Freefall?

[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?

[pomeroo]

[=sophia8;2416182]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?


Innocence can be charming.

[T.A.M.]

They cant prove it because it cannot happen without a downward force in addition to gravity.

An object cannot FALL faster than it can in freefall, in a vacuum.

I suspect they are trying to imply that explosives were used to somehow send the debris to the earth faster than gravity...once again with no proof.

This despite every recording of the building collapses indicating they fell close to but greater than free fall time.

TAM:)

[uk_dave]

The problem is, the 'truthers' ignore the fact that the towers did not start collapsing at the roof and didn't stop collapsing at ground level, so all their timings and distances are rather suspect.

They do fall back on NIST making the 'near freefall' comment, but so long as it was 'near freefall' it cannot have been without any resistance, therefore the CD wasn't needed.

[~enigma~]

Freefall is 32 feet per second2.
Really slow driving speed of 22 MPH is 32 feet per second.

Freefall isn't a speed it is an acceleration. Are all woowoos that stupid?

[CHF]

Faster than free fall would have equired rocket boosters on the debis, driving it towards the ground.

Why the conspirators would bother doing that is anyone's guess.

[defaultdotxbe]

Faster than free fall would have equired rocket boosters on the debis, driving it towards the ground.

Why the conspirators would bother doing that is anyone's guess.
wouldnt need rockets, im sure an upside down helocopter rotor would do the trick as well, or maybe compressed air shot out of a nozzle, maybe a hydro jet engine, the possibilities are endless!

[rwguinn]

wouldnt need rockets, im sure an upside down helocopter rotor would do the trick as well, or maybe compressed air shot out of a nozzle, maybe a hydro jet engine, the possibilities are endless!

Thanks a lot.
More fodder for the "Black Helicopter" folk. Now, they'll know we had one inverted in the basement of the towers when the explosives went off...

[Mancman]

None have ever proven it and they never will.
http://i16.tinypic.com/455alqg.jpg

[steve s]

The 9/11 CTers are always going on about how the WTC collapsed "faster than freefall".

The video clearly shows that debris which falls away (and which really is in freefall) is travelling significantly faster than the rest of the collapsing structure. So not only did the collapse not happen faster than freefall, it wasn't even near freefall.

Steve S.

[Mr.D]

Probably the dumbest part of the whole "faster than freefall" bit is that none of the 9/11 deniers have ever demonstrated (or even plausably argued) that controlled demolition explosives would result in a collapse that was "faster than freefall."

I fact, off the top of my head, the only CT the "faster than freefall" argument is consistent with is Wood's "Invisible Killer Death Rays from Outer Space," which even some of the No-Plane-At-The-Pentagon wackos reject as being too woo.

[Andúril]

The 9/11 CTers are always going on about how the WTC collapsed "faster than freefall". Have any of them ever proven this?
No.

Of course, according to CT physics, freefall time would be 415/9,81=42 seconds. :D They actually were very seriously spreading this previously unknown law of physics at the Loose Change forum.

But that doesn't matter, because every single video and image of the collapse shows how large chunks of the buildings fall faster than the collapse is progressing. Where are they, if not in freefall?

[steve s]

Probably the dumbest part of the whole "faster than freefall" bit is that none of the 9/11 deniers have ever demonstrated (or even plausably argued) that controlled demolition explosives would result in a collapse that was "faster than freefall."


Yeah, they seem to think that the CD would create some sort of massive vacuum inside the building which would suck it down. Total nonsense.

Be careful mentioning that CDs don't result in "faster than freefall" collapses. They'll change their tune and start claiming that the fact that it was significantly slower than freefall is proof of a CD.:boggled:

Steve S.

[William Rea]

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?

[Alareth]

Thanks a lot.
More fodder for the "Black Helicopter" folk. Now, they'll know we had one inverted in the basement of the towers when the explosives went off...

<.<

>.>

The truth about Black Helicopters.... (http://zapatopi.net/blackhelicopters/)

[Unfit4Command]

The Free-fall argument is one of the dumbest theories brought up by the "Truth Movement."

"Loose Change" tries to show the South Tower Falling at "near free-fall" speed but for some reason the timer at the bottom of the screen starts about 2 seconds into the collapse and ends before the collapse is even finished.

Beginning from LC:
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v721/rhearhy/LCtimerstart.jpg

About .10 seconds before the end of the timer:
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v721/rhearhy/LCtimerend2.jpg

Notice something a little misleading there? The building is clearly already leaning to the side when the timer starts and a large portion of the building is clearly still standing when the timer ends.

As for the North Tower, there's not a single video I've seen that shows freefall.

Just watch this video here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pmBL2oYdXWQ&eurl=http%3A%2F%2F911questions%2Eblogspot%2Ecom%2F

It's a perfect example of how much of a lie "faster than free fall" and "near free fall is." The collapse starts about 5 seconds through the video and the video is only 15 seconds long. Why is a 500+ feet section of the building still standing at the end if it fell at free fall?

Same with this video here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oCSXco-bPNo

The collapse starts around 2 seconds and ends around 20 seconds through.

Beginning:
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v721/rhearhy/1.jpg

Point of a freefall collapse:
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v721/rhearhy/11.jpg

End:
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v721/rhearhy/20.jpg

[A W Smith]

Which CTers and where have they claimed it?


Please refrain from personal insults, and remember your membership agreement regarding civility. I've removed the gratuitous insult you placed in the quote credit for the above.


from
Scholars for 9/11 Truth; Why Doubt 9/11? (http://www.911scholars.org/WhyQuestion911.html)



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.

[Unfit4Command]

This is probably the worse comparison I have ever seen:

"The towers are exploding from the top, not collapsing to the ground, where the floors do not move, a phenomenon that Judy Wood has likened to two gigantic trees turning to sawdust from the top down, which, like the pulverization of the concrete, the official account cannot possibly explain."

No wonder she's a Dental engineer.

[~enigma~]

This is probably the worse comparison I have ever seen:

"The towers are exploding from the top, not collapsing to the ground, where the floors do not move, a phenomenon that Judy Wood has likened to two gigantic trees turning to sawdust from the top down, which, like the pulverization of the concrete, the official account cannot possibly explain."

No wonder she's a Dental engineer.
Ah...the light bulb just went on and I understand why this makes you see she's a dental engineer.

Teeth have roots.
Trees have roots.

Mohammed Atta was seen at a 7-11 in Venice Florida buying a box of Keebler Tollhouse cookies prior to 9/11/2001.

It's all clear...

[A W Smith]

This is probably the worse comparison I have ever seen:

"The towers are exploding from the top, not collapsing to the ground, where the floors do not move, a phenomenon that Judy Wood has likened to two gigantic trees turning to sawdust from the top down, which, like the pulverization of the concrete, the official account cannot possibly explain."

No wonder she's a Dental engineer.

A dental engineer who designs dental plates with the molars in the front and incisors at the back no doubt.

[babazaroni]

Ah...the light bulb just went on and I understand why this makes you see she's a dental engineer.

Teeth have roots.
Trees have roots.

Mohammed Atta was seen at a 7-11 in Venice Florida buying a box of Keebler Tollhouse cookies prior to 9/11/2001.

It's all clear...


Some dental hygienists now use lasers as well. Just scale up, mount in WTC 7 and it all make sense.

