Free Fall thread

Overheal

Dedicated thread for free fall of WTC 7.

A brief summary of free fall connected to WTC7:

The notion of freefall in WTC7 in the conspiracy has changed a lot over the years to adapt to the most sellable ideas.

Initially it came from places like the Loose Change documentary which relied heavily on WTC7 being this liytle known secret. In the movie it was claimed that the building fell in about or under 7 seconds. This would be about the same time for a ball to drop the same height. The movie therefore concludes that the building collapsed without resistance, therefore all the resistance must have been removed, therefore it's a controlled demolition, therefore conspiracy.
This runs into problems however as the movie pretty blatantly leaves out the first part of the collapse (the east penthouse falling inwards). And even then the part of the collapse they did show was also longer than 6 seconds.

In response to theories like this the NIST stated that the building as a whole did not undergo a complete free fall collapse and explain this by showing that the building as a whole took longer than 7 seconds to fall.
Later the NIST released a suppplementary analysis where free fall is mentioned. This is misconstrued by cinspiracy theorists to mean they are refering to the building as a whole and for the entire collapse. However in reality thry are refering to a portion of the facade while the collapse is in progress and shows lesser acceleration before and after which indicates resistance.

This mention of free fall is misconstrued by conspiracy theorists either deliberately by experts who know better, or, more commonly, innocently by conspiracy theorists who simply dont know what free fall is.
Its used as a technical sounding buzzword to make conspiracy theory arguments sound more informed and authoritative than they are.

I have never seen a conspiracy theorist explain how the presence of free fall indicates a conspiracy or a controlled demolition.

It is often claimed that freefall is a feature in controlled demolition, but this is never shown to be the case. It seems to be something invented by the conspiracy theory industry.

Moreover its clearly not the case if you have even a bare understanding of how demolitions work.
Most explosive demolitions use charges on different floors and in different places to remove the bare minimum of the buildings strength that would allow it to collapse in a safe way. Most of the collapsing and demolishing is done by the buildings own falling weight. As the building falls, floors collapse into lower floors, which overwhelms that floors supports which makes ot fall into the next floor and so on. This makes it a fact that the building is experiencing resistance and therefore it is falling with less acceleration and speed than it would if it was freefalling. This does not mean that portions of the building cannot fall at freefall speeds for one reason or another, mind. This refers to the building as a whole.
The only way for the building as a whole to collapse at free fall requires that EVERY vertical support on EVERY floor in the ENTIRE building is rigged to explode at the exact same moment.
For WTC7 this means that all columns on all 47 floors.
This would be a very large noticable explosion.

Further conspiracy theorist run into an issue with Hulseys report, which is the closest thing they have to a complete explanation of their version of events.
In Hulseys "simulations" he only removes the supports on a single floor.
If this was the case then it means that the roofline of building could only fall at free fall for the few milliseconds it takes to drop one floor, after that the two halves of the building would begin pancaking against each other and themselves, experiencing less than free fall acceleration for the rest of the collapse. In his scenario, the 2.25 seconds or 7 seconds of free fall beloved by conspiracy theorists are impossible.

Yet freefall will still be used as a smoking gun because conspiracy theory believers simply dont know what it means, how it works or what its consequences are.
It is just a buzz word they've been told to use.

Overheal

A friendly reminder that free fall posts belong here, not inserted into other threads as a last ditch filibuster.

Cheerful Spring2

NIST science about the collapse go up in smoke when they said this. You simply never understand it.

In this scenario building seven never experienced freefall at all There claiming the 8 floors where Hulsey predicted the controlled demolition started had resistance and there be no freefall.

Said on video during the presentation of their draft paper for building seven
Sunder (NIST) “[A] free-fall time would be an object that has no structural components below it.... What the analysis shows...is that same time it took for the structural model to come down...is 5.4 seconds. It’s about 1.5 seconds, or roughly 40 percent, more time for that free fall to happen. And that is not at all unusual because there was structural resistance that was provided in this particular case.”

