Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?

[The Skeletal Atheist]

Lol wut?

The point here isn't that the wires and such would've been found, but rather that installing all of that while people are still working at the building and having no one at all notice is ridiculous to say the least. Can you covertly place bombs in a building? Certainly! Can you covertly place them in such a manner as to cause a controlled demolition? Hell no.

My comment was intended to say that, if I had wired a building for controlled demolition, I'd be nervous that 7 hours of out of control fire would damage the "miles of cables, wires, Primacord, connection junctions and who knows what else" so that they may not work as intended once it is finally time to bring down the building.

Even if an army of ninjas had rigged the building to blow, the fire would likely have destroyed some of their work.

Ah, ok then. :)

Yeah, it's not like the miles of cords, time delays, and other such things are the most robust system. If the timing is off by even a fraction of a second, or heaven forbid some of your cord has been knocked out by flying debris and fire for some odd reason, then your carefully planned demolition would end in failure.

[AllPurposeAtheist]

Are yous peoples still debating this? It was Obama.. everyone knows it. [-(

[The Skeletal Atheist]

Are yous peoples still debating this? It was Obama.. everyone knows it. [-(

It was reptilian Russian space Jews dumbass.

[AllPurposeAtheist]

Alright..it's solved once and for all. 911 was a Supertramp conspiracy. Don't believe in the Supertramp conspiracy? Fiest your grubby unbelievers eyes.  :shock: ..uhh...err..*feast*
http://www.salon.com/2014/01/21/how_sup ... cies_ever/

[AtheistMoFo]

Here, I found a link that talks alllll about various 9/11 "theories" and how ridiculous they are. Please read. They specifically address the "thermite theory" as well.
 http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/9/11_conspiracy_theories

On November 10, 2001, G.W. Bush said, "Let us never tolerate outrageous conspiracy theories concerning the attacks of September the 11th, malicious lies that attempt to shift the blame away from the terrorists themselves, away from the guilty."  And yet, that is exactly what has happened.  Some people subscribe to the mini-nuke theory, others say it was a satellite based particle beam weapon, and at least one person seems to buy into the "Godzilla did it" theory.

But of all the wacky theories, the one that has to be most outrageous of them all is the Osama bin Laden and his al qaeda gang.  One would think this RationalWiki website formed by a group of renegades who bolted from Conservapeda and whose self-stated purpose is to analyze and refute "pseudoscience", the "anti-science movement", and "crank ideas" would at least have picked up on the Godzilla theory.  But no, they don't mention Godzilla.  Nor do they mention the Al Qaeda theory.

I have presented a plausible explanation gathered from the facts; fuck NIST, they don't enter into it. Also, you have yet to present any evidence that explosives were planted in any of the buildings, not to mention explain how they got in there unnoticed, as well as how and why they thought planes would be needed to fake the whole thing. Your explanation of explosives also accounts for none of the events surrounding the plane that hit the Pentagon, nor the one that crashed in Pennsylvania that was headed for the Capitol Building. So don't give me this crap about "you don't get to say" such and such when you have presented less evidence than the people you are accusing.

Fuck NIST.  Okay, got it.

You have presented plausible evidence of nothing.  And perhaps you should take another look at the title of this thread.  The question is not HOW they smuggled the explosives into the buildings.  That would be a topic for a whole new thread.  If you really wanted to know, you would google it.  Then start your own new thread.  But, just like the investigators who did not find evidnece of controlled demolition because they did not LOOK for evidence of controlled demolition, you can't find an explanation of how the explosives got into the building because you don't look for an explanation.  A while back someone in this discussion mentioned jet fuel being in the building.  Why not ASK HIM how the jet fuel got into WTC 7?

My point was, has been, still is, and always will be that freefall is an impossibility according to the laws of physics unless ALL structural support is removed instantaneously.  Not gradually, but within a small fraction of a second.  And by that I mean ALL support columns would have to be removed across the whole building, evenly distributed, not just a column failing here, another over there a few minutes later, and another minutes after that.  You have not demonstrated how that is possible due only to normal office fires.  Show me evidence of YOUR theory.

Have you ever seen a wooden structure burn to the ground?  Wood has nowhere near the strength of concrete and steel.  Have you ever seen the entire wooden structure fall in one fell swoop?  Even a one or two story house, you will have beams falling apart here, and there, and when the whole thing comes crashing down, section by section, does it come down uniformly and at freefall acceleration?  I have never seen that happen.

In WTC 7 we are talking about the 18 story section that visibly came down at measurable freefall acceleration.  Explain that.

[The Skeletal Atheist]

measurable freefall acceleration

You keep on saying that as if it's a fact.

[AllPurposeAtheist]

Supertramp did it. Case closed.  