[Mr.D]

OK, haven't pulled out the back of the envelope in a while so here goes.(Newtonian, frictionless universe ... blah blah ...)

Starting with zero velocity, an amount of energy 'P' used to accelerate a mass 'm.' What is the final velocity of the mass? We can solve that problem using the definition of Kinetic Energy.

P -> KE = (1/2) mv^2

P = (1/2) mv^2
v = sqrt(2P/m)

Now, assume the energy is applied to the mass in such a way as to cause uniform acceleration 'a.' What is the velocity of the mass as a function of time during the acceleration? We are told v(0) = 0, so this is simply

v(t) = at

Now, how long does it take the mass to reach final velocity? All of the energy 'P' is now kinetic, so we can equate the two equations and find

at = sqrt(2P/m)
t = sqrt(2P/ma^2)

Quick check: Suppose the initial energy is gravitational potential energy. The equation tells us that a mass 'm' falling a height 'h' through a uniform gravitational field with acceleration 'g', will take t = sqrt(2h/g).

Whew. Even has the right units.

Now, suppose this energy is applied for a fixed length 'H' along the track of the mass. Find the acceleration.

H = x(0) + v(0)t + (1/2)at^2
H = (1/2)at^2
a = 2H/t^2

And find the time it takes for such a mass to travel that distance 'H' as a function of the energy 'P' and distance 'H'

P = (1/2)mv^2
P = (1/2)m(at)^2
P = (1/2)m(2Ht/t^2)^2
P = 4m(H/t)^2

t = sqrt(2mH^2/P)

Quick check: Suppose P is entirely gravitational Potential energy. Then t = sqrt(2mH^2/mgH) = sqrt(2H/g).

Some of the 9/11 deniers would have us believe that controlled demolition explosives would cause the towers to fall 'faster than freefall.'

So let's ask; How much explosives for how much faster?

let To = "Official Time" = the time it took the towers of mass "M" to fall a height "H" due only to the effects of gravitational potential energy 'Po'

let Tc = "Conspiracy Time" = the time it took the towers of the same mass to fall the same height due to gravity plus explosives. (Assumption: the mass of the explosives is negligable). Let the energy of the explosives that contributes to the downward fall = 'Pe'

To = sqrt(2mH^2/P)
Tc = sqrt(2mH^2/(Po+Pe))

So the "Conspiracy Ratio" of "Conspiracy Time" to "Official Time" 'R' is

R = Tc / To = sqrt(Po / (Po + Pe))

Now, calculate as a fraction the amount of explosive energy 'Pe' for a given 'R'

R^2 = Po / (Po + Pe)
(Po + Pe) = Po / R^2
Pe/Po = (1/R^2) - 1

Quick check: both sides dimensionless, The ratio is zero when R = 1.

Now the fun part. (Thanks for your patience)

The usual numbers cited are something around Po =~ 250 tons of TNT.

So how much explosive energy Pe would be required to cause a WTC tower to fall

5% 'faster than freefall?': Pe / Po = (1/.95^2) - 1 =~ 0.108 --> =~25 tons of TNT equivalent.

10% faster?: Pe / Po = (1/.9^2) - 1 =~ 0.235 --> =~58 tons of TNT equivalent.

'Twice' as fast?: Pe / Po = (1/.5^2) - 1 =~ 3 --> =~750 tons of TNT equivalent.

and the above equivalent tonnage is only valid if the explosives are essentially 100% efficient in directing energy down onto the building structure AND 100% efficent in converting that energy into kinetic energy (AND almost certainly violating conservation of momentum in the process.)

Ain't high school physics fun?

[William Rea]

from
Scholars for 9/11 Truth; Why Doubt 9/11? (http://www.911scholars.org/WhyQuestion911.html)

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?

[einsteen]

I think this is what has been observed in the beginning, before the cloud covers the 'pancaking'

a_wtc1=(2/3)g
a_wtc2=(3/4)g

[Brainache]

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?

Well given that it's from Scholars For 9/11 Truth (you know the people that are always trotted out as experts who agree that 9/11 was an inside job) I think it is fair to say they are fairly influential in the Truth Movement (or they were until Scooby blew their cover as Disinfo agents).

Did you miss the other post refering to Loose Change? Another bunch of people who cast a big shadow in Truther land.

Oh and there is always Christophera. I don't understand why that guy isn't more popular with the Truthy set.

[westprog]

http://blog.abovetopsecret.com/wecomeinpeace/2006/06/911_disproving_the_wtc_pancake.html (http://blog.abovetopsecret.com/wecomeinpeace/2006/06/911_disproving_the_wtc_pancake.html)

This site does a lot of calculation which ends up showing that the expected collapse time is almost exactly the same as the observed collapse time. Which they then claim is impossible. Note the vast list of numbers.

[Dave Rogers]

http://blog.abovetopsecret.com/wecomeinpeace/2006/06/911_disproving_the_wtc_pancake.html (http://blog.abovetopsecret.com/wecomeinpeace/2006/06/911_disproving_the_wtc_pancake.html)

This site does a lot of calculation which ends up showing that the expected collapse time is almost exactly the same as the observed collapse time. Which they then claim is impossible. Note the vast list of numbers.

Brilliant. Observed collapse time = 15 seconds, predicted collapse time >= 14 seconds, therefore the towers fell too fast. The best piece of self-debunking I've seen since the PentaCon.

Dave

[eeyore1954]

This is probably the worse comparison I have ever seen:

"The towers are exploding from the top, not collapsing to the ground, where the floors do not move, a phenomenon that Judy Wood has likened to two gigantic trees turning to sawdust from the top down, which, like the pulverization of the concrete, the official account cannot possibly explain."

No wonder she's a Dental engineer.

I wouldn't let her do any engineering on my teeth.

[Unfit4Command]

Brilliant. Observed collapse time = 15 seconds, predicted collapse time >= 14 seconds, therefore the towers fell too fast. The best piece of self-debunking I've seen since the PentaCon.

Dave

The North Tower fell too slow.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v721/rhearhy/1.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v721/rhearhy/16.jpg

There's 15 seconds, still more to go. I wish I would have seen this 14 second prediction earlier, they did a great job debunking themselves.

[Pipirr]

I wondered about the free-fall 'problem' for a long time. CTers kept on spouting it and I was never convinced there was a problem with how the towers fell at the speed at which they fell.

What I still wonder about is where the whole idea came from. Before Loose Change, was anybody really suspicious about the speed the towers fell? And even in Loose Change (not that I want to go back and check), the narrator didn't really specify a problem. "The towers fell at near free-fall speed", is all that I recall was said. I'm still waiting for the exposition.

So did Loose Change invent this meme, or was it out there all along, just waiting for the movie to give life to it?

[Gravy]

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? (http://www.google.com/search?q=%22faster+than+freefall%22+9%2F11&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a)

[sophia8]

Thanks, Gravy - saved me the trouble. I started this thread because every single forum or blog where 9/11 is discussed always has a comment from at least one CTer - often a dozen or more - saying "But it fell faster than free-fall, man!" without presenting any maths or other prooofs.
They seem to think that merely repeating this mantra somehow proves that 9/11 was all a gubmint conspiracy.