Overheal

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

NIST science about the collapse go up in smoke when they said this. You simply never understand it.

In this scenario building seven never experienced freefall at all There claiming the 8 floors where Hulsey predicted the controlled demolition started had resistance and there be no freefall.

Said on video during the presentation of their draft paper for building seven
Sunder (NIST) “[A] free-fall time would be an object that has no structural components below it.... What the analysis shows...is that same time it took for the structural model to come down...is 5.4 seconds. It’s about 1.5 seconds, or roughly 40 percent, more time for that free fall to happen. And that is not at all unusual because there was structural resistance that was provided in this particular case.”

From above,

“
In response to theories like this the NIST stated that the building as a whole did not undergo a complete free fall collapse and explain this by showing that the building as a whole took longer than 7 seconds to fall.
Later the NIST released a suppplementary analysis where free fall is mentioned. This is misconstrued by cinspiracy theorists to mean they are refering to the building as a whole and for the entire collapse. However in reality thry are refering to a portion of the facade while the collapse is in progress and shows lesser acceleration before and after which indicates resistance.”

weisses

How is a symmetric collapse of at least the outer shell (because we dont know what happened inside) reaching free fall acceleration possible when the collapse of building 7 is an asymmetric event ? ... And yes the outer shell fell as a whole

How is (according to NIST)gravitational acceleration of 2.25 seconds possible when there is a resistance from a building

And remember ..NIST only revised their botched up story because it was pointed out to their flaw by a simple calculation done by a physics teacher

Chandler

“The collapse we see cannot be due to a column failure, or a few column failures, or a sequence of column failures. All 24 interior columns and 58 perimeter columns had to have been removed over the span of eight floors low in the building simultaneously to within a small fraction of a second, and in such a way that the top half of the building remains intact and uncrumpled.”

weisses

Overheal wrote: »

A friendly reminder that free fall posts belong here, not inserted into other threads as a last ditch filibuster.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1lWJXDG2i0A

Mandatory listening when replying

weisses

weisses wrote: »

How is a symmetric collapse of at least the outer shell (because we dont know what happened inside) reaching free fall acceleration possible when the collapse of building 7 is an asymmetric event ? ... And yes the outer shell fell as a whole

Because it wasn't symmetric.

weisses wrote: »

How is (according to NIST)gravitational acceleration of 2.25 seconds possible when there is a resistance from a building

Because in their timeline, there was resistance in the beginning of the facade's collapse. The acceleration was lower than gravity, which was the resistance giving way.

Then there was a period of free fall where there was no resistance as it had all given away over the first part of the collapse.

Then in the third stage, the facade began to encounter resistance again and experienced less acceleration due to gravity.

Again, I think the issue here is confusion of what freefall and acceleration is.

For example "gravitational acceleration of 2.25 seconds" is not correct.
Seconds are not a unit of acceleration, so it's not possible to have a gravitational acceleration of X seconds. That statement is meaningless.

The correct phrase is "gravitational acceleration for 2.25 seconds".
This is because acceleration is function of time.

Now I've answered your question in full and completely. Please answer mine directly.
Do you believe that the NIST's description of the facade collapse is accurate to reality? (Ie.do you believe that there were the three stages like the NIST says.)

A yes or no would be fine.

Cheerful Spring2

weisses wrote: »

And remember ..NIST only revised their botched up story because it was pointed out to their flaw by a simple calculation done by a physics teacher

Chandler

When a truther has to fix their study after six years says a lot about their expertise.

Cheerful Spring2

Overheal wrote: »

From above,

“
In response to theories like this the NIST stated that the building as a whole did not undergo a complete free fall collapse and explain this by showing that the building as a whole took longer than 7 seconds to fall.
Later the NIST released a suppplementary analysis where free fall is mentioned. This is misconstrued by cinspiracy theorists to mean they are refering to the building as a whole and for the entire collapse. However in reality thry are refering to a portion of the facade while the collapse is in progress and shows lesser acceleration before and after which indicates resistance.”

