To those who believe WTC 7 didn't fall due to fire, how did it fall?

weisses

King Mob wrote: »

Do you believe the numbers provided by the NIST, that you quoted, are an accurate description of what happened?:


If not, what are the accurate numbers?

Remember, that you said:

Which implies that you believe those numbers to be correct.
If that's not the case, where did you get this number of 2.25 seconds of freefall?

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=108626596&postcount=1436

How can you achieve free fall acceleration when using the NIST progressive collapse hypothesis ? In other words ..where does the animation allow for free fall acceleration ? and where is the solid scientific evidence that supports that conclusion

King Mob

weisses wrote: »

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=108626596&postcount=1436

How can you achieve free fall acceleration when using the NIST progressive collapse hypothesis ? In other words ..where does the animation allow for free fall acceleration ? and where is the solid scientific evidence that supports that conclusion

Again, you dodge the question:

Do you believe the numbers provided by the NIST, that you quoted, are an accurate description of what happened?:


If not, what are the accurate numbers?

Remember, that you said:

I do know the building only reached free fall acceleration for 2.25 seconds

Which implies that you believe those numbers to be correct.
If that's not the case, where did you get this number of 2.25 seconds of freefall?

I can't really address your point until you clear this up.
The post you link back to does not answer my questions, so please answer them directly and clearly.

weisses

King Mob wrote: »

Again, you dodge the question:

Do you believe the numbers provided by the NIST, that you quoted, are an accurate description of what happened?:


If not, what are the accurate numbers?

Remember, that you said:

Which implies that you believe those numbers to be correct.
If that's not the case, where did you get this number of 2.25 (2.5) seconds of freefall?

Read the link I posted ... There is some dispute on the calculation ... The 2.25 number is in there


So there is No dodging there

The building was just sitting there, with the clock running, for several seconds. Then it dropped, with sudden onset, and continued for 2.5 seconds of absolute freefall.

What I believe doesn't matter .... Is NIST accurate or Chandler who pointed out the flaws in their collapse hypothesis ... I tend to believe Chandler and his calculations

King Mob wrote: »

I can't really address your point until you clear this up.
The post you link back to does not answer my questions, so please answer them directly and clearly.

You can Answer it ... Or at least try ...

King Mob

I can answer your question, but I can only make the attempt after you clear this up.
You seem to be stating that the figures you quoted from the NIST are not an accurate representation of what happened. Ie there was no first stage of the collapse where the acceleration was less than gravity.
Is this correct?
You only need to say yes or no.

weisses

King Mob wrote: »

I can answer your question, but I can only make the attempt after you clear this up.
You seem to be stating that the figures you quoted from the NIST are not an accurate representation of what happened. Ie there was no first stage of the collapse where the acceleration was less than gravity.
Is this correct?
You only need to say yes or no.

Chandler is arguing that the NIST three stages collapse is not exactly accurate, And based on his observations I tend to agree with him ... Yes

King Mob

weisses wrote: »

Chandler is arguing that the NIST three stages collapse is not exactly accurate, And based on his observations I tend to agree with him ... Yes

So by not exactly accurate, you mean...?

Was there a first stage of the collapse or not?

weisses

King Mob wrote: »

So by not exactly accurate, you mean...?

Was there a first stage of the collapse or not?

Read what I posted

Read what the controversy is

Read what my position is

It saves you time ..asking silly questions.

Now stop deflecting and come up with some evidence in regards to where the free fall acceleration is being incorporated in the NIST progressive collapse hypothesis.

If you are unable to do so then say it ..... I'm asking this for weeks now and none of you debunkers have come up with any kind of evidence counteracting the arguments posted here by me ... You only engage in tactics blaming me for dodging questions, while its you who's doing exactly that .... hypocrisy at its best

King Mob

weisses wrote: »

Read what my position is

What you have posted already does not address my very simple question.
If it was, please quote where you think it was and highlight it.

The recurrence of 5.4 seconds, even in a completely revised analysis, is very puzzling until you realize its context. NIST lead investigator Shyam Sunder told the audience in the August 26, 2008 Technical Briefing that their computerized collapse model had predicted the collapse down to the 29th floor level would take 5.4 seconds, well beyond the 3.9 seconds required for freefall. From the events at the Technical Briefing it appears that a team headed by structural engineer John Gross dutifully fabricated a 5.4 second observation to exactly match the prediction. Anyone with any experience in laboratory measurement would have expected some amount of uncertainty between the prediction and the measurement. They would have been doing extremely well to come up with a computer model that would predict the collapse time within 10%. But no...their measurement exactly matched the prediction to the tenth of a second. Keep in mind that their computer model was constructed in the absence of the actual steel, which had long since been hauled away and destroyed.