[Darth Rotor]

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?
William, from a previous post on simple equations. (http://72.32.2.238/forumlive/showpost.php?p=2249583&postcount=70)

Displacement (d) = 1/2*at^2. ________ Velocity (v) = at

Use 417m for height of building, Time to fall calculation in a vacuum, to street level.

Distance fallen = 417m = 1/2 at^2 (Get rid of the 1/2, multiply both sides by two)

834m = at^2 ( To find t, divide both sides by a, which is 9.8m/sec^2))

(834m)/(9.8m/sec^2) = t^2 ( Meters cancel out by simple division, and sec^2 ends up in the numerator on the left. )

Units match: 834sec^2/9.8 = t^2 (Take the square root)

sqrt(834sec^2)/9.8) = t = 9.225 seconds freefall in a vacuum.

But we are not working in a vacuum. A body accelerating in a fluid (air) will accelerate until it reaches terminal velocity, after which point it will fall at a constant velocity. Terminal velocity of a body falling in air. (See discussion at the end) offers a usable range of values between 54 m/s (a high drag body, not aerodynamicallly shaped) to 90 m/s (a streamlined body.) I'll use a skydiver for modeling purposes, since the numbers are easily available, and a skydiver in high drag mode represents an irregularly shaped, non streamlined body falling in air.

For a stream lined body, similar to a skydiver presnting his body to the relative airstream in the most aerodynamic shape possible, or wrapped into a ball, or approaching the streamlined Gyrefalcon in a dive, you reach terminal velocity (v=at) at roughly 90/9.8 = 9.18 seconds, which is almost the end of the vacuum fall timeline. (9.225 seconds) Are all pieces as streamlined as a falcon or a "tucked" skydiver in a dive: no. If all pieces are streamlined, they hit the ground in roughly 10 seconds. Irregularly shaped chunks of building are not streamlined, so let's use a high drag form, with a terminal velocity of 54 m/s for a "slowest case" fall.

The body reaches terminal velocity om about 5.5 seconds? v = at so v/a = t.

54/9.8 = t

t = 5.5 seconds.

That is just over half of the time of a non decellerated body falling. The v^2 component of air resistance increases from time 0 to time of V(terminal onset). (My problem set up for the differential equation is rusty, with v known and the sum of a and a' (a' being air resistnance in vector opposition to a) being a function of v^2.

d = 1/2 at^2 for how far this drag friendly body falls before reaching terminal velocity. After that, it falls at a constant rate, rather than being accellerated all the way to impact like in the vacuum example.

1/2*9.8*(5.5)^2 = d = 148.225 meters.

After reaching this speed, the non streamlined body falls at 54 m/sec.

417 -148.225 = 268.775 meters to fall.

Divide that by 54 m/sec and you get 4.977 seconds, which we can round up to 5.

So, it takes roughly 5.5 + 5 seconds = 10.5 seconds for a non streamlined body falling against air resistance at sea level to hit the ground from the top of the WTC. The engineers have estimate something near 13 seconds. I expect this is dependent on both their use of integration to account for drag = 0 and v= 0 at time 0, and drag = x at v = Terminal at time = Time of achieving terminal velocity, when a =0. The decision on which coefficient of drag to use can be made mass dependent if you set a = 0 when v = 54 m/s (forces summed) and using a kv^2 convention, yield k (coefficient of drag and other factors) = .00336.

The drag friendly terminal velocity provides a close enough approximation of worst/slowest case, particularly when the dust cloud obscures observation and precludes a lab quality observation and calculation.

In layman's terms, between 9 1/4 to 11 seconds to hit the ground, depending on the shape of the chunk falling.

(Engineer or math majors are invited to demonstrate the simple integral to solve for a more precise t(vterminal) and thus refine my gross estimate of 5.5. seconds as the time to achieve terminal velocity from v = 0 at the top, where a1 = 9.8m.sec^2 and a2 = 0) I am too far from school to give you the precise problem set up, as I am looking to make mass and cross section neutral for the sake of the problem, and combine those and air resistance/drag coefficient in to a generic constant k.)
For example, the terminal velocity of a skydiver in a normal free-fall position with a closed parachute is about 195 km/h (120 mph or 54 m/s). This velocity is the asymptotic limiting value of the acceleration process, since the effective forces on the body more and more closely balance each other as it is approached. In this example, a speed of 50% of terminal velocity is reached after only about 3 seconds, while it takes 8 seconds to reach 90%, 15 seconds to reach 99% and so on.

Higher speeds can be attained if the skydiver pulls in his limbs (see also freeflying). In this case, the terminal velocity increases to about 320 km/h (200 mph or 89 m/s), which is also the maximum speed of the Peregrine Falcon diving down on its prey.
From UVa "How Things Work" "A person has a terminal velocity of about 200 mph when balled up and about 125 mph (56 - 89 m/s) with arms and feet fully extended to catch the wind."

DR

[pgwenthold]

Probably the dumbest part of the whole "faster than freefall" bit is that none of the 9/11 deniers have ever demonstrated (or even plausably argued) that controlled demolition explosives would result in a collapse that was "faster than freefall."


This needs to be reiterated (again and again and again).

If they want to claim that the collapse time indicates a CD, then they should show examples of CD that illustrate a collapse time faster than free fall (or near free fall). They won't, of course.

This is just like the thermite claim. Show me what a thermite-driven CD looks like so I can compare the two. Oh wait, that's never happened, either.

Like thermite, I'm guessing this "faster than freefall" collapse has never been observed for real CDs, either.

[William Rea]

Is intellectual sloth really a virtue where you live? (http://www.google.com/search?q=%22faster+than+freefall%22+9%2F11&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a)

267 hits on Google isn't terribly impressive is it.

I get 11 million hits for "gravy".

You're telling me that a Google search like that is intellectual rigour? Laughable.

[William Rea]

William, from a previous post on simple equations. (http://72.32.2.238/forumlive/showpost.php?p=2249583&postcount=70)....for the sake of the problem, and combine those and air resistance/drag coefficient in to a generic constant k.)DR

As RWGuinn would put it thanks for the Freefall101.

Your application of terminal velocity is frankly over elaborate and just bored me but, for future reference the value of g for the New York area is 9.802 m/s^2

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2099718&postcount=7551

[A W Smith]

267 hits on Google isn't terribly impressive is it.

I get 11 million hits for "gravy".

You're telling me that a Google search like that is intellectual rigour? Laughable.


No. This is laughable! Apparently gravity has speed now (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4322650841860671469).
World Trade Center Seven fell faster than the speed of gravity. This is only possible when a vacuum has been created through the use of explosives

:dl:


EDIT to add. Holy {rule 8] how couild i miss this in the above description
only possible when a vacuum has been created through the use of explosives

You know what? Your explosives really must suck.

[Panoply_Prefect]

This is just like the thermite claim. Show me what a thermite-driven CD looks like so I can compare the two. Oh wait, that's never happened, either.

Like thermite, I'm guessing this "faster than freefall" collapse has never been observed for real CDs, either.

Did ANY of the CT sites ever even at least try to explain how thermite could cut sideways, as per the image used by Steven Jones (http://www.rumormillnews.com/pix3/pic87970.jpg) et. al?

These two assertions, thermite and freefall is used by all of the truthers equivalence of script-kiddes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Script_kiddie), but I have so far never seen a reasonable explanation how thermite could do that. I was under the impression thermite worked by gravity, downwards.

