholars for 9/11 Truth; Why Doubt 9/11?

8, The destruction of the South Tower in 10 seconds and of the North in 9 is even faster than free fall with only air resistance, which would have taken at least 12 seconds, which, as Judy Wood has emphasized, is an astounding result that would have been impossible without extremely powerful explosives.

OK, just doing a quick calculation and adding it up bear with me...(tapping noises from keys on spreadsheet)...Hmm yeah, OK, I make that a total of one source quoted! I can't believe that because it wouldn't be like you guys to take one snippet of information and use that as a basis to debunk the whole set of data would it?

Is intellectual sloth really a virtue where you live?

267 hits on Google isn't terribly impressive is it. By the way, it dropped to 181 hits when I last pressed the link.

Results 1 - 10 of about 680 for "faster than freefall" 9/11

 

[Gravy]

Lol, I'm not going to get into a does so, doesn't so exchange with you Gravy. It's you that takes the moral high ground so you'd better get a better defence for it than that.

Are you accusing me of trolling directly or not, not quite clear is it. Make the accusation directly and we'll take it to the Moderators if you have a problem.

There's a JREF rule against trolling now? Can you point me to it?

As an aside did you spot the other double standard? Oh yes, I am the unorthodox contributor so my sarcasm about the quality of evidence is "Castigating". If I agree with the orthodoxy it is overlooked and passively accepted (I'll be charitable on this occaision and say not directly condoned by people who should know better).

Didn't spot any double standard there, William. Your contributions are judged on their merits, not on their "orthodoxy." For instance, you claim there is such a thing as "politically correct" physics being practiced here. You were asked to provide proof for that assertion, and you failed to do so.

Do you disagree? Then show your evidence. That's how to change rational minds: with evidence, not with opinion.

If you don't have evidence, that's not our problem. Or if you don't give a damn, that's fine, but stop whining here. Whining isn't an answer to anything.

BTW, did you check all 267 too see how many root sources there might be? You do understand that on the internet there are networks that link to repeat articles many times don't you?

I looked at several pages' worth to be sure they weren't from the same sources. Since you are the one who challenged the "faster than freefall statement" claim, you could have bothered to spend a couple of minutes examining the statements.

So, William Rea, you've now had that chance. What does your analysis of the truther term "faster than freefall" tell you? Has that term been published many times by different users, or not?

And have you had the chance, during all your complaining, to think of anything we 9/11 pseudoskeptics actually have gotten wrong?

 

[William Rea]

There's a JREF rule against trolling now? Can you point me to it?

Didn't spot any double standard there, William. Your contributions are judged on their merits, not on their "orthodoxy." For instance, you claim there is such a thing as "politically correct" physics being practiced here. You were asked to provide proof for that assertion, and you failed to do so.

Do you disagree? Then show your evidence. That's how to change rational minds: with evidence, not with opinion.

If you don't have evidence, that's not our problem. Or if you don't give a damn, that's fine, but stop whining here. Whining isn't an answer to anything.

I looked at several pages' worth to be sure they weren't from the same sources. Since you are the one who challenged the "faster than freefall statement" claim, you could have bothered to spend a couple of minutes examining the statements.

So, William Rea, you've now had that chance. What does your analysis of the truther term "faster than freefall" tell you? Has that term been published many times by different users, or not?

And have you had the chance, during all your complaining, to think of anything we 9/11 pseudoskeptics actually have gotten wrong?

Accuse me directly of trolling instead of insinuating it and we'll take it to the moderators and see if it breaches the guidelines OR rules. Do you have a problem with that?

The real point is that a link was provided to make a generalisation about the self proclaimed "truth movement" which was patently untrue. Quote from OP - "The 9/11 CTers are always going on about how the WTC collapsed "faster than freefall". Just like the other generalisation trying to link it with the neo-Nazi movement. These points are about politics NOT analysis of facts. Like I said, I don't give a monkey's fart about the "truth movement" but, I dislike this sort of tactic.

If someone came on and started a thread saying Christophera is always going on about near freefall speeds I wouldn't have a problem with that in any way. It is not an unreasonable assertion.

I asked a question, is it not possible for the debris to fall faster than g if it is accelerated by an explosive force? Is it? Come on, let's have a conversation instead of this bull crap. Are you able to do that or are you unable to engage because you still believe that in addition to your insinuation of falsehood on my part when I say that I am not a troll, you also believe that I am lying or insincere when I say I have no connection whatsoever with your beloved "truth movement". Are you so lacking in confidence about your analysis?

I just gave you a demonstration of the orthodoxy. I tell you what, why don't you try and do something that was suggested in another thread by another poster. Get permission to create another user name and come in here and post something that deviates from the orthodox slightly. I reckon you'll change your mind in the space of about 10 posts.

As I also knew it would, the whining word came up didn't it. Politics again that has been seen many times on here although I didn't expect it from someone as august as you.