NIST's computer model predicted 5.4 seconds for the building to collapse down to the level of the 29th floor. John Gross and his team found the time the roofline reached the 29th floor, then picked a start time exactly 5.4 seconds earlier to give a measurement that matched the model to the nearest tenth of a second. They took their start time several seconds prior to the actual start of freefall when nothing was happening. The building was just sitting there, with the clock running, for several seconds. Then it dropped, with sudden onset, and continued for 2.5 seconds of absolute freefall.

So, NIST now acknowledges that freefall did occur. How do they explain that? They don't. They simply state, without elaboration, that their three-phase collapse analysis is consistent with their fire induced collapse hypothesis. The only thing about the three-phase analysis that is consistent with their collapse hypothesis is the 5.4 second total duration, measuring from their artificially chosen starting time. In other words, they make no attempt to explain the 2.25 second period of freefall. They just walked away from it without further comment.

Nowhere in this text does it anything about whether or not the 3 stages of the collapse are accurate
It implies that the figure of 2.25 is accurate, so a reasonable conclusion is that they do believe the NIST description was accurate and there was a 1st stage of collapse that had acceleration less than gravity.

So again, do you believe there was a first stage of collapse where the acceleration was less than gravity?
Yes or no, that's all you have to type.
You don't have to qualify it or hedge your bets. You don't have to give obtuse riddles.
Just, yes or no.

As I have said repeatedly I can't really address the specifics of your question until you clarify and nail down your position.
If you are unwilling and (more likely) unable to do this, then mymore general answer was again repeatedly given to you:
You don't understand the NIST report. You don't understand what free fall is.
Your question is based on your lack of understanding.

weisses

King Mob wrote: »

What you have posted already does not address my very simple question.
If it was, please quote where you think it was and highlight it.

This is not a discrepancy in regards to the NIST version ?

They took their start time several seconds prior to the actual start of freefall when nothing was happening. The building was just sitting there, with the clock running, for several seconds. Then it dropped, with sudden onset, and continued for 2.5 seconds of absolute freefall.

King Mob wrote: »

So again, do you believe there was a first stage of collapse where the acceleration was less than gravity?
Yes or no, that's all you have to type.
You don't have to qualify it or hedge your bets. You don't have to give obtuse riddles.
Just, yes or no.

I don't do riddles ... I believe the Chandler calculations ... that gives you my position

King Mob wrote: »

As I have said repeatedly I can't really address the specifics of your question until you clarify and nail down your position.
If you are unwilling and (more likely) unable to do this, then mymore general answer was again repeatedly given to you:
You don't understand the NIST report. You don't understand what free fall is.
Your question is based on your lack of understanding.

You can Address my question .... I am starting to believe you can't at this stage, other then offer your opinion, My knowledge is of no importance. It is about NIST providing solid evidence for their hypothesis, which I state is lacking and you state is there ...... Provide the solid evidence in regards to their collapse sequence ... simples.

So far No one posting in this thread applied critical thinking in regards to the official WTC7 collapse hypothesis and provided any convincing evidence as to how NIST incorporated free fall in their computer model

So the building falling because of office fires remains a theory ..Nothing more

King Mob

weisses wrote: »

I don't do riddles ... I believe the Chandler calculations ... that gives you my position

Lol, I ask you a yes or no question. This is what I get back. :rolleyes:

Try again.
First stage of collapse where the acceleration was less than gravity: Did it happen or did it not.
Yes or no only please.

Also:

They took their start time several seconds prior to the actual start of freefall when nothing was happening. The building was just sitting there, with the clock running, for several seconds. Then it dropped, with sudden onset, and continued for 2.5 seconds of absolute freefall.

Neither of these things are true, nor would they address my point if were were.

If I am to to make a reasonable conclusion from these, and since you are unable to directly state your position for some reason, then I would have to conclude that you don't believe there was a first stage of the collapse were the was acceleration less than gravity. And that you believe (contrary to your previous statements) that the building underwent gravitational acceleration from the exact beginning of the collapse.