Cheers,
SLOB

[PhantomWolf]

These two assertions, thermite and freefall is used by all of the truthers equivalence of script-kiddes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Script_kiddie), but I have so far never seen a reasonable explanation how thermite could do that. I was under the impression thermite worked by gravity, downwards.

I think most of the 9/11 movement is just based on making assertions that have no basis in reality isn't it?

- Freefall speeds (no they fell in 15-20 seconds, not 9-10)
- Pools of Molten Metal (never proven rumour and heresay)
- Sideways burning Thermate (yeah right)
- Silence kicker charges (Okaaaaaay)
- No big fires in WTC 1,2,7 (Only 6-7 alarm ones on multiple floors)
- No damage to WTC 7 (except that big hole in the south face)
- No aircraft parts at the pentagon (Other then those bits all over the lawn)
- No aircraft parts at Shanksfield (except the 95% of flight 93 that was recovered)

and when it's shown their assertions are wrong they simply fall back onto their standard "It was planted," "They are lying" claims.

[programmer]

Hi, I am new to this forum.
I would like to address some of the topics of this thread, hopefully you will consider them objective.

1. About the claim "faster than the speed of gravity": This certainly is a wrong representation of the whole picture, as it can be seen that the mayority of the mass takes about 15 seconds to complete the collapse. However, it would be very important if somebody measures the speed of the initial collapse (i.e first seconds) and prove that it was not faster than gravity.
2. As some of you pointed out, gravity provokes acceleration, not speed. However, there is a fixed speed increase associated with gravity.
3. The link provided here about the 15 second collapse includes the following vital assumption which is missing in this thread: "Resistance from the structure is zero. As in, there are no vertical columns, and no assembly connections. (point 4 in link) This supports the claim intended by the author.
4. I googled a little on Dr. Judy Woods and cannot find a reference to dentistry, can anybody here please provide this? Thanks.
- What I found is her bio: janedoe0911.tripod.com/Wood_Bio.html
- Found a paper at VirginiaTech about steel: scholar.lib.vt.edu/theses/available/etd-06072006-124140/

Please debate :)

[Dave Rogers]

3. The link provided here about the 15 second collapse includes the following vital assumption which is missing in this thread: "Resistance from the structure is zero. As in, there are no vertical columns, and no assembly connections. (point 4 in link) This supports the claim intended by the author.


I'd like just to address this one, if that's OK with you. There are two points I'd like to make in response.

Firstly, assumption 7 is that 30% of the mass of each floor is ejected in each impact. This is referred to as a conservative assumption, but without a rigorous justification. It is commented that this only increases the collapse time by 1 second, which is an indication of how insensitive the collapse time can be to relatively large changes in the assumed conditions. Removing 30% of the mass at each collision will remove something like 25% of the mass of the building, and therefore 25% of the potential energy (slightly less, actually, as the top floors are assumed to remain intact). Greening (http://www.911myths.com/WTCREPORT.pdf) estimates fracture energies of approximately 1e9 joules per floor, with a total energy from collapse of 1e12 joules; the energy required to crush each floor support is of order 10% of the potential energy generated in one floor's collapse. Clearly, if the assumption of 30% loss of mass at each collision is high, there is therefore more than enough energy available to crush the supports.

Secondly, Greening, in the above paper, calculates collapse times based firstly on momentum transfer alone, and then on momentum transfer plus the floor collapse energy. The difference between the two is found to be less than 1 second in total collapse time, even when the energy requirement for floor collapse is doubled from the initial estimate. Therefore, if you accept the papers assertions (momentum transfer calculation of a 14 second predicted fall time and actual observation of a 15 second fall time), the paper in fact proves that pancake collapse can account very accurately for the observed collapse time of the towers.

In conclusion, therefore, the paper you refer to offers no proof that pancaking is impossible; on the contrary, it provides a model of the collapse which agrees with the observed collapse to well within the uncertainties of the measured collapse time.

I suggest you read Greening's paper, and Greening and Ross's debates following on from it. If you understand the issues in these you will be well equipped to debate the collapse time.

Dave

[programmer]

Thanks for pointing this paper out. I will spend some free time in reading this paper and the critics/reviews about it. I am no expert but i can understand math and basic physics. I've been reading lately lots of claims going for and against the official explanations, and I want to basically establish if the official version is plausible or not before considering anything else.

[Darth Rotor]

As RWGuinn would put it thanks for the Freefall101.

Your application of terminal velocity is frankly over elaborate and just bored me but, for future reference the value of g for the New York area is 9.802 m/s^2

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2099718&postcount=7551
To three significant digits, 9.8 works for the purpose of discussing times rounded to seconds, which is as much precision as the video evidence warrants.

Sorry to bore you.

DR

[beachnut]

Hi, I am new to this forum.
I would like to address some of the topics of this thread, hopefully you will consider them objective.

1. About the claim "faster than the speed of gravity": This certainly is a wrong representation of the whole picture, as it can be seen that the mayority of the mass takes about 15 seconds to complete the collapse. However, it would be very important if somebody measures the speed of the initial collapse (i.e first seconds) and prove that it was not faster than gravity.
2. As some of you pointed out, gravity provokes acceleration, not speed. However, there is a fixed speed increase associated with gravity.
3. The link provided here about the 15 second collapse includes the following vital assumption which is missing in this thread: "Resistance from the structure is zero. As in, there are no vertical columns, and no assembly connections. (point 4 in link) This supports the claim intended by the author.
4. I googled a little on Dr. Judy Woods and cannot find a reference to dentistry, can anybody here please provide this? Thanks.
- What I found is her bio: janedoe0911.tripod.com/Wood_Bio.html
- Found a paper at VirginiaTech about steel: scholar.lib.vt.edu/theses/available/etd-06072006-124140/

Please debate :)
1. proved! gravity acts, as it is theorized, at the speed of light. No the top fell as it failed at an acceleration of 9.8 m/s*s, but modulated by any thing in the way. (you must be seeing the first modulated speed of the collapse as the first section fall a few meters and instantaneously collapse the next thing in the way it seems to slow down, it kind of does but never stops, until the ground). Easy proof. There were no booster rockets on the roof, no beam weapon pushing, just gravity. What makes anyone think the first second was faster than gravity; yet you mean just falling. It was slower than a free fall. You are not familiar with gravity are you? Unless you come up with facts and evidence to prove there was some extra force in the down direction you must be using the old opinionFact machine of CT land.
2. That is called acceleration.
3. No the building could collapse with resistance, it would not have to take 15 seconds. If you do some energy modeling, you will find a 10 percent or less than 20 percent resistance penalty due to building failure, then acceleration and momentum transfer. You may be like most and ignore the ever growing mass joining the accelerations to the ground.
4. Judy Woods appears to be insane – her latest brain wave theory is a beam weapon did it and like some Moody Blues frequency only vaporized/dustified the steel. ~She was fired for not teaching her subject but ~ranting about the WTC. Her momentum work would be an F – her "dustification" puts her in a whole different class of folk; sunny brooks comes to mind, but after a coma for years, what can you expect from a woo?.

The first seconds would be where you would see the most effect from the first moving mass destroying other parts of the building. That is what you mean, the first section seems to takeoff fast and slow down. If you see that, it is the resistance of destroying the next section. This modulation can be heard on 9/11 during the first collapse.

