Dr Hulsey WTC7 findings for people who not aware of this new study.

Cheerful Spring2

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

I worked as a tower crane operator for many years, I literally built sky scrapers all over the world. I wouldn't have a clue about the engineering of them though. But a welder who built refrigerators thinks he knows more about buildings than engineers/architects :pac:

I thought you said you were in the British army on another thread? Or is that a job you did later? It's one aspect of the work i did. It lot more complicated then you think. You have to cut steel into different shapes and angles and it's precision work and have a good steady hand for that. Most truthers have no clue how to read constructiion drawings, i have some knowledge about that.

You claiming welder not used when steel framed buildings are build?

King Mob

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

You claiming welder not used when steel framed buildings are build?

How many skyscrapers have you worked on.
How many building collapses have you investigated?
How many computer simulations have you made yourself?

If the answer is none, your experience is irrelevant.

Dohnjoe

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

There knowns and unknown’s around this destruction and if someone says they know 100 percent- what went on here they’re lying. 

We know what happened. In 2001 terrorist hijackers flew planes into buildings, which fell down.

Your endless incredulity and denial and debate means absolutely nothing. Those facts are completely separate from your interpretations of them.

All you do is try to cast doubt on the event to suggest some vague conspiracy happened - and by some remarkable coincidence, that's also your hobby.

Cheerful Spring2

King Mob wrote: »

How many skyscrapers have you worked on.
How many building collapses have you investigated?
How many computer simulations have you made yourself?

If the answer is none, your experience is irrelevant.

What your experience?
You have none. Least I have some experience in this field to argue a point.
Yet you kick and scream and claim 100 per cent fact it is a fire collapse:)

Dohnjoe

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

What your experience?
You have none. Least I have some experience in this field to argue a point.
Yet you kick and scream and claim 100 per cent fact it is a fire collapse:)

It was a fire collapse

That's what the investigations discovered

They didn't discover a "laser beam" collapse, they didn't discover a "mini-nuke" collapse, they didn't discover a "controlled demolition" collapse, they didn't discover an "energy weapon" collapse

Your problem with grasping that is the reason why this thread exists

Cheerful Spring2

Dohnjoe wrote: »

It was a fire collapse

That's what the investigations discovered

They didn't discover a "laser beam" collapse, they didn't discover a "mini-nuke" collapse, they didn't discover a "controlled demolition" collapse, they didn't discover an "energy weapon" collapse

Your problem with grasping that is the reason why this thread exists

How did NIST prove it was a fire collapse? Think about that. Read my post today and understand why people don't believe that:)

King Mob

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

What your experience?

Where have I claimed that I had any experience?
Which of my points rely on my experience?

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

You have none. Least I have some experience in this field to argue a point.
Yet you kick and scream and claim 100 per cent fact it is a fire collapse:)

But you don't have experience in the field.
Welding is not the same field as skyscraper design or forensic architecture.
It's very funny you think they are.

It's also very funny that you are using this as the basis to reject Hulsey's study after all the hopes you put on it.

Dohnjoe

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

How did NIST prove it was a fire collapse?

You require endless proof of theory A (fire collapse)

You require virtually no proof of theory B (controlled demolition)

That doesn't make any sense, it's a complete contradiction and the common denominator is you.

If you want to convince people that something else happened on 911, where's your proof, your supporting evidence, the names of your culprits?

You have none of that. One day it's Larry Silverstein, the next it's secret Nazi's.

So, because you don't have any of that, you rely entirely on your denial of the event. That's the only thing you have control over. Like Sandy Hook truthers, like moon landing hoaxers - you can endlessly deny it in order to fulfil your fantasy that something else happened

And when you have your own thread like this, nothing can stop you doing that

Cheerful Spring2

King Mob wrote: »

Where have I claimed that I had any experience?
Which of my points rely on my experience?


But you don't have experience in the field.
Welding is not the same field as skyscraper design or forensic architecture.
It's very funny you think they are.

It's also very funny that you are using this as the basis to reject Hulsey's study after all the hopes you put on it.

It is your claim for 12 years on boards fire is the only explanation for the collapse. yes or no. 

Well what is your experience to believe that's the only option?