If this is not the case, please say so directly and clearly.
Otherwise, I will just continue to assume that it is the case.

Weisses, you keep whinging about wanting your points to be addressed, but I could ahve addressed them pages and pages ago if you just answered questions directly.
If you want your point addressed, that's what you need to do.
Whinging doesn't help.
Avoiding questions you can't answer doesn't help.
Answering with bad grammar and riddles doesn't help.

weisses

King Mob wrote: »

Weisses, you keep whinging about wanting your points to be addressed, but I could ahve addressed them pages and pages ago

Then stop being obtuse, pedantic and childish and answer them so we can continue the discussion ... This has nothing to do with me or my grasp of the physics involved. You can point out the flaws in my reasoning by providing the evidence supporting the NIST hypothesis,

I dont know who is correct in regards to the exact timing and stages, I tend to believe Chandler, the guy who embarrassed the 200 highly skilled engineers in the first place by suggesting freefall

You support the official 3 stage collapse , Fine ..present the evidence NIST has that supports your claim

It has to do with you presenting the supporting evidence in regards to the collapse animation

This is your moment to rub it in and show me how stupid I am by believing other people over NIST

King Mob

weisses wrote: »

I dont know who is correct

Why didn't you just say that pages ago?:rolleyes:

So in the NIST version (ie. the real version), the free fall only comes after a stage of less acceleration.
This stage of less acceleration was caused by the supports buckling and failing. Then when they gave out completely and there was no more resistance, there was just the acceleration due to gravity.

This is the problem you were trying to avoid and why you back pedaled so hard and are now saying you don't believe the 3 stages, despite your previous claims.
As you'd be forced to admit that either the building encounter resistance or the building somehow started collapsing before the imaginary demolition charges went off. (Or, as you did, try to claim that you "ramp up" to free fall acceleration, either due to dishonesty or ignorance.)

Also, I don't think any of your experts actually do dispute the 3 stages, hence why you've been so cagey about addressing your position on it.

The evidence for those 3 stages in discussed in the NIST report. Which you'd know if you understood it.

The flaw in your "thinking" is that you think they are saying this is for the whole building all at once. It's just not. And you would know that if you understand the report. This is also the reason why it's not super connected to the computer model (which has been scrutinised and peer reviewed, despite your silly conspiracy theory to dismiss that fact).

The other flaw in your thinking is that you and your "experts" are deliberately misquoting people and misleading people ignorant of physics and terms like free fall.

That's the explanation. You won't accept it however.

But this thread is about your silly conspiracies and the evidence and reasoning behind them. You've dodged every question about those, and I'm done letting you deflect. I will not respond to any more demands to prove reality to you.

In conspiracy land, if admitting free fall was a dead give away, why did the NIST do it?

weisses

King Mob wrote: »

Why didn't you just say that pages ago?:rolleyes:

I posted it pages ago ... And if you would have studied both accounts you would know the different positions

Instead you come up demanding silly yes and no answers

King Mob wrote: »

So in the NIST version (ie. the real version), the free fall only comes after a stage of less acceleration.
This stage of less acceleration was caused by the supports buckling and failing. Then when they gave out completely and there was no more resistance, there was just the acceleration due to gravity.

So where did the whole outer shell dissipated to for 8 stories and how does the buckling of the columns happened for all outer perimeter columns .

Where does NIST explain this ... I mean for free fall acceleration to happen ideally there shouldn't be a building beneath it creating resistance

King Mob wrote: »

The evidence for those 3 stages in discussed in the NIST report. Which you'd know if you understood it.

Then present the relevant part in the NIST report ..and what evidence they used to reach their conclusion ... It is what I am asking for page after page ... present it and stop deflecting

King Mob wrote: »

This is also the reason why it's not super connected to the computer model (which has been scrutinised and peer reviewed, despite your silly conspiracy theory to dismiss that fact).

Where was it peer reviewed an by whom .... How did they incorporated the free fall evidence into their model ?

Again present the evidence you claim is there

King Mob wrote: »

The other flaw in your thinking is that you and your "experts" are deliberately misquoting people and misleading people ignorant of physics and terms like free fall.

Wher are they doing that ?

King Mob wrote: »

That's the explanation. You won't accept it however.