[AtheistMoFo]

I sought and I didn't find any official investigators who have challenged the official report. If I am wrong in that then please direct me to someone who actually worked compiling evidence at the scene who challenged the official report, maybe my Google-fu is rusty.

Good grief!  Private investigators find evidence of explosives but official investigators don't?  You are not implying a coverup, are you?
"...evidence would have been found if it existed even if they didn't look for it" is not very convincing considering that others (who DID look) found it.  Can you provide evidence that it would have been found even when not looking for it?  Come on now, if you are going to make the claim, back it up!

Can I ask a really dumb question? If they blew up the WTC with explosives, why the hell were they dumb enough to make it freefall when this is clearly evidence that explosives have been used and that's exactly what they were trying to avoid showing? :roll:

Excellent point, Plu.  Not dumb at all.  How about conducting a REAL investigation, find the criminals, and ASK them?

According to the Joseph Goebbels theory, "If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it."  But you will have to ask Goebbels for the proof.  (Except he's dead.)

I made a mistake and I admitted it. Which is more than you've done in this thread. Did you even try waiting for the PDF to load?

I did not admit making a mistake because I have not made one yet in this discussion.  When I do, I will admit it.  As for waiting for the PDF to download, my connection was indeed a bit slow earlier today -- 2.66 Mbps, but now it is back up to 20.38 Mbps, give or take.  I clicked on the link and went and did other stuff then came back.  1 hour 50 minutes and 20 seconds have elapsed as of this writing, but still no PDF.

Sometimes web browsers sneak those "suspected fraud" filters in on you when you are not looking, and they block sites on lists maintained by who knows who.  Will check my browser settings and try again later.

Here's a non-woo, non-conspiracy-nut explanation of the collapse.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uFJa9WUy5QI

Interesting.  The steel beam seen collapsing at about 00:45 did not collapse in a fraction of a second, though.  It would have been necessary for ALL the beams in WTC 7 to collapse at the very same instant, within a small fraction of a second of each other to bring the building down the way it came down.  Tell us *your* theory about how this would happen when only one side of the building was burning?  Everybody is asking me to prove this or that, so how about a little proof from your side, please?

[The Skeletal Atheist]

I sought and I didn't find any official investigators who have challenged the official report. If I am wrong in that then please direct me to someone who actually worked compiling evidence at the scene who challenged the official report, maybe my Google-fu is rusty.

Good grief!  Private investigators find evidence of explosives but official investigators don't?  You are not implying a coverup, are you?
"...evidence would have been found if it existed even if they didn't look for it" is not very convincing considering that others (who DID look) found it.  Can you provide evidence that it would have been found even when not looking for it?  Come on now, if you are going to make the claim, back it up!

Chemical analysis would have picked up trace amounts of the reactants of the explosives used, even if they weren't looking for it. Bombs aren't exactly the most subtle things, and they leave a shit ton of evidence in the form of chemical remains.

Imagine that I shot someone 50 times with a shotgun, then hid the body but didn't bother to clean up the blood spatter. If, on the next day, the cops raided my house looking for drugs do you think they would suddenly ignore the evidence that a murder took place because they weren't looking for evidence of murder?

As per "private investigators" finding evidence of explosives, if you're referring to "active nano-thermite particles" that's already been debunked in this thread.

If there's evidence of another type of explosive then please, don't hold out. Bring it to the table.

Excellent point, Plu. Not dumb at all. How about conducting a REAL investigation, find the criminals, and ASK them?

I know this is addressed to Plu but I just had to ask: what if your "REAL" investigation  came to the same conclusion that the official reports did? Would you call for a REAL REAL investigation?

I did not admit making a mistake because I have not made one yet in this discussion.

Lulz

[AtheistMoFo]

Then how about some math, bitch? We're all waiting with baited breath.

Already gave it to you.  Click the fucking links.  Or have someone who can read show you which link to click.

We're talking about an event that resulted in around 3000 people dying...

Another new on me!  
Most people think all the casualties were from the twin towers and the airplanes.  But 3000 deaths in Building No. 7?  
Show us the evidence, bitch.

When conspiracy nuts think that the entire building fell at freefall, they willfully disregard the fact that the penthouse collapsed about 8 seconds prior, which was a sign that the building was already falling.

Are you forgetting that in the video I posted in my OP David Chandler clearly addresses that point.  Thing is, Chandler times the ROOF of the building as it falls, and it does fall at freefall acceleration as is clearly visible in the video.  Saying that the ROOF begins to fall at the moment when the penthouse begins to fall is a blatant fallacy.  It would be like saying a bomb is *beginning to explode* the moment it is dropped from the hatch of the drone rather than the moment it hits a muslim woman in the head.

Oh, I just re-read what you wrote.  You were talking about "conspiracy nuts"! I thought you were referring to us.  
Disregard what I wrote.

