Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?

[josephpalazzo]

@josephpalazzo

Just imagine you walking on a fragile pane of glass. A rock is thrown, and the glass breaks - you, the rock and all the pieces of glass will now fall freely under gravity.

Poor analogy.  Structural steel and concrete are somewhat more robust than a fragile pane of glass.

If the support beams had not been damaged, you would be right, but they were. Considering that the firefighters couldn't get there ( plane hit around the 70's floors, and elevators were shut down), the fire which burnt nearly an hour did enough damage to the support beams. Once those are comprised, you get the floors collapsing and free fall would follow.

All of that concrete weighed thousands of tons. So do the calculation. Once that hits the ground, it has so much energy, it can pulverize just about anything. So how did that come about? Once the steel beams were melt by the high temperature, then the floor had to collapse, and what you get is everything is under free fall.

But how does all the debris get to the gound where it can pulverize just about anything without destroying all the underlying support beams and concrete in the process?  And how did the steel beams melt?  Especially, as the fires were mainly on the east side of the building, how did the steel beams on the west side melt simultaneously?

It didn't happen simultaneously. The floors on the east side that had been directly hit by the plane collapsed at 9:37 am, while the total collapse of the WTC occurred at 9:59 am. Check your facts. Between those two critical times, the fire was spreading out, and so it was more like a dominoe effect, until the total collapse occurred.

How did the fires get so hot as to melt steel in the first place?  Other anti-truthers taking part in this thread have insisted there was no molten steel.

The beams were 60 ft long, the reason being they wanted each floor to be as much as possible free of columns. The only internal support beams were in the center of the floor where the elevators were. Think, 60 ft is very, very long, and once a beam is compromised, it can snap like a toothpick.  

That they were explosives placed prior to the attack is just bogus, as that kind of action would require extensive planning, involving hundreds of people who, for the rest of their entire lives, would have to keep quiet about it, never revealing anything to their loved ones, spouses, family, friends. Just think about it, your wild theory is just not believable.

Bogus because you don't want to believe it?  Or bogus because it is beyond the capabilities of Saudi Arabian jihadists?

The stealth fighter was flying for at least 20 years before its existence became known to the public.  And even then, it only became known because the military decided it was time to show off to the public.  Manhattan Project was carried out in complete secrecy and only became known after the nuclear attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.  The attack on the USS Liberty by the israeli military was kept under wraps for 30 years.  Why is it not believable that secrets could be kept in this case?  Manhattan Project employed over 130,000 people.  I have no idea how many people were involved in the stealth fighter project, nor do I know how many sailors were aboard the Liberty when it was attacked, but the WTC 7 demolition team would come nowhere near employing the number of people in any of those.  What makes it so unbelievable?

The USS Liberty incident was known from way back, but little media attention was given. The Manhattan project was heavily secured while it was taking place for obvious reasons, but people in high places knew about it. Besides there were British and Canadians working there. And none of these incidents have anything to do with a conspiracy and have no bearing on 9/11. Stick to the subject.

[Moriarty]

And none of these incidents have anything to do with a conspiracy and have no bearing on 9/11. Stick to the subject.

They do if one wants to convince themselves that a tyrannical government creates coverups rather than national security. Haha.

You know because during WWII the government was suppose to tell the world they were developing a nuclear weapon. That would have had no effect whatsoever. Right.

[Thumpalumpacus]

My contention is that any falling object will fall more slowly than the rate of gravity when there is structural material offering resistance.  

What seems to be giving you headaches is the inability to see that the building is falling precisely because the structural members supporting it have failed -- i.e., they are not resisting gravity.

[Thumpalumpacus]

And the thing that you seem to overlook is I WAS AN EOD THERE FOR 3 MONTHS PRIOR TO THAT DAY AND I WAS THERE THAT DAY AS WELL ASSHAT ... It was our job to locate explosives, we were trained to detect explosives, we had the latest and greatest of explosive detecting devices, we were there 24/7

Cool.  That explains your motive for promoting the OCT.