That’s not the truther position.
What took place here is 8 floors underneath and below ( around 100 feet of space) had  been pulled out and (pancaked) with all its column support gone with it. Later the top half of the building and its support just collapsed into that empty void below. Building seven came down symmetrically with its walls and roofline not deforming, on the way down, on both corners
NIST denied this developed originally and said there was structural resistance still there and would have stopped this freefall from developing when it fell.

NIST after they got exposed, started chopping it up to stages in a revised report in Nov 2008. Erroneous based on what they maintained before. 

There new theory is there was negligible support on the (8 floors) and freefall took effect, only if fire did it!
The building went from full support to zero support in seconds and came crashing down (indicator of a controlled demolition)
Truthers never asserted it came down at total freefall. They believe the top half support when falling crushed no steel and concrete below.  The top half debris was falling into the empty space the gap where the 8 floors corner to corner disappeared. 

Cheerful Spring2

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

That’s not the truther position.

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

Truthers never asserted it came down at total freefall.

Sorry, that's a big old porkie.

AE9/11 claimed it:
http://www2.ae911truth.org/wtc7.php

Shortly after the core columns under the East Penthouse of WTC 7 collapsed, the rest of the building collapsed mostly into its footprint in about 7 seconds — near free-fall speed.

https://www.amazon.com/Did-you-know-tower-fell/dp/161577467X

...this 47-story high-rise that was destroyed on the afternoon of 9/11 in record time: top to bottom in under 7 seconds - and at free-fall acceleration."

Hulsey Claims it:
http://www.newsminer.com/test3/university-of-alaska-fairbanks-wtc-7-final-report-presented-by-richard-gage-aia-roland-angle/video_970dc3b4-b840-5d9b-a3bd-14d499b35ee6.html

Most notably, it fell symmetrical at free-fall acceleration into its footprint in under 7 seconds, in the exact manner of a classic controlled demolition.

Loose Change claimed it:
https://youtu.be/lKO5t3rcIZU?list=PLqbxAXU1Vi3Z0RUFcXtKYnQah-HgnI7Aw&t=1627

Loose Change @ 27:00 wrote:

[Building 7]... fell straight down into a convenient little pile in six seconds.

It's been claimed numerous times here.
https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=68472492

Now there is ample video footage of the World Trade Centre building collapsing around 5 pm on 9/11 and the fall of the building has been measured and agreed at less than 7 seconds

It's only a recent development that the cleverer conspiracy theorists claim it was only 2.25 seconds of free fall.

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

The building went from full support to zero support in seconds and came crashing down (indicator of a controlled demolition)

Well no, that's not quite what the NIST claim.

Also, "seconds" a very lot time in a collapse.

And it's also not really how controlled demolitions work either.
The point of controlled demolition is that the supports are cut instantly.
In a controlled demolition to a free fall speed (if such a thing exists) would be full support to zero support in microseconds.

weisses

King Mob wrote: »

Because it wasn't symmetric.

It kinda was ... as is evidenced by all the video footage out there

King Mob wrote: »

Because in their timeline, there was resistance in the beginning of the facade's collapse. The acceleration was lower than gravity, which was the resistance giving way.

Then there was a period of free fall where there was no resistance as it had all given away over the first part of the collapse.

Then in the third stage, the facade began to encounter resistance again and experienced less acceleration due to gravity.

Unfortunatyely your hypothesis is wrong as explained below with the data to back it up

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v3mudruFzNw

For example "gravitational acceleration of 2.25 seconds" is not correct.
Seconds are not a unit of acceleration, so it's not possible to have a gravitational acceleration of X seconds. That statement is meaningless.

Yet its a statement made by NIST

Stage 2 (1.75 to 4.0 seconds): gravitational acceleration (free fall)

King Mob wrote: »

Now I've answered your question in full and completely. Please answer mine directly.
Do you believe that the NIST's description of the facade collapse is accurate to reality? (Ie.do you believe that there were the three stages like the NIST says.)