Now you claim welders have no experience constructing steel-framed buildings around the world.  I never said its same profession. I claimed i worked with steel and Iron, and now for fact every building element, matters. It would not be placed in the building otherwise.

Cheerful Spring2

Dohnjoe wrote: »

You require virtually no proof of theory B (controlled demolition)

We know building seven experienced free fall. Thats how we know controlled demolition is not a crazy idea. To enable freefall every column would have to be removed on multiple floors. 84 columns gone.

Dohnjoe

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

We know building seven experienced free fall. Thats how we know controlled demolition is not a crazy idea. To enable freefall every column would have to be removed on multiple floors. 84 columns gone.

No, we know it fell due to fire. That's what we know.

You are claiming that is all completely wrong and it fell due to controlled demolition.

Cool, now support your theory. You cannot use denial. Denial of the Titanic sinking due to an iceberg is not "evidence" of it sinking due to a torpedo.

This concept has been explained to you many, many times. If you don't understand it, then let us know

Otherwise, please continue, remember supporting evidence only

Dohnjoe

So let's start off, who was responsible for "blowing" up WTC 7, was it Larry Silverstein (as you claimed before) or was it "secret Nazi's" or was it both or was it someone else

Please specify, and then provide the supporting evidence for that

Cheerful Spring2

Dohnjoe wrote: »

No, we know it fell due to fire. That's what we know.

You are claiming that is all completely wrong and it fell due to controlled demolition.

Cool, now support your theory. You cannot use denial. Denial of the Titanic sinking due to an iceberg is not "evidence" of it sinking due to a torpedo.

This concept has been explained to you many, many times. If you don't understand it, then let us know

Otherwise, please continue, remember supporting evidence only

We don't know. There was fire thats all we know. You keeping ignoring. the Nordenson Study also claimed a walk off was impossible just like the truthers have said for 18 years. NIST explantation is not true. If you claiming fire brought the building down for other reasons release the data and let professionals look at it online.

We know for a fact that freefall occurred down below not up top. The top did not crush the bottom third. There was empty space below over 8 floors, that only possible when 84 columns and floors from east to west are gone.

Dohnjoe

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

We don't know.

This is your "conspiracy theory", which is why you are posting it here and not on the history or science forum for example.

So you are claiming these buildings were "blown up" can you tell us who, for example, "blew up" WTC 7?

And provide supporting evidence for that

King Mob

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

It is your claim for 12 years on boards fire is the only explanation for the collapse. yes or no. 

Well what is your experience to believe that's the only option?

Where have I claimed that this was due to my experience?

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

Now you claim welders have no experience constructing steel-framed buildings around the world.  I never said its same profession. I claimed i worked with steel and Iron, and now for fact every building element, matters. It would not be placed in the building otherwise.

So did you work on steel framed buildings?
Any skyscrapers?
Did you do any computer modeling?
How many building collapses did you investigate?

Cheerful Spring2

Dohnjoe wrote: »

This is your "conspiracy theory", which is why you are posting it here and not on the history or science forum for example.

So you are claiming these buildings were "blown up" can you tell us who, for example, "blew up" WTC 7?

And provide supporting evidence for that

Physical evidence says it happened, then it happened! You have not got your head around this finding yet.

How do you produce a sudden straight down collapse will very little exterior changes to the shape of the building?

Watch the building in Iran collapse, watch how the walls collapse inwards! There pulling in. It not seen on any video of the collapse. NIST explantation does
not make sense. If you pulled out all the eastcorner, the exterior columns would pull in before you even got to removing westside core columns.

Disturbing the interior from top to bottom will affect the rest of the building, the fact there no sign of this event occurring is evidence.

King Mob

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

We know building seven experienced free fall. Thats how we know controlled demolition is not a crazy idea. To enable freefall every column would have to be removed on multiple floors. 84 columns gone.

But we don't know that a building experiencing free fall is impossible in a fire collapse.
You are insisting that "every column needs to be removed on multiple floors" but this is based on your utter ignorance of physics or even what the NIST report says.

We don't know that a building being demolished would experience free fall.
You've never once shown an example of this. You've never shown a single source that confirms this. You just insist it's true based on your claimed experience as a welder.

