1. Tony Szamboti

    Tony Szamboti Active Member

    Given the clear evidence of pertinent structural feature omissions in the NIST WTC 7 report that have come to light, I would think that if you are by chance an honest arbiter of reality you would temporarily suspend your attempts to justify other aspects of the present official explanations for what occurred in NYC on Sept. 11, 2001.

    The omissions in the NIST WTC 7 report and the fraudulent behavior by the Journal of Engineering Mechanics and ASCE Journals in general have been shown and they put everything else they have said on the matter in doubt. It is the published pronouncements of these two entities on the issue that form the basis of the present official story, so it is now very much in doubt in a very real and tangible way.
    Last edited: Jan 22, 2014
  2. Tony Szamboti

    Tony Szamboti Active Member

    With the present official story now thrown very much into doubt, with the somewhat recent revelations of the NIST WTC 7 report structural feature omissions and the ASCE Journals' refusal to publicly correct Zdenek Bazant's errors, some seem to think they have an alternative natural collapse theory which would preclude controlled demolition as the only viable hypothesis. Jeffrey seems to be one of those. However, there always seems to be a fly in Jeffrey's ointment. In this case, you have identified one with the fact that most of the core columns could not have been severed and would therefore not be hanging from the hat truss and not collapse as a result of those connections breaking. However, there is an additional fly in Jeffrey's ointment here, as the core columns were joined at every story by beams with moment connections. In the case of the North Tower, the severed columns would not have simply been hanging from the hat truss but would have also been supported for 12 stories by beams from unsevered columns. A good example of this is that the perimeter columns above the impact hole in the north face of the North Tower were supported by adjacent columns and the spandrel beams from every story above the break and were not simply hanging from the top.

    What is interesting here is that Jeffrey's hypotheses continue to evolve in what seems to be an attempt to escape the serious criticisms they receive. Previously, Jeffrey had insisted that the core load was applied to the perimeter columns through the hat truss and is what caused them to buckle, instead of the controlled demolition hypothesis point that it was the core collapse at the 98th floor that pulled the perimeter inward at the 98th floor. He apparently has abandoned that part of his theory after he was shown in no uncertain terms that the hat truss outriggers and their connections to the perimeter could not possibly handle the moment load applied by the core over the 35 and 60 foot arms from the core to the perimeter.

    I have to conclude that Jeffrey simply refuses to accept the much more viable controlled demolition hypothesis and has been feverishly working to develop an alternative to the now discredited official story so he can maintain that delusion. Unfortunately, reality keeps getting in the way of his efforts and invariably exposes the flaws in his arguments.
    Last edited: Jan 22, 2014
  3. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    You can keep repeating this spin Tony, but that does not make it not spin. Even if you have valid points regarding NIST's omission, that does not "throw the entire story into doubt", it simply raises a grey area in one aspect of the story.

    I know there's a huge push from AE911 to frame this story as if suddenly every single word in the NIST reports is invalid. But that's simply not true, and seems rather disingenuous. I feel a less hysterical approach would have been more productive. I would like to hear a detailed answer from NIST to the points raised - but I'm afraid this vast oversimplification and false focus will just be seen as PR, and not honest investigation:
  4. Hitstirrer

    Hitstirrer Active Member

    The 'points raised' are significant and far from an oversimplification. Its the domino effect. NIST's entire hypothesis was based on the girder spanning 79 to 44 on the 13th floor dropping - taking the floor area there down and causing more lower floors to fail leaving 79 laterally unsupported - buckling - and causing global collapse. If the first domino doesnt fall then the whole sequence cannot occur. I realise that you will immediately say that it must have been some other initiation event then. But what if that alternative, and less attractive theory to NIST, is also deeply flawed ? And it must be borne in mind that observation shows that initiation was in the area they have focussed on.

    This is a long way from a 'false focus' as you claim. It is fundamental to the entire report. No girder drop - no cascade of floors - no buckle - no initiation at this place.
  5. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    But that's the problem. We discussed this at length before. You seem to be saying that NIST claim that if this particular connection did not fail in this way, then the building would not have collapse. Now if they were saying that, then you might have a point.

    But really what they are doing is offering up this particular connection failure as a plausible initiation point. They are quite clear on saying they don't know exactly what happened, and probably never will. This is just the type of thing that they think likely happened. They don't say the floors would have not collapsed if that particular failure mode was invalid.

    You know the simulations don't actually have that girder drop as the initiating event?
    Last edited: Jan 22, 2014
  6. OneWhiteEye

    OneWhiteEye Active Member

    What an interesting thing to say.

    I don't see myself as attempting to justify anything about the official explanations. I must have 100,000+ words critical of Bazant under my belt. I haven't been all that kind to NIST, either. I avoid political aspects for the most part but, whenever I speak of the 9/11 Commission report, I trash it. It seems you equate criticism of CT talking points and your work with justification of the official story. They are not the same thing.

    I call it as I see it. I'm very laxed about a lot of things, but for some things (particularly scientific and technical work) I try to apply pretty high standards. The more important it is, generally, the higher the standard. I consider this stuff important or I wouldn't have spent so much time of my life on it. If I see something I believe is in error, I'll call it out. Doesn't matter which "side" it comes from.

    I didn't lay off Bazant or NIST just because I believe some of your arguments are wrong. From what you're saying, I get the impression that's what you'd expect. I'm sorry, but that's odd. When it comes to the areas I understand WELL, there are SO many problems with arguments coming from all sides. I can shut up - which I do most of the time - or join in.

    It might be fair to ask why I nag you and not NIST. Mostly because you're more accessible. If it helps any, I consider NIST beyond hope, but not you. They have institutional inertia AND hoardes of truthers banging on their door saying everything from totally insane nonsense to cogent engineering critique. Then there's the fact that NIST has never dissed me and my work, or tried to sweep an inconvenient argument aside because I'm anonymous.

    I find it even more interesting that you never seem to criticize the more outlandish stuff because it discredits you by association (like it or not). While I've clawed at your work like a Tasmanian devil, it's still true that YOU and a very few others are unquestionably the best your side has going for it. That's why I address it. I've only stooped to taking on Judy Wood ONCE, with Deets, and I gave him a piece of my mind for having nudged me to go there.

    I never hear ANY of you say a single discouraging word about CT hoopla which you'll privately confess is BS.

    I knew the flaws in NIST's motion history - intimately - well before David Chandler did his thing. And, as much as I dislike David Chandler and his so-called work, I was very pleased that he stuck it to them there. Of course, I also know that Chandler's analysis, while better, is still not very good. And so, in frustration, I see aspects of this debate anneal into opposing positions neither of which are very well-formed. There's little that can be done to remedy that situation except speak my mind in places like this.

    Now you want me to suspend the half directed at you.
    Last edited: Jan 22, 2014
    • Like Like x 2
  7. OneWhiteEye

    OneWhiteEye Active Member

    In fact, I've caught NIST looking at threads by Greening and me more than once.
  8. OneWhiteEye

    OneWhiteEye Active Member

    Do you still do mechanics the way you did in the first release of TMJ?
  9. Jeffrey Orling

    Jeffrey Orling Active Member

    It wasn't a one or two story drop... it was the dropping of 12 stories of OOS floors.

    There was no rapid horizontal progression.

    You obviously don't know what the model I proposed is.
  10. Jeffrey Orling

    Jeffrey Orling Active Member

    I will later...
  11. Tony Szamboti

    Tony Szamboti Active Member

    I don't agree with the concept of someone being discredited "by association". It is a fallacy and has no standing in anything. Its only purpose seems to be for propaganda.

    Those who use pseudonyms don't have to worry about any of that, because nobody knows who they are or who they associate with. Of course, they don't have any standing either, and seem to be used for propaganda purposes also.
    Last edited: Jan 22, 2014
  12. Tony Szamboti

    Tony Szamboti Active Member

    So are you now saying your ROOSD started right away with the initial 12 story upper section drop?

    I am not sure what video you are watching or if it is even of the North Tower collapse, if you don't see a rapid horizontal propagation at the 98th floor.

    I thought I understood your model as you explained it to the poster named Hitstirrer. Maybe you need to explain it better.
  13. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    Purpose? It has no "purpose", it's just a thing that inevitably happens. If someone sees you associating with discredited people, then it's going to rub off on you. People don't need to do it on purpose.
    • Like Like x 1
    • Agree Agree x 1
  14. Tony Szamboti

    Tony Szamboti Active Member

    Well Mick, it is something I have tried hard in my life not to practice. I prefer to listen to an individual and judge them based on their own words rather than someone else's or to assume that they have a problem because of who they know.

    It really shouldn't matter here, as the official reports have indeed come under legitimate scrutiny with the discovery of the omissions in the NIST WTC 7 report and the ASCE Journals' refusal to correct Zdenek Bazant's errors publicly after they were alerted to them.

    I am not sure why ridiculous concepts like "discredited by association" have even crept into this thread, which is about the NIST omissions. It looks like things need to be policed a little here to keep it on topic.
    Last edited: Jan 22, 2014
  15. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    That's great. However we are not talking about me and you here, we are talking about the perception of other people. It's all very well being saddened by the moral and intellectual failings of others - but you have to deal with it.

    Again, the point is that people are going to take these NIST-related objection less seriously because of who makes them. That's simple reality. Frown at it all you will, you still have to deal with it. And I think it has not been dealt with very well here, and that lessens the chance of a rigorous response.
  16. OneWhiteEye

    OneWhiteEye Active Member

    Once again, I have to ask you - is that all you have to say in response?
    Fallacious or otherwise, that's a fact of life, which is why I included the parenthetical "like it or not."

    This is true, can't deny it and wouldn't try. Anonymity is far more frequently used to unfair advantage when it comes to ridicule, aggressive behavior, and so on. All of which describe an debate opponent operating outside the bounds of logic, evidence and reason anyway. It happens all the time all over the place. I just had an interesting discussion about this very thing with Rob Balsamo.

    That's not the sort of thing which has transpired between us, so I consider it irrelevant. Would you claim otherwise? I can dig up the links to every interaction we've had. They haven't always been pleasant, but I challenge you to find ONE case where my argument consisted of anything other than legitimate forms of argumentation, the correctness of which can be objectively determined independent of my identity. It would certainly be fallacious to contend that the truth of the message depends on the messenger, wouldn't you agree?

    You have. With me.

    Last edited: Jan 22, 2014
  17. OneWhiteEye

    OneWhiteEye Active Member

    ... until you use anonymity as an excuse to avoid facing a difficult argument.

    How can you say this after all the fuss you've made about anonymity right up to the present? Association is ALL about identity. And association is not "who you know" but "who you hang with"; it's the people you endorse either explicitly or implicitly through absolute refusal to disassociate. Like Mick said, it's inevitable. It's not legitimate, but it's there. Just like your belief that physics or engineering (or otherwise sound objective) arguments can be dismissed on the basis of anonymity alone.

    Tarring by association is actually a sideshow in this discussion. Am I right? It is comfortable, that's for sure. Oh wait, you were just about to say that.

    There are a whole heap of primary points and objections you could choose to address, as opposed to a couple of asides.
    Last edited: Jan 22, 2014
  18. Jeffrey Orling

    Jeffrey Orling Active Member

    My model which I call sink hole top drop or SHTD demonstrates a continuous phase shift not distinct phase changes... call it blending of one mechanism into another... there are multiple mechanisms in play not a single one during the shift from one to another.

    At the beginning you have several columns severed and loss of a portion of axial support.
    You have fires started on multiple floors and over a large portion of the footprint including the core are which up there had few elevator shafts

    The severed columns led to the immediate drop of the columns above the severed sections. This included portions of the floors attached and framed into those dropped columns.

    The dropped columns left parts of floors hanging from the adjacent non severed columns.

    The fires then began to heat the steel braces and columns. The significant affect was the heated bracing pushing at the columns in the direction of the severed missing column line which had dropped. Over time this elongation managed to fair to unrestrained column to column connections and displace the upper or lower column to the point of mis alignment which of course cause the same sort of 12 story of so column drop. Wash rinse and repeat. The hole was growing larger and larger inside the core leaving only the perimeter core columns which were supporting the inboard side of the OOS flooring

    But the perimeter core suffered the same fate as the interior or the core.... one by one they were pushed inward breaking way from the belt girder which was supported by multiple core columns. When there was inadequate support for the belt girder... not enough perimeter core columns remaining... it rapidly shifts into the next phase - top drop

    This is evidenced by the buckling of the hat truss which was now spanning across the entire core supported basically by 12 columns with many of them severed or dropped.

    In the last moments before top drop the remain core columns saw the entire 12 stories or floor loads and they buckled under that load releasing in one fell swoop all the OOS floors up to the roof from about floor 98. There is a massive outburst of materials and flames as those 12 floors come crashing down inside the facade.

    In the collapse of those 12 OOS floors, the facade just before the floors broke loose the facade saw 100% of the OOS floor loads and buckled the columns of the facade all around the collapse zone. The tearing away of the facade jostled the entire facade and pushed it laterally and tilted it a bit and then the unsupported facade came done displaced onto the ends of the facade of the standing section slicing them away and apart where they dropped more or less straight down. I don't think any facade panels peeled and feel far from the footprint... the slip and dropped.

    What we can't see and what I am suggesting is that the core destruction was significant and ongoing as soon as the fire began heating up the bracing. I don't believe any the severed core columns were able to hang from the hat truss nor the rather flimsy braces carry them as cantilevers. There was no load significant redistribution via the core bracing.

    That's what I see and how I explain what I see.
    • Like Like x 1
  19. Quantumbeliever

    Quantumbeliever Banned Banned

    I found Tony's response evened, reasonable, and quite on point. I saw absolutely no "hysteria" anywhere in his claim. I completely agree that if any of the "go to" organization's methodology or conclusions can be called questionable, it is reasonable to assume that other portions of their work might be flawed. It was our own Government after all that claimed the NIST report as completely factual. Call me a cynic. Maybe I just am a little less trusting of our pals in DC than the average citizen.
  20. WeedWhacker

    WeedWhacker Senior Member

    OK...I just now went to page one (the "OP") of this thread, and downloaded the PDF.

    Two immediate things jumped out at me:

    (1) The OP has been "Banned"

    (2) the PDF is written by "Dr. William F. Barrister (non prac.)"

    I infer the "(non prac.)" to mean, "NOT PRACTICING".

    At this point, I lose interest............

    ETA: "Anyone" might wish to write a letter to any organization of their choosing, and subsequently post it on the Internet.....this doesn't immediately convey "significance" to that person, who made the post!
  21. Redwood

    Redwood Active Member

    Once again, there's nothing to stop anyone from publishing a paper arguing in favor of another theory. But the notion that a court of law would review an engineering paper is pure nonsense.
    • Agree Agree x 2
  22. jaydeehess

    jaydeehess Senior Member

    It can be noted that the letter threatens both a lawsuit and calling upon the credibility of European engineering community to shame NIST.
    These were to be carried out if the OIG and NIST ignore the points presented or refuse to address them with a new investigation.

    In fact we are now coming up on six months since the letter was written and have had a response which specifically states that NIST will not be revisiting their analysis or the report.

    There seems , however, to be no action being taken by AE911T that could be construed as fulfilling either of those threats.

    Perhaps T.Szamboti could return and tell us what comes next.
    • Like Like x 1
    • Agree Agree x 1
  23. Jason

    Jason Senior Member

    Just out of curiosity, why don't the people who disagree with the NIST report or 911 commission report fund their own research and investigation. It seems like most of these CTers or "groups" spend their time picking apart the NIST report instead using their time to perform their own investigation. I for one would welcome a new investigation, so long as its done in a "truly" scientific manner. Its a lot easier to pick apart someone elses work, but its another thing to run your own experiments and validate your theories, or accept that your theories can't be validated.
    Last edited: May 27, 2014
    • Like Like x 1
  24. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    See here:

    The responses seemed to be A) Why should we, that's NIST's job? and B) We do a little, but Richard Gage and our big donors are more into billboards and other publicity.
    • Like Like x 1
    • Agree Agree x 1
  25. Jason

    Jason Senior Member

    I see you estimated that the 9-11 truth fund brings in about 500k a year, so in your opinion Mick what would it cost them to put together a "real" investigation, so that they can prove or dissprove their conclusions. I know it wouldn't be feasable for them to build sky scrapers, but what size model could they use to re-enact the events that unfolded on 9-11. I'm sure most anyone would love to peer review their research as well.
  26. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    That's not an estimate, that's from their tax return.

    Really I think they claim to have so many people, they could do one nearly for free on their own time. But I suspect they should at least be able to get some of their claims independently confirmed for a few thousand each. They don't need to redo everything, all they need is confirmation of one glaring error - then pay some independent consultants to verify the error.
    • Agree Agree x 3
  27. Efftup

    Efftup Senior Member

    If you call your organisation "______________" for truth then perhaps you should try and seek out the truth instead of simply trying to reinforce your own firmly held beliefs.

    Chris Mohr raised enough money ($1000-$1500) to get James Millette to do an analysis of red/gray chips. This sort of money is pocket change to AE911T.

    I think the letter in the OP was more about Ego and publicity than actually trying to achieve anything. In many respects, they make more money and inflate their egos more with NIST NOT doing another investigation cos they can continually call for another one. Any new investigation that STILL suggests their arguments are ridiculous will just be seen as proof of a cover up (as others have mentioned)
    • Agree Agree x 2
    • Like Like x 1
  28. WeedWhacker

    WeedWhacker Senior Member

    "Amen" to that!!!
    • Like Like x 2
  29. wotgorilla

    wotgorilla Member

    For what it's worth, I've head the scale model idea won't work because you can't scale gravity. Makes perfect sense to me, but I'm not a SE.
  30. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    It's the square-cube law that's the problem. Not just related to gravity.

    They could build models of specific area of interest, like one floor around C79 in WTC7.

    But really the way to go would be computer models
  31. Efftup

    Efftup Senior Member

    but the problem with computer models is just how accurately you CAN model things, with so many unknowns. For a "truther" it makes it very easy to say that something has been omitted or misrpresented in the model.
    For someone looking for the actual truth,you just have to accept that there are so many unknowns in the whole seriously complex situation that you have to admit that you end up making best guess assumptions to program into the model., and everything will be as close an approximation as you can reasonably get.
  32. jaydeehess

    jaydeehess Senior Member

    NIST is wrong
    ASCE is wrong.
    Journal of Engineering Mechanics is wrong
    I suppose the CBTUH is also wrong, and the AIA simply cowed into not supporting Gage's accusations.

    Oh, wait,,,, you luv the CBTUH because they had questions for NIST and you just gloss over the fact that they state in no uncertain terms that they see no credibility "whatsoever" in any conspiracy theory. You won't decry the AIA's lack of support because Gage puts those letters behind his name at every opportunity.
    • Agree Agree x 1
  33. Cube Radio

    Cube Radio Member

    This is true, but it is reasonable to expect the computer modelling effort to at least attempt to model the part of the event that is of most interest. In this respect NIST falls at the first hurdle, as it did not remotely attempt to model the part of the collapse where the building dropped with free-fall acceleration as a single unit. Instead it hypothesised an "internal" collapse and used a computer model to support this hypothesis, but stopped the model long before the "facade" could be demonstrated to fall in a manner even approximating what was seen. So NIST actually proved nothing, at vast public expense.

    In terms of the World Cup, this would be like FIFA investing millions in goal-line technology to help adjudicate in controversial goal-mouth decisions but, if there is a case where there is any debate about whether or not the ball has gone into the goal, refusing to run their high-tech recordings to the point where the ball approached the goal line and instead stopping their simulations while the ball is still upfield.
    • Disagree Disagree x 3
  34. Jeffrey Orling

    Jeffrey Orling Active Member

    I don't consider myself a person who carries water for NIST. But the entire building 7 did not drop as a unit / whole in free fall or as rate of acceleration. It came apart and dropped over time... the entire upper part. Clearly the EPH and the WPH came down before what we see and YOU confuse and assume to be the entire building. YOU ARE WRONG.

    But of course the "entire building" dropping at ff is the central dogma for the truther claim of CD which they then fantasize that 81 columns over 8 stories where "simultaneously" removed (CD) removing any resistance which would show as the top dropping at free fall.

    But we can even see in time motion studies AND the north wall kink during the drop that the motion was NOT simply a smooth FF descent.

    Truthers refuse (for the obvious reason) to see the event accurately... and this enables their fantasy.
    • Like Like x 1
  35. Cube Radio

    Cube Radio Member

    However, that is precisely what you are doing.
    Whatever you say, Jeffrey, whatever you say. My point still stands: NIST's model did not come anywhere near (in terms of timeline) the part of the collapse which raises the most questions and is the principle source of controversy -- which is of course the part where the building enters freefall acceleration in its descent into total (not partial) destruction.
    • Disagree Disagree x 2
  36. Jeffrey Orling

    Jeffrey Orling Active Member

    I don't carry water for NIST. I don't support their model or the animation or their basic explanation as to the intiating cause of any of the collapses.

    In fact I don't care what NIST says and use only the observations, knowledge of the structure and the most basic physics and engineering concept to explain the motion and the collapses.

    The structure did not crush itself...
    in the twins... damage caused the release of mass.... PART of the structure to descend on the floor plates which could not resist the dynamic loads and all floors collapsed one after the other. The columns WERE NOT crushed but made unstable after the floors plates were destroyed. They toppled from what is called Euler forces...

    If you refuse to accurately SEE what is taking place... you can't explain it.
  37. Jason

    Jason Senior Member

    But the tower(s) didn't fall at free fall speed, if so the buildings would've hit the ground with a force of 300mph and in less than 8 seconds. https://www.metabunk.org/threads/de...s-third-law-of-motion.3683/page-5#post-107330

    • Like Like x 1
    • Agree Agree x 1
  38. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

  39. jaydeehess

    jaydeehess Senior Member

    The greatest interest would be how the internal collapse progressed thus resulting in global collapse. THAT is what the FEA modeled. So wheres the beef?
    No, why would the FINAL few seconds of collapse be the most significant? As JO noted above, your characterization is also grossly in error. That's like saying that in a car accident one needs to understand the dynamics of the car being torn apart in order to understand how the accident occurred.
    Again, no. An internal collapse was patently evident with the collapse inward of the EPH, then the more western rooftop structures, and the north face "kink".
    NIST then analyzed the effect of how the failure of various columns would have on the EPH. It was determined that the best fit to observation of the infalling of the EPH was failure of column 79. The collapse FEA then considered its starting point to be a failure of column 79.

    The FEA demonstrated an internal collapse prior to global collapse in a fashion that did in fact resemble what was observed. You seem to believe that there was no FEA performed at all and that the animated internal collapse was simply manufactured.
    To expect that with the additive effect of uncertainties, that the FEA would be or could be completely accurate as to gross building response near the end of the collapse progression, is ridiculous.

    Taking it further, NIST investigated how column 79 could fail. The ONLY proximate causes in evidence were the impact damage from the collapse of WTC2 and more to the point, WTC1; and the unfought fires in WTC7 itself.
    Impact damage to the south side did not include enough evidence to suggest that it was a primary factor in the much later progressive collapse. There was scant evidence that impact damage had reached the building core, basically only that one elevator car had been ejected from its shaft.
    So the other factor, fire damage was considered. To that end one looks for fires that occur in the vicinity of column 79. The most prominent being that on floor 11,12,13. A fire Sim program was used to determine heat in that area and it was determined that direct heating of column 79 was insufficient, in itself, to cause the column to be close to failure. However, floor failure would remove lateral support for the column. A mechanism by which this could occur was found, movement of the girder between col 79 and 44.
    In addition, the investigation found that col 79 moved a short distance to the east due to other members expanding.
    So, col 79 is hot but not hot enough to directly cause it to fail AND it likely bowed to the east at the fire level due to expansion of horizontal structural members, AND the girder between col 79 / 44 was also being pushed in the opposite direction. There may well have been several other smaller effects , such as the effect of the south side column damages, that contributed to the girder coming off its seat.

    Jeffrey Orling has a different scenario which definitely also could match the EPH in falling. That is the failure of TT1 and the consequent failure of columns attached to it. My sole beef with this is that there is no demonstrable proximate cause of a TT1 failure, and that is why NIST did not consider it "most probable", which is how all of their scenarios are characterized.

    Now you know.
    Last edited: Jun 14, 2014
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • Informative Informative x 1
  40. Cube Radio

    Cube Radio Member

    Again, the fact that the NIST computer animation is stopped long before it could reach the point in the collapse where it might model the period of freefall acceleration in the total destruction of the building is indisputable. If you choose to deny that this part of the collapse has not been a focus of particular interest by reason of the evident period of freefall acceleration, that is your prerogative: it does not, however, alter the fact.