Will NIST admit free fall again after truthers force change?

No...they changed it to include the term "free fall".

 

The data for the acceleration (which they termed as 'gravitational') was in the original report.

You do know that 'gravitational' and 'free fall' are not terms at odds, right?

 

I know that NIST tried to exclude the term "freefall" from their initial BS report.

 

Not at all. If they were trying to hide anything, they wouldn't have made their data and analysis public before they published it.

They used smaller words so that people like Chandler could understand.

You do know that 'gravitational' and 'free fall' are not terms at odds, right?

 

NIST admitted free fall. That's the point. Free fall doesn't occur without demolition type "assistance".

 

Like fire-weakened steel?

 

No...like complete removal of the steel that would have impeded the "free fall" via vertical steel columns. In case you weren't aware...vertical steel columns would offer some resistance, eliminating the free fall scenario.

 

The columns did offer resistance, which is why the period of free fall was only 2.25 seconds, after which the rate of collapse decreased.

 

Well, if it was 2.25 seconds, then it WASN'T FREE FALL. Which hand do you want to play?

 

I never said it wasn't real free fall. Where do you get these ideas?

I have stated many times that a portion of the building entered the equivalent of free fall acceleration for >2.5 seconds.

 

The meme that "free fall acceleration" means demolition is simply wrong when sloppily applied.

The center of mass of an ISOLATED body cannot fall faster than gravity.

There are two conditions in which pieces of a body can fall faster than G:
1) a rotating body, & 2) a body that is not isolated from other forces.

If a large structure buckles near its base over a many floor segment (as WTC7 did), with the buckling resulting in fracturing of connections, then the portion of the structure above the buckled segment will fall very near to free fall.

This descent was slowed by the resistance of the vertical columns.

 

Free fall doesn't occur with vertical steel beams impeding their fall. On the other hand, removing the steel vertical beams would aid free fall.

 

That's why the acceleration diminished after 2.25 seconds.

 

It took 2.25 seconds to complete free fall? Seems free fall would be a bit quicker, considering there was nothing to impede the path, as you proclaim.

 

I never claimed there was nothing to impede the path, that was you.

Free fall acceleration lasted for only 2.25 seconds. Both NIST and Chandler agree on this point.

 

Because the steel had been removed?

 

Because it hadn't. The acceleration diminished after 2.25 seconds.

 

So to permit free fall acceleration, steel had to have been removed, to allow free fall for 2.25 seconds. Did the steel melt? Somebody steal it? Or is it all just "official" BS?

 

Says who?

The meme that "free fall acceleration" means controlled demolition is simply wrong.

If a large structure buckles near its base over a many floor segment (as WTC7 did), with the buckling resulting in fracturing of connections, then the portion of the structure above the buckled segment will fall very near to free fall.

 

You're contending the steel buckled. Have any proof of that?

 

Where did I do that? I gave you a scenario that contradicts the 'steel being removed' meme. You said it was the 'only way', I showed you another.

 

Post 44. Use you brain.

 

I gave you a scenario that contradicts the 'steel being removed' meme. You said it was the 'only way', I showed you another.

I never contended that was the case at WTC7. You are making things up again.

 

The steel was either there or it wasn't. Which do you align with? Simple question.

 

Of course it was there.