We don't know that a building being demolished by thermite can experience free fall for the same reason.

We also know that in the scenario Hulsey presented, free fall is impossible.
We know in your cute crayon drawing scenario, free fall is also impossible.

We also know that you have a very shaky grasp of what free fall actually is.

Cheerful Spring2

King Mob wrote: »

But we don't know that a building experiencing free fall is impossible in a fire collapse.
You are insisting that "every column needs to be removed on multiple floors" but this is based on your utter ignorance of physics or even what the NIST report says.

We don't know that a building being demolished would experience free fall.
You've never once shown an example of this. You've never shown a single source that confirms this. You just insist it's true based on your claimed experience as a welder.

We don't know that a building being demolished by thermite can experience free fall for the same reason.

We also know that in the scenario Hulsey presented, free fall is impossible.
We know in your cute crayon drawing scenario, free fall is also impossible.

You showing your ignorance again.
How can building undergo 2.25 to 2.50 seconds of freefall with floors and columns in the way?
You again sidestep NIST explanation for the collapse (girder A2001 falling off its seat) and causing a new progressive collapse never seen in steel framed building before.

Dohnjoe

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

How do you produce a sudden straight down collapse

This is denial and incredulity.

As has been mentioned we've heard it all from you. Thanks.

Now, the supporting evidence for your conspiracy theory, you have to build it from the ground up.

1. Name the culprits behind the attack, those who planned it, those who "planted" the explosives and prepared the 3 buildings for demolition, exactly when this was conducted and how
2. The reasoning and motives behind
3. The direct physical evidence of this (remains of det cords, detonators, leaked memos, supply chain leaks, documents etc)
4. Witnesses - leaks, testimony, confessions, deathbed confessions, accusations, etc

And we can start from there

If you can't present anything, then it's just one person (you) not believing something (911), which is fairly common on the internet and is meaningless if you can't support it properly

King Mob

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

You showing your ignorance again.
How can building undergo 2.25 to 2.50 seconds of freefall with floors and columns in the way?

But now you're lying about what the NIST report says.
It doesn't say the whole building underwent freefall.
It doesn't say there were floors and columns in the way.

Why do you have to be so dishonest to defend you silly ideas?

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

You again sidestep NIST explanation for the collapse (girder A2001 falling off its seat) and causing a new progressive collapse never seen in steel framed building before.

Mm hmm?
So can you show the secret demolitions of steel framed skyscrapers we've seen before?
Can you show the many demolitions using any kind of thermite that we've seen?

You keep side stepping those questions. Why?

Cheerful Spring2

King Mob wrote: »

But now you're lying about what the NIST report says.
It doesn't say the whole building underwent freefall.
It doesn't say there were floors and columns in the way.

Why do you have to be so dishonest to defend you silly ideas?


Mm hmm?
So can you show the secret demolitions of steel framed skyscrapers we've seen before?
Can you show the many demolitions using any kind of thermite that we've seen?

You keep side stepping those questions. Why?

Again NIST finally admited freefall in Nov 2008. Denied was possible in August 2008
For there to be 2.25 seconds to 2.50 seconds of freefall, there had to be no resistance underneath to slow the fall. How can a top half not impact what there underneath? Only explanation is the support on 8 floors was gone.

King Mob

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

Again NIST finally admited freefall in Nov 2008. Denied was possible in August 2008
For there to be 2.25 seconds to 2.50 seconds of freefall, there had no resistance underneath to slow the fall. How can a top half not impact what there underneath? Only explantation is the support on 8 floors was gone.

And again, you are misinterpreting what the NIST are saying and you side step questions after accusing me of side stepping things.
That's hilarious.

You are also sidestepping and ignoring what must be thousands of points at this stage.
All of which you can't answer.

Cheerful Spring2

King Mob wrote: »

And again, you are misinterpreting what the NIST are saying and you side step questions after accusing me of side stepping things.
That's hilarious.

You are also sidestepping and ignoring what must be thousands of points at this stage.
All of which you can't answer.

