'debunker' tooltime wrong on facts

tooltime9901 mentions only *one* matter of fact in his video dismissing skeptics of the official government-approved conspiracy theory, and tooltime gets it wrong.

Since tooltime thinks 'freefall speed' is "crap" he thus discredits the NIST investigation and most of the OCT 'experts' who all describe the demolition of the skyscrapers in NY in terms of free fall.

NIST's FAQ response to free fall inquiry:

"...the momentum of the 12 to 28 stories (WTC 1 and WTC 2, respectively) falling on the supporting structure below so greatly exceeded the strength capacity of the structure below that it (the structure below) was unable to stop or even to *slow* the falling mass."

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm

A falling object that is not stopped or slowed by anything is in free fall.

Category:

Education

Tags:

• tooltime
• wrong
• on
• facts
• proudfootz
• owns
• tooltime9901
• free
• fall
• freefall
• admitted
• by
• nist
• faq
• false
• premise
• conclusion

[Algonquien]

proudfootz....it doesn't matter what proof you reference to support your claim if the claim itself is false. The source of material is not the problem - it's the conclusion you reach from the material that is flawed. Following statement is incorrect:

@ 3:00 "if you drop something and doesn't get stopped or slowed it's in freefall"

Since a claim based on a fictitious formula / basis can't be substantiated, the notion is trumped before any method can be applied. *you fail to back the claim*

[antonfilth]

@proudfootz because he's trolling on every 9/11 video :)

[proudfootz]

@AstronautJ

If you read the post carefully you'll have a chance of understanding what is meant.

[AstronautJ]

@proudfootz "I don't think they were demolished at freefall acceleration."

So you think the report is inaccurate and disagree with people you call "world-class engineers".

Cool.

[proudfootz]

@fascistcat

I have only stated that world-class engineers have used the term 'freefall' to emphasize the amazing speed with which these landmark buildings were annihilated.

As I have repeatedly written - I don't think they were demolished at freefall acceleration.

Why do you willfully ignore what I write?

[fascistcat]

@proudfootz Did you watch the video ( watch?v=xf6-Ln_8LPY ) ? It's only 29 seconds and CLEARLY demonstrates that the collapse was not at free-fall speeds. Nobody has ever seen the last 50 stories come down because they are obscured by the debris cloud.

I don't care who 'tooltime' is or what he's said, I'm asking you to be honest. I don't care about Bazant or NIST. Watch the video and post whether you still believe Tower Two fell at free-fall speeds.

Or, is this 'willful ignorance?'

[proudfootz]

@fascistcat

Not peddling anything - except the truth of the matter.

When people like tooltime go on a rant about 'freefall' they are undermining the credibility of Bazant and NIST - the very experts whose fire-did-it theories we're supposed to be taking seriously.

So, yes - tooltime is being stupid.

[fascistcat]

@proudfootz Well, stop using it. It's intentionally misleading. NIST was talking about the initial drop of the upper stories. They were not talking about the avalanche of debris blasting through the lower floors.

Is there one factual error in my summation of the video ( watch?v=xf6-Ln_8LPY ) that I listed? You must have seen these videos before, so why keep peddling this "free-fall" nonsense? Besides, 'The Spire' is never mentioned by FF-ers (free-fallers).

Stop it. Stop it. Stop it.

[proudfootz]

@fascistcat

All the experts - like the world-class engineers at NIST and Zdenek P. Bazant use the term 'free fall' to describe the incredible speed of the destruction.

While I don't think it's actually equal to free fall acceleration in a vacuum, absolute free fall is not required of demolitions either.

[fascistcat]

This free-fall thing is stupid. The Towers did not collapse unimpeded at free-fall acceleration as you can plainly see in this video ( watch?v=xf6-Ln_8LPY ).

It's obvious because debris from the upper floors passes the 'cascading failure' of the floor decking. Large sections of the building are crashing all around and even dust (which has a lower terminal velocity) is coming down around the still-standing structure.

The structure is obscured, you are speculating. Stop it. All of you.

[proudfootz]

@blackjerryboymetal

Sorry, but it's tooltime who's exposed himself as a fool.

...figures that's the very thing you agree with him on.