If you can provide evidence with your explanation that would help alot

It is what is required on this thread ...remember ?

King Mob wrote: »

But this thread is about your silly conspiracies and the evidence and reasoning behind them. You've dodged every question about those, and I'm done letting you deflect. I will not respond to any more demands to prove reality to you.

Annnd we are at the point I predicted pages ago would happen




You are class ..Whinging about CT'ers for weeks without providing actual proof for the theory you believe to be true :rolleyes::rolleyes:

King Mob

weisses wrote: »

Annnd we are at the point I predicted pages ago would happen




You are class ..Whinging about CT'ers for weeks without providing actual proof for the theory you believe to be true :rolleyes::rolleyes:

Mm hmm. Yup, ya got me again. The NIST is wrong. You are right even though you can't do a child's physics problem. You've convinced me.

So why would they admit to freefall if it's a dead give away?

Also, lol at the gif. Very witty.

Cheerful Spring

King Mob wrote: »

Mm hmm. Yup, ya got me again. The NIST is wrong. You are right even though you can't do a child's physics problem. You've convinced me.

So why would they admit to freefall if it's a dead give away?

Also, lol at the gif. Very witty.

They started in 2002 and in a draft of the final report in the Summer 2008 NIST does not account for freefall at all.

They got challenged at a press conference they held in summer of 2008. People could write in and ask questions about their findings. People with the right credentials though. Chandler logged on and asked a question. Chandler was credentialed in some mainstream science organisation so he was able to ask a question and NIST spokesman read it out. NIST then three months later came out with a new scenario involving three stages with freefall included in stage 2.

How they rewrite everything they did in space of a couple of months?

Cheerful Spring

King Mob wrote: »

Why didn't you just say that pages ago?:rolleyes:

So in the NIST version (ie. the real version), the free fall only comes after a stage of less acceleration.
This stage of less acceleration was caused by the supports buckling and failing. Then when they gave out completely and there was no more resistance, there was just the acceleration due to gravity.

This is the problem you were trying to avoid and why you back pedaled so hard and are now saying you don't believe the 3 stages, despite your previous claims.
As you'd be forced to admit that either the building encounter resistance or the building somehow started collapsing before the imaginary demolition charges went off. (Or, as you did, try to claim that you "ramp up" to free fall acceleration, either due to dishonesty or ignorance.)

Also, I don't think any of your experts actually do dispute the 3 stages, hence why you've been so cagey about addressing your position on it.

The evidence for those 3 stages in discussed in the NIST report. Which you'd know if you understood it.

The flaw in your "thinking" is that you think they are saying this is for the whole building all at once. It's just not. And you would know that if you understand the report. This is also the reason why it's not super connected to the computer model (which has been scrutinised and peer reviewed, despite your silly conspiracy theory to dismiss that fact).

The other flaw in your thinking is that you and your "experts" are deliberately misquoting people and misleading people ignorant of physics and terms like free fall.

That's the explanation. You won't accept it however.

But this thread is about your silly conspiracies and the evidence and reasoning behind them. You've dodged every question about those, and I'm done letting you deflect. I will not respond to any more demands to prove reality to you.

In conspiracy land, if admitting free fall was a dead give away, why did the NIST do it?

The timeline is important in this as they never even thought about freefall in summer of 2008.

They had envisioned an entirely different scenario was occurring during the progressive collapse stage. NIST got caught out by Chandler

They can claim whatever they like but it just another lie upon lie from them.

Dohnjoe

Put the question to askengineers on reddit
https://old.reddit.com/r/AskEngineers/comments/9z2ybl/a_specific_question_about_the_collapse_of_wtc_7/

Responses to similar questions
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskEngineers/comments/8tbtb0/how_did_wtc_building_7_collapse/
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskEngineers/comments/6zezjb/how_did_the_third_tower_collapse_in_911_without/

Explanation of a progressive collapse
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskEngineers/comments/33tl74/how_did_the_wtc_north_tower_top_section_fall_and/cqplmln/

Can't ask on r/engineering as posts about 911 are blacklisted

Put the question to a structural engineering forum, no responses received yet
https://www.istructe.org/forums?forumid=1&threadid=18447

Some details of the NIST addressed in this thread from that forum
https://www.istructe.org/forums?page=2&forumid=1&threadid=16207

As for the article itself in Europhysics magazine
rebuke of the story here
http://blog.daimonie.com/2016/09/europhysics-truther-rebuke.html?m=1

Snopes
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/journal-endorses-911-conspiracy-theory/

International skeptic thread on the article
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=311065

Overview of the common misconceptions and CTs on WTC 7
http://www.911myths.com/html/wtc7___silverstein.html

Cheerful Spring

Discovered some new photographs of WTC7 steel eroded and melted away. The pictures were not taken in October. They were taken on Sep 20, 2001, by David Morris. I guy on the internet showed me the images actually contain data when the photos were actually taken.