A yes or no would be fine.

except you didn't answer it .... luckily for you, what I believe to be the more accurate description of the three stages is explained by Chandler in that video I think there is enough verifiable information in there that would satisfy the three stages collapse

weisses

weisses wrote: »

except you didn't answer it .... luckily for you, what I believe to be the more accurate description of the three stages is explained by Chandler in that video I think there is enough verifiable information in there that would satisfy the three stages collapse

Yea... "watch a video" isn't an answer to a yes or no question.

Not interested in discussion where one side is free to ignore points and questions they can't deal with.

weisses wrote: »

Yet its a statement made by NIST

Quote:
Stage 2 (1.75 to 4.0 seconds): gravitational acceleration (free fall)

Yes. They are using terminology correctly.
You were using the terminology incorrectly.

They are not saying that the gravitational acceleration "was 1.75 to 4.0 seconds."
They are not saying the "gravitational acceleration of .75 to 4.0 seconds."
They are saying that for 2.25 seconds (starting at 1.75 seconds after the start of the collapse) the section of the facade they were measuring accelerated downwards at about 9.8 metres per second squared.

Again, my point is that most conspiracy theorists don't have a good grasp of what freefall actually is.

weisses

King Mob wrote: »

Yea... "watch a video" isn't an answer to a yes or no question.

of course it is .. it fully support the symmetrical collapse claim

King Mob wrote: »

Not interested in discussion where one side is free to ignore points and questions they can't deal with.

Who is ignoring what and where ? ...

King Mob wrote: »

They are not saying that the gravitational acceleration "was 1.75 to 4.0 seconds."
They are not saying the "gravitational acceleration of .75 to 4.0 seconds."
They are saying that for 2.25 seconds (starting at 1.75 seconds after the start of the collapse) the section of the facade they were measuring accelerated downwards at about 9.8 metres per second squared.

Yes I know what they say ... and they are wrong as what is explained to you in the video you couldnt be arsed to watch i assume

King Mob wrote: »

Again, my point is that most conspiracy theorists don't have a good grasp of what freefall actually is.

I dont give a ****e what you think conspiracy theorists know of free fall

If you know the science you can start refuting the points chandler is making ... But i have a feeling you wont

Overheal

Yet its a statement made by NIST

Not?

NIST doesn’t make the claim that gravitational acceleration is measured as time. The statement read by any rational person clearly says gravitational acceleration (free fall) occurred for X seconds.

weisses

weisses wrote: »

I dont give a ****e what you think conspiracy theorists know of free fall

Again, it's a major component of why so many conspiracy theorists are duped into using it as a buzzword.

You've demonstrated many times that you yourself don't actually understand what it is or what it means, so I fear that any attempt to actually slog through hours long youtubes to refute unscientific claims will fall on deaf ears and be ignored.

As I said, not super interested.

weisses wrote: »

Yes I know what they say.

Yet you misquote them?

Cheerful Spring2

weisses wrote: »

It kinda was ... as is evidenced by all the video footage out there




Unfortunatyely your hypothesis is wrong as explained below with the data to back it up

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v3mudruFzNw

There lack of logic on this forum. NIST denies free fall on the video you posted :eek: You be here all day trying to explain it to them why that matters

weisses

Overheal wrote: »

Not?

NIST doesn’t make the claim that gravitational acceleration is measured as time. The statement read by any rational person clearly says gravitational acceleration (free fall) occurred for X seconds.

The analyses of the video (both the estimation of the instant the roofline began to descend and the calculated velocity and acceleration of a point on the roofline) revealed three distinct stages characterizing the 5.4 seconds of collapse:

Stage 1 (0 to 1.75 seconds): acceleration less than that of gravity (i.e., slower than free fall).
Stage 2 (1.75 to 4.0 seconds): gravitational acceleration (free fall)
Stage 3 (4.0 to 5.4 seconds): decreased acceleration, again less than that of gravity

https://www.nist.gov/pao/questions-and-answers-about-nist-wtc-7-investigation

weisses

King Mob wrote: »

Again, it's a major component of why so many conspiracy theorists are duped into using it as a buzzword.

