ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories » 9/11 Conspiracy Theories
 

Notices


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Reply
Old 26th September 2017, 08:35 AM   #41
MicahJava
Master Poster
 
MicahJava's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 2,802
Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
Based on the other appearances of Shyam Sunder in the BBC video, it is apparent that the interview in the truther video was taken from a completely different interview released after the WTC7 Nist report was released
What?
MicahJava is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th September 2017, 08:37 AM   #42
The Big Dog
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Big Dog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 24,776
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
BBC replaced the original scene with a brand new scene which has Shyam Sunder only saying THIS:

"It turns out that when you have connections that essentially don't have strength for the loads that they are being subjected to. And you have this massive failure of a column it does not take time. The structure has lost all integrity at that point in time."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vZbMfTtHkYM&t=52m57s

That is not in the original. They knew freefall was proven and quietly shaped their propaganda to accommodate that.
It was not in the original? The BBC web page promoting the program which was created before the episode aired contains that very quote.

Page last updated at 21:07 GMT, Friday, 4 July 2008 22:07 UK

"The Conspiracy Files: 9/11 - The Third Tower was broadcast on Sunday 6 July, 2008 at 2100 BST on BBC Two. It will be repeated on Tuesday, 8 July at 2320 BST on BBC Two and on Wednesday, 9 July at 0130 BST on BBC One."
__________________
Godspeed Buddy! Keep on Making America Great Again!
The Big Dog is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th September 2017, 08:44 AM   #43
The Big Dog
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Big Dog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 24,776
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
What?
what do you mean "what"? Compare the two videos, they are clearly two different interviews and the one in the truther video is not the same as the BBC interview.

we already know that what you claimed was added was in fact in the original.

In fact, not only have you failed to prove your claim, the evidence is clear that the claim is false.
__________________
Godspeed Buddy! Keep on Making America Great Again!
The Big Dog is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th September 2017, 08:45 AM   #44
MicahJava
Master Poster
 
MicahJava's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 2,802
Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
It was not in the original? The BBC web page promoting the program which was created before the episode aired contains that very quote.

Page last updated at 21:07 GMT, Friday, 4 July 2008 22:07 UK

"The Conspiracy Files: 9/11 - The Third Tower was broadcast on Sunday 6 July, 2008 at 2100 BST on BBC Two. It will be repeated on Tuesday, 8 July at 2320 BST on BBC Two and on Wednesday, 9 July at 0130 BST on BBC One."
The later version's footage was from another time they were interviewing Sunder. That's where he was quoted in this BBC website for the show. After freefall as a fact was spreading like wildfire on the internet and truther circles, they used the footage from that to help dampen the problems with freefall.

I posted a subtitle file that one website saved from the original. Nowhere does it have that quote.
MicahJava is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th September 2017, 09:00 AM   #45
The Big Dog
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Big Dog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 24,776
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
The later version's footage was from another time they were interviewing Sunder. That's where he was quoted in this BBC website for the show. After freefall as a fact was spreading like wildfire on the internet and truther circles, they used the footage from that to help dampen the problems with freefall.

I posted a subtitle file that one website saved from the original. Nowhere does it have that quote.
From your link:

As they heated up the connections failed and the beams sagged and failed also. Dr Shyam Sunder says:

"It turns out that when you have connections that essentially don't have strength for the loads that they are being subjected to. And you have this massive failure of a column it does not take time. The structure has lost all integrity at that point in time."

Published 4 July 2008.

There are several other parts in the BBC video where he was interviewed and which are all consistent. The snip that you claim was edited out is clearly a different interview. In fact, in the video you claim was edited out, Sunder is sitting in front of slides that were used at the press conference when the wtc7 report was issued nearly two months later.

The OP claim is clearly DISPROVEN
__________________
Godspeed Buddy! Keep on Making America Great Again!
The Big Dog is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th September 2017, 09:02 AM   #46
bknight
Muse
 
bknight's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Location: Houston, Texas
Posts: 852
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
The later version's footage was from another time they were interviewing Sunder. That's where he was quoted in this BBC website for the show. After freefall as a fact was spreading like wildfire on the internet and truther circles, they used the footage from that to help dampen the problems with freefall.