A theory or hypothesis that is non-falsifiable is useless.

There's a dragon in my garage.

[Hakurei Reimu]

@Hakurei Reimu

Show me where I said anything about a cruise missile.

You insinuated it with your rhetoric that only about five frames of the 747 hitting the Pentagon, implying that they had been doctored with. They're security tapes, not TV broadcast quality production tapes.

Pointing out that there was collusion to hide evidence is hardly insinuating anything about a cruise missile nor is it an accusation of anyone tampering with evidence.  You've been watching too many cartoons.

You have no proof for this "collusion to hide evidence" in this case. What we see is probably all that is available.

You insinuated it. Who else could have rigged WTC 7 with explosives and not raise any official alarms but the US government?

Wow.  You've really got to take a vacation from your cartoon world.  As for your "Who else?" question, that is exactly what we (truthers) want to know.  What surprises us is that there are so many people who would rather not know.

Your JAQing off is not impressive. The questions the "truthers" (and you) ask are loaded to the core. It is evident, on mere casual examination, that there is no way that a controlled demolition of WTC 7 could have occured. At all. The reason why no one can come up with any convincing evidence for the rigging of WTC 7 is because it didn't happen, not because there's been any conspiracy to cover it up. Because if it were rigged that way, it would have turned WTC 7 into a construction site, because that's what a rigging for a controlled demolition does to a building.

One of the things cartoons taught me is that construction sites are dangerous and you should stay out of them. If such a thing happened to building 7, then a lot of the workers who watched cartoons would know this too, and start asking questions why their place of work had become a construction site. Since you never watched cartoons, I suppose you don't know that so your disbelief makes a lot of sense now.  :roll:

Who else could have delayed the official identification of the attackers until 48 hours after the fact but the US government? Who else could have held back NORAD from shooting down the planes but the US government?

Who else?  Who else?  Tell you what.  How about we call for an INVESTIGATION and find out who else.

Do you really believe that a foreign power can tell NORAD and the USAF what to do?

As to why the USAF held back, as I understand it, no one had successfully used a commercial airliner as a missile as happened on 9/11. In the entire history of airline hijackings, I count only two attempts prior to 9/11, neither of which resulting in any casualties at all. As such, the usual policy was negotiations with the hijackers. And if a simulation involving commercial airliners being used as missiles was taking place at the time as you claim, that would only complicate matters, for three reasons:

• Simulations are carried out to find out problems in policies and procedures. The USAF probably didn't have a fully fleshed-out protocol for handling such a scenario. As such, it would be unprepared for an actual incident.
• The actual incident would have created confusion in the simulation. Their first reaction would pretty much be "I think the simulation is fucked up!" It would naturally delay recognition that an actual incident is taking place.
• No matter what kind of simulation you are running, the USAF is not going to really shoot down an actual plane over US soil, even if it were empty and flown by remote control. You don't know what poor sucker the debris might land on. If pilots were confused about whether they were merely part of a simulation as opposed to an actual incident, (which given the confusion above, is quite likely) they are likely to error on the side of caution.

There's also the fact that, even if the USAF had planes in the air with the hijacked planes in their sights, they would still be reluctant to fire were there any chance the civilians could be rescued. The first indication that there would be no survivors was when the north tower was hit, and by then it was too late to do anything about it.

You've raised all of these points before, you lying fuck, and while you never mentioned the government in all of that, the subtext was as clear as if you written it out explicitly. Don't you dare start backpedaling now.

Who is backpedaling?  I have consistently said that a number of people holding high positions in finance/industry, government, and military must have been a part of the conspiracy.

No, that's what YOU must assume to make your insinuations make any sense, and as such, make your questions worthy of any answer at all.

