Free Fall thread

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

What incredible you ruling it out, and yet have not seen one roll of film to debunk it.

lol

Have you seen footage from pinewood studios that doesn't show them filming a fake moon landing, if not, then how can you rule it out?

This is amazing, even for you!

The Nal

I've seen footage of them not filming the Loch Ness monster. Incredible people ruling it out.

Cheerful Spring2

Dohnjoe wrote: »

lol

Have you seen footage from pinewood studios that doesn't show them filming a fake moon landing, if not, then how can you rule it out?

This is amazing, even for you!

Like I said, Freefall having taken place here during the collapse of seven, is what convinced me. Because of this i know debunkers are wrong.

banie01

Dohnjoe wrote: »

lol

Have you seen footage from pinewood studios that doesn't show them filming a fake moon landing, if not, then how can you rule it out?

This is amazing, even for you!

If I don't have video footage 24/7 of the suspect beams proving that they weren't tampered with...

Then that's proof that they were tampered with!?

This is honestly a whole level of craziness above any CS has spun on any of his efforts to date.

CS, as has been explained too you many times.
The absence of evidence, is not evidence.

In particular the absence of video of explosives not being planted,well that's must certainly not evidence.

I mean this from a place of concern, not as trying to score points.
Please!
Please, seek professional help.

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

Like I said, Freefall having taken place here during the collapse of seven, is what convinced me. Because of this i know debunkers are wrong.

Convinced you Nazi's blew all the towers up..

Cheerful Spring2

Official narrative about building seven collapse got torn apart in Aug 2008 when NIST admitted on tape here free fall was an impossibility (can't happen). They can't recover from that (the end!)

Ipso

No footage of UFOs, holograms, space lasers etc
The list is endless. Is this line of reasoning really where we are in the 21st century?

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

Official narrative about building seven collapse got torn apart in Aug 2008 when NIST admitted on tape here free fall was an impossibility (can't happen). They can't recover from that (the end!)

Here's an interesting read for you, and this isn't agreeing fully with the NIST's figures

Bonus: he gets replies from Chandler

https://www.pepijnvanerp.nl/2019/01/did-wtc7-on-9-11-really-descend-in-free-fall-for-2-25-seconds-a-closer-look-at-the-nist-calculation/

Dohnjoe wrote: »

you personally don't believe fire brought WTC 7 down, correct?

Following the evidence at hand I find that highly unlikely

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Which demonstrates my point, you believe it was a controlled demolition by denial

Wow

LOL. The FEMA report, the NIST, the Weidlinger report, the ASCE, the AIA - these are not the same as pseudo-science pulp and whatology from a crank internet conspiracy group

You seem like a logical, smart person, but why do you have such a dogmatic blind spot on this subject that you think people like Haritt, Gage, Jones, etc are even remotely close to proper science and investigation on this issue?

Some of these people in that group believe there were no planes involved, Gage has suggested explosives were planted in the buildings when they were being built, Jones was caught manipulating a photo of 9/11 workers looking down at a light to suggest it was molten steel..

Many of these lunatics have been on the Alex Jones show, multiple times, what does that tell you..

Denialism and arguing against the use of evidence isn't a "fruitful discussion", it's a common trick used by faulty thinkers to validate illogical beliefs

I think you are posting in the wrong forum

All you do is engage in whinging at me in your reply .... Focus at the question at hand ... this thread is about free fall

King Mob wrote: »

I'm not insulting your intelligence. I'm just stating a fact.
You don't actually understand what free fall is. That's something you've demonstrated when you claimed that the building "ramped up" to free fall acceleration.
You are confusing terms and notions and you are not accepting the possibility that you are incorrect or you're misinterpreting things.

I thought an object in motion is gaining speed when its falling down ?

You question my intelligence and as a result you are not prepare to discuss this .. You can also refrain from replying at all

King Mob wrote: »

But it has been shown to be impossible.
You guys have been telling us that the only way to produce a free fall is to instantly cut all of the supports.

That is correct ... If you have another explanation as to how free fall can occur ..be my guest ...

already anwsered post ...can be deleted

Soooooooooo

Anyone having a go at the NIST evidence ? ...Their computer model, their free fall cock up ... Instead of the whinging and off topic comments ?

weisses wrote: »

I thought an object in motion is gaining speed when its falling down ?

But that's not the correct definition of what free fall is.
This kinda proves my point.

weisses wrote: »

You question my intelligence and as a result you are not prepare to discuss this .. You can also refrain from replying at all

But I've tried discussing this with you many times. You are not open to the possibility that you've misunderstood something even when you can't actually give the correct definition and you give an incorrect definition like you did above.

How can I answer your question when you don't understand, or refuse to try and understand the basis of the answer?

weisses wrote: »

That is correct ...
If you have another explanation as to how free fall can occur ..be my guest ...

Sure and we can get to that when you stop dodging and accept that the conspiracy explanations suggested cannot explain free fall.
We know that nanothermite cannot cut things instantly.
We know that explosives can't have been used because we can't hear them.

So both are impossible, right?

weisses wrote: »

Following the evidence at hand I find that highly unlikely

Why do you think other separate investigations have come to the same conclusion? why have these findings have been so overwhelmingly accepted by recognised groups of experts around the world?

Why have findings been incorporated into national building codes?

Why is there no other credible theory?

King Mob wrote: »

But that's not the correct definition of what free fall is.
This kinda proves my point.