NIST has accepted building seven experienced freefall for 2.25 seconds.
Thats only possible if a portion of the building structure missing. NIST has there explantation which i don't believe since they denied it was possible in Aug 2008 and truthers claimed the columns were removed on 8 floors because of controlled demolition and gravity and chaos inside did the rest and building collapsed.

King Mob

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

NIST has accepted building seven experienced freefall for 2.25 seconds.
Thats only possible if a portion of the building structure missing. NIST has there explantation which i don't believe since they denied it was possible in Aug 2008 and truthers claimed the columns were removed on 8 floors because of controlled demolition and gravity and chaos inside did the rest and building collapsed.

Yes. You keep saying this, but it's a dishonest misrepresentation.
It's not what the NIST's actual position is.
This has been explained to you many many times in many many ways.
You either don't understand, are willing to be completely dishonest or both.

You are also still side stepping points to just repeat your dishonest mantras.

So can you show the secret demolitions of steel framed skyscrapers we've seen before?
Can you show the many demolitions using any kind of thermite that we've seen?

You keep side stepping those questions. Why?

Cheerful Spring2

NIST was caught on tape denying free fall occurred in Aug 2008. The evidence exists, they are liars.

King Mob

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

NIST was caught on tape denying free fall occurred in Aug 2008. The evidence exists, they are liars.

Yes. You've posted this before.
You are misrepresenting what the NIST is saying because you are dishonest and/or you don't understand what they mean.

We've explained this to you. You don't have to keep posting the same videos over and over. They don't help your position.
They don't address your constant dodging and inability to address any point.

Cheerful Spring2

King Mob wrote: »

Yes. You've posted this before.
You are misrepresenting what the NIST is saying because you are dishonest and/or you don't understand what they mean.

We've explained this to you. You don't have to keep posting the same videos over and over. They don't help your position.
They don't address your constant dodging and inability to address any point.

blah, blah, blah.

They denied freefall on video. Undisputable fact and anyone who listens to the video will hear them denying it.

The Nal

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

NIST was caught on tape denying free fall occurred in Aug 2008. The evidence exists, they are liars.

Selective quote mine. You are a liar. Very dishonest. Just like that fraud Hulsey and this clown show of a report.

Section 11

https://www.nist.gov/topics/disaster-failure-studies/faqs-nist-wtc-7-investigation

Dohnjoe

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

NIST was caught on tape denying free fall occurred in Aug 2008. The evidence exists, they are liars.

You are misrepresenting this.

Despite it being explained to you. It's like a flat-earther rejecting everything simply because they can.. or because it threatens the personally held irrational belief they have

Which I think we all suspect is the real motive here

Cheerful Spring2

The Nal wrote: »

Selective quote mine. You are a liar. Very dishonest. Just like that fraud Hulsey and this clown show of a report.

Section 11

https://www.nist.gov/topics/disaster-failure-studies/faqs-nist-wtc-7-investigation

You must not know the draft paper was released in Aug 2008

Look what Metabunk did when Hulsey released his draft paper online!

NIST denied freefall during a presentation of that draft paper and David Chandler managed to get a question of his answered. NIST ****ed up so badly, they revised their original position and claimed now freefall happened and accepted They hide the impllications and then claimed freefall was always known

King Mob

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

blah, blah, blah.

They denied freefall on video. Undisputable fact and anyone who listens to the video will hear them denying it.

But it's not an indisputable fact. (Undisputable isn't a word)

You are misrepresenting what they are saying. You are changing the meaning of their words and taking them out of context.

This has been explained to you over and over.

Cheerful Spring2

King Mob wrote: »

But it's not an indisputable fact. (Undisputable isn't a word)

You are misrepresenting what they are saying. You are changing the meaning of their words and taking them out of context.

This has been explained to you over and over.

Video is evidence.
Don't give me text from the revised report.
What do they say on video that makes you believe NIST knew all along about freefall?
If you're honest., you provide your version.

King Mob

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

Video is evidence.
Don't give me text from the revised report.

Yes. But you are taking an incorrect meaning from what they are saying.
What they actually mean is not what you claim they mean.

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

What do they say on video that makes you believe NIST knew all along about freefall?

That's not what I believe...

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

If you're honest., you provide your version.

But we have explained the reality to you many times. You ignore it, deflect and move on to a new point, then pretend it was never explained to you.