There is a difference between the well-defined conspiracy that we think actually took place (that is, 19 religiously indoctrinated terrorists hijacking 4 commercial planes and flying them into buildings, plus the collateral damage thereof), and the burgeoning grand conspiracy that you insinuate must have happened. This grand conspiracy you're hinting at involves so many people —not only in the upper eschelons of government but right down to grunts and civilians— that it is completely incredible that they all kept silent not only in the run-up, but also after the fact, with all of those weeping family members plastered over the news, the home movies of the collapsing towers, the deaths of our soldiers overseas, and the bankrupting of our government... and no one had a crisis of conscience and admits their part of the conspiracy, blowing the whole thing wide open. You'll notice that not one "truther" admits to be part of the conspiracy they rant about.

It sounds exactly like an evil overlord commanding his cadre of faceless, will-less minions across the land, spreading death and destruction for teh evuls. And that does come straight out of the cartoons.  8-)

Addendum:

So no one here has ever claimed that a third plane hit WTC 7?  I will let you and Moralnihilist sort this out between yourselves, with or without gloves.  Not only does he claim a plane hit 7 WTC, he also claims the upper third of the building fell onto the rest of the building.

PS: Moralnihilist was there on that day, and is one very angry dude.  So watch your ass.  You have been warned.

And being such an angry dude, he could easily mistype, couldn't he?

And he didn't yell at me for putting words in his mouth, y'know being so hot to defend himself from defamation and all.

[Moriarty]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qegPkqs6rFw

The last 30 seconds are so key to this thread.

[The Skeletal Atheist]

*ahem*

"Is freefall proof of controlled demolition?"

No, it is not.

OP is a fag.

When it's time to party we will party hard.

/thread

[AllPurposeAtheist]

I'm sticking with WTC sat atop the worlds biggest reserve of abiotic oil..still does, but big bad gubnit's cover'n it up.  :-$  :-#  :D/

[AtheistMoFo]

The penthouse fell a good seven seconds before the north face was seen to fall. The building collapsed from the core out.

So now you are saying the total collapse time from the fall of the penthouse until 7 WTC disappears below the visible level is 12.4 seconds?  Or 10.9 seconds? Which?  And tell us again why it even matters?  We truthers only assert that the roof of the building, and the visible part of the building itself fell at freefall.  The collapse of the penthouse is not the start of the building itself collapsing.  The penthouse could have fallen a good 30 seconds before the building fell, but that would not prove anything.

[AtheistMoFo]

(WARNING: contains more than 100 words.  Mutant teenage ninja hooligans are hereby excused from reading this post.)

When I started this thread, I was under the mistaken impression that most OCT supporters never took the time to learn the facts.  A great many people in the United States and to some extent in other countries as well don't even know about the destruction of 7 WTC.  All they know is the Twin Towers, because the media has been reinforcing the concept for over 12 years while never mentioning 7 WTC.  And even the OCT supporters who do know of 7 WTC, my assumption was that they must be unaware of the fact that it fell for over two seconds at the rate of gravity.

So by clarifying those two points, my naive belief was that the implications would easily be understood by all but the simplest of lamebrains.  Yet here we are a month later and 37 pages down the road, and still there are many who still support the OCT.  Several of the participants in this thread are in fact simple lamebrains, so there is no hope for them, but others have either a normal IQ or a relatively high IQ.  So, why?

This baffled me, that people of normal and higher intelligence could still support the OCT.  This called for analysis of the problem from a different angle.

What I found is that the human psyche, similar to a network server coming under DDoS attack, can become so overloaded that it just shuts down.  Unlike computers, our brains have a natural defense mechanism to prevent shutting down like a server under DDoS attack.  This response mechanism is called denial.  It does not imply anything negative about the person suffering from denial, it is simply the brain's way of putting one matter aside and simply moving on rather than shutting down.

Unfortunately I have no training in psychology, thus have nothing to offer as a solution.  But I do believe those of you still in denial will eventually have to face up to the causes of your denial to regain a balanced state of mind.

[The Skeletal Atheist]

[josephpalazzo]

This baffled me, that people of normal and higher intelligence could still support the OCT.  .

It