I posted a subtitle file that one website saved from the original. Nowhere does it have that quote.
Since you have shown an inability to think for yourself, what does the CT site you frequent say about the "missing" video?
Furthermore why are you interested? WTC 7 was brought down by damage from WTC 1 and by uncontrolled fires. No mystery, no conspiracy just hard facts.
bknight is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th September 2017, 09:14 AM   #47
MicahJava
Master Poster
 
MicahJava's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 2,802
Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
From your link:

As they heated up the connections failed and the beams sagged and failed also. Dr Shyam Sunder says:

"It turns out that when you have connections that essentially don't have strength for the loads that they are being subjected to. And you have this massive failure of a column it does not take time. The structure has lost all integrity at that point in time."

Published 4 July 2008.

There are several other parts in the BBC video where he was interviewed and which are all consistent. The snip that you claim was edited out is clearly a different interview. In fact, in the video you claim was edited out, Sunder is sitting in front of slides that were used at the press conference when the wtc7 report was issued nearly two months later.

The OP claim is clearly DISPROVEN
Compare the timestamp on the subtitle file here: https://subsaga.com/bbc/documentarie...ird-tower.html

With the later version available on Youtube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vZbMfTtHkYM

The part where it's changed starts at 52:58 - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vZbMfTtHkYM&t=52m58s
MicahJava is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th September 2017, 09:16 AM   #48
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles
 
Dave Rogers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Cair Paravel, according to XKCD
Posts: 26,889
Still waiting to hear which part of the original quote is untrue.

Dave
__________________
Me: So what you're saying is that, if the load carrying ability of the lower structure is reduced to the point where it can no longer support the load above it, it will collapse without a jolt, right?

Tony Szamboti: That is right
Dave Rogers is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th September 2017, 09:21 AM   #49
MicahJava
Master Poster
 
MicahJava's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 2,802
Originally Posted by Dave Rogers View Post
Still waiting to hear which part of the original quote is untrue.

Dave
NIST initially didn't admit freefall when you tracked the motion of the building. At the time, they tried pushing the narrative that just timing the entire collapse and averaging it counts as somehow disproving freefall for 2.25 seconds.
MicahJava is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th September 2017, 09:23 AM   #50
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles
 
Dave Rogers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Cair Paravel, according to XKCD
Posts: 26,889
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
NIST initially didn't admit freefall when you tracked the motion of the building. At the time, they tried pushing the narrative that just timing the entire collapse and averaging it counts as somehow disproving freefall for 2.25 seconds.
Still waiting to hear which part of the original quote is untrue.

Dave
__________________
Me: So what you're saying is that, if the load carrying ability of the lower structure is reduced to the point where it can no longer support the load above it, it will collapse without a jolt, right?

Tony Szamboti: That is right
Dave Rogers is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th September 2017, 09:55 AM   #51
The Big Dog
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Big Dog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 24,776
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
Compare the timestamp on the subtitle file here: https://subsaga.com/bbc/documentarie...ird-tower.html

With the later version available on Youtube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vZbMfTtHkYM

The part where it's changed starts at 52:58 - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vZbMfTtHkYM&t=52m58s
That subtitle file is completely screwed up, for example the transcript includes speeches from Gage that replaced other entire sections.

Where did you find that because it makes no sense at all. Spend five minutes trying to track that transcript with the actual video and you will see the transcript is riddled with inconsistencies.

I further note that transcript website was created in 2015
__________________
Godspeed Buddy! Keep on Making America Great Again!

Last edited by The Big Dog; 26th September 2017 at 10:02 AM.
The Big Dog is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th September 2017, 10:07 AM   #52
Gilbert Syndrome
Philosopher
 
Gilbert Syndrome's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Aigburth, Liverpool, UK
Posts: 5,526
Originally Posted by SpitfireIX View Post
Granting, arguendo, that this is true, when TV shows enter syndication (reruns), they are often edited to allow for 1-2 minutes of additional commercials, in order to increase advertising revenue. Nothing the least bit sinister (but sometimes highly annoying ).

Finding original, unedited versions of such programs can sometimes be difficult, or even impossible.
If it helps, the BBC don't show commercials during programming. They have a few BBC-based adverts between shows, or before or after the news, but when you get a program or a film on the BBC, you do not have to suffer through adverts.
__________________
Generic proclamation of positivity:

Scouse saying - Go 'ed, is right, nice one, boss, well in, sound, belter, made up.