And that it wasn't as complete as you'd like doesn't mean that it didn't collapse; it doesn't mean that WTC7 was demolished; and it doesn't mean that you're right. The collapse in this case was partial likely because some of the other redundant members of the building weren't damaged by a collapsing skyscraper next door. Had this building suffered from physical impact as well as fire damage then perhaps it would have collapsed more completely, or more uniformly. But the fact remains that despite your claim to the contrary, a steel-framed building has, in history, collapsed as a result of fire.

"...perhaps it would have collapsed more completely, or more uniformly."
OK.  And perhaps it would not have.  Perhaps is not proof.  Show us the proof.

But you are right about one thing.  From now on I should be more careful to specically say that no steel framed building has ever collapsed completely and uniformly at freefall acceleration due to fire.

PS to Jason78: I made a mistake.  I should have said "no steel framed building has ever collapsed completely and uniformly at freefall acceleration due to fire."

... twin towers...

Not entertaining questions about the twin towers at this time.  Too busy fighting off strawmen.  Maybe later.  If you want to ask questions about the twin towers, start your own thread.

Sorry, I misspoke. WTC 7 collapsed after being by the substantial debris flying out of WTC 1. See paragraph L.2.1

My turn to apologize.  Tried the link using an application other than Firefox and it did download.  Weird that Firefox would do that.  But I have the PDF now.
[spoil:3idrhjhy]L.2.1
Damage from WTC 1 and WTC 2 Collapses
To place the events leading to the global collapse of WTC 7 into context, it is helpful to summarize the
events of September 11, 2001:
8:46 a.m.
9:03 a.m.
9:59 a.m.
10:28 a.m.
5:21 p.m.
WTC 1 was struck by an aircraft
WTC 2 was struck by an aircraft
WTC 2 collapsed
WTC 1 collapsed
WTC 7 collapsed
After WTC 1 collapsed, the south face of WTC 7 was obscured by smoke, making direct observation of
damage from photographs or videos difficult or impossible. The source of the smoke is uncertain, as
large fires were burning in WTC 5 and WTC 6, as well as those noted below in WTC 7. The light but
prevalent winds from the northwest caused the smoke to rise on the leeward, or south, side of the
building. The following information about damage seen in WTC 7 was obtained from interviews of
people in or near the building:
After WTC 2 collapsed:
• Some south face glass panes were broken at lower lobby floors
• Dust covered the lobby areas at Floors 1 and 3
• Power was on in the building and phones were working
• No fires were observed
Reported close to time of WTC 1 collapse:
• East stair experienced an air pressure burst, filled with dust/smoke, lost lights
• West stair filled with dust/smoke, lost lights, swayed at Floors 29 through 30, and a crack was
   felt (in the dark) on the stairwell wall between Floors 27 through 28 and Floors 29 through 30
• Floors 7 and 8 had no power, air was breathable but not clear
•Phone lights on Floor 7 were on but could not call out
After WTC 1 collapsed:
• Heavy debris (exterior panels from WTC 1) was seen on Vesey Street and the WTC 7
   promenade structure at the third floor level
• Southwest corner damage extended over Floors 8 to 18
• Damage was observed on the south face that starts at the roof level and severed the spandrels
   between exterior columns near the southwest corner for at least 5 to 10 floors. However, the
  extent and details of this damage have not yet been discerned, as smoke is present.
• Damage to the south face was described by a number of individuals. While the accounts are
   mostly consistent, there are some conflicting descriptions:
? middle one-fourth to one-third width of the south face was gouged out from Floor 10 to
   the ground
? large debris hole near center of the south face around Floor 14
? debris damage across one-fourth width of the south face, starting several floors above the
   atrium (extended from the ground to 5th floor), noted that the atrium glass was still intact
? from inside the building at the 8th or 9th Floor elevator lobby, where two elevator cars
   were ejected from their shafts and landed in the hallway north of the elevator shaft, the
  visible portion of the south wall was gone with more light visible from the west side
 possibly indicating damage extending to the west
At 12:10 to 12:15 p.m.:
• Firefighters found individuals on Floors 7 and 8 and led them out of the building
• No fires, heavy dust or smoke were reported as they left Floor 8
• Cubicle fire was seen along west wall on Floor 7 just before leaving
• No heavy debris was observed in the lobby area as the building was exited, primarily white
   dust coating and black wires hanging from ceiling areas were observed
Photographs support some of these reports and show additional damage at the upper portions of the
building. Figure L–21 is an aerial view of WTC 7 after the collapse of WTC 1. There is no visible debris
on the roof; some minor damage is seen on the south side at the parapet wall. Figures L–22a and L–22b
show the reported damage between Floors 8 to 18 at the southwest corner. Much of the damage above
Floor 18 appears to be nonstructural. The black areas on the facade indicate areas of burned out fires.
Note the heavy smoke obstructing any observations along the south face. Study of this photograph
indicates that at least two exterior columns were severed. Figures L–23a and L–23b show the debris on
Vesey Street in front of WTC 7 after the collapse of WTC 1. The pedestrian bridge (L–23a) and the promenade (L–23b) appear to be standing, although damaged. Exterior panels from WTC 1 can be seen
on Vesey Street and on the promenade. The approximate extent of possible damage due to debris from
WTC 1 is shown in Fig. L–23c.
(photo)
(photo)
(photo)
(photo)[/spoil:3idrhjhy]Show me the exact paragraph where it says the damage caused by fire and falling debris was great enough to alter the laws of physics?

