Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?

[Shol'va]

There's a name for that kind of stuff and there should really be no excuse for any college educated individual use it in ignorance.

[aitm]

33 pages....oy

[AtheistMoFo]

But did you know, there are plenty of physicists who say the Official Conspiracy Theory is bunk?

I would be more interested in their arguments than you just making a blatant assertion with no evidence.

If you really were interested, you would have made use of the links I provided.  You are NOT interested in their arguments.  You are afraid it would burst your little shell that shields you from the truth of the real world.

Probably not too many who will admit it publicly, because it could and probably would cost them their job (not to mention any future job possibilities).  So this presents us with something of a paradox.

Wild speculation on your part, which seems to be a disease in your case.

Ask Steven Jones, former professor at Brigham Young University if it is wild speculation on anybody's part.  And Kevin Ryan, former Lab Director at Underwriters Laboratories Inc., just to name two.

And not only are there plenty of physicists, there are also thousands of architects, engineers, scientists in many fields, pilots, psychologists, lawyers, medical professionals, and various scholars and even U.S. military officers and political leaders who are of the opinion that 9/11 was an inside job.  True, the number is small in relation to the overall population, but the number is growing.  The smokescreen is beginning to clear.

and what are the hard evidence of these supposed experts?

I've provided you with the links.  Is it a rule around here that when a PhD provides links, everyone is required to follow them up, but when a non-PhD holder provides links, the PhD is exempt from reading?

I've tried to not be condescending, but when it is a one-way street, fuck it.  At least I have never called anyone a fucking moron.  But I'm beginning to wonder if that is the only way to be taken seriously around here?

I must admit that it surprised me to see so many atheists whom one would expect to be skeptical of mainstream thinking falling hook, line and sinker for the "jihadists did it" theory.

But you seem to miscalculate that atheists are also going to be very sceptical of theories that are based on wild speculation.

What you call wild speculation is a theory based on motive, expertise, and opportunity.  Your theory, the OCT, has it that a bunch of jihadists killed themselves in pursuit of 72 virgins and had their families and home countries bombed back into the stoneage as the consequence.  Some fucking motive.  Expertise?  Hani Hanjour, who could not safely fly a single prop Cessna trained several hours in a flight simulator and pulled off a maneuverer that expert pilots have described as extremely difficult.  And your theory does not even address the "opportunity" part of it.

And for atheists to even believe the theory that concrete and steel can fall through 8 stories of the path of greatest resistance, accelerating at the rate of gravity as it goes, just because a PhD tells them it is what happened.

See this is where your credibility falls off completely as I have already explained the physics behind that, and you still don't get it.

Flaunting your PhD again.  You have NOT explained how your theory trumps Issac Newton's theory.  Until you do, I'm sticking with Newton.   I may not have a PhD, but I do know the scientific community has not rejected Newton's theory in favor of yours.

Plus, of course, the MSM repeating the lie over and over for years.  But there are plenty of other eduated scholars who disagree with you and agree with me.

Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth
//http://www.ae911truth.org/

Scientists for 9/11 Truth
//http://www.scientistsfor911truth.org/

Scholars for 9/11 Truth
//http://911scholars.org/

Pilots for 9/11 Truth
//http://pilotsfor911truth.org/

Medical Professionals for 9/11 Truth
//http://mp911truth.org/

Political Leaders for 9/11 Truth
//http://pl911truth.com/

Lawyers for 9/11 Truth
//http://lawyersfor911truth.blogspot.com/

Military Officers for 9/11 Truth
//http://www.mo911truth.org/

Firefighters for 9/11 Truth
//http://firefightersfor911truth.org/

Journalists for 9/11 Truth
//http://mediafor911truth.org/

I wish you were more sceptical in regard to these people. LOL.

Why should I?  They are right, you are wrong.  Simple as that.

What I did not know was that even a PhD can resort to childish name calling when pressed to answer a question that he cannot answer.  I would have thought you would have a little more class than that.

In your case, the name calling is quite deserving as the physics were explained many times, yet you haven't made a single ounce of effort to understand it and correct the error in your thinking.

You mean the error in YOUR thinking.  But I have tried to correct your error.  Unfortunately, when a person or even large group of people are in denial, facts alone will not set them straight.  You need to admit to yourself that evil people do exist in this world, and because holding positions of power bestows them with great opportunity to do evil, they are attracted to those positions.  The only safeguard against evil is for the people to be always vigilant.

When the people let their guard down, whether it is because they are concerned about losing their job or they just enjoy living in thier own little dream world, the result is tyranny.

"Why, of course, the people don't want war. Why would some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best that he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece. Naturally, the common people don't want war; neither in Russia nor in England nor in America, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist dictatorship or a Parliament or a Communist dictatorship." -- Hermann Goering, April 1946

[Sargon The Grape]

33 pages....oy

Have we reached Old Seer levels yet?

[Jason78]

Last post!

I win.

[stromboli]

Ask Steven Jones, former professor at Brigham Young University if it is wild speculation on anybody's part.