Usage: 'Go 'ed, lad, get us an ale in, nice one.'
Gilbert Syndrome is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th September 2017, 10:13 AM   #53
MicahJava
Master Poster
 
MicahJava's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 2,802
Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
That subtitle file is completely screwed up, for example the transcript includes speeches from Gage that replaced other entire sections.

Where did you find that because it makes no sense at all. Spend five minutes trying to track that transcript with the actual video and you will see the transcript is riddled with inconsistencies.

I further note that transcript website was created in 2015
That's the point. I posted a subtitle title file that survived from the original airing. BBC aired the new version with the changed freefall part. That second version survives on Youtube and other websites.

Last edited by MicahJava; 26th September 2017 at 10:17 AM.
MicahJava is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th September 2017, 10:28 AM   #54
The Big Dog
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Big Dog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 24,776
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
That's the point. I posted a subtitle title file that survived from the original airing. BBC aired the new version with the changed freefall part. That second version survives on Youtube and other websites.
Wrong, that transcript is obviously from the show that aired AFTER the NIST report was issued:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programme...es/7675392.stm

Quote:
The Conspiracy Files returns with a new programme about the final mystery of 9/11: a third tower at the World Trade Centre, which along with the Twin Towers, also collapsed that day.

Seven years on, the last official report on the World Trade Centre has finally been published.

....

The documentary updates an edition of The Conspiracy Files shown earlier this year.

It features new interviews with the lead official investigator and an important new eyewitness together with architects, scientists and others who think there was a sinister plot to destroy the building.
As such you have it exactly backward, the updated version contains the line you claim was deleted.

"Mystery" solved. Claim well and fully debunked.
__________________
Godspeed Buddy! Keep on Making America Great Again!
The Big Dog is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th September 2017, 10:36 AM   #55
The Big Dog
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Big Dog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 24,776
The video was from 9/11- The Third Tower aired July 2008

The transcript was from 9/11 - The Truth Behind the Third Tower aired October 2008.
__________________
Godspeed Buddy! Keep on Making America Great Again!
The Big Dog is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th September 2017, 10:37 AM   #56
The Big Dog
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Big Dog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 24,776
Dup.
__________________
Godspeed Buddy! Keep on Making America Great Again!

Last edited by The Big Dog; 26th September 2017 at 10:38 AM. Reason: duplicate
The Big Dog is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th September 2017, 11:24 AM   #57
Axxman300
Illuminator
 
Axxman300's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Central California Coast
Posts: 3,072
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
NIST initially didn't admit freefall when you tracked the motion of the building. At the time, they tried pushing the narrative that just timing the entire collapse and averaging it counts as somehow disproving freefall for 2.25 seconds.
So what?

Also, what is freefall speed, and how is it different that terminal velocity?

I know this will take time from your Google medical school studies, but we deserve an answer.
__________________
Disingenuous Piranha
Axxman300 is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th September 2017, 11:57 AM   #58
MicahJava
Master Poster
 
MicahJava's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 2,802
Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
The video was from 9/11- The Third Tower aired July 2008

The transcript was from 9/11 - The Truth Behind the Third Tower aired October 2008.
The subtitle file and the short clip I linked had the denial of freefall.

The version found on Youtube has the new scene that dismisses freefall as significant.

I wonder if there are three versions.
MicahJava is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th September 2017, 12:06 PM   #59
The Big Dog
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Big Dog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 24,776
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
The subtitle file and the short clip I linked had the denial of freefall.

The version found on Youtube has the new scene that dismisses freefall as significant.

I wonder if there are three versions.
The version on YouTube does not have a "new scene."

the subtitle and clip were from the October update, as I have already shown.

Case closed. Mystery solved.
__________________
Godspeed Buddy! Keep on Making America Great Again!
The Big Dog is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th September 2017, 12:08 PM   #60
MicahJava
Master Poster
 
MicahJava's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 2,802
Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
The version on YouTube does not have a "new scene."

the subtitle and clip were from the October update, as I have already shown.

Case closed. Mystery solved.
Look up Shyam's dialogue from the full Youtube version and CTR+F it on the subtitle file.
MicahJava is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th September 2017, 12:25 PM   #61
The Big Dog
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Big Dog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 24,776
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
Look up Shyam's dialogue from the full Youtube version and CTR+F it on the subtitle file.
I am quite sure you are not getting it:

Original version of BBC's 2008 program The Conspiracy Files: The Third Tower is the You tube video that contains this line: ""It turns out that when you have connections that essentially don't have strength for the loads that they are being subjected to. And you have this massive failure of a column it does not take time. The structure has lost all integrity at that point in time."
.