You've demonstrated many times that you yourself don't actually understand what it is or what it means, so I fear that any attempt to actually slog through hours long youtubes to refute unscientific claims will fall on deaf ears and be ignored.

As I said, not super interested.

Im debating what scientists are claiming and you are more then welcome to refute them here. I say it again ... what I understand of the subject is irrelevant ... You are again opting for the easy way out because you cannot debate the facts at hand ....again

King Mob wrote: »

Yet you misquote them?

Yes i said of instead using for ..... the horror ... I suggest you focus on the bigger picture and refute chandler in the video ....

I guess you cannot ... so you focus on the poster .... typical King Mob tactic

Overheal

weisses wrote: »

https://www.nist.gov/pao/questions-and-answers-about-nist-wtc-7-investigation

And?

weisses

weisses wrote: »

Im debating what scientists are claiming and you are more then welcome to refute them here.

No, you're parroting what groups like AE9/11 are selling.
There's not really any debate to be had if you don't actually know what you're talking about.

weisses wrote: »

I say it again ... what I understand of the subject is irrelevant ... You are again opting for the easy way out because you cannot debate the facts at hand ....again

Yes i said of instead using for ..... the horror ... I suggest you focus on the bigger picture and refute chandler in the video ....

I guess you cannot ... so you focus on the poster .... typical King Mob tactic

But it is relevant.
The majority of your beliefs and arguments come from not having a good grasp of scientific topics and clinging desperately to narrow, often bizarre interpretations of statements about those topics.

For example, using "an acceleration of" in that context means something very very particular in physics terms. And it's very very different from "an acceleration for".

Again, if you have issues with minor terms like that, then any debate to be had will be less than fun or productive.
Similarly, when your responses amount to "watch this hour long youtube" and you aren't even willing to answer a direct yes or no question...

Cheerful Spring2

Overheal wrote: »

And?

10 minutes of factual information. NIST denying Freefall when you take off the blinkers you will see it.

weisses

Overheal wrote: »

And?

You said Not?

weisses

King Mob wrote: »

No, you're parroting what groups like AE9/11 are selling.
There's not really any debate to be had if you don't actually know what you're talking about.

Again debate the post not the poster ........ Seems not to sink in the way you are replying

King Mob wrote: »

But it is relevant.
The majority of your beliefs and arguments come from not having a good grasp of scientific topics and clinging desperately to narrow, often bizarre interpretations of statements about those topics.

It is not .... I am asking you to refute a claim made by David Chandler ... And you in all your wisdom are failing miserably

King Mob wrote: »

For example, using "an acceleration of" in that context means something very very particular in physics terms. And it's very very different from "an acceleration for".

yeah .... Now answer my simple question ... and stop this dodgefest

King Mob wrote: »

Again, if you have issues with minor terms like that, then any debate to be had will be less than fun or productive.
Similarly, when your responses amount to "watch this hour long youtube" and you aren't even willing to answer a direct yes or no question...

Mob you realize the way you dodge simple questions is not doing your credibility any favors ? its only 10 minutes .... maybe you pick up a thing or two

Overheal

weisses wrote: »

You said Not?

That’s correct. They did not.