[stromboli]

To bring a building down we are not talking "trace elements." We are talking about tons of explosives. These were two of the biggest buildings in existence. The wreckage would have piles of wiring and cable routers a hundred feet high. There would be control boxes, unburned Primacord and so on.There would be obvious degradation of key support structures at key junctures, dedicated remote control boxes and an enormous pile of evidence. Fuck the trace element bullshit.

Watch a video to see what it takes to prepare a structure for demolition. It takes a dedicated, knowledgeable crew of many men weeks to wire and detonate a building. And this all happened for weeks prior to the airplane attack, dozens of men running around with power saws, stringing miles of cable and arranging and testing control boxes and then somehow hiding all that from view? Not hardly.

[Poison Tree]

NIST Final Report, confirming that freefall did occur
//http://www.nist.gov/customcf/get_pdf.cfm?pub_id=861610
(see Page 44, Section 3.6 TIMING OF COLLAPSE INITIATION AND PROGRESSION)

Did you actually read your own link?

The time that the roofline took to fall 18 stories or 73.8 m (242 ft) was approximately 5.4 s. [. . .] Thus, the average time for the upper 18 stories to collapse, based on video evidence, was approximately 40 percent longer than the computed free fall time.

]In Stage 1, the descent was slow and the acceleration was less than that of gravity. This stage corresponds to the initial buckling of the exterior columns in the lower stories of the north face. By 1.75 s, the north face had descended approximately 2.2 m (7 ft).

In Stage 2, the north face descended at gravitational acceleration, as the buckled columns provided negligible support to the upper portion of the north face. This free fall drop continued for approximately 8 stories or 32.0 m (105 ft), the distance traveled between times t= 1.75 s and t= 4.0 s.

In Stage 3, the acceleration decreased somewhat as the upper portion of the north face encountered increased resistance from the collapsed structure and the debris pile below. Between 4.0 s and 5.4 s, the north face corner fell an additional 39.6 m (130 ft).

As noted above, the collapse time was approximately 40 percent longer than that of free fall for the first
18 stories of descent.

So this free fall you are so hyped up about accounted for less than half the collapse, measured both in time and distance.

[Hijiri Byakuren]

*yawn* Sorry, I was asleep- I mean, using the ignore feature. Based on the responses I'd say I'm not missing much.

[AllPurposeAtheist]

With all them tiny particles of radiation coming from the sky every day you can't tell me the sun isn't hot. It's Supertramps fault.  [-(

[The Skeletal Atheist]

NIST Final Report, confirming that freefall did occur
//http://www.nist.gov/customcf/get_pdf.cfm?pub_id=861610
(see Page 44, Section 3.6 TIMING OF COLLAPSE INITIATION AND PROGRESSION)

Did you actually read your own link?

The time that the roofline took to fall 18 stories or 73.8 m (242 ft) was approximately 5.4 s. [. . .] Thus, the average time for the upper 18 stories to collapse, based on video evidence, was approximately 40 percent longer than the computed free fall time.

]In Stage 1, the descent was slow and the acceleration was less than that of gravity. This stage corresponds to the initial buckling of the exterior columns in the lower stories of the north face. By 1.75 s, the north face had descended approximately 2.2 m (7 ft).

In Stage 2, the north face descended at gravitational acceleration, as the buckled columns provided negligible support to the upper portion of the north face. This free fall drop continued for approximately 8 stories or 32.0 m (105 ft), the distance traveled between times t= 1.75 s and t= 4.0 s.

In Stage 3, the acceleration decreased somewhat as the upper portion of the north face encountered increased resistance from the collapsed structure and the debris pile below. Between 4.0 s and 5.4 s, the north face corner fell an additional 39.6 m (130 ft).

As noted above, the collapse time was approximately 40 percent longer than that of free fall for the first
18 stories of descent.

So this free fall you are so hyped up about accounted for less than half the collapse, measured both in time and distance.

Annnnd...your entire premise for this thread just vanished, AtheistMoFo.

Congratulations, someone finally read your link like you wanted, and it fucked you.