The updated version is called 9/11 - The Truth Behind the Third Tower contains this line:

"Clearly, the time that this building took to collapse was longer by almost 40-50% than the free-fall time of an object. Well, 40% is a lot longer. It's not 5%, it's 40%. It's huge."

You have it exactly backwards
__________________
Godspeed Buddy! Keep on Making America Great Again!
The Big Dog is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th September 2017, 03:19 PM   #62
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 16,105
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
NIST initially didn't admit freefall when you tracked the motion of the building.
I have explained it earlier in this thread: There was no freefall. At any time. No part of the structure at any point in time was under freefall conditions.

Not the northwestern corner of the roof.
Not for 2 seconds.


What is true is this:
Some selected point on the roofline (not the wall, not the building, just a selected point) was observed moving downward at an average acceleration that is equivalent to g for an arbitrarily chosen short period of time late into the collapse sequence.

David Chandler's data, as well as the far superior measurements we can find at sharpprinting (I think you linked there earlier) show, within those arbitrary 2 seconds, sub-periods of time both with acceleration <g (not freefall) and >g (not freefall).
They also show that the north wall, in a period of some tenths of a second and covering several feet of drop, descended at decidedly <g (an average of perhaps 50% of g), which means that significant potential energy was expemded into deforming the structure below.

The solution to this "mystery of freefall acceleration" is that during the first phase of the north wall descent, columns were indeed severed, likely at or around the 8th floor level, such that structural resistance had become negligible. But the north wall was still connected to the core via floor beams. The core had started to fall earlier, and may have run into more resitance earlier than the wall. Core and wall interact through the beams, and a force upward in the core can translate into a force downward at the perimeter - that explains the >g phase. The same would explain how a ~g acceleration can result even in the presence of some structural resistance. This changing rate of accelration is proof that the wall was not in freefall - since freefall is defined as a state where gravity is the only force acting on an object.


So in conclusion: There was no freefall of anything.

More importantly, "the building" has never been shown, measured, or even theorized to have been in freefall.

It is all a wet fantasy hatched by truthers who don't understand physics. And that very prominently includes David Chandler, the physics teacher: He flunks physics whenever he posts truther ******** on YouTube.
__________________
Thermodynamics hates conspiracy theorists. (Foster Zygote)
Oystein is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th September 2017, 03:22 PM   #63
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 16,105
Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
I am quite sure you are not getting it:...
Short version:
The July 2008 original version of the film cannot possibly have contained an interview made in October 2008.
__________________
Thermodynamics hates conspiracy theorists. (Foster Zygote)
Oystein is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th September 2017, 04:03 PM   #64
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles
 
Dave Rogers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Cair Paravel, according to XKCD
Posts: 26,889
To go a step further:

There is a piece of truther religious dogma that MicahJava appears to have been indoctrinated into: the supposition that (a) the rate of descent of a collapsing building conveys information about how that collapse initiated, and that (b) specifically, if the rate of descent accelerates at the acceleration due to gravity, this indicates that the collapse was initiated by explosives. Neither of these has any basis in evidence whatsoever. The line of argument backing them up was originally based on the ignorant presumption that explosive demolitions proceed by destroying all the structural supports of a building at all levels, thus removing any resistance to the collapse; however, this is neither true of any explosive demolition known to have actually occurred, nor physically possible in any of the 9/11 collapses - for the simple reason that the lower structures of the Twin Towers, and the upper structure of the WTC7 façade were observed to be substantially intact well into the collapses. Furthermore, the original claim that the Twin Towers collapsed at freefall acceleration - or, to the scientifically illiterate that form the majority of the truth movement, "freefall speed", or in some extreme cases "faster than freefall" have long been shown to be pure fantasy. After attention focused on WTC7, similar claims were made that the entire collapse proceeded at "freefall speed," which were also refuted by actual examination of the evidence. However, very detailed inspection of the collapse showed that the downward acceleration of the façade, over a short period part way through the collapse, approximated to freefall. This was seized on by truthers as the nearest they could get to satisfying their need to believe in the original piece of dogma, even though nobody has ever been able to formulate a coherent hypothesis by which explosives and only explosives could have caused the actual behaviour seen; the excessively simple-minded can get no further than the initial dogma that freefall=explosives, taken wildly out of its original context - which, of course, never made an ounce of sense in the first place.