RobVer

Sir,
You claim "I have never seen a explain how the presence of free fall indicates a conspiracy or a controlled demolition."
OK, one's not a "conspiracy theorist" or a "truther", but one doesn't like lies, and in one's discipline of superintending the forensic reporting of marine structural failures, one has always preferred to follow the evidence.
So here is your explanation, and in layman's terms for someone self-evidently quite unburdened by any real understanding of even basic physics, or structures. Please feel free to ask questions at the end.
Pure gravitational acceleration (PGA or free-fall) can only occur when a falling body is imparting none whatsoever of its kinetic energy to any other body. When that occurs in the collapse of a structure, even for a second or so, it is positively irrefutable evidence that the falling element of the structure was unaffected by any upward resistance for that entire period of time.
Today, as far as one knows, the only known technique of instantaneously removing all, or even part of the upward resistance in any syndetic static steel structure involves the pre-planned application of explosive cutting charges.
Therefore, when the upper element of any honestly syndetic structure ( ie. one with all structural components connected appropriately.) attains pure gravitational acceleration, even for a short period ( and, by the way, over 2 seconds is NOT considered a short period in the way of these things!) that event alone effectively 'proves' that the supporting structure must have been entirely absent for the full period of the PGA and, therefore, one must presume that some technique was employed to instantaneously remove that entire substructure. As the only technique known to most of us is the use of H.E cutting charges, then the irrefutable evidence of PGA would seem to point very strongly indeed to demolition as the most likely scenario.
Q.E.D.
One thing is self-evidently certain, and that is that the WTC7 collapse could not simply have been 'natural', as it is quite impossible for any "natural vertical collapse", however initiated, to attain PGA due to the energy that is required to expend in overcoming the upward resistance of the remaining lower structural elements.
Newton's 3 laws have, so far, proven quite irrefutable, and would seem to be an increasingly pesky nuisance to all those non-engineers so naively trying to explain free-fall in the collapse of WTC7.

Cheerful Spring2

RobVer wrote: »

Sir,
You claim "I have never seen a explain how the presence of free fall indicates a conspiracy or a controlled demolition."
OK, one's not a "conspiracy theorist" or a "truther", but one doesn't like lies, and in one's discipline of superintending the forensic reporting of marine structural failures, one has always preferred to follow the evidence.
So here is your explanation, and in layman's terms for someone self-evidently quite unburdened by any real understanding of even basic physics, or structures. Please feel free to ask questions at the end.
Pure gravitational acceleration (PGA or free-fall) can only occur when a falling body is imparting none whatsoever of its kinetic energy to any other body. When that occurs in the collapse of a structure, even for a second or so, it is positively irrefutable evidence that the falling element of the structure was unaffected by any upward resistance for that entire period of time.
Today, as far as one knows, the only known technique of instantaneously removing all, or even part of the upward resistance in any syndetic static steel structure involves the pre-planned application of explosive cutting charges.
Therefore, when the upper element of any honestly syndetic structure ( ie. one with all structural components connected appropriately.) attains pure gravitational acceleration, even for a short period ( and, by the way, over 2 seconds is NOT considered a short period in the way of these things!) that event alone effectively 'proves' that the supporting structure must have been entirely absent for the full period of the PGA and, therefore, one must presume that some technique was employed to instantaneously remove that entire substructure. As the only technique known to most of us is the use of H.E cutting charges, then the irrefutable evidence of PGA would seem to point very strongly indeed to demolition as the most likely scenario.
Q.E.D.
One thing is self-evidently certain, and that is that the WTC7 collapse could not simply have been 'natural', as it is quite impossible for any "natural vertical collapse", however initiated, to attain PGA due to the energy that is required to expend in overcoming the upward resistance of the remaining lower structural elements.
Newton's 3 laws have, so far, proven quite irrefutable, and would seem to be an increasingly pesky nuisance to all those non-engineers so naively trying to explain free-fall in the collapse of WTC7.

NIST confirmed this reality in Aug 2008. Was Impossible by natural means. For whatever reason this is ignored today by debunkers.

Fact NIST admitted it was not possible on video- not woken people up yet to there was a cover up

Turn up the volume if you got hearing loss?

RobVer

Ok, all good points.

RobVer wrote: »

Pure gravitational acceleration (PGA or free-fall) can only occur when a falling body is imparting none of its kinetic energy whatsoever to any other. When that occurs in the collapse of a structure, even for a second or so, it is positively irrefutable evidence that the falling element of the structure was unaffected by any upward resistance for that period of time.

So if a structure began it's collapse at an acceleration less than gravitational acceleration, what would that indicate?

To me that would indicate that it is experiencing resistance and it's imparting some of it's kinetic energy.
Would you disagree?