All I said that if something falls down its gaining speed ... how fast it falls determines if free fall acceleration is occurring

King Mob wrote: »

Sure and we can get to that when you stop dodging and accept that the conspiracy explanations suggested cannot explain free fall.
We know that nanothermite cannot cut things instantly.
We know that explosives can't have been used because we can't hear them.

So both are impossible, right?

What does it matter if Im dodging what other people say caused the collapse, It has nothing to do with the discussion at hand
I presented flaws in the NIST version of the event Or have questions about their hypothesis .... Thats what this discussion is about

weisses wrote: »

this thread is about free fall

This thread is really about you and Cheerful's personal interpretations and denial of an event.

One of whom thinks secret Nazi's pulled it off, the other has no theory

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Why do you think other separate investigations have come to the same conclusion? why have these findings have been so overwhelmingly accepted by recognised groups of experts around the world?

Why have findings been incorporated into national building codes?

Why is there no other credible theory?

You can go on and on and on ...It still doesn't addresses the questions I asked.

Dohnjoe wrote: »

This thread is really about you and Cheerful's personal interpretations and denial of an event.

One of whom thinks secret Nazi's pulled it off, the other has no theory

I provided valid questions with examples regarding NIST

If you are unable to discuss this then say so... But stop these nonsensical replies, its embarrassing

I checked again ...And yes, its the free fall thread

weisses wrote: »

You can go on and on and on ...It still doesn't addresses the questions I asked.

Yes it does.

it's already been explained many times. You can just keep subjectively rejecting it.

weisses wrote: »

I provided valid questions with examples regarding NIST

Yup, they are addressed, you personally reject the answers

That's circular..

weisses wrote: »

All I said that if something falls down its gaining speed ... how fast it falls determines if free fall acceleration is reached

Again, no. That's very incorrect. It's incorrect in almost every way.

Again, this proves my point.
I think the issue here is that you don't understand the difference between acceleration, speed and velocity.

weisses wrote: »

What does it matter if Im dodging what other people say caused the collapse, It has nothing to do with the discussion at hand

Then why not just say that you argee that they are impossible?
Why dodge the question at all?

weisses wrote: »

I presented flaws in the NIST version of the event Or have questions about their hypothesis .... Thats what this discussion is about

Sure, and we can get to that when we've established a baseline.

All you have to do is accept that:
1. you're not entirely sure what is meant by freefall (This has been demonstrated by your attempts to define it.)
and
2. The conspiracy explanations are impossible and can't explain freefall.

Once you do, we can go ahead and discuss the issue of freefall without tangents.

King Mob wrote: »

Sure, and we can get to that when we've established a baseline.

You can also stop wasting my time

You are not the one who sets the rules for this .... you can either address the point I make or you don't ..

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Yup, they are addressed, you personally reject the answers

That's circular..

Strangely enough they are not ... point to the posts where aand I will take it from there

Apologies if I missed them

weisses wrote: »

You can also stop wasting my time

You are not the one who sets the rules for this .... you can either address the point I make or you don't ..

Ok, but I have addressed your point.

You don't understand what freefall is.

Again, I can elaborate further, but experience tells me that you aren't actually willing to discuss it like an adult.

weisses wrote: »

Strangely enough they are not ... point to the posts where aand I will take it from there

Apologies if I missed them

You have a history of coming to this forum asking for "explanations" of the NIST/how WTC 7 fell, and then rejecting or not understanding them

Is that true or false?

So many red flags

Not grasping the technicalities of some event, therefore it didn't happen
Not seeking proper information or answers from experts
Rejecting consensus on the issue
Seeking information from known conspiracy theorists
No interest or effort in explaining an alternative
Going to a conspiracy theory forum to debate the subject
Using the "just asking questions" act
Denial is not just part of the argument, it's the entire argument

weisses wrote: »

You can also stop wasting my time

You aren't a new user. You are coming into a conspiracy forum asking the same "simple questions" over and over for years. Explanations are provided. You reject the explanations.

Posters have been extremely patient with you (and these antics) over the years.

Dohnjoe wrote: »

You have a history of coming to this forum asking for "explanations" of the NIST/how WTC 7 fell, and then rejecting or not understanding them

Is that true or false?

I reject the NIST investigation.

FYI .. there are a lot more people smarter then you or me who also d'ont understand it

As its provably false, I gave the examples and ask for an opinion in regards to that, The only one who tried was overheal but that reply wasn't very convincing ...as of yet no one came up with a counter argument.

I asked to provide a link to posts just in case I missed them .... haven't seen anything

weisses wrote: »

I reject the NIST investigation.

FYI .. there are a lot more people smarter then you or me who also d'ont understand it

As its provably false, I gave the examples and ask for an opinion in regards to that, The only one who tried was overheal but that reply wasn't very convincing ...as of yet no one came up with a counter argument.

I asked to provide a link to posts just in case I missed them .... haven't seen anything

Post 2.
https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=111204248&postcount=2

Tldr: You haven't shown it's provably false, you and other conspiracy theorists are just misrepresenting things. In your case because you don't understand them. In AE9/11's case because they're being dishonest.

The people who are "smarter" than you also believe that WTC7 and the Twin Towers were demolished with nanothermite and/or explosives. Both of which have been proven to be impossible and inadequate explanations.

There are also far more "smarter" people who belong to a lot of different organisations who all accept and endorse the NIST report.