I suspect that the staff of NIST, being primarily competent engineers, were simply unable to cope with the extraordinary degree of ignorance and cargo cult science that led truthers to place some significance on the concept of freefall in determining causes of collapse. When asked whether WTC7 collapsed at freefall, they may well have initially assumed that the question was whether the overall average rate of acceleration was close to freefall, which if course it wasn't - although, as I recall, that was in fact the original truther claim. When confronted with the suggestion that a brief period of acceleration close to freefall well after the beginning of the collapse was still somehow significant to understanding the mechanism of initiation, they must have been even more bewildered, because there is literally no reason a competent engineer would even consider such a suggestion. It's a cognitive bias known as the Curse of KnowledgeWP - the inability to comprehend that others are unable to understand what is obvious to an expert - and I think some of NIST's problems have stemmed from it, because they're used to communicating with other competent engineers, rather than clueless fantasists. And as a result, they appear to fantasists to be changing their story, whereas in fact they're simply failing to work out how to descend to the required intellectual level to engage with the 9/11 truthers.

9/11 truthers have, of course, represented themselves as the heroes in all this, claiming that they have forced NIST to admit freefall. In reality, there's nothing significant to admit; the collapse of a building is a complex event, and very little if anything can be usefully determined as to its cause from the fine details of its later stages.

Dave
__________________
Me: So what you're saying is that, if the load carrying ability of the lower structure is reduced to the point where it can no longer support the load above it, it will collapse without a jolt, right?

Tony Szamboti: That is right
Dave Rogers is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th September 2017, 01:57 AM   #65
Cosmic Yak
Master Poster
 
Cosmic Yak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Where there's never a road broader than the back of your hand.
Posts: 2,063
I freely admit to having no engineering expertise, and to being quite vague on aspects of physics, so forgive me if this seems like a stupid question:

Is it possible for a building to fall faster than freefall? My understanding (such as it is), is that freefall acceleration occurs when an object is falling unimpeded by anything more than wind resistance, and is doing so due to the pull of gravity.
If something is falling faster than that, does that mean it is being pulled or pushed by something?
__________________
Fortuna Faveat Fatuis
Cosmic Yak is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th September 2017, 02:25 AM   #66
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 16,105
Originally Posted by Cosmic Yak View Post
I freely admit to having no engineering expertise, and to being quite vague on aspects of physics, so forgive me if this seems like a stupid question:

Is it possible for a building to fall faster than freefall? My understanding (such as it is), is that freefall acceleration occurs when an object is falling unimpeded by anything more than wind resistance, and is doing so due to the pull of gravity.
If something is falling faster than that, does that mean it is being pulled or pushed by something?
"The building" is a complex, flecible structure in 3D. When one collapses, you can't stick a single number to it to describe acceleration, for different parts fall at different rates, due to complex interactions between them. At best, you could stick a single number to the Center of Mass - but that's an unobservable point that also tends to shift around as the structure deforms. The CoM cannot drop being accelerated at more than g (g being the acceleration from gravity alone). As David pointed out, actual explosive CDs never remove supports across the entire footprint of the building, so actual freefall of "The building", i.e its CoM, ever occurs. Nor dit it at the WTC.

What can and does happen is that interactions between parts of the building add or subtract from the overall acceleration in individual parts, such that it is possible that some part moves near, at or even over g for brief periods of time. Rotation is one such condition. There are more. I believe that beachnut posted a few videos upthread that nicely demonstrate such mechanisms.

Sent from mobile phone through Tapatalk
__________________
Thermodynamics hates conspiracy theorists. (Foster Zygote)
Oystein is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th September 2017, 02:28 AM   #67
Sherman Bay
Master Poster
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Wisconsin, USA
Posts: 2,161
Originally Posted by Cosmic Yak View Post
Is it possible for a building to fall faster than freefall? <snip>
If something is falling faster than that, does that mean it is being pulled or pushed by something?
You hit the nail on the head, good buddy.

No matter how the object begins to fall due to gravity, it cannot fall faster than the gravity equation says unless acted upon by some other force.