Why Abolhassan ASTANEH is lying when the images were taken is curious? He even tries to dismiss conspiracy theorists in this link. Sure from a guy who lies about when this steel was removed from the rubble pile.

Some of the intriguing images he did not hide though in his link.





http://digitalassets.lib.berkeley.edu/wtc/502-WTC-Astaneh-PPT-containing-photos-shot-on--Oct-8-2001-Final-for-Archives.pdf

Timberrrrrrrr

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Discovered some new photographs of WTC7 steel eroded and melted away. The pictures were not taken in October. They were taken on Sep 20, 2001, by David Morris.

Sooooo some new 17 year old pictures?

I guy on the internet showed me the images actually contain data when the photos were actually taken.

Ahhh they must be true so

Why Abolhassan ASTANEH is lying when the images were taken is curious? He even tries to dismiss conspiracy theorists in this link. Sure from a guy who lies about when this steel was removed from the rubble pile.

Not sure what you are saying here?

Some of the intriguing images he did not hide though in his link.





http://digitalassets.lib.berkeley.edu/wtc/502-WTC-Astaneh-PPT-containing-photos-shot-on--Oct-8-2001-Final-for-Archives.pdf

What are these images showing?

Cheerful Spring

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Put the question to askengineers on reddit
https://old.reddit.com/r/AskEngineers/comments/9z2ybl/a_specific_question_about_the_collapse_of_wtc_7/

Responses to similar questions
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskEngineers/comments/8tbtb0/how_did_wtc_building_7_collapse/
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskEngineers/comments/6zezjb/how_did_the_third_tower_collapse_in_911_without/

Explanation of a progressive collapse
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskEngineers/comments/33tl74/how_did_the_wtc_north_tower_top_section_fall_and/cqplmln/

Can't ask on r/engineering as posts about 911 are blacklisted

Put the question to a structural engineering forum, no responses received yet
https://www.istructe.org/forums?forumid=1&threadid=18447

Some details of the NIST addressed in this thread from that forum
https://www.istructe.org/forums?page=2&forumid=1&threadid=16207

As for the article itself in Europhysics magazine
rebuke of the story here
http://blog.daimonie.com/2016/09/europhysics-truther-rebuke.html?m=1

Snopes
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/journal-endorses-911-conspiracy-theory/

International skeptic thread on the article
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=311065

Overview of the common misconceptions and CTs on WTC 7
http://www.911myths.com/html/wtc7___silverstein.html

Guy or girl is playing around.

Daimonie's Blog: The author doesn't know the NIST report. The initiation event for the start of the collapse started at column 79 on floor 12 and 13. If this did not happen the other floors on the east side can't collapse according to NIST. The NIST theory is a thermal expansion of a steel girder sliding off its seat at column 79.

Fires resulted in floors losing lateral support. Partially true, but not the full story as I just highlighted above.

NIST is wrong on the noise levels. A loud noise was heard on audio a second before the Penthouse collapsed. Windows breaking? Where was the window breakage from 47 floors full of stuff collapsing prior to full collapse? Does it not depend on what they used to cut and separate the columns from steel and girders?

What don't people understand here? Some structural damage resulting from a fire happen, full collapse as NIST even admits here does not happen.
Seven major multi-story fire events were also identified as having significant structural damage due to a fire, but did not exhibit collapse. (NIST)


Author ignores NIST pretty much released their final report in Aug 2008 and there was not a word about freefall occurring during their progressive collapse theory. Even their own model shuts off 1 second into full collapse you don't see the end result.

Cheerful Spring

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Sooooo some new 17 year old pictures?







Ahhh they must be true so




Not sure what you are saying here?



What are these images showing?

Up till last week, I never saw these images. A guy I communicated with online gave me the link to them.