[PhantomWolf]

prove that it was not faster than gravity.

Gravity travels at the speed of light.

The building clearly did not collapse at the speed of light.

Thus the building collaspe was slower then Gravity. Q.E.D.

eta: Darn, beaten to the punch by 10mins

[rwguinn]

Gravity travels at the speed of light.

The building clearly did not collapse at the speed of light.

Thus the building collaspe was slower then Gravity. Q.E.D.

eta: Darn, beaten to the punch by 10mins
BZZZT!
If you look at the equation F=%20G*M1*m2/r^2
there is no "time" dimension....It is instantaneous

[PhantomWolf]

there is no "time" dimension....It is instantaneous

That post really needs a smilie. Where I come from, some people are likely to declare that and be serious.

[rwguinn]

That post really needs a smilie. Where I come from, some people are likely to declare that and be serious.

I worked for NASA as a coop in my college days, and on STS payloads for 18 years. See your sig for the correct attitude--it fits NASA to a "T":D
And the units in that equation are mq=kg, m2=kg, r=m, G=N*m/kg^2
See a seconds in there anywhere?...
Just because N = kg*m/sec^2, you have to know that. If you insist on metric units, there is no evidence of time.
That's what you get for naming a bunch of units after dead people, instead of leaving them alone...:D

[programmer]

Gravity travels at the speed of light.
That is certainly not in question, unless of course you want to debate gravitons :D . Again what is meant is the speed of the collapse wave (as a ratio between distance traveled and time ellapsed) like this:
x = 0.5 g t^2 => t = (2x/g)^0.5 for a given distance x of the collapse wave. So if we take the video from beginning of the collapse, given a time ellapsed tf (say 5 seconds) we can compare the calculated distance xf with the actual distance travelled by the collapse wave, and THEN we can tell for sure the fall was not "faster than (allowed by) gravity".

You are not familiar with gravity are you? Unless you come up with facts and evidence to prove there was some extra force in the down direction you must be using the old opinionFact machine of CT land

Actually I have not made any claim about some extra force. I raised a question about IF the initial collapse sequence could be faster than allowed by gravity. I don't know, so that's why I asked for demonstration, if anyone here knows where I can find one, please point it out, else I will try to measure the acceleration myself, as described above.

3. No the building could collapse with resistance, it would not have to take 15 seconds. If you do some energy modeling, you will find a 10 percent or less than 20 percent resistance penalty due to building failure, then acceleration and momentum transfer.

Sounds interesting, you got a source for that calculation? Thanks.
Btw reading Greening's paper will take me a while, not so much free time for me these days :)

[R.Mackey]

I put together a much simpler, energy-based derivation of the collapse time as a function of energy absorbed here (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2236462#post2236462). This should not be treated as a substitute for Dr. Greening's carefully written analysis, but it may be easier to understand.

What it shows relevant to your question is that the collapse time is expected to be between 10 and 20 seconds for virtually any amount of energy input. Small losses over the side would not change the collapse time more than perhaps a second, which is within measurement error given the huge billows of smoke and dust. And huge losses over the sides (not supported by video) that slowed the collapse more than this would be more likely to halt the collapse entirely.

[Panoply_Prefect]

Am I just grossly oversimplifying things here, but doesnt the fact that the debris fall faster than the building itself, debunk the "free fall" and "faster than free fall" theory? Is there any scenario where a building in free fall would have debris falling faster?

/S

[JimBenArm]

Am I just grossly oversimplifying things here, but doesnt the fact that the debris fall faster than the building itself, debunk the "free fall" and "faster than free fall" theory? Is there any scenario where a building in free fall would have debris falling faster?

/S
Well, if you want to stick to the real world, yes. But you forget we're in CT World, where all that mathy, logical stuff gets thrown out.

[Panoply_Prefect]

Well, if you want to stick to the real world, yes. But you forget we're in CT World, where all that mathy, logical stuff gets thrown out.

I just dont understand how this theory, or what you want to call it, got so widespread. Has any CD ever jettisoned clouds of dust so they accelerate faster than freefall?

/S

[William Rea]

To three significant digits, 9.8 works for the purpose of discussing times rounded to seconds, which is as much precision as the video evidence warrants.

Sorry to bore you.

DR

No problem.

[William Rea]

I worked for NASA as a coop in my college days, and on STS payloads for 18 years. See your sig for the correct attitude--it fits NASA to a "T":D
And the units in that equation are mq=kg, m2=kg, r=m, G=N*m/kg^2
See a seconds in there anywhere?...
Just because N = kg*m/sec^2, you have to know that. If you insist on metric units, there is no evidence of time.
That's what you get for naming a bunch of units after dead people, instead of leaving them alone...:D

Could you offer further explanation of what you mean here?

[ryanebelhar]

the enire WTC/freefall/CD talk reminds me of the episode of the Simpsons when Burn's Casion was demolished

All the characters are watching as the casino is preparing to be demolished.

Demolitioner #1: Five, four, three, two ...
Bart: All right! Here comes the implosion!
Demolitioner #2: Implosion? But I thought you said ...

[Gravy]

267 hits on Google isn't terribly impressive is it.

William, you protested about another poster using one example:

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

In ten seconds, I provided 267 more examples than you could muster. To you, that is insignificant. That's your problem.

Here is my challenge to you, William Rea:

You seem to do nothing but complain about the methods used by "skeptics" on these forums. Yet you never demonstrate what us "skeptics" get wrong.

So start a thread and produce your BEST EVIDENCE that the official version of the 9/11 attacks is wrong.

Give us your very best evidence, William. Are you up to it?

I say you're not.

[pagan]

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?

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.

[A W Smith]

Pagan have you not seen mine (1 (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2416821&postcount=17))and Gravys(267 (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2417979&postcount=31)) posts with such claims?



and
At the time i posted I only had time for one example. My wife had served me dinner and was growing impatient.

[Cl1mh4224rd]

I just dont understand how this theory, or what you want to call it, got so widespread.
Repetition, pure and simple.

[PhantomWolf]

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.

However since it's quite clear from the video that they fell at, at least 1 and a half times if not twice the time predicted by just freefall, that isn't virtually freefall speed. So if that's your best argument, you're really in serious trouble.

[Panoply_Prefect]

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.

But if the buildings fell in free fall, why does the debris and debris-clouds fall faster?

/S

[RAMS]

I'm not certain if this is timely here at this thread but thought I'd add it anyway.

Another glaring misnomer of the CD and Conspiracy crowd is somehow there is no weight involved in any of the failures of the three main WTC sructures.

In failure, we always begin with ambient weight in a scenario since that is what effects anything vertical in cascade failure events, like building collapse.

With that stated lets take one floor of the WTC towers, either one. The weight of any floor is 3000 tons, gross. As it fails it drops 8 feet vertically to the floor below. Impact velocity + weight= equals a sqaure increase in apparent weight, not actual. Thus, at impact the floor is now impacting at roughly 8000 tons. Now the floor just impacted is carrying twice the weight and mass on its way down to the next, repeated 110 times. At about the 5th floor impact, the speed and might of dropping might as well be free fall since there is so much weight, at so much impacting speed, no part of the structure can assume this and still stand.

In fact, it is a surprise the core did not collapse faster than it did (some 29 seconds, actual).