If your intention was to make something fall faster than freefall, I can envision a way that might happen. Attach a rocket engine to the object and point the rocket to the ground. A propeller mounted similarly would do it. If you could attach an explosive device to something sufficiently anchored to the ground, but above the object, say if you have a large mountain handy, that would impart an initial push that could overcome gravity, but at the start of the fall only.

An explosion in the middle of a building would push everything above it UP, everything below it DOWN, and everything to the side, to the side. Usually the mass of a building prevents these pushes from being visible or significant, and the intention of CD is to remove supports, not push anything anywhere. Once supports are removed, gravity takes over and does ALL the work.

In short, it's hard to make something fall faster than the gravity equation says it will for this planet, and I can't imagine why you would want to anyway. The speed of a fall says nothing about how it began.
Sherman Bay is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th September 2017, 03:01 AM   #68
pgimeno
Illuminator
 
pgimeno's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Spain
Posts: 3,324
Oystein nailed it. Here's a famous demonstration, posted here numerous times, where the free end of the board overtakes the ball in its fall:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BV7TPvk__kE

While the centre of mass, closer to the board's centre, falls at less than gravity acceleration, its end falls faster than the free falling ball.

The mechanism in WTC7, however, is more likely being pulled in tension. If you look at the tip of the crane in this video, you'll see that it goes from zero to a significant speed in an extremely short time period, indicating an acceleration well above 'g':

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yG1JrEdt3Mg

Again, the centre of mass of the set falls at less than 'g'.
__________________
Ask questions. Demand answers. But be prepared to accept the answers, or don't ask questions in the first place.
pgimeno is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th September 2017, 03:06 AM   #69
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles
 
Dave Rogers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Cair Paravel, according to XKCD
Posts: 26,889
Originally Posted by Cosmic Yak View Post
I freely admit to having no engineering expertise, and to being quite vague on aspects of physics, so forgive me if this seems like a stupid question:

Is it possible for a building to fall faster than freefall?
It is possible for the movement of part of a building to exhibit an acceleration greater than 1G, or indeed for part of a falling object to do so; this typically involves either rotation of the falling object, such that the acceleration distant from the axis is greater, or some kind of linkage to another object falling faster. Beachnut posted a link upthread to some real world examples.

Originally Posted by Cosmic Yak View Post
My understanding (such as it is), is that freefall acceleration occurs when an object is falling unimpeded by anything more than wind resistance, and is doing so due to the pull of gravity.
To be exact, even wind resistance means that the object is not free falling, but at low speeds wind resistance is negligible. However, the signature of something falling in freefall is that its acceleration (at low enough speeds for wind resistance to be negligible) is constant. If acceleration is continuously varying, that means that the forces on the object being observed are varying. If the acceleration varies between values both above and below freefall, then these include other downward forces. The fact that such a variation must pass through the specific value of 1G is not evidence that, at the instant when the acceleration is precisely 1G, gravity is the only force acting on the object; it simply indicates that, at that precise moment, the other forces are equal and opposite.

Originally Posted by Cosmic Yak View Post
If something is falling faster than that, does that mean it is being pulled or pushed by something?
In effect, yes. That can mean, in the case of WTC7, either that the structure is rotating, which, of course, we know WTC7 did as it fell,from video evidence and from the final distribution of the rubble pile; or that some other part of the structure fell before the façade, which again we know to be the case as the core was observed to fall before the façade, and at some point dragged the façade down due to some connections or collisions with the façade.

As far as I'm aware, no explanation has ever been suggested as to how initiating a collapse with explosives could cause a later stage of the collapse to show an acceleration greater than freefall other than by the means suggested above, so there's no reason other than dogma to associate greater than 1G acceleration with explosive demolition.

Dave
__________________
Me: So what you're saying is that, if the load carrying ability of the lower structure is reduced to the point where it can no longer support the load above it, it will collapse without a jolt, right?

Tony Szamboti: That is right
Dave Rogers is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th September 2017, 05:15 AM   #70
Jack by the hedge
Safely Ignored
 
Jack by the hedge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 8,955
Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
I am quite sure you are not getting it:

Original version of BBC's 2008 program The Conspiracy Files: The Third Tower is the You tube video that contains this line: ""It turns out that when you have connections that essentially don't have strength for the loads that they are being subjected to. And you have this massive failure of a column it does not take time. The structure has lost all integrity at that point in time."
.