RobVer wrote: »

Today, as far as one knows, the only known technique of instantaneously removing all, or even part of the upward resistance in any syndetic static steel structure involves the pre-planned application of explosive cutting charges.
Therefore, when the upper element of any honestly syndetic structure ( ie. one with all structural components connected appropriately.) attains pure gravitational acceleration, even for a short period ( and over 2 seconds is not considered a short period in the way of these things!) that event alone effectively 'proves' that the supporting structure must have been absent for the period of the PGA and, therefore, that some technique was employed to instantaneously remove that entire substructure.

Ok, I agree with all of that.

Here is a simplified plan of WTC7.
https://www.nist.gov/sites/default/files/images/public_affairs/factsheet/wtc082108.jpg
Of these structural elements, how many of them would be required to be cut at the same time to achieve free fall?
And if this building did fall for over 2 seconds at free fall, how many floors would need to be rigged in a similar manner?

I believe that all of them are required to be cut all at the same time to achieve the resistance free freefall acceleration. (Though it could be argued that "most" would be good enough to fit into the margin of error.)

And if it's for a period of 2.25 seconds, I think that's about 25 meters of a drop, which is about 6-8 stories of the building (Depending on the height of the stories.).

Would you agree that to make the building fall at freefall, it would require cutting charges on all (or most) supports for 6-8 stories?

RobVer wrote: »

One thing is self-evidently certain, and that is that the WTC7 collapse could not have been 'natural', as it is quite impossible for any natural vertical collapse to attain PGA due to the energy that is required to expend in overcoming the upward resistance of the remaining lower structural elements.

And just for the record, how long do you personally believe WTC7 took to collapse?

weisses

King Mob wrote: »

Would you agree that to make the building fall at freefall, it would require cutting charges on all (or most) supports for 6-8 stories?

Of course not .... a few office fires here and there will do the trick

Cheerful Spring2

weisses wrote: »

Of course not .... a few office fires here and there will do the trick

David Chandler wrote a detailed blog discussing the topic of free fall and why its evidence for a controlled demolition.

https://medium.com/@davidchandler_61838/free-fall-131a94a1be7e

weisses

King Mob wrote: »

I have never seen a conspiracy theorist explain how the presence of free fall indicates a conspiracy or a controlled demolition.

It is not up to the ct ers to explain free fall .... If you have 2 functioning eyes it looks like controlled demolition, Thats a fact

I have never seen someone scientifically explaining how a building on fire can collapse reaching gravitational acceleration

All the so called debunkers here haven't a clue

NIST made a balls of their investigation when they claimed freefall was not possible ...Then had to admit it was possible but yet their computer model on which they based their conclusion doesn't allow for free fall to happen .... And no one on this forum who claim to have an understanding of science have an issue with that

I understand the unwillingness of some to debate this honestly ... It means you have to admit your wrong

Overheal

weisses wrote: »

It is not up to the ct ers to explain free fall .... If you have 2 functioning eyes it looks like controlled demolition, Thats a fact

I have never seen someone scientifically explaining how a building on fire can collapse reaching gravitational acceleration

All the so called debunkers here haven't a clue

This is gaslighting.

weisses

Overheal wrote: »

This is gaslighting.

Sure

Im not doubting his sanity ...

The Nal

weisses wrote: »

It is not up to the ct ers to explain free fall .... If you have 2 functioning eyes it looks like controlled demolition, Thats a fact

So the question then is, how did they rig the two biggest buildings in the world and a 52 story building beside it with explosives, in one of the busiest and well protected places on earth?

And how did those explosives survive the plane crashes?

Until we start looking at that, theres no theory.

You can't pick a theory and work your way back but in this case there isn't even a way back to how this could be done.

Most easily debunked theory I've seen.

Overheal

weisses wrote: »

Sure

Im not doubting his sanity ...

Sure. Nor his perception either?

weisses

Overheal wrote: »

Sure. Nor his perception either?