Also, the squibs the CT love to target are the reverse pressure wave of some 5000 lbs per square inch of air exiting not only the falling floors but the failure translation all the way down to ground level.

Thought that would be fun to include.

Robert A.M. Stephens, LLC ®
NASA Fine Art Documentation Program
Vision Motion Dynamic-FX-FX
behold the rage
________________________________
Have Jeep, Have Heart, Will Travel

[westprog]

Am I just grossly oversimplifying things here, but doesnt the fact that the debris fall faster than the building itself, debunk the "free fall" and "faster than free fall" theory? Is there any scenario where a building in free fall would have debris falling faster?

/S

I can imagine that, for example, steel beams might have been compressed and then expelled downwards. Thus it would be possible for some debris to be expelled faster than "free fall". However, it seems extremely implausible that all the debris could be expelled in such a way.

[Panoply_Prefect]

I can imagine that, for example, steel beams might have been compressed and then expelled downwards. Thus it would be possible for some debris to be expelled faster than "free fall". However, it seems extremely implausible that all the debris could be expelled in such a way.

Yes, obviously, and local explosions aorund the buildings could probably have had the same effect. However if the building itself were in free fall, then as you note, all debris including those small particles forming a debris cloud, must have been beyond freefall. And then you would have a lot of explaining to do on how to achieve that effect. Just typing "controlled demolition" wouldnt, as I understand it, cut it.

To me it seems obvious, but then admittedly Im not the sharpest knife in the drawer.

/S

[pagan]

But if the buildings fell in free fall, why does the debris and debris-clouds fall faster?

/S

The power of explosives.

[pagan]

Yes, obviously, and local explosions aorund the buildings could probably have had the same effect. However if the building itself were in free fall, then as you note, all debris including those small particles forming a debris cloud, must have been beyond freefall. And then you would have a lot of explaining to do on how to achieve that effect. Just typing "controlled demolition" wouldnt, as I understand it, cut it.

To me it seems obvious, but then admittedly Im not the sharpest knife in the drawer.

/S


You sure as hell ain't kiddo. (The sharpest knife)

Local explosions around the building? What is that?

[sophia8]

I've never seen any truther claim that the towers fell faster than free fall.
ORLY? Then stop scratching your your behind and use your fingers to google:
BBC Editors Blog - Posts 9, 16, 284, 309, 333 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2007/03/part_of_the_conspiracy_2.html2)
Sample UK 9/11 thread - 1 (http://www.nineeleven.co.uk/board/viewtopic.php?t=7006&highlight=freefall+tower+towers)
Sample UK 9/11 thread - 2 (http://www.nineeleven.co.uk/board/viewtopic.php?t=7037&highlight=freefall+tower+towers)
Sample UK 9/11 thread - 3 (http://www.nineeleven.co.uk/board/viewtopic.php?t=6365&highlight=freefall+tower+towers)
A UK mountain bikers' forum?? (http://www.mbuk.com/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=178663&whichpage=4)
Above Top Secret forum (http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread201098/pg2)
Another Truther post on some blog (http://www.tpmcafe.com/blog/911wasinsidejob/2006/jul/31/the_official_9_11_conspiracy_theory_defies_physics )
A post on GNN (http://www.gnn.tv/threads/16068/On_Conspiracies?page=1#168964)

Pagan, that's forty minutes of my life you owe me!!

[westprog]

The power of explosives.

A huge amount of explosives might have the power to blast debris downwards, but would also end up blasting half of it upwards. Which didn't happen.

[pagan]

ORLY? Then stop scratching your your behind and use your fingers to google:
BBC Editors Blog - Posts 9, 16, 284, 309, 333 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2007/03/part_of_the_conspiracy_2.html2)
Sample UK 9/11 thread - 1 (http://www.nineeleven.co.uk/board/viewtopic.php?t=7006&highlight=freefall+tower+towers)
Sample UK 9/11 thread - 2 (http://www.nineeleven.co.uk/board/viewtopic.php?t=7037&highlight=freefall+tower+towers)
Sample UK 9/11 thread - 3 (http://www.nineeleven.co.uk/board/viewtopic.php?t=6365&highlight=freefall+tower+towers)
A UK mountain bikers' forum?? (http://www.mbuk.com/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=178663&whichpage=4)
Above Top Secret forum (http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread201098/pg2)
Another Truther post on some blog (http://www.tpmcafe.com/blog/911wasinsidejob/2006/jul/31/the_official_9_11_conspiracy_theory_defies_physics )
A post on GNN (http://www.gnn.tv/threads/16068/On_Conspiracies?page=1#168964)

Pagan, that's forty minutes of my life you owe me!!

It took 40 min to assemble this garbage?

UK mountain bikers forum ?:blush:

[beachnut]

The power of explosives.Why are truthers wrong all of the time?

9.8 m/s is easy stuff. Why do truthers mess up the facts and fail to find facts on 9/11? Why do truthers lie?

[The Almond]

It took 40 min to assemble this garbage?

UK mountain bikers forum ?:blush:

Optional mature adult response: "I see, there are many truthers who claim that the towers fell faster than free fall speeds would have allowed. I concede the point."

[Panoply_Prefect]

You sure as hell ain't kiddo. (The sharpest knife)

Local explosions around the building? What is that?

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

[sophia8]

It took 40 min to assemble this garbage?
Yes it did.
And I see you agree with me that the "faster than freefall" claims that I found are "garbage". Well, that's worth at least ten minutes.

[Mancman]

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.

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.

[Darth Rotor]

Here is my challenge to you, William Rea:

You seem to do nothing but complain about the methods used by "skeptics" on these forums. Yet you never demonstrate what us "skeptics" get wrong.

So start a thread and produce your BEST EVIDENCE that the official version of the 9/11 attacks is wrong.

Give us your very best evidence, William. Are you up to it?

I say you're not.
Apologies Gravy, I may have bored him into indifference.

DR

[RAMS]

So many of your responses are so right on and so basic, it escapes me that folks that can drive a keyboard can be so resistant to normal thinking. Odd, this. Great responses and a joy to read.

As each floor collapses, regardless of failure speed, the mushrooming or "fountain" effect of the debris wall is due to 5 things:

1. The building is not falling at free fall due to internal structural resistance.

2. The debris must go somewhere since the building is falling slower than free fall.

3. Expulsive wind sheer is nearly 400 mph out the sides of escapes, carrying with it articles weighing up to 500-800 pounds or more. (also explaining "squibs" far below the failure event)

4. The fountain effect is always the tell-tale of systemic collapse, not CD collapse, since the structures fell on top of themselves, through compression, not the "pins knocked out beneath itself".

5. And objects of mass are seen reaching terminal velocity in the fountain column on their way to the ground, as well they should at 160fps.

Again, very cool posts everyone. The naysayers need only be educated on structural dynamics for this to click and some Newton laws thrown in too.....

Robert A.M. Stephens, LLC ®
NASA Fine Art Documentation Program
Vision Motion Dynamic-FX-FX
behold the rage dot com
________________________________
Have Jeep, Have Heart, Will Travel

[CHF]

The power of explosives.