The updated version is called 9/11 - The Truth Behind the Third Tower contains this line:

"Clearly, the time that this building took to collapse was longer by almost 40-50% than the free-fall time of an object. Well, 40% is a lot longer. It's not 5%, it's 40%. It's huge."

You have it exactly backwards
If there was someone in this thread who had access at work to the archived material and could check all as-broadcast episodes of "the Conspiracy Files", they could confirm this. Of course they wouldn't really be supposed to use the archives for such purposes and definitely couldn't share copyright material if they like remaining employed.

Still, such a person might be overcome by curiosity and find themselves in a position to confirm that, yes indeed, about 53 minutes in, the episode broadcast on 6th July 2008 as "9/11 - the Third Tower" contains the clip "It turns out that when you have connections that essentially don't have strength for the loads that they are being subjected to. And you have this massive failure of a column it does not take time. The structure has lost all integrity at that point in time."

They could then also confirm that about 53 minutes into the revised version broadcast on 26th October 2008 as "9/11 - The Truth Behind the Third Tower" it contains the clip "Clearly, the time that this building took to collapse was longer by almost 40-50% than the free-fall time of an object. Well, 40% is a lot longer. It's not 5%, it's 40%. It's huge."

Hope that helps.

Last edited by Jack by the hedge; 27th September 2017 at 05:17 AM.
Jack by the hedge is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th September 2017, 05:24 AM   #71
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles
 
Dave Rogers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Cair Paravel, according to XKCD
Posts: 26,889
Originally Posted by Jack by the hedge View Post
Hope that helps.
Well, it certainly helps MicahJava to flip from "OMG they cut out part of the original broadcast to cover up the fact that they denied freefall!" to "OMG they added a cover story to make it look like freefall wasn't important!" You have to remember that if there are only two possible outcomes, A and B, and A is claimed to be proof of a conspiracy, then when the actual outcome is found to be B that is also proof of a conspiracy.

Dave
__________________
Me: So what you're saying is that, if the load carrying ability of the lower structure is reduced to the point where it can no longer support the load above it, it will collapse without a jolt, right?

Tony Szamboti: That is right
Dave Rogers is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th September 2017, 05:29 AM   #72
Jack by the hedge
Safely Ignored
 
Jack by the hedge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 8,955
Yeah, I guess if you assume whatever was changed must have been done with sinister intent (because, you know, mainstream media, stands to reason, right?) now it's just a matter of figuring out what evil purpose the edit served.
Jack by the hedge is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th September 2017, 05:32 AM   #73
Tomtomkent
Philosopher
 
Tomtomkent's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 8,570
Sorry, but what point is the thread making?

That Micha Java does not understand a quote from a TV show he hasn’t seen, and thinks it was replaced with another quote he also does not seem to understand?

I want documentation and evidence suggesting the interview WAS changed, and proving conspiracy or propaganda as the motive for change, or I will assume it was either not changed, or changed for mundane reasons of clarity.
__________________
@tomhodden

Never look up an E-book because this signature line told you. Especially not Dead Lament (ASIN: B00JEN1MWY). Or A Little Trouble (ASIN: B00GQFZZQW).
Tomtomkent is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th September 2017, 05:34 AM   #74
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles
 
Dave Rogers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Cair Paravel, according to XKCD
Posts: 26,889
Originally Posted by Jack by the hedge View Post
Yeah, I guess if you assume whatever was changed must have been done with sinister intent (because, you know, mainstream media, stands to reason, right?) now it's just a matter of figuring out what evil purpose the edit served.
And, of course, anyone who has access at work to the archived material would necessarily be In On It [tm], so one couldn't trust their word anyway. Or, of course, the archives, which could easily have been doctored. Remember Tony Szamboti's imaginary interview with Larry Silverstein in which Silverstein specifically admitted giving the order for the demolition of WTC7, which nobody could ever find?

Dave
__________________
Me: So what you're saying is that, if the load carrying ability of the lower structure is reduced to the point where it can no longer support the load above it, it will collapse without a jolt, right?