I can explain it to you again, but you're not actually interested or willing to understand.

Cheerful Spring2

King Mob wrote: »

Yes. But you are taking an incorrect meaning from what they are saying.
What they actually mean is not what you claim they mean.


That's not what I believe...


But we have explained the reality to you many times. You ignore it, deflect and move on to a new point, then pretend it was never explained to you.

I can explain it to you again, but you're not actually interested or willing to understand.

What they actually mean is not what you claim they mean

Hulsey did that we have endless posts from you claiming fraud:D

What do they mean then? Outline their position in Aug 2008 and then explain how it matches their opinion on Nov 2008?

King Mob

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

What they actually mean is not what you claim they mean

Hulsey did that we have endless posts from you claiming fraud:D

What do they mean then? Outline their position in Aug 2008 and then explain how it matches their opinion on Nov 2008?

But I've explained this to you directly many times. If I do it again, you won't acknowledge it. You'll deflect and then try to change the subject because you know you can't address it.
It's what you did all the previous times.
This is because you are very dishonest.
If you can state that you won't do this, then I can detail it to you again.

Again, you agree Hulsey's report is wrong and is a fraud.

Cheerful Spring2

King Mob wrote: »

But I've explained this to you directly many times. If I do it again, you won't acknowledge it. You'll deflect and then try to change the subject because you know you can't address it.
It's what you did all the previous times.
This is because you are very dishonest.
If you can state that you won't do this, then I can detail it to you again.

Again, you agree Hulsey's report is wrong and is a fraud.

You provided their revision explantation for freefall.
What do they say on video about freefall in Aug 2008?
Provide their theory about it then.
Can you not do that or just afraid to be proven wrong?

The Nal

The stamina is fascinating.

Dohnjoe

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

Video is evidence.

Your interpretation of it is wrong.

This is not about "convincing" you of anything

You are claiming some inside job happened, you haven't demonstrated that at all, quite the contrary your "story" changes a lot

A military plane hit the Pentagon, then it didn't. Larry Silverstein blew up WTC 7, then he didn't.

You aren't making any case.

Dohnjoe

The Nal wrote: »

The stamina is fascinating.

Read some psychological report into this years ago, it's not that these people are right about something (they often aren't) it's that they use stamina and simply browbeat debates to death with their views. Most normal people just give up.

Cheerful Spring2

The Nal wrote: »

The stamina is fascinating.

Double standards. Hulsey draft report when it was released was not taken seriously. Why is NIST draft paper any better, when they denied free fall?

Cheerful Spring2

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Your interpretation of it is wrong.

This is not about "convincing" you of anything

You are claiming some inside job happened, you haven't demonstrated that at all, quite the contrary your "story" changes a lot

A military plane hit the Pentagon, then it didn't. Larry Silverstein blew up WTC 7, then he didn't.

You aren't making any case.

It not wrong. I can quote there statements and have before. You just don't see the problem and why their theory then ruling out freefall is a problem for truthers.

Dohnjoe

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

Double standards. Hulsey draft report when it was released was not taken seriously. Why is NIST draft paper any better, when they denied free fall?

It's incredible. Neverending denial of an investigation in order to hint at something vague and unsupported

Dohnjoe

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

It not wrong.

By definition it's wrong.

The building fell due to fire. You are attempting to revise historically accepted fact with a theory that exists only in your head.

Okay, cool, but when we ask for the theory you immediately start this bizarre behaviour

This is not normal

King Mob

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

You provided their revision explantation for freefall.
What do they say on video about freefall in Aug 2008?
Provide their theory about it then.
Can you not do that or just afraid to be proven wrong?

No, I just know that you're going to run away the second you realise you can't address it.

So, in the video you keep posting, when they refer to freefall, they are referring to the building as a whole freefalling.
At the time, the popular conspiracy theory belief was that the building as a whole fell completely at freefall from the start of the collapse. This can be shown in conspiracy movies like "Loose Change" and in many older threads here where many conspiracy theorists claim this and/or claim the building fell in around 7 seconds. (Ie. the time it would take the building as a whole to collapse if it was falling at free fall for the entire time.)

So when they talk about freefall in the video you keep posting, when they say "the building didn't free fall" they mean that "the building as a whole did not fall entirely at free fall."
This is something you've agreed with at points.
And this is correct as the building took much longer than 7 seconds to fall.
If the building took longer than 7 seconds to fall this means it didn't free fall all the way down.

Nothing about the statement excludes the idea that part of the building fell at free fall.
Nothing about the statement excludes the idea that the building or part of the building fell at free fall for a part of the collapse.

Now I've tried to make that as clear and simple as I could.
In your response, simple point out what part of that you believe is incorrect and why.

I'm betting however, you're going to start deflecting again.

Cheerful Spring2

Dohnjoe wrote: »

It's incredible. Neverending denial of an investigation in order to hint at something vague and unsupported

NIST denied freefall in Aug 2008 on video. Video of people who did the investigation!.. It not a person opinion. NIST said on video that was unlikely and then listed the reasons why freefall was not possible. Debunkers of course don't look at this, as evidence of a cover up.

Dohnjoe

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

NIST denied freefall in Aug 2008 on video. Video of people who did the investigation!

Repeating something you misinterpreted over and over doesn't make it any more true.

There is a simple explanation, but you don't want to accept for whatever reasons.

As mentioned this isn't about convincing you, but you keep trying to twist it that way

Cheerful Spring2

King Mob wrote: »

No, I just know that you're going to run away the second you realise you can't address it.

So, in the video you keep posting, when they refer to freefall, they are referring to the building as a whole freefalling.
At the time, the popular conspiracy theory belief was that the building as a whole fell completely at freefall from the start of the collapse. This can be shown in conspiracy movies like "Loose Change" and in many older threads here where many conspiracy theorists claim this and/or claim the building fell in around 7 seconds. (Ie. the time it would take the building as a whole to collapse if it was falling at free fall for the entire time.)

So when they talk about freefall in the video you keep posting, when they say "the building didn't free fall" they mean that "the building as a whole did not fall entirely at free fall."
This is something you've agreed with at points.
And this is correct as the building took much longer than 7 seconds to fall.
If the building took longer than 7 seconds to fall this means it didn't free fall all the way down.

Nothing about the statement excludes the idea that part of the building fell at free fall.
Nothing about the statement excludes the idea that the building or part of the building fell at free fall for a part of the collapse.

Now I've tried to make that as clear and simple as I could.
In your response, simple point out what part of that you believe is incorrect and why.

I'm betting however, you're going to start deflecting again.

Wrong. David Chandler told them the time on that video. NIST denied that time because of a single data point. They claimed it fell "40 percent slower" then freefall on video. There was no freefall accounted for in their scenario over the 18 stories.

NIST even went further and said a freefall time would mean there was no structural components below to slow the fall!

What their research showed in Aug 2008, was the freefall event was off by 40 percent and the structural model could not account for that slower time.

NIST again explantation.
That's not unusual that time would be longer because there was structural resistance underneath slowing the fall and sequence of failures needed to happen first (progressive collapse) and none of the failures occurred instantaneously. NIST calculations ruled out freefall if you listen to the video and there model could come up with a scenario to have the freefall.

Dohnjoe

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

Wrong.

It's not wrong

Why do you feel so threatened by logic that you have to react like this?

King Mob

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

Wrong.

See, I asked you to do one thing and you didn't and now you're running off on tangents to deflect.

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

David Chandler told them the time on that video. NIST denied that time because of a single data point.

Wrong.

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

They claimed it fell 40 per cent slower then freefall on video.

So what is the correct percentage? Or did the building fall at 100% free fall?

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

There was no freefall accounted for in their scenario over the 18 stories.

Meaningless sentence.

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

NIST even went further and said a freefall time would mean there was no structural components below to slow the fall.

Again, you are misinterpreting and ignoring things so you can keep repeating this point.

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

What their research showed in Aug 2008, was freefall event was off by 40 per cent and structural model could not account for that slower time.

Wrong.

Cheerful Spring2

Dohnjoe wrote: »

It's not wrong

Why do you feel so threatened by logic that you have to react like this?

Watch the video and show me Where I misquoted them.