So.....the debris had rocket boosters on it? :confused:

[cloudshipsrule]

As each floor collapses, regardless of failure speed, the mushrooming or "fountain" effect of the debris wall is due to 5 things:

1. The building is not falling at free fall due to internal structural resistance.

2. The debris must go somewhere since the building is falling slower than free fall.

3. Expulsive wind sheer is nearly 400 mph out the sides of escapes, carrying with it articles weighing up to 500-800 pounds or more. (also explaining "squibs" far below the failure event)

4. The fountain effect is always the tell-tale of systemic collapse, not CD collapse, since the structures fell on top of themselves, through compression, not the "pins knocked out beneath itself".

5. And objects of mass are seen reaching terminal velocity in the fountain column on their way to the ground, as well they should at 160fps.

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?

[William Rea]

William, you protested about another poster using one example:
In ten seconds, I provided 267 more examples than you could muster. To you, that is insignificant. That's your problem.
Here is my challenge to you, William Rea:
You seem to do nothing but complain about the methods used by "skeptics" on these forums. Yet you never demonstrate what us "skeptics" get wrong.
So start a thread and produce your BEST EVIDENCE that the official version of the 9/11 attacks is wrong.
Give us your very best evidence, William. Are you up to it?
I say you're not.

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?

[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.:D


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]

Originally Posted by sophia8 http://forums.randi.org/helloworld2/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=2416182#post2416182)
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? (http://www.911scholars.org/WhyQuestion911.html)



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? (http://www.google.com/search?q=%22faster+than+freefall%22+9%2F11&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a)


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]

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.

[A W Smith]

yes it is my opinion you are a troll.. hows that?

[William Rea]

yes it is my opinion you are a troll.. hows that?

That works for me.

Still waiting for your answer to the other points.

[tsig]

That works for me.

Still waiting for your answer to the other points.

When you have a point it will be answered.

[steve s]

OK, I typed in "911 truth" and got 1,960,000 hits.

You must still be learning how to use Google. I typed in "911 truth" (in quotes) and got only 278,000 hits.

If you don't put them in quotes you get the 1.96 million you refer to. But that includes pages that contain the terms '911 truth', '911', or just 'truth'. The vast majority of those pages won't be relevant to your search.

Steve S.

[William Rea]

You must still be learning how to use Google. I typed in "911 truth" (in quotes) and got only 278,000 hits.

If you don't put them in quotes you get the 1.96 million you refer to. But that includes pages that contain the terms '911 truth', '911', or just 'truth'. The vast majority of those pages won't be relevant to your search.

Steve S.

Fair comment, I'll restate it...

If a Google search is really considered evidence then I make it that 100*680/270000 = 0.25% of CTers believe in faster than freefall.

[William Rea]

When you have a point it will be answered.

Oooooooh there's a sure sign I'm winning the debate if ever I saw one.

:D

[A W Smith]

still moving the goalposts with strawmen? troll

[William Rea]

still moving the goalposts with strawmen? troll

Well that clinches it doesn't it. Along with with tsig's response, a confirmation that I am winning the argument.

[William Rea]

still moving the goalposts with strawmen? troll

So, you're bitter about being reprimanded by the Mods in post #76 of this thread and no doubt see these troll accusations as some sort of revenge. I can live with that.

What I wouldn't mind from you and tsig (assuming you are not also tsig) is some explanation of what this strawman is and what goal posts I have moved. I'm not as clever as you so I need some clarification so I that I can figure out exactly what heinous crime I have commited.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

So, you're bitter about being reprimanded by the Mods in post #76 of this thread and no doubt see these troll accusations as some sort of revenge. I can live with that.

What I wouldn't mind from you and tsig (assuming you are not also tsig) is some explanation of what this strawman is and what goal posts I have moved. I'm not as clever as you so I need some clarification so I that I can figure out exactly what heinous crime I have commited.
Here's you moving goalposts:
Asking for a source
Which CTers and where have they claimed it?

Then saying one source isn't enough
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?

Then saying a couple hundred sources are not enough
267 hits on Google isn't terribly impressive is it.

I get 11 million hits for "gravy".

You're telling me that a Google search like that is intellectual rigour? Laughable.

Then saying 60 sources are not enough
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.

Then saying that the 200+ and 600+ numbers are too small of a percentage
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".

All of which, is textbook moving the goalpost (http://www.theskepticsguide.org/logicalfallacies.asp) logical fallacy.

[A W Smith]

So, you're bitter about being reprimanded by the Mods in post #76 of this thread and no doubt see these troll accusations as some sort of revenge. I can live with that.

What I wouldn't mind from you and tsig (assuming you are not also tsig) is some explanation of what this strawman is and what goal posts I have moved. I'm not as clever as you so I need some clarification so I that I can figure out exactly what heinous crime I have commited.

First off. im not bitter about anything. here is where you move the goalposts.

Originally Posted by William Rea http://forums.randi.org/helloworld2/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=2416585#post2416585)
Which CTers and where have they claimed it?

which implying individuals or group or portion there of. Not all. not all encompassing. WHICH one or ones. I had time for one example as my dinner was served. Which i thought would suffice give your question anyway

from
Scholars for 9/11 Truth; Why Doubt 9/11? (http://www.911scholars.org/WhyQuestion911.html)



Quote:
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 here comes the goal post move

Originally Posted by william rea
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?


To which Gravy replied.

Originally Posted by gravy
Is intellectual sloth really a virtue where you live? (http://www.google.com/search?q=%22faster+than+freefall%22+9%2F11&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a)


Ok here comes!! your second goal post move!!

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


To which I replied

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

ok here comes goal post move number three. i think with this you are clearly out of the stadium and in the parking lot.

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.



Nope you have definatly lost this argument. Which began with your original question 'Which Ones"

[William Rea]

Here's you moving goalposts:
Asking for a source
Then saying one source isn't enough
Then saying a couple hundred sources are not enough
Then saying 60 sources are not enough
Then saying that the 200+ and 600+ numbers are too small of a percentage
All of which, is textbook moving the goalpost (http://www.theskepticsguide.org/logicalfallacies.asp) logical fallacy.

Actually no. I haven't moved the acceptance outside the range of the evidence that exists. That same evidence existed from post#1 of this thread and was there for anyone to find. I happened to find it and called the shots for pretty much the whole of the thread whilst you all hung yourselves on your own petards.

I only needed to demonstrate the fallacy of the assertion that the 9/11 CTers are always going on about how the WTC collapsed "faster than freefall" to completely destroy the original strawman of the OP. It is clear that this is not a widely held opinion anywhere, so the science of the collapse is irrelevant.

Now we've cleared this up I see no reason to continue the thread much further. Game, set and match.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Actually no. I haven't moved the acceptance outside the range of the evidence that exists. That same evidence existed from post#1 of this thread and was there for anyone to find. I happened to find it and called the shots for pretty much the whole of the thread whilst you all hung yourselves on your own petards.

I only needed to demonstrate the fallacy of the assertion that the 9/11 CTers are always going on about how the WTC collapsed "faster than freefall" to completely destroy the original strawman of the OP. It is clear that this is not a widely held opinion anywhere, so the science of the collapse is irrelevant.

Now we've cleared this up I see no reason to continue the thread much further. Game, set and match.

The OP is not a strawman as 9/11 CFists do make claims of freefall. That you do not see them as a majority is irrelevant.

Examples of freefall usage:
http://www.physics911.net/thermite
http://janedoe0911.tripod.com/BilliardBalls.html
http://www.jnani.org/mrking/writings/911/king911.htm#_Toc144445996 (rebuttal to Jones "freefall" argument)
http://internetdetectives.biz/case/loose-change-3#free-fall (rebuttal to Loose Change "freefall" argument)
http://911scholars.org/ (search page for 'free-fall')

Now, that hits on Judy Wood, Prof. Jones, Scholars for Truth, and Loose Change; all major players in the 9/11 CF movement.

[A W Smith]

yes you have. Again.. THIS was your initial question
Originally Posted by William Rea http://forums.randi.org/helloworld2/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=2416585#post2416585)
Which CTers and where have they claimed it?

this was the question you asked that was answered many times. again 'WHICH" not all. not most. "WHICH."

you lose.

[William Rea]

First off. im not bitter about anything. here is where you move the goalposts.
which implying individuals or group or portion there of. Not all. not all encompassing. WHICH one or ones. I had time for one example as my dinner was served. Which i thought would suffice give your question anyway
Ok here comes the goal post move
To which Gravy replied.
Ok here comes!! your second goal post move!!
To which I replied
ok here comes goal post move number three. i think with this you are clearly out of the stadium and in the parking lot.
Nope you have definatly lost this argument. Which began with your original question 'Which Ones"

Sorry, but that is a lame response. I cannot take you seriously on this topic any more.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Sorry, but that is a lame response. I cannot take you seriously on this topic any more.
How do you manage to type with your fingers stuffed that far into your ears?

[William Rea]

How do you manage to type with your fingers stuffed that far into your ears?

With my penis mostly.


Arkan and William - Don't personalize your debate by exchanging insults and childish commentary. Stick to the subject and your arguments, please.

[A W Smith]

Sorry, but that is a lame response. I cannot take you seriously on this topic any more.

Thats ok. You can ignore it. You can put your fingers in your ear. But its there for all to see. you lost

[William Rea]

The OP is not a strawman as 9/11 CFists do make claims of freefall. That you do not see them as a majority is irrelevant.

Examples of freefall usage:
http://www.physics911.net/thermite
http://janedoe0911.tripod.com/BilliardBalls.html
http://www.jnani.org/mrking/writings/911/king911.htm#_Toc144445996 (rebuttal to Jones "freefall" argument)
http://internetdetectives.biz/case/loose-change-3#free-fall (rebuttal to Loose Change "freefall" argument)
http://911scholars.org/ (search page for 'free-fall')

Now, that hits on Judy Wood, Prof. Jones, Scholars for Truth, and Loose Change; all major players in the 9/11 CF movement.

Please return to the OP and read it again.

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?

I know it's difficult coming in on the back end of a thread when you haven't read the whole thing so I won't make a big thing of this.

[William Rea]

Thats ok. You can ignore it. You can put your fingers in your ear. But its there for all to see. you lost

I bet that I get the last post on this.

Actually no I won't. It's too excruciating watching your humiliation so I'll stop posting now.

[A W Smith]

starting over are you?

:dl:


Please return to the OP and read it again.

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?

I know it's difficult coming in on the back end of a thread when you haven't read the whole thing so I won't make a big thing of this.

[A W Smith]

I bet that I get the last post on this.

typing with the aid of viagra are ya?

[A W Smith]

I bet that I get the last post on this.

Actually no I won't. It's too excruciating watching the humiliation so I'll stop posting now.

well if you move the mirror off the bureau or throw a towel over it you wont have to watch yourself.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Please return to the OP and read it again.

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?

I know it's difficult coming in on the back end of a thread when you haven't read the whole thing so I won't make a big thing of this.
Stop with the red herring. OP asked if any CFist had ever proven faster that freefall. You argued none had made that claim. It has not been showed that they have made that claim. You then try to shift the burden of proof around as if the OP were claiming that the CFists had proven it. Just stop. You've been proven wrong. Accept it and move on.

[William Rea]

Stop with the red herring. OP asked if any CFist had ever proven faster that freefall. You argued none had made that claim. It has not been showed that they have made that claim. You then try to shift the burden of proof around as if the OP were claiming that the CFists had proven it. Just stop. You've been proven wrong. Accept it and move on.

I did not claim that no CTer had ever claimed "faster than freefall", not on one occaision did I say that. That is absolute BS.

I did not once say that any CTer had proved "faster than freefall". Why would I claim they had proved something that I do not even believe happened. Your post is complete and utter BS.

For heaven's sake show some intellectual honesty won't you.

I know I said the previous was my last post but your dishonesty could not go without response, you have just told two outright lies.

[A W Smith]

I bet that I get the last post on this.

Actually no I won't. It's too excruciating watching your humiliation so I'll stop posting now.


You Lied! you posted again!

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

I did not claim that no CTer had ever claimed "faster than freefall", not on one occaision did I say that. That is absolute BS.
Did you, or did you not, ask for specific names of CFists that claimed faster than freefall?

I did not once say that any CTer had proved "faster than freefall". Why would I claim they had proved something that I do not even believe happened. Your post is complete and utter BS.
I didn't say you did, I said you were trying to make it appear as though the OP claimed that.

For heaven's sake show some intellectual honesty won't you.
You wouldn't recognize intellectual honesty if it bit you on the ass.

I know I said the previous was my last post but your dishonesty could not go without response, you have just told two outright lies.
No, you just have reading comprehension problems.

[William Rea]

Did you, or did you not, ask for specific names of CFists that claimed faster than freefall?
I didn't say you did, I said you were trying to make it appear as though the OP claimed that.
You wouldn't recognize intellectual honesty if it bit you on the ass.
No, you just have reading comprehension problems.

This is going nowhere and I suspect that you are trying nothing more than to get the rise out of me by lying about my argument and creating a strawman.

I don't care what further lies you add, this is my final post. I have proven my case and discredited the OP assertions. I guess we'll have to live with it as best we can.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

This is going nowhere and I suspect that you are trying nothing more than to get the rise out of me by lying about my argument and creating a strawman.

I don't care what further lies you add, this is my final post. I have proven my case and discredited the OP assertions. I guess we'll have to live with it as best we can.
The only assertion made in the OP was "The 9/11 CTers are always going on about how the WTC collapsed "faster than freefall"." Your attempt at refuting that assertion was countered. That you now choose to ignore those counters and pretend they did not occur does not change reality, nor the record that this thread provides.

[A W Smith]

This is going nowhere and I suspect that you are trying nothing more than to get the rise out of me by lying about my argument and creating a strawman.

I don't care what further lies you add, this is my final post. I have proven my case and discredited the OP assertions. I guess we'll have to live with it as best we can.

:dl:

Uhh.. No you haven't! The "faster than freefall" links are still in this thread. Unless you can make them disappear you have lost.

[Cl1mh4224rd]

[ Bah. Beaten. ]

[Gravy]

Well, William finally answered my question "Is intellectual sloth really a virtue where you live?"

How dare we confine ourselves to the orthodoxy of facts! The noive!

[tsig]

Oooooooh there's a sure sign I'm winning the debate if ever I saw one.

:D

There really is no debate just you spewing nonsense.

[tsig]

Well, William finally answered my question "Is intellectual sloth really a virtue where you live?"

How dare we confine ourselves to the orthodoxy of facts! The noive!


Facts!! We don't need no stinking facts!!

(sounds of gunfire)

Another CTer bites the dust.