Near freefal collapse speed

DC

Banned
DC
Joined
Mar 20, 2008
Messages
23,064
I see the "near freefall" collapses of the towers are still seen by some as indication for a Controlled demolition.

i once believed the same.
But Gregory Urichs short paper about it and me watching several collapses compared to CD's convinced me, it is no indication at all.

most CD's do merely start a progressive collapse that is driven by gravity.

but we still see WTC being compared to CD videos.
have any truther done any work on this to show that the collapse speed can indicate a CD?
 
911 kooks, do work LOL yeah right.

As far as i've ever seen all they do is read conspiracy sites, watch conspiracy youtube videos, pretend they have done "research", then troll the internet parrotting the crap they were told in those sites and videos. The "freefall can only be CD" canard is a glaring example.
 
Last edited:
It would require comparing non-cd collapses to cd collapses. Given that there are many more videos of CD collapse (the camera owners KNOW when the building is going to come down), more partial collapses than global collapses, andmost non-CD collapses being caused by earthquakes in which the structure is moved horizontally to the point that it fractures and topples (in no way resembling what occured on 9/11 to the towers or #7) it would make such comparisons subject to a very small sample base.

Add to this that large steel structures are not predominantly constructed as the WTC structures were, with large open floors and widely spaced interior columns.
 
The reason why freefall has always been a waste of air for me is because when I start JAQ'ing off about why something collapses, freefall doesn't tell me a damn thing about what caused the failure. Gravity pulls objects to the ground; if the collapse continues to completion then it only initially tells me the structure was unable to compensate.

The cause is determined through a highly detailed investigation, not one-liner guesses. DC already learned this through experience, there's not much else to say... he learned because he was genuinely curious and looked into it.
 
Last edited:
DC said:
I see the "near freefall" collapses of the towers are still seen by some as indication for a Controlled demolition.

i once believed the same.
But Gregory Urichs short paper about it and me watching several collapses compared to CD's convinced me, it is no indication at all.

most CD's do merely start a progressive collapse that is driven by gravity.

but we still see WTC being compared to CD videos.
have any truther done any work on this to show that the collapse speed can indicate a CD?
Click to expand...

No.
Why have prove yourself wrong when you can hide behind the shield of ignorance.
 
DC said:
I see the "near freefall" collapses of the towers are still seen by some as indication for a Controlled demolition.

i once believed the same.
But Gregory Urichs short paper about it and me watching several collapses compared to CD's convinced me, it is no indication at all.

most CD's do merely start a progressive collapse that is driven by gravity.

but we still see WTC being compared to CD videos.
have any truther done any work on this to show that the collapse speed can indicate a CD?
Click to expand...

You don't have to believe a word I tell you. You don't have to believe a word Chandler tells you. Watch the videos NIST themselves says free-fall is impossible. Yet in there final report says there is free fall. This is for building 7.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eDvNS9iMjzA

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iXTlaqXsm4k&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v3mudruFzNw&feature=related
 
tmd2_1 said:
You don't have to believe a word I tell you. You don't have to believe a word Chandler tells you. Watch the videos NIST themselves says free-fall is impossible. Yet in there final report says there is free fall. This is for building 7.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eDvNS9iMjzA

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iXTlaqXsm4k&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v3mudruFzNw&feature=related
Click to expand...
Wow, you look up stuff from people who can't figure out 911, and attack NIST because they have no evidence and can't do their own work. When will Chandler pulish his junk?
When will you stop spreading false conclusions on 911? After 10 years of no evidence, or 11? Chandler can't do physics, and he is a physics teacher. Big fail, poor guy can't get past his biased hate of something to use the right combination of physics to understand collapsing buildings. He ignores fire science, and has no clue how a structure fails due to fire. Chandler ignores the penthouse falling through WTC 7 many seconds before the facade starts to fall. That falling Penthouse means the interior structure was collapsing over 6 second before the exterior facade. You post junk and never investigate what you post, flooding old debunked failed moronic claptrap. Are you unable to do research before posting fail junk with erroneous conclusions?

