• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

WTC Collapse, It's not adding up

gerrycan said:
The collapse took longer than the 2.25s in which the building attained freefall acceleration rates. You clearly made a mistake. I thought at first you had mistaken my comment to be about the towers, which would be an honest mistake. And also, the quote above couldn't be what you originally objected to, as it was written after your objection. Try again champ.
Click to expand...

We are arguing about your claims the building collapsed at freefall when it was only PART of the building.
Do you understand the difference between saying the building collapsed at freefall and saying part of the building for part of the collapse was at near freefall?
 
Quag said:
We are arguing about your claims the building collapsed at freefall when it was only PART of the building.
Do you understand the difference between saying the building collapsed at freefall and saying part of the building for part of the collapse was at near freefall?
Click to expand...

"It would of course be unprecedented as NIST noted, and even in such an unprecedented circumstance, have no way of achieving freefall acceleration, as per the observed collapse of WTC7. "

THAT is what I said - it just isn't what you saw apparently.

ETA you would like me to have claimed that the whole thing collapsed at freefall, but I didn't. You made a "mistake". Move on.
 
gerrycan said:
"It would of course be unprecedented as NIST noted, and even in such an unprecedented circumstance, have no way of achieving freefall acceleration, as per the observed collapse of WTC7. "

THAT is what I said - it just isn't what you saw apparently.

ETA you would like me to have claimed that the whole thing collapsed at freefall, but I didn't. You made a "mistake". Move on.
Click to expand...

So, we agree that the building fell at a rate indistinguishable from freefall for >2.25s. The building attained freefall acceleration in the collapse. We agree.

ETA - Quote the bit of my text that you are referring to please.
Click to expand...

How many times do I have to point out you saying this before you stop diverting and actually answer the question?

Will you admit it was only part of the building for part of the collapse that was at near freefall or will you continue to try and divert from the question?
 
Quag said:
How many times do I have to point out you saying this before you stop diverting and actually answer the question?

Will you admit it was only part of the building for part of the collapse that was at near freefall or will you continue to try and divert from the question?
Click to expand...

Okay. Let's try a yes/no thing.
Did WTC7 achieve freefall for >2.25s of it's collapse or not?

ETA Here's a graph that may help you figure that out.....
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_kPL-0z6nF...rtRjN0NIM/s1600/WTC7+NIST+admits+freefall.png
 
Quag said:
How many times do I have to point out you saying this before you stop diverting and actually answer the question?

Will you admit it was only part of the building for part of the collapse that was at near freefall or will you continue to try and divert from the question?
Click to expand...

He will continue to dance around your question. He can't make the separation. That would go against what AE911T has put out.

Still waiting for someone to provide a link to where the one concise CD report with supporting documentation exists. The report would be detailed to answer questions , rule out the various CD explanations, and have gone through a complete review.

Questions like:
-why crash an object into the towers and risk disrupting the explosives.
-why let fires burn for many hours in wtc7 before taking the building down.
-why wait so long after wtc1,2 collapsed to take down wtc7
-how was the building prepped
-etc, etc, etc.

The CD explanation needs to stand on its own merits. Someone start a thread so we can look at the CD explanation in detail.

The excuse of "we need a new investigation" is just a dodge. Many sites claim all of the evidence has been recycled or destroyed. Some say the video evidence has been altered by the "evil govt." So what would investigators look at? Who would be on the "Team"., Who would pay for it?
 
Last edited:
mike2810 said:
He will continue to dance around your question. He can't make the separation. That would go against what AE911T has put out.
Click to expand...

Same question to you Mike. Did WTC7 achieve freefall acceleration for >2.25s of it's collapse ?
Totally straight question.

ETA It is as if the wannabe debunkers here are fact allergic.
 
gerrycan said:
Same question to you Mike. Did WTC7 achieve freefall acceleration for >2.25s of it's collapse ?
Totally straight question.

ETA It is as if the wannabe debunkers here are fact allergic.
Click to expand...

Are you talking the whole building or just part of it? You refuse to accept the answer already given may another poster.

Your non answer to the request of where the one concise report on CD exist, is an admission that one does not exists. That in fact, you and others do not know with 100% certainty that is was CD. If it was such a slam dunk case, a report has to exist, right?

Still waiting for you to start a thread to discuss your CD explanation.
 
mike2810 said:
Are you talking the whole building or just part of it? You refuse to accept the answer already given may another poster.

Your non answer to the request of where the one concise report on CD exist, is an admission that one does not exists. That in fact, you and others do not know with 100% certainty that is was CD. If it was such a slam dunk case, a report has to exist, right?

Still waiting for you to start a thread to discuss your CD explanation.
Click to expand...

Perfectly comfortable in saying that I cannot with certainty claim to know what brought down WTC7.
As far as part or whole of the building is concerned, then clearly it is not possible for floor 6 to achieve freefall for 2.25s as it would be below the basement at the end point of that time frame.
The roofline at the NE corner is where the measurement is taken from. I said it, NIST said it, everyone and their dog knows it, but for some reason, you guys cannot bring yourselves to admit it. This may have been controversial a decade ago, but you guys are stretching it a bit now...
 
gerrycan said:
Of course it could yes, which would make getting to the root cause of the failure specifics crucial, and identifying the means of failure correctly a must for future safety. But not a structure with the degree of redundancy that WTC7 had. It would of course be unprecedented as NIST noted, and even in such an unprecedented circumstance, have no way of achieving freefall acceleration, as per the observed collapse of WTC7.
So YES a given support structure COULD fail as you stated. But NOT this one.
Click to expand...