Not as in vision no the term perception in gas lighting does not mean eye sight

Overheal

weisses wrote: »

Not as in vision no the term perception in gas lighting does not mean eye sight

Sure bud. Weak semantic argument.

Overheal

Overheal wrote: »

Sure bud. Weak semantic argument.

King Mob wrote: »

The majority of your beliefs and arguments come from not having a good grasp of scientific topics and clinging desperately to narrow, often bizarre interpretations of statements about those topics.

Just saying...

weisses

Overheal wrote: »

Sure bud. Weak semantic argument.

Not my fault you dont know what gaslighting means

Overheal

weisses wrote: »

Not my fault you dont know what gaslighting means

More gaslighting.

weisses

The Nal wrote: »

So the question then is, how did they rig the two biggest buildings in the world and a 52 story building beside it with explosives, in one of the busiest and well protected places on earth?

Nope ..The question is, How a building can fall symmetrically reaching free fall acceleration due to a progressive collapse
If you can answer that question with science there is no need for a demolition theory

weisses

Overheal wrote: »

More gaslighting.

I thought a mere statement of fact based on your posts

Overheal

weisses wrote: »

Nope ..The question is, How a building can fall symmetrically reaching free fall acceleration due to a progressive collapse
If you can answer that question with science there is no need for a demolition theory

https://touch.boards.ie/thread/2057965850/1/#post109720513

Cheerful Spring2

Overheal wrote: »

https://touch.boards.ie/thread/2057965850/1/#post109720513

Have you read this? It's the most detailed explanation of freefall you find online. He goes over every aspect why its impossible by natural means.
https://medium.com/@davidchandler_61838/free-fall-131a94a1be7e

weisses

Overheal wrote: »

https://touch.boards.ie/thread/2057965850/1/#post109720513

To bad it is not answering the point i made

but just an objective observation of demolitions that have occurred of buildings that are potentially similar in nature

I am not talking about demolition....Demolition was not used in wtc7 remember

Overheal

weisses wrote: »

Demolition was not used in wtc7 remember

That’s what skeptics have been impressing upon you yes.

weisses

Overheal wrote: »

That’s what skeptics have been impressing upon you yes.

Then why post a link that deals with demolition when I am specifically are asking for facts and science to explain the collapse?

Cheerful Spring2

Overheal wrote: »

That’s what skeptics have been impressing upon you yes.

Rob made an insightful post yesterday. Similar discussion points are made in the chandler blog.

He says he is a forensic structural engineer.

Pity he only make two posts in two years so his not a regular poster, unfortunately. He just dropped by to show how silly the debunkers arguments are

Cheerful Spring2

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

Rob made an insightful post yesterday. Similar discussion points are made in the chandler blog.

He says he is a forensic structural engineer.

Pity he only make two posts in two years so his not a regular poster, unfortunately. He just dropped by to show how silly the debunkers arguments are

You seem to missed the fact he disagrees completely with and doesn't believe your or AE9/11's theory.

You shouldn't misrepresent people like that.

weisses

Other simple scientific and factual point

NIST makes a computer model on which they base their collapse hypothesis on, nowhere in this model do they account for their own three stage collapse sequence

That is a big scientific boo boo and I believe I am factually correct with this statement

Thoughts ?

Dohnjoe

weisses wrote: »

Nope ..The question is, How a building can fall symmetrically reaching free fall acceleration due to a progressive collapse
If you can answer that question with science there is no need for a demolition theory

Nope, that's your personal question.

What happened on 9/11 is widely accepted recorded history. The theory (based on overwhelming consensus and evidence) is that terrorists flew planes into buildings. You are attempting to revise that history by claiming "I don't get it, therefore it was some sort of conspiracy I can't detail or explain"

That's the intellectual height of your argument here.

Consensus doesn't work for you either, it works against you. A certain amount of individuals may think like you, but they exhibit the exact same logical flaws in their arguments, i.e. they either have no theory (like you) or have a vast multitude of vague contradictory theories - and that's an even bigger red flag