Tony Szamboti: That is right
Dave Rogers is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th September 2017, 05:53 AM   #75
Tomtomkent
Philosopher
 
Tomtomkent's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 8,570
Originally Posted by Dave Rogers View Post
And, of course, anyone who has access at work to the archived material would necessarily be In On It [tm], so one couldn't trust their word anyway. Or, of course, the archives, which could easily have been doctored. Remember Tony Szamboti's imaginary interview with Larry Silverstein in which Silverstein specifically admitted giving the order for the demolition of WTC7, which nobody could ever find?

Dave
So the conspiracy is of a few select members of the US Government, demolitions crews, firemen, rescue services, the BBC and everybody who watched two documentaries on iPlayer?
__________________
@tomhodden

Never look up an E-book because this signature line told you. Especially not Dead Lament (ASIN: B00JEN1MWY). Or A Little Trouble (ASIN: B00GQFZZQW).
Tomtomkent is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th September 2017, 06:05 AM   #76
Jack by the hedge
Safely Ignored
 
Jack by the hedge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 8,955
Originally Posted by Tomtomkent View Post
Sorry, but what point is the thread making?

That Micha Java does not understand a quote from a TV show he hasn’t seen, and thinks it was replaced with another quote he also does not seem to understand?
The original point was Micah's contention that the documentary originally said "no freefall" but, he claims, after freefall was 'proven' the sneaky BBC changed it to say "freefall is irrelevant".

A nice little conspiracy theory all on its own, but tragically self-debunking because the original programme and updated version were actually the other way around and "no freefall" was in the later version.
Jack by the hedge is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th September 2017, 06:16 AM   #77
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles
 
Dave Rogers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Cair Paravel, according to XKCD
Posts: 26,889
Originally Posted by Tomtomkent View Post
So the conspiracy is of a few select members of the US Government, demolitions crews, firemen, rescue services, the BBC and everybody who watched two documentaries on iPlayer?
Yes, that's right.

Dave
__________________
Me: So what you're saying is that, if the load carrying ability of the lower structure is reduced to the point where it can no longer support the load above it, it will collapse without a jolt, right?

Tony Szamboti: That is right
Dave Rogers is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th September 2017, 06:16 AM   #78
Tomtomkent
Philosopher
 
Tomtomkent's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 8,570
Originally Posted by Jack by the hedge View Post
The original point was Micah's contention that the documentary originally said "no freefall" but, he claims, after freefall was 'proven' the sneaky BBC changed it to say "freefall is irrelevant".

A nice little conspiracy theory all on its own, but tragically self-debunking because the original programme and updated version were actually the other way around and "no freefall" was in the later version.
Yeah... and I’m guessing that means he didn’t get one or both quotes. Both are true and accurate. You probably have to assume a conspiracy to bend them another way.

When there is evidence of the changes he describes (and not back to front) for the reason he describes, I will bother myself about it...
__________________
@tomhodden

Never look up an E-book because this signature line told you. Especially not Dead Lament (ASIN: B00JEN1MWY). Or A Little Trouble (ASIN: B00GQFZZQW).
Tomtomkent is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th September 2017, 07:46 AM   #79
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 16,105
The same David Chandler who "forced" NIST to "admit" to "freefall" and started this meme that "freefall means CD" also demonstrated that the twins dropped only 65% of freefall acceleration - and argued that this, too, means CD!

His argument, followed to its logical end, would imply that ANY downward acceleration must imply CD, such that freefall isn't special or relevant to begin with. Strangely, no truther seems to have noticed. They seem to operate under the belief that "denying" freefall means undermining the truther arguments for CD.

If anything, this demonstrates that they, including Chandler himself, have no faith that the "35% less than freefall means CD" holds water.

Sent from mobile phone through Tapatalk
__________________
Thermodynamics hates conspiracy theorists. (Foster Zygote)
Oystein is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th September 2017, 02:11 AM   #80
Cosmic Yak
Master Poster
 
Cosmic Yak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Where there's never a road broader than the back of your hand.
Posts: 2,063
Thanks for the replies to my question- they helped to clarify the issue for me.

To all the CT believers lurking out there: this is how you should respond to questions. Compare and contrast, I suggest, with the standard CT response which is either to ignore the question completely, insult the questioner, or post something demonstrating their total lack of expertise in that area.
Those who disagree with my depiction might want to answer the repeatedly-raised question of why any amount of freefall proves CD, in the same helpful and factual manner.
__________________
Fortuna Faveat Fatuis
Cosmic Yak is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories » 9/11 Conspiracy Theories

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 04:04 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.