None of the WTC buildings were observed to fall at freefall acceleration. This claim is often made for the twin towers, but doing the math takes ten seconds and proves that they fell substantially slower. I haven't seen video of WTC7 falling at freefall speeds either. A sixth grader can do the math, the people who told you this nonsense were banking on the fact that you wouldn't bother.
 
Deuce said:
None of the WTC buildings were observed to fall at freefall acceleration. This claim is often made for the twin towers, but doing the math takes ten seconds and proves that they fell substantially slower. I haven't seen video of WTC7 falling at freefall speeds either. A sixth grader can do the math, the people who told you this nonsense were banking on the fact that you wouldn't bother.
Click to expand...

Sure, but WTC7 attained freefall for around 2.25s.

Freefall for a tower would be about 9.2s i think, and they fell in maybe just under 14s, or thereabouts. Fair?
 
gerrycan said:
Sure, but WTC7 attained freefall for around 2.25s.

Freefall for a tower would be about 9.2s i think, and they fell in maybe just under 14s, or thereabouts. Fair?
Click to expand...

Right, proving the towers did not fall at freefall speeds. This claim is often made as evidence for controlled-demolition, but its a false claim.
 
Deuce said:
Right, proving the towers did not fall at freefall speeds. This claim is often made as evidence for controlled-demolition, but its a false claim.
Click to expand...

Not quite, no. But it does confirm that the towers, or WTC7 for that matter did not experience freefall acceleration throughout their entire collapse. Interesting though that in Bazant's analysis, the top block of the tower falls at exactly freefall for one storey, as if a storey just vanished into thin air.
Ironic that Bazant induced a supposed freefall to create an analysis as required for the towers, while many deny the reality of the actual 2.25s freefall that was experienced real world by WTC7 on 911.
Bazant was stretching it a bit supposing a whole 13ft+ of a tower vanished inducing a freefall, while NIST were doing their level best to conjure up a story that could account for the observed freefall that they couldn't deny in WTC7 for over 100ft. You can't deny it either.
 
gerrycan said:
Not quite, no. But it does confirm that the towers, or WTC7 for that matter did not experience freefall acceleration throughout their entire collapse. Interesting though that in Bazant's analysis, the top block of the tower falls at exactly freefall for one storey, as if a storey just vanished into thin air.
Ironic that Bazant induced a supposed freefall to create an analysis as required for the towers, while many deny the reality of the actual 2.25s freefall that was experienced real world by WTC7 on 911.
Bazant was stretching it a bit supposing a whole 13ft+ of a tower vanished inducing a freefall, while NIST were doing their level best to conjure up a story that could account for the observed freefall that they couldn't deny in WTC7 for over 100ft. You can't deny it either.
Click to expand...

...can you link to someone claiming a floor vanished by magic?
 
Deuce said:
...can you link to someone claiming a floor vanished by magic?
Click to expand...

Read Bazant's analysis - look at the impact speed of the top block that he uses. I'm not your secretary. If you haven't read and understood the official story yet, you really should think twice before defending it.
 
Quag said:
Do you understand the difference between saying a building collapsed at freefall for 2.5 seconds and part of a building collapsed at freefall for 2.5 seconds?
Yes or no?
Click to expand...

Yes.
Now your turn. Does NIST's graph that I provided for you, show that the building experienced freefall for 2.25s of it's descent? yes or no?
 
gerrycan said:
Yes.
Now your turn. Does NIST's graph that I provided for you, show that the building experienced freefall for 2.25s of it's descent? yes or no?
Click to expand...

Yes you know the difference or yes you admit it was only part of the building?
 
gerrycan said:
Look, you asked for a yes/no answer - I gave you it. Your turn to answer now.
Does NIST's graph that I provided for you, show that the building experienced freefall for 2.25s of it's descent? yes or no?
Click to expand...



So will you admit it was only part of the building?
 
Quag said:
So will you admit it was only part of the building?
Click to expand...
Yes. It was EXACTLY the same part of the building that this graph refers to
http://www.debatepolitics.com/redire...2Bfreefall.png
Why haven't you answered my yes/no question about it? I answered yours after all. Come on champ, give it a shot.
So what part of the building do you say NIST are referring to in their graph, which illustrates around 2.25s of freefall occurred ?
 
gerrycan said:
Read Bazant's analysis - look at the impact speed of the top block that he uses. I'm not your secretary. If you haven't read and understood the official story yet, you really should think twice before defending it.
Click to expand...

If you're unwilling to support your claims, I have no reason to give them any more time than you did.
 
gerrycan said:
Yes. It was EXACTLY the same part of the building that this graph refers to
http://www.debatepolitics.com/redire...2Bfreefall.png
Why haven't you answered my yes/no question about it? I answered yours after all. Come on champ, give it a shot.
So what part of the building do you say NIST are referring to in their graph, which illustrates around 2.25s of freefall occurred ?
Click to expand...

Why is there an issue with part of a building falling quickly?
 
Deuce said:
Why is there an issue with part of a building falling quickly?
Click to expand...

Let's get the data straight first here. What part of the building do you suppose NIST are referring to in their graph, which illustrates the 2.25s of freefall.
You should answer this question - I answered yours. If you don't know, just say so. But don't just run away with no response, it looks bad when you do that.
 
gerrycan said:
Let's get the data straight first here. What part of the building do you suppose NIST are referring to in their graph, which illustrates the 2.25s of freefall.
You should answer this question - I answered yours. If you don't know, just say so. But don't just run away with no response, it looks bad when you do that.
Click to expand...

I ask for proof and you just spit more words instead of linking anything. That looks bad.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom