WTC7 in Freefall

This relates to a video I posted on the YouTube AE911truth channel ( ) and a related question I posed to Shyam Sunder in the August 26 Tech Briefing (with his answer):

Regarding the video:
Contrary to the August 2008 NIST report on WTC7, the acceleration of Building 7 has been measured and is found to be indistinguishable from the acceleration of gravity over a period of about 2.5 seconds during the fall. Freefall indicates zero resistance. It also indicates that the energy of the falling mass is not available to do work on the lower structure (i.e. such things as breaking, bending, crushing, etc.) A video detailing the measurement process and commenting on the results is posted on the AE911Truth YouTube channel, accessible through The video responds to the recently released NIST WTC7 document.

Regarding the Q & A at the Tech Briefing:

My question:
"Any number of competent measurements using a variety of methods indicate the northwest corner of WTC 7 fell with an acceleration within a few percent of the acceleration of gravity. Yet your report contradicts this, claiming 40% slower than freefall based on a single data point. How can such a public, visible, easily measurable quantity be set aside?"

Dr. Shyam Sunder replies:

"Could you repeat the question?"

[the question is repeated by the moderator, leaving out the word, "competent" as well as the last sentence]

" of all is the loading function that applies to the every body...every...uh...on...all bodies this particular...on this planet not ground analysis shows a difference in time between a free fall time, a free fall time would be an object that has no...uh... structural components below it. And if you look at the analysis of the video it shows that the time it takes for the...17...uh...for the roof line of the video to collapse down the 17 floors that you can actually see in the video below which you can't see anything in the video is about...uh... 3.9 seconds. What the analysis shows...and...uh...the structural analysis shows, the collapse analysis shows that same time that it took for the structural model to come down from the roof line all the way for those 17 floors to disappear 5.4 seconds. It's...uh..., about one point...uh...five seconds or roughly 40% more time for that free fall to happen. And that is not at all unusual because there was structural resistance that was provided in this particular case. And you had a sequence of structural failures that had to take place and everything was not instantaneous."

Note that:
--He acknowledges that freefall can only occur if there is no structure under the falling section of the building.
--He acknowledges that their structural modeling predicts a fall slower than freefall.
--He acknowledges that there was structural resistance in this particular case.
--He acknowledges that there was a sequence of failures that had to take place and that this process was not instantaneous.

Thus, he acknowledges that their model is at variance with the observable fact that freefall actually occurred. Their response is to hold to their model, deny that freefall occurred, and put up a smokescreen of irrelevant measurements that obscure the reality.

This is a bookmark keeper!! Thanks!!

Excellent! Excellent!!

Good Work David. The video

Good Work David. The video and analysis are clear, provocative and challenging to the realm of official lies.

Excellent presentation. Can

Excellent presentation. Can you do the same sort of analysis for the Twin Towers? Also, I would like to know how true to real-time the time on the videos is. Both generally for the kinds of videos we have for 9/11 and specifically for those videos themselves. How reliable are they? If the vids are fundamentally reliable (especially as a group as there are quite a few), it seems inescapable that the buildings came down due to CD.

JFK on secrecy and the press

Nice Job

Nice work, and I fully agree with the conclusions you draw regarding NISTs motives. Either they are extremely incompetent beyond a third grader, or they are deliberately lying. I think it is obvious that the latter is true.

Wow, great detective work.

Well done. You brilliantly expose their use of irrelevant statistics to prove their bogus theory.

It is encouraging to know that there are some high school teachers, like you, who know their subject matter are really good at presenting it clearly.

Thank you David Chandler.

I learned something important from you.

Hooray For Real Science!

I can't tell you how appreciative a lot of people have got to be with you for putting this together.
How much longer can people take being told they didn't see something that they clearly saw and is now a part of recorded history? This country needs more Science teachers like you.

My new favorite video

The best one I've seen since "this is an orange."

I'd love to see this kind of analysis on WTC 1 & 2 as well except its pretty difficult to see the roof line through the massive billowing clouds of pulverizing concrete and hurling steel columns with smoke trails in the way.

Peace all..


First class presentation. I knew I should have taken physics in high school but they told me that that side of my brain didn't work.