Right. Certification by a Mormon professor, which is about as nutbag as they come. The same people who think Native Americans came from Israel and represent one of the largest blocks of homophobes on the planet.

[The Skeletal Atheist]

http://www.theonion.com/articles/911-tr ... ows,35319/

[josephpalazzo]

You have NOT explained how your theory trumps Issac Newton's theory.  Until you do, I'm sticking with Newton.   I may not have a PhD, but I do know the scientific community has not rejected Newton's theory in favor of yours.

My theory doesn't trump Newton's theory, fucking moron. It is Newtonian theory.

You're so confused that you don't realize that what you have been saying about the physics part goes against Newtonian physics.

You are hopeless.

[stromboli]

We used to refer to this as beating a dead horse. This sucker is down to hide and bone soup.

[josephpalazzo]

If it weren't so pathetic, it could run as a good joke. But we're passed that. We're in the twilight zone... cue in music.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Your theory, the OCT, has it that a bunch of jihadists killed themselves in pursuit of 72 virgins and had their families and home countries bombed back into the stoneage as the consequence.  Some fucking motive.  

You're right.  Religion has never motivated people to do stupid shit.

Oh, wait.

We used to refer to this as beating a dead horse. This sucker is down to hide and bone soup.

As sticky as this thread seems to be, I'm sure there's some glue in here somewhere.

[Sargon The Grape]

Your theory, the OCT, has it that a bunch of jihadists killed themselves in pursuit of 72 virgins and had their families and home countries bombed back into the stoneage as the consequence.  Some fucking motive.  

You're right.  Religion has never motivated people to do stupid shit.

Oh, wait.

I take back what I said, earlier: You are winning the thread. :rollin:

[AtheistMoFo]

Before responding to any anything response-worthy anyone may have posted since my most recent visit here, I am going to pose a question and make a suggestion.  Will respond later.  (Apologies in advance to those who have short attention spans incapable of comprehending more than 100 words at a time.  You are excused from reading this post.)

THE QUESTION:
According to the National Institute of Standards and Technology, WTC 7 fell down due to "normal office fires" (NIST's explanation is a major plank in the OCT).  So here is a riddle open to any of you OCT'ers to answer.  Larry Silverstein, owner (leaseholder) of the World Trade Center, has sued the airlines, the insurance companies, Boeing, and the Port Authority of Massachusetts.  But Silverstein has NOT sued the designers of WTC 7.  So if normal office fires could cause a 47 story skyscraper to come crashing to the ground, why didn't Silverstein sue the the architects who designed the unsafe building?  Think about it.

THE SUGGESTION:

And here is a suggestion for Josephpalazzo.

On August 26, 2008, Dr. S. Shyam Sunder, lead investigator for the NIST team investigating the collapse of WTC 7, said at a NIST Technical Briefing that free-fall would have been impossible.  Groping for words and a bit tongue-tied, he says,
 "First of all, gravity is the loading function that applies to the structure -- applies to every body... all bodies on this particular planet, not just in ground zero.  The analysis shows there is a difference in time between free-fall time --  a free-fall time would be an object that has no structural components below it, and if you look at the analysis of the video, it shows that the time it takes for the 17... the roofline 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 3.9 seconds.  What the analysis shows, the structural analysis shows, the collapse analysis shows that same time it took for the structural model to come down from the roofline all the way for those 17 floors to disappear is 5.4 seconds.  It's about 1.5 seconds or roughly 40% more time for that free-fall to happen, and that is not 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, everything was not instantaneous."  (emphasis added)

SYNOPSIS OF THE ABOVE:
1. Free-fall would take 3.9 seconds
2. However, their computer model simulating collapse predicted 5.4 seconds
3. The slower time is to be expected since
 - a. there was structural support slowing the building as it fell
 - b. there was a progression of failures that had to take place
 - c. they were not instantaneous

All this would make perfect sense if the building fell due to structural failure and it actually did take 5.4 seconds.  The problem is, in order to time the collapse at 5.4 seconds, they had to start the clock when the parapet began to fall, 1.5 seconds before the roofline actually started to fall.

If you've watched the video, and I assume you have not, you would see that Dr. Sunder had considerable difficulty to weasel-word his way out of the situation.  But if NIST were to abandon traditional physics (Newtonian Physics) and adopt the Josephpalazzian Theory, it would be so much easier to weasel-word out of anything.  So, Joe, why not apply to NIST for a grant, if you have not already.  They should be willing to throw unlimited dollars at your theory to have it accepted.  Newton's antiquated laws will be relegated to the pages of history.  And we can finally close the book on WTC 7 free-fall.

[Moriarty]

http://www.theonion.com/articles/truthe ... 911,33421/

"I wish we had destroyed those two buildings in the name of Allah, instead of the controlled demolitions at the base of the World Trade Center that actually caused both towers to collapse. But the whole thing was an inside job by the U.S. government and then covered up by the mainstream American media. Unfortunately."

http://www.theonion.com/articles/911-tr ... -11,29520/

"The official story is all too familiar," said Shaw, a self-identified 9/11 Truther who hands out pamphlets at Kennedy Plaza from 2 to 6 p.m. every day. "On Sept. 11, 2001, terrorists crashed three planes into the Twin Towers and the Pentagon. Then, over the ensuing months and years, my obsession with the truth behind those events supposedly led to the gradual collapse of my personal and professional life. But this convenient little narrative requires us to believe a series of highly improbable coincidences."