He told me he lied about when they were taken. I asked can you prove that and he showed me the same image with EXIF data some are dated 20 and 28 of Sep 2001.

The claim in the link these images were taken on 8 October 2001

Clearly steel eroded and melted away. You can see steel is no longer there.

Dohnjoe

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Guy or girl is playing around.

Go on engineering forums and ask for yourself

Cheerful Spring

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Go on engineering forums and ask for yourself

You asked yourself and barely got a response. 95 per cent of engineers and architects in America have never read the NIST study of WTC7. This study is only interesting to Skeptics and conspiracy theorists and selective grouping of people involved in this field of work.

prinzeugen

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

What are these images showing?

It looks like a cleaned up keel from a ship that was torpedoed in WW2. Thats the sort of damage you would see from long-term (decades) exposure to saltwater.

Cheerful Spring

prinzeugen wrote: »

It looks like a cleaned up keel from a ship that was torpedoed in WW2. Thats the sort of damage you would see from long-term (decades) exposure to saltwater.

Problem its WTC7 steel which was taken from a collapse site one week or two after 9/11 happened. How does a 400c fire do that damage?

There no accelerant in WTC7 to increase fire temp.

NIST even states when the steel girder came off its seat at column 79 the fire was in the range of 400c.

Steel melts and erodes away at 1500c. It bends and twists and about 600c and 800c.

storker

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

95 per cent of engineers and architects in America have never read the NIST study of WTC7. This study is only interesting to Skeptics and conspiracy theorists [snip].

In other words, 95% of engineers and architects in the US felt no need to pursue the matter beyond the accepted explanation. Thank you.

Timberrrrrrrr

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Up till last week, I never saw these images. A guy I communicated with online gave me the link to them.

He told me he lied about when they were taken. I asked can you prove that and he showed me the same image with EXIF data some are dated 20 and 28 of Sep 2001.

The claim in the link these images were taken on 8 October 2001

Clearly steel eroded and melted away. You can see steel is no longer there.

So you believe the word of someone who has already admitted to being a liar :rolleyes:

Timberrrrrrrr

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

ALLEGEDLY its WTC7 steel which was ALLEGEDLY taken from a collapse site one week or two after 9/11 happened. How does a 400c fire do that damage?

There no accelerant in WTC7 to increase fire temp.

NIST even states when the steel girder came off its seat at column 79 the fire was in the range of 400c.

Steel melts and erodes away at 1500c. It bends and twists and about 600c and 800c.

Fixed that for you.

weisses

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Put the question to askengineers on reddit
https://old.reddit.com/r/AskEngineers/comments/9z2ybl/a_specific_question_about_the_collapse_of_wtc_7/

Responses to similar questions
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskEngineers/comments/8tbtb0/how_did_wtc_building_7_collapse/
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskEngineers/comments/6zezjb/how_did_the_third_tower_collapse_in_911_without/

Explanation of a progressive collapse
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskEngineers/comments/33tl74/how_did_the_wtc_north_tower_top_section_fall_and/cqplmln/

Can't ask on r/engineering as posts about 911 are blacklisted

Put the question to a structural engineering forum, no responses received yet
https://www.istructe.org/forums?forumid=1&threadid=18447

Some details of the NIST addressed in this thread from that forum
https://www.istructe.org/forums?page=2&forumid=1&threadid=16207

As for the article itself in Europhysics magazine
rebuke of the story here
http://blog.daimonie.com/2016/09/europhysics-truther-rebuke.html?m=1

Snopes
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/journal-endorses-911-conspiracy-theory/

International skeptic thread on the article
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=311065

Overview of the common misconceptions and CTs on WTC 7
http://www.911myths.com/html/wtc7___silverstein.html

Is this rubbish above providing evidence their model was accurate and included the free fall data ?

Dont think so

The rest of your links are mostly referring to the NIST study .... embarrassing attempt

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_-KosTYUs4I

Look at this from 1 hour and 12 ish ... explained by a physics teacher

weisses

King Mob wrote: »

Mm hmm. Yup, ya got me again. The NIST is wrong. You are right even though you can't do a child's physics problem. You've convinced me.

So why would they admit to freefall if it's a dead give away?

Also, lol at the gif. Very witty.

NIST is proven to be wrong ...Explained by people who understand physics ...

Your opinion and believes are noted