Open Letter to Dave Thomas

[cmatrix]

Originally Posted by tfk

cm,

Well, it took long enough. Glad you're now on our side...

And this was the breakthru moment.

Clearly, you believe that something can fall slower than g.
And now that you say you believe that something can fall faster than g, then we've bridged the span that says that you believe that something can fall at g as well.

Well, that was like pulling teeth, but I'm glad we got there.

Does this mean that I win your $5,000??



What was the FOIA for? Because truthers are technically clueless.

All the data to reconstruct the models is in the public domain. The vast majority of it is in the NIST reports.



No…??

Really…???



You don't read very well, cm. That could be part of your problem.

You'll have to point out where you think that I said that it'd be "easy". One of those "reading comprehension" thingies, apparently.

Since all the hard work is done, it'd take a staff of mechanical and/or structural engineer about 50 man-years, I'd guess. Or a group of grad students about 100 man-years.

With free Jolt cola & twinkies, you'd get it down to 10 "blazing-grad-student-years". But it'd take another 200 to fix all the errors.

Not hard in the slightest. But pretty laborious.



If you didn't run & hide from every conversation, perhaps you might find out.


tom

"Well, it took long enough. Glad you're now on our side..."

It looks like you gone of the deep end. You claimed I said it was impossible that an object falling only under the influence of gravity could fall faster than G. I never made such a claim. You made a ridiculous mistake and are too pig-headed to own up to it. I'm not offering $5000 for babbling nonsense.

"All the data to reconstruct the models is in the public domain. The vast majority of it is in the NIST reports. "

Yet NIST says:

"NIST shall not release the following information:

1. All input and results files of the ANSYS 16-story collapse initiation model with detailed connection models that were used to analyze the structural response to thermal loads, break element source code, ANSYS script files for the break elements, custom executable ANSYS file, and all Excel spreadsheets and other supporting calculations used to develop floor connection failure modes and capacities.

2. All input files with connection material properties and all results files of the LS-DYNA 47-story global collapse model that were used to simulate sequential structural failures leading to collapse, and all Excel spreadsheets and other supporting calculations used to develop floor connection failure modes and capacities."

You said "Anybody, who is not as clueless as you are, can recreate all that data easily."

and

"You'll have to point out where you think that I said that it'd be "easy"".

So I guess you are saying then that I am as clueless as you are...

[cmatrix]

Originally Posted by T.A.M.

evidence:

Where is the physical evidence that WTC7 collapse involved explosives?
Where is the video evidence that WTC7 collapse involved explosives?
Where is the eye witness testimony that a series of explosions (flashes, booms) went off in the moments right before WTC7 Collapse?
Where are the whistleblowers testifying that explosives were planted?
Where is the det cord, the explosive residue, the left over thermite, the thermite applicators?

Please, provide THE EVIDENCE for Controlled Demolition.

TAM

Where is the evidence that fire caused WTC 7 to fall? Please, provide THE EVIDENCE for fire-initiated collapse.

[BigAl]

Originally Posted by ergo

And why was no firefighting done?

So you haven't read pages 299-304 of NCSTAR 1-9 Vol 1 yet.

http://wtc.nist.gov/NCSTAR1/NCSTAR1-9index.htm

[ergo]

Originally Posted by tfk

100% wrong.
Uh, yeah they did.

Great. Where is it?

Quote:

Uh, yes there was. Images of a massive gash.

Great. Where are they?

Quote:

Gee, "most of" the reporters only saw Princess Di drive away, not get killed in the car accident. That must mean that she didn't really get killed.

We're talking about something that was sitting there for several hours. Not about something driving past witnesses.

Quote:

Many people explicitly described a long, deep vertical gash that ran thru many stories, very near the center of the south face.

Can you point out where these testimonies would be found?

Quote:

BTW, NIST didn't model a "long vertical hole the length of the building right smack in the middle of the south face". NIST used all the video & photo info available to model the best, most accurate approximation to the actual damage that they could. Based on all the evidence that they had.

If they didn't model, then I guess it wasn't there. Why would they not model something that you are not only insisting was there, but that there is all this evidence of? Your critique here isn't making a lot of sense.

Quote:

Outright, ludicrous, 100% wrong..

Quote:

100% wrong.

I am referring to the NIST report on WTC7 that Big Al cited. What are you referring to?

Please show us these testimonials.

Quote:

Nobody said, implied, inferred, suggested, insinuated or intimated that it did.

Good to know. So, if they're not blaming the corner damage, and they're not blaming the large gash in the back that you insist is there but that they don't bother modelling in their analysis, then I guess we're just back to the fires, huh? Okey dokey.

[cmatrix]

Originally Posted by T.A.M.

yes, in the broadest sense of the word, putting the written word into type, and then up online, is publishing.

By the scientific, nay, by the intellectually ACCEPTED definition of the word, published is to have your paper/article/book taken and placed into print by an accepted and reputable magazine or publishing company...online or hardcopy.

Press??? seriously. Come on, are you even buying that?

TAM

The NIST reports were published by NIST. That is, self-published. Not much different than some guy putting something on the Net.

[BigAl]

Originally Posted by ergo

Great. Where is it?

We're talking about something that was sitting there for several hours. Not about something driving past witnesses.



Can you point out where these testimonies would be found?

I am referring to the NIST report on WTC7 that Big Al cited. What are you referring to?

Please show us these testimonials.

Follow the footnotes.

Quote:

Good to know. So, if they're not blaming the corner damage, and they're not blaming the large gash in the back that you insist is there but that they don't bother modelling in their analysis, then I guess we're just back to the fires, huh? Okey dokey.

Unfought fire caused WTC7 to collapse. Anything else that happened to that building was peripheral to the fundamental cause.

Were it not for unfought fire, WTC7 would have survived 9/11 as a damaged structure to be demolished at a later date,

[beachnut]

Originally Posted by cmatrix

Where is the evidence that fire caused WTC 7 to fall? Please, provide THE EVIDENCE for fire-initiated collapse.

over 9 years of failure, no evidence for CD.

[cmatrix]

Originally Posted by Dave Rogers

OK, let's take a look at what you said, and see who's made a glaring mistake.



Let's take an example. Suppose a mass m is initially supported at height H1. It then falls to height H2 at an arbitrarily low speed, retarded in its fall by collapsing supports of negligible mass. After reaching height H2, it then falls at an acceleration of g to a height H3, at which point its energy is measured.

"All the available gravitational potential energy" is, of course, equal to mg(H1-H3). However, the problem specifies that the object is near-stationary at height H2, therefore it has only fallen at freefall though a height (H2-H3), and its kinetic energy is equal to mg(H2-H3). There's an additional energy of mg(H1-H2) that is not present as kinetic energy.

Let's make the example a little more realistic, and assume that the falling mass has some kinetic energy K1 when it reaches height H2. However, by definition, its fall to this point has been slowed, so we know that K1<mg(H1-H2). The kinetic energy at H3 is now equal to mg(H2-H3)+K1, which is less than mg(H1-H3); the difference is mg(H1-H2)-K1, which must be greater than zero. Therefore, we have an object in free fall, not all of whose available gravitational potential energy has been converted to kinetic energy.

Therefore, your statement that "With a free falling object all the available gravitational potential energy has been converted to kinetic energy" is inconsistent with simple Newtonian mechanics. Clearly, then, you don't understand Newtonian physics. (I'm being charitable here and assuming you're merely incompetent, rather than lying.)

Did anyone recognise the example, by the way? Clue: the name ends in 7.

Dave

Good grief what a ridiculous pile of crap. I had to read that over several times to make sure you weren't joking. In H1-H2 all the available GPE is converted to kinetic energy and used to break up structure. In H2-H3 all the available gravitational potential energy has been solely converted to kinetic energy. H2-H3 is what my statement referred to and is absolutely correct. A glaring mistake has been made by you. It is your explanation that is not consistent with simple Newtonian mechanics since you don't account for the energy used to break up the structure.

[beachnut]

Originally Posted by cmatrix

Good grief what a ridiculous pile of crap. I had to read that over several times to make sure you weren't joking. In H1-H2 all the available GPE is converted to kinetic energy and used to break up structure. In H2-H3 all the available gravitational potential energy has been solely converted to kinetic energy. H2-H3 is what my statement referred to and is absolutely correct. A glaring mistake has been made by you. It is your explanation that is not consistent with simple Newtonian mechanics since you don't account for the energy used to break up the structure.

E=mgh.

9 years of failure and you can't do the physics? why?

[cmatrix]

Originally Posted by Dave Rogers

OK, Horatius, let me take this one.

Ergo, there are two possibilities here.

1. You are arguing the following position:

(a) Part of WTC7's collapse was at freefall speed.
(b) This is characteristic of controlled demolitions.
(c) This, in fact, only happens in controlled demolitions.
(d) Therefore, WTC7's collapse was a controlled demolition.

If this is your position, then (a) is already demonstrated. You have not proven (b) or (c). All you've done so far is suggest that freefall collapse wouldn't be surprising in a controlled demolition, which is nowhere near proving either. So, at the moment, your reasoning has a hole in it. Horatius has suggested how you might address that hole.

2. You are arguing some other position.

In which case, you haven't communicated effectively what that position is.

Dave

I think ergo like me is in fact arguing this:

(a) Part of WTC7's collapse was at freefall speed.
(b) This is impossible in a fire-initiated collpase.
(c) This, in fact, can only be explained by controlled demolition.
(d) Therefore, WTC7's collapse was a controlled demolition.

(b) is something you have to prove because it has never ever been seen before in the history of mankind. (c) follows from (b). We win you lose. Deal with it.

[cmatrix]

Originally Posted by BigAl

The firemen watching WTC7 burn got it right; unfought fire was the root cause of the collapse.

No they got it wrong. A fire-initiated collapse is a gravity driven collapse. Free fall is impossible in a gravity driven collapse. One counter example will prove your case but you can never produce it because it is impossible.

[Horatius]

Originally Posted by cmatrix

Controlled demolitions don't require free fall. In fact it's quite expensive to have free fall in a CD. You have to blow out _all_ the structure in the way. Most CDs use gravity to help remove the resiting structure.

Okay, so you've admitted that it's possible to have a total global collapse using gravity to remove the resisting structure, correct?


You also indicate that creating a CD that produces a free-fall period is "quite expensive". Can we also assume it's more difficult and complicated to do that?


So then, you have to explain: if such a free-fall period is not necessary for a CD, why then did They pay extra, and put in the extra effort, to produce such a period of free-fall, if such is not necessary? Why did They go out of their way to leave such an obvious (to you, at least) smoking gun?

[Horatius]

Originally Posted by cmatrix

No they got it wrong. A fire-initiated collapse is a gravity driven collapse. Free fall is impossible in a gravity driven collapse. One counter example will prove your case but you can never produce it because it is impossible.

Quoted so we can hold you to this later.

[alienentity]

Originally Posted by cmatrix

I think ergo like me is in fact arguing this:

(a) Part of WTC7's collapse was at freefall speed.
(b) This is impossible in a fire-initiated collpase.
(c) This, in fact, can only be explained by controlled demolition.
(d) Therefore, WTC7's collapse was a controlled demolition.

(b) is something you have to prove because it has never ever been seen before in the history of mankind. (c) follows from (b). We win you lose. Deal with it.

1) You wrote earlier

Originally Posted by cmatrix

Controlled demolitions don't require free fall..... You have to blow out _all_ the structure in the way.

So now you are arguing against yourself....a little schizophrenic perhaps, but par for the course really

You are claiming that only CD can produce freefall, so the burden of proof is actually on you, not on NIST. NIST is not claiming CD, and they have indeed produced copious engineering evidence for fire-induced collapse. NIST has met the burden of proof for its hypothesis.

Where is your evidence? M.I.A. after 9 years.

[alienentity]

Originally Posted by cmatrix

Free fall is impossible in a gravity driven collapse.

Provide your proof. Now. You make the claim, you have the burden of proof.

[carlitos]

Originally Posted by cmatrix

No they got it wrong. A fire-initiated collapse is a gravity driven collapse. Free fall is impossible in a gravity driven collapse. One counter example will prove your case but you can never produce it because it is impossible.

Videos of objects falling in a "gravity-driven collapse" at free fall and faster than free fall have been posted in this very thread. Your failure to understand these forces while offering a reward to prove something about physics results in an arrogance to ignorance ratio off the charts.

[cmatrix]

Originally Posted by alienentity

Please tell that to Richard Gage

Why? He's the one I heard it from.

[DGM]

cmatix:
Wouldn't it be cool if you could actually argue physics like the big boys?

[alienentity]

Originally Posted by alienentity

Please tell that to Richard Gage

Originally Posted by cmatrix

Why? He's the one I heard it from.

[cmatrix]

Originally Posted by carlitos

OK, I'm a little slow.

A - "Controlled demolitions don't require free fall."
B - "Most CDs use gravity to help remove the resisting structure."
C - "...the 58 perimeter columns and 25 massive core columns of WTC 7 to be effectively removed simultaneously floor by floor so that the building was able to free fall straight down symmetrically for at least 2.25 seconds."

Can someone walk me through this logic? C does not appear to follow from A and B. Was the demolition of the Salomon Brothers building a "controlled demolition" specifically because it doesn't look like one?

Also, the highlighted portion of C is erroneous, but that's already been pointed out before.

Simple, you missed D - "The only known way to cause a building to free fall is by blowing out all the resisting structure with explosives."

[cmatrix]

Originally Posted by alienentity

Except that you are again wrong; the NIST theory does explain the freefall period. Your point is a strawman (of course)
Here is one such explanation, there are others..

'Chapter 12, NCSTAR 1-9 Vol2 p.602

'In Stage 1, the descent was slow and the acceleration was less than that of gravity. *This stage
corresponds to the initial buckling of the exterior columns in the lower stories of the north
face, as seen in Figure 12–62*. By 1.75 s, the north face had descended approximately 7 ft.

In Stage 2, the north face descended at gravitational acceleration, *as exterior column buckling
progressed and the columns provided negligible support to the upper portion of the north
face. * This free fall drop continued for approximately 8 stories (105 ft), the distance traveled
between times t = 1.75 s and t = 4.0 s

In Stage 3, the acceleration decreased somewhat as the *upper portion of the north face
encountered resistance from the collapsed structure and the debris pile below*. Between 4.0 s
and 5.4 s, the northwest corner fell an additional 130 ft. ''

No I am right, you are wrong. They made a pronouncement that buckling removed 8 stories of structure to allow the free fall. They don't explain how that happened. They provide no proof that it happened or even that it is possible. In fact, this sort of thing has never happened in the history of mankind. As such, only gullible scientifically illiterate crackpots would accept that this happened merely on faith.

[T.A.M.]

Originally Posted by cmatrix

OK since the NIST theory does not explain the free fall period, the crimp or the rolling but the CD theory does, you must agree the CD theory is the best theory.

Sorry...does not work that way. (A) The free fall is of no consequence to building safety, and (B) of no significance to anyone but truthers.

You can argue, and whine all you wish. You can jump up and down and stomp your feet like a little boy and call NIST's theory a crackpot theory and pseudo science until you are blue in the face, but it does not make it so, and it does not change the fact that the NIST theory has evidence on it's side, and it explains the collapses without problem.

for the TEN THOUSANDTH TIME, the 2.25 seconds of freefall of the NORTHERN FACE of WTC7, in the middle of the collapse IS INSIGNIFICANT. You are parroting it because it is the only desperate piece of CT lunacy the movement has left...

TAM

[cmatrix]

Originally Posted by alienentity

Here's another clear piece of evidence to address the latest lie of cmatrix (his false claim that NIST provides 'absolutely no explanation for the free fall whatsoever')

'NCSTAR 1-9, p 612 Chapter 14 Global Collapse, it states:

The exterior columns buckled at the lower floors (between floors 7 and 14) due to load redistribution to the exterior columns from the downward movement of the building core. The entire building above the buckled-column region then moved downward in a single unit, as observed, completing the global collapse sequence.


And on p 606
'As the interior columns buckled at the lower floors and the corresponding upper column sections began to move downward, the exterior columns buckled inward at the lower floors as a result of floor pull-in forces caused by the downward movement of the building core. The floor connections to the columns had not yet failed in this region, as there were no fires observed on the West side of Floors 19 through 14 at any time during the day, so the floors were intact and able to pull the exterior columns inward.'

This is an engineering explanation for the collapse and of course the 2.25 s at virtual free fall acceleration. As C7 did months ago, cmatrix has received the answer, but will likely refuse to accept it. I expect him to either ignore the answer, handwave it away, move the goalposts and change the subject...

No this is an unsupported pronouncement not a supported explanation. You disagree? Explain how this is possible by pointing to experiments and data that show this in fact did happen? You can't because it's a crackpot pronouncement not an explanation. Their "explanation" is equivalent to saying "and then a miracle happened".

[T.A.M.]

Originally Posted by cmatrix

NIST provides absolutely no explanation for the free fall whatsoever, just a pronouncement meant to be taken on faith by the scientifically illiterate and the gullible. The CD theory explains the crimp, the rolling and the free fall so it is the theory that should be accepted.

excuse me. With a diploma in Electronic Engineering, a Bachelor of Medical Science, an MD, and a CCFP certificate, I am certainly not scientifically illiterate. As for you, seems the jury is out.

Some generic, vague, all encompassing "CD" that covers your "crimping" and "rolling" is about as useless without evidence, as utters on a bull.

You are not even capable of understanding, let alone explaining, the science involved in the bullcrap you spew.

Like I said, empirical evidence supports NIST. crackpot pseudoscience and "It looks like CD" incredulity supports the "CD" theory.

TAM

[T.A.M.]

Originally Posted by cmatrix

I'm sure a group could produce a report if they had the millions of taxpayers dollars that were given to NIST as well as complete access to all the evidence and subpoena power. Do you seriously think the US govt. is going to fund a report that shows a group of powerful psychopathic terrorists have infiltrated every aspect of the US government and basically control the media?

I agree, for the idiots that call themselves scientists and engineers that work with the truth movement, it would take MILLIONS OF DOLLARS, to produce a report. To produce all that NIST did for WTC1/2/7 it would cost them TRILLIONS.

TAM

[T.A.M.]

Originally Posted by cmatrix

Where is the evidence that fire caused WTC 7 to fall? Please, provide THE EVIDENCE for fire-initiated collapse.

It has been provided for you courtesy of NIST. Go read their full report on WTC7...it is all there in a convenient package.

Now, since you are the one promoting the contentious, not-accepted theory of CD, please rather then skirt my question with a request of the same (the lowest form of dodge by the way), provide the evidence I requested.

TAM

[T.A.M.]

Originally Posted by cmatrix

The NIST reports were published by NIST. That is, self-published. Not much different than some guy putting something on the Net.

Why don't you read the entire conversation rather then responding to my response to another persons post out of context like a madman.

I was commenting on another persons discussion over what Published evidence the truth movement had. I did not say anything relating to the status, published, self published, etc... of NIST.

TAM

[T.A.M.]

Originally Posted by cmatrix

I think ergo like me is in fact arguing this:

(a) Part of WTC7's collapse was at freefall speed.
(b) This is impossible in a fire-initiated collpase.
(c) This, in fact, can only be explained by controlled demolition.
(d) Therefore, WTC7's collapse was a controlled demolition.

(b) is something you have to prove because it has never ever been seen before in the history of mankind. (c) follows from (b). We win you lose. Deal with it.

Regarding (a): you are right...the part of the WTC7 collapse that was freefall was 2.25 seconds of the NORTH FACE of the building, somewhere in the MIDDLE of the entire collapse.

Regarding (b): You have provided ZERO proof of this, and your opinion by itself is worthless...got evidence?

Regarding (c): You have provided ZERO evidence of this...got evidence?

Regarding (d): see my comments above.

EPIC FAIL!!!!!

TAM

[T.A.M.]

Originally Posted by cmatrix

No I am right, you are wrong. They made a pronouncement that buckling removed 8 stories of structure to allow the free fall. They don't explain how that happened. They provide no proof that it happened or even that it is possible. In fact, this sort of thing has never happened in the history of mankind. As such, only gullible scientifically illiterate crackpots would accept that this happened merely on faith.

oh I love this one...look at the grand proclamations (and as usual, totally from uneducated personal incredulity)...

THIS HAS NEVER HAPPENED IN THE HISTORY OF MANKIND!

Beyond Stundie worthy...we need a new category for this.

TAM

[cmatrix]

Originally Posted by carlitos

This is just straight-up paranoia. You should print out this post and bring it to a mental health professional.

It's not paranoia to state a possibility. Your completely unsupported pronouncement does nothing to prove this possibility is impossible. If 9/11 was an inside job this means the actual terrorists are in control of the US government. They and the media are covering up what really happened. Only psychopaths could kill 3000 people in cold blood and over a million more in the resulting wars.

[W.D.Clinger]

Originally Posted by cmatrix

Good grief what a ridiculous pile of crap. I had to read that over several times to make sure you weren't joking. In H1-H2 all the available GPE is converted to kinetic energy and used to break up structure. In H2-H3 all the available gravitational potential energy has been solely converted to kinetic energy. H2-H3 is what my statement referred to and is absolutely correct. A glaring mistake has been made by you. It is your explanation that is not consistent with simple Newtonian mechanics since you don't account for the energy used to break up the structure.

Looks like cmatrix can't write down a Lagrangian either.

[T.A.M.]

Originally Posted by cmatrix

It's not paranoia to state a possibility. Your completely unsupported pronouncement does nothing to prove this possibility is impossible. If 9/11 was an inside job this means the actual terrorists are in control of the US government. They and the media are covering up what really happened. Only psychopaths could kill 3000 people in cold blood and over a million more in the resulting wars.

Its possible that the Chinese did it. It is possible that DEW from space did it. It is possible that it was all a dream...

No it is not paranoia to state a possibility, but it sure isn't smart, rational, or logical to making proclamations and declarations based on one either.

TAM

[alienentity]

Here was my prediction of cmatrix's reaction to evidence which contradicted his obvious lie:

'As C7 did months ago, cmatrix has received the answer, but will likely refuse to accept it. I expect him to either ignore the answer, handwave it away, move the goalposts and change the subject...'

Predictably, he now attempts to weasel out of his own statement by denying NIST's explanation, calling it a mere 'pronouncement'.

Yes, when a Truther is confronted with their own statements, there is a distinct sound of goalposts sliding sideways, along with the quiet sigh of their integrity dying a bit more.

cmatrix, you've earned a place on my ignore list. Goodbye

[cmatrix]

Originally Posted by Horatius

Okay, so you've admitted that it's possible to have a total global collapse using gravity to remove the resisting structure, correct?


You also indicate that creating a CD that produces a free-fall period is "quite expensive". Can we also assume it's more difficult and complicated to do that?


So then, you have to explain: if such a free-fall period is not necessary for a CD, why then did They pay extra, and put in the extra effort, to produce such a period of free-fall, if such is not necessary? Why did They go out of their way to leave such an obvious (to you, at least) smoking gun?

Yes it's possible to have a total global collapse using gravity to remove the resisting structure but it's impossible to have free fall in such a collapse. Having a free-fall CD is not really more difficult and complicated you just have to put more explosives in, so every possible support is removed. Why they did that I have no idea. Psychopaths are notorious for being incompetent and don't care one bit about wasting other people's money.

[Horatius]

Originally Posted by cmatrix

Yes it's possible to have a total global collapse using gravity to remove the resisting structure but it's impossible to have free fall in such a collapse. Having a free-fall CD is not really more difficult and complicated you just have to put more explosives in, so every possible support is removed. Why they did that I have no idea. Psychopaths are notorious for being incompetent and don't care one bit about wasting other people's money.

So, you're really going to go with the "We're really just that Evil!" answer?

[cmatrix]

Originally Posted by alienentity

1) You wrote earlier
So now you are arguing against yourself....a little schizophrenic perhaps, but par for the course really

You are claiming that only CD can produce freefall, so the burden of proof is actually on you, not on NIST. NIST is not claiming CD, and they have indeed produced copious engineering evidence for fire-induced collapse. NIST has met the burden of proof for its hypothesis.

Where is your evidence? M.I.A. after 9 years.

Here's my statement you maliciously took out of context:

"Controlled demolitions don't require free fall. In fact it's quite expensive to have free fall in a CD. You have to blow out _all_ the structure in the way."

Any sane individual can clearly see that I am not arguing with myself and can also see the reprehensible nature of your argumentative abilities.

Sure I can prove it's impossible for fire to cause free fall in a building. Fire can only cause gradual deformations in steel structures because it is not explosive. Only explosives can instantaneously remove large steel structures in a precisely timed and near instantaneous manner which is required to have free fall. Every time in the past we have seen building come down like WTC 7 it was caused by CD. Fire has never ever caused a building to come down like that. Therefore anyone who assumes fire brought down WTC 7 but not CD is a scientifically illiterate crackpot. Again one counter-example will prove me wrong.

[cmatrix]

Originally Posted by alienentity

Provide your proof. Now. You make the claim, you have the burden of proof.

Sure. In free fall all the available gravitational potential energy must converted to kinetic energy. A gravity-driven collapse requires some of the available GPE to be used to deform and remove structure. A gravity-driven collapse can therefore never attain free fall because not all of the available GPE is available to be converted to KE.

[cmatrix]

Originally Posted by carlitos

Videos of objects falling in a "gravity-driven collapse" at free fall and faster than free fall have been posted in this very thread. Your failure to understand these forces while offering a reward to prove something about physics results in an arrogance to ignorance ratio off the charts.

I'm not the one with the understanding problem. I must have missed the videos of gravity-driven free-fall building collapses. Presumably because they don't exist.

[uke2se]

Originally Posted by cmatrix

I'm not the one with the understanding problem. I must have missed the videos of gravity-driven free-fall building collapses. Presumably because they don't exist.

I must have missed the videos of controlled demolition induced free-fall building collapses. Presumably because they don't exist.

[tsig]

Originally Posted by ergo

And incredulity is inappropriate here?

If you can't produce the visual evidence that backs up your claims, then yes, incredulity will be the result. Get over it.

Nothing counts but visual evidence?