[Hakurei Reimu]

Before responding to any anything response-worthy anyone may have posted since my most recent visit here, I am going to pose a question and make a suggestion.  Will respond later.  (Apologies in advance to those who have short attention spans incapable of comprehending more than 100 words at a time.  You are excused from reading this post.)

THE QUESTION:
According to the National Institute of Standards and Technology, WTC 7 fell down due to "normal office fires" (NIST's explanation is a major plank in the OCT).  So here is a riddle open to any of you OCT'ers to answer.  Larry Silverstein, owner (leaseholder) of the World Trade Center, has sued the airlines, the insurance companies, Boeing, and the Port Authority of Massachusetts.  But Silverstein has NOT sued the designers of WTC 7.  So if normal office fires could cause a 47 story skyscraper to come crashing to the ground, why didn't Silverstein sue the the architects who designed the unsafe building?  Think about it.

What's there to think about? WTC 7 was designed according to code, and you can't sue architects for poor design if they design the building according to code, but fell due to extraordinary circumstances no one bothered to consider because they were, at the time, literally unthinkable. And before you say anything different, it is absolutely incredible that a skyscraper design could even be approved if it didn't pass the fire safety code review. No suit would stand even an initial review.

As to why the building fell due to normal office fires, under normal circumstances, the internal sprinkler system would have slowed the fire for long enough for the firefighters to get in with some serious hosing. But the water system was compromised because of the fall of WTC 1&2, disrupting both the internal sprinklers and the FD's attempts to control the fire after arriving, and NYCFD doesn't have much in the way of tanker trucks like rural areas do.

THE SUGGESTION:

And here is a suggestion for Josephpalazzo.

On August 26, 2008, Dr. S. Shyam Sunder, lead investigator for the NIST team investigating the collapse of WTC 7, said at a NIST Technical Briefing that free-fall would have been impossible.  Groping for words and a bit tongue-tied, he says,
 "First of all, gravity is the loading function that applies to the structure -- applies to every body... all bodies on this particular planet, not just in ground zero.  The analysis shows there is a difference in time between free-fall time --  a free-fall time would be an object that has no structural components below it, and if you look at the analysis of the video, it shows that the time it takes for the 17... the roofline 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 3.9 seconds.  What the analysis shows, the structural analysis shows, the collapse analysis shows that same time it took for the structural model to come down from the roofline all the way for those 17 floors to disappear is 5.4 seconds.  It's about 1.5 seconds or roughly 40% more time for that free-fall to happen, and that is not 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, everything was not instantaneous."  (emphasis added)

SYNOPSIS OF THE ABOVE:
1. Free-fall would take 3.9 seconds
2. However, their computer model simulating collapse predicted 5.4 seconds
3. The slower time is to be expected since
 - a. there was structural support slowing the building as it fell
 - b. there was a progression of failures that had to take place
 - c. they were not instantaneous

All this would make perfect sense if the building fell due to structural failure and it actually did take 5.4 seconds.  The problem is, in order to time the collapse at 5.4 seconds, they had to start the clock when the parapet began to fall, 1.5 seconds before the roofline actually started to fall.

Uh, they started the clock from the time the parapet began to fall because that's when they started the computer analysis of the fall. Actually, computer simulations I've seen of the WTC 7 collapse start five to ten seconds before that, because there was a lot happening beneath the facade of the building prior to the penthouse starting to collapse, the first visual sign that there was somehting happening.

If you've watched the video, and I assume you have not, you would see that Dr. Sunder had considerable difficulty to weasel-word his way out of the situation.

Stumbling over your words is hardly "weasel-wording your way out." The NIST hardcopy report would be the real article, where the bones would be fleshed out and all the i's dotted and t's crossed. That report says that the building fell due to office fires. You cannot use stumbling over words in a technical breifing as proof that there's something wrong with the full-fleshed report.

But if NIST were to abandon traditional physics (Newtonian Physics)

What, the same NIST that says that WTC 7 fell due to office fires?

and adopt the Josephpalazzian Theory, it would be so much easier to weasel-word out of anything.  So, Joe, why not apply to NIST for a grant, if you have not already.  They should be willing to throw unlimited dollars at your theory to have it accepted.  Newton's antiquated laws will be relegated to the pages of history.  And we can finally close the book on WTC 7 free-fall.

You know, it's easy to simply shout "IT'S IMPOSSIBURU 'CUZ FIZZIKS!" It's quite another to get down to the nitty gritty and show why a certain theory of events violates physics. So, please present your proof, complete with analysis of known physics and measurements, why you think office fires could not have collapsed WTC 7.

*crickets*