PS - How do you know I didn't go back and look at the results of the search?

 

[William Rea]

Results 1 - 10 of about 680 for "faster than freefall" 9/11

I don't know which Google you're using but I am following Gravy's link.

So when I first used the link I got 267, second time 184 and now 174. Wouldn't that suggest that the evidence is getting less impressive by the day! Or is it a "Twoofer" conspiracy?

Where are you getting 680 hits?

In any case how does this prove that The 9/11 CTers are always going on about how the WTC collapsed "faster than freefall"?

For me it says that there is a very small minority of people who may be associated with an organised "truth movement" that have believed or still believe that the towers collapsed faster than freefall. I could expand it further but I think this is close enough to a correct analysis of the situation.

Using Gravy's link do you want to go through each hit one by one, starting at the first, and analyse them? They make interesting reading when you go into some and read what is ACTUALLY going on in them.

 

[sophia8]

I don't know which Google you're using but I am following Gravy's link.

So when I first used the link I got 267, second time 184 and now 174. Wouldn't that suggest that the evidence is getting less impressive by the day! Or is it a "Twoofer" conspiracy?

Where are you getting 680 hits?

The links to Google searches given here were simply the URLs of search terms. Google works by searching through current pages. The internet is immensely fluid and changes constantly - new pages added, pages taken down, pages changed. So any given search using the same search terms will also constantly change.

In any case how does this prove that The 9/11 CTers are always going on about how the WTC collapsed "faster than freefall"?

Er, it does rather prove it, I think.....

For me it says that there is a very small minority of people who may be associated with an organised "truth movement" that have believed or still believe that the towers collapsed faster than freefall. I could expand it further but I think this is close enough to a correct analysis of the situation.

They constitute a small minority of the general public, maybe, but for a sizable number of "Truthers" (for want of a better term), this claim is a conerstone of their belief. Just read through the Loose Change forums, or the UK 9/11 forum. My previous post provided links to just three sample UK 9/11 threads that carried the "faster than freefall" claim - there were many more than that.

 

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

I've never seen any truther claim that the towers fell faster than free fall.

The term usually used is that the towers virtually fell in free fall speed. One of our best arguments and a sure sign for the use of explosives.

Anyway, this is hair splitting. You guys are getting desperate.

Please quantify exactly what you mean by "virtually fell in free fall speed".

 

[William Rea]

Er, it does rather prove it, I think.....

OK, I typed in "911 truth" and got 1,960,000 hits. Let's take the worst case presented of 680 hits for ""faster than freefall" 9/11" (which I dispute).

If a Google search is really considered evidence then I make it that 100*680/1,960,000 = 0.0347% of CTers believe in faster than freefall.

I understand how ridiculous the argument I just made is. The question is, do you understand how ridiculous it is to say that 267 or even 680 hits on Google constitutes evidence that "The 9/11 CTers are always going on about how the WTC collapsed "faster than freefall".

 

[William Rea]

They constitute a small minority of the general public, maybe, but for a sizable number of "Truthers" (for want of a better term), this claim is a conerstone of their belief. Just read through the Loose Change forums, or the UK 9/11 forum. My previous post provided links to just three sample UK 9/11 threads that carried the "faster than freefall" claim - there were many more than that.

It took you 45 minutes to find 8 links where who knows how few people were putting forward "faster than freefall" 9/11? That doesn't even constitute evidence of a small minority of the left handed, black, lesbian members of the "Truth Movement".

If you asked me to show that no one in the "Truth Movement" is advocating "faster than freefall" 9/11 then I would accept this evidence against that assertion.

It just doesn't cut the muster in supporting the OP assertion.

 

[A W Smith]

Move Goalposts much? Troll?

OK, I typed in "911 truth" and got 1,960,000 hits. Let's take the worst case presented of 680 hits for ""faster than freefall" 9/11" (which I dispute).

If a Google search is really considered evidence then I make it that 100*680/1,960,000 = 0.0347% of CTers believe in faster than freefall.

I understand how ridiculous the argument I just made is. The question is, do you understand how ridiculous it is to say that 267 or even 680 hits on Google constitutes evidence that "The 9/11 CTers are always going on about how the WTC collapsed "faster than freefall".

i see your straw man and raise you two.
what is the hierarchy of '911 truth" compared to "faster than free fall 911"

 

[William Rea]

i see your straw man and raise you two.
what is the hierarchy of '911 truth" compared to "faster than free fall 911"

Have the courage of your convictions and remove the ? from the Troll? in your headline if you really believe it.

Then explain how I have moved the goal posts in any way whatsoever?

Then understand that my strawman was a construct to demonstrate the initial strawman argument. I signposted it very clearly when I admitted "I understand how ridiculous the argument I just made is."

I tell you what, I won't hide behind the ? and I'll take off the kid gloves and just say to you directly that you need to get some English comprehension skills.