You fell for more propaganda from 911 LIESRUS. ... you keep posting nonsense, why do you refuse to do your own work? Falling for Chandler's propaganda presentation, as if you were letting others do your thinking. When will you lead? Do you always want to be a Follower in a failed movement comprised of lies and fantasy?

WTC 7 was a unique structure, you would do best to study the structure before SPAMMING the forum with more failed videos by paranoid conspiracy theorist who can't figure out 911 given the answers.



As the OP indicates, a CD primary energy used to destroy a building is from gravity. The potential energy in the building, E=mgh, is the majority of the energy used to destroy the buildings in CD; which is why a collapse due to fire looks like CD, they both are primarily gravity collapsed after the initiating event, fire for the WTC complex, and explosive for CD. Only a some dolts in 911 truth fail to comprehend gravity is the prime mover in CD and on 911. They must be too lazy to look up CD and learn.
 
Last edited:
femr2 said:
Recent feature tracing has shown that known CD can result in acceleration around g...

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7325451&postcount=2197

Behaviour is similar to WTC7, except that WTC7 included motion long before release, and reached slightly higher acceleration (anf for a larger proportion of the building).


Additional CD traces and additional non CD traces would be required to make any assertion.
Click to expand...

have you ever compared it to other collapses, non CD collapses?
 
DC said:
have you ever compared it to other collapses, non CD collapses?
Click to expand...
Haven't had much luck finding video of non-911 non-cd collapses taken from a (almost) static camera location where the building doesn't "fall over".

If you're aware of any video of non CD collapses which go straight(ish) down, let me know and I'll trace motion.

Those which "fall over" are obviously a lot "slower" and have a very different acceleration profile.
 
femr2 said:
Haven't had much luck finding video of non-911 non-cd collapses taken from a (almost) static camera location where the building doesn't "fall over".

If you're aware of any video of non CD collapses which go straight(ish) down, let me know and I'll trace motion.

Those which "fall over" are obviously a lot "slower" and have a very different acceleration profile.
Click to expand...

so this claim that near freefall speed indicates a CD is based on no evidence at all? But still they keep comparing it in videos to CD's CD's where only the collapse initiation is done by explosives and the collapse progression is gravity driven.
that is very missleading.
 
DC said:
so this claim that near freefall speed indicates a CD is based on no evidence at all?
Click to expand...
The trace of the known CD I linked to above has an acceleration profile quite similar to that of WTC7, but as I said, I don't think there is enough trace data on the table to make a generalised claim.

But still they keep comparing it in videos to CD's CD's where only the collapse initiation is done by explosives and the collapse progression is gravity driven.
that is very missleading.
Click to expand...
In case you misunderstood my previous post...when I mentioned buildings "falling over" I was talking about non-CD collapses. Collapsing buildings tend to tip over rather than drop vertically.

If you know of any video of non-cd collapses descending vertically, let me know and I'll trace features upon it.
 
femr2 said:
Haven't had much luck finding video of non-911 non-cd collapses taken from a (almost) static camera location where the building doesn't "fall over".

If you're aware of any video of non CD collapses which go straight(ish) down, let me know and I'll trace motion.

Those which "fall over" are obviously a lot "slower" and have a very different acceleration profile.
Click to expand...

DC said:
so this claim that near freefall speed indicates a CD is based on no evidence at all? But still they keep comparing it in videos to CD's CD's where only the collapse initiation is done by explosives and the collapse progression is gravity driven.
that is very missleading.
Click to expand...


Here is a link to some interesting information comparing the verinage technique to the North tower. Including tracking certain points. It clearly behaves differently. Verinare is probably the closest real world example to what happened at the North tower.

http://911debunkers.blogspot.com/2010/02/debunker-verinage-fantasies-are-bunk.html
 
tmd2_1 said:
Here is a link to some interesting information comparing the verinage technique to the North tower. Including tracking certain points. It clearly behaves differently. Verinare is probably the closest real world example to what happened at the North tower.

http://911debunkers.blogspot.com/2010/02/debunker-verinage-fantasies-are-bunk.html
Click to expand...

they alsways compare CD's with the WTC, and assume a natural collapse behaves different, while not presenting any evidence for this assumption.
 
femr2 said:
The trace of the known CD I linked to above has an acceleration profile quite similar to that of WTC7, but as I said, I don't think there is enough trace data on the table to make a generalised claim.


In case you misunderstood my previous post...when I mentioned buildings "falling over" I was talking about non-CD collapses. Collapsing buildings tend to tip over rather than drop vertically.

If you know of any video of non-cd collapses descending vertically, let me know and I'll trace features upon it.
Click to expand...

there are videos of at least partial collapses.

like this

 
tmd2_1 said:
You don't have to believe a word I tell you. You don't have to believe a word Chandler tells you. Watch the videos NIST themselves says free-fall is impossible. Yet in there final report says there is free fall. This is for building 7.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eDvNS9iMjzA

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iXTlaqXsm4k&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v3mudruFzNw&feature=related
Click to expand...

What an utterly clueless posting.

Someone locate the laughing dogs, please.

tmd2_1 said:
You don't have to believe a word I tell you.
Click to expand...

Wow.
Just … wow.

No worries on that one, sport.

tmd2_1 said:
You don't have to believe a word Chandler tells you.
Click to expand...

More wow.

We "don't have to believe" an arrogant high school teacher, who ALSO has zero experience or understanding in the pertinent fields?

Who adamantly (& cowardly) refuses to bring his crappola to competent engineers for review?

Hide the irony meters.

You, tmd, (like Chandler) clearly think that an understanding of "high school physics" is sufficient to understand what is going on.

You, tmd, (like Chandler) would be 100% wrong about that.

tmd2_1 said:
Watch the videos NIST themselves says free-fall is impossible.
Click to expand...

No, you are clueless.

NIST never says "free fall is impossible".
Not even close.
NIST says the exact opposite.

The only reason that your idiotic statements stand is that you intentionally and deceitfully strip out the nouns in your sentences.

You intentionally omit WHAT NIST says can fall "at free fall" & WHAT NIST says cannot fall at free fall.

Guess what, tmd.
All of the things that NIST explicitly says can fall at free fall, did fall at free fall.
And all of the things that NIST explicitly says can not fall at free fall, did not fall at free fall.

Amazing what education & experience can do for you, ain't it?

Approximately 30% of WTC1 & WTC2 fell "at free fall". (allowing for drag, of course).

NIST acknowledges this. NIST states it clearly.

Therefore your statement that "NIST says that free fall is impossible" is shown to be a completely clueless, 100% inaccurate statement.

tmd2_1 said:
Yet in there final report says there is free fall. This is for building 7.
Click to expand...

NIST acknowledges the obvious: that "there is free fall". Wow. Stop the presses.

NIST does NOT say that "WTC7 fell at free fall". They say the opposite.

NIST says that "WTC7 took 40% longer that free fall time to collapse out of sight of the cameras".

NIST is 100% right.

And when Chandler says that "WTC7 fell at free fall", he is 100% wrong.

tmd2_1 said:
You don't have to believe a word Chandler tells you.

[… and then you trot out 3 youtubes by Chandler …]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eDvNS9iMjzA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iXTlaqXsm4k&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v3mudruFzNw&feature=related
Click to expand...

(Ahhhh. There they are…)

:dl: :dl: :dl:
 
tmd2_1 said:
Watch the videos NIST themselves says free-fall is impossible.
Click to expand...

I don't feel like listening to Chandler, so what video time do they explicitly say "free fall is impossible"? Also, what is the context of the claim, that 100% free fall is impossible or any percentage of free fall is impossible?
 
paperboy05 said:
I don't feel like listening to Chandler, so what video time do they explicitly say "free fall is impossible"? Also, what is the context of the claim, that 100% free fall is impossible or any percentage of free fall is impossible?
Click to expand...

Well I would watch from 1:40 on in the first video. But I would really suggest watching them all. But 1:40 and on in the first video, should have all you need in it.
 
paperboy05 said:
I don't feel like listening to Chandler, so what video time do they explicitly say "free fall is impossible"? Also, what is the context of the claim, that 100% free fall is impossible or any percentage of free fall is impossible?
Click to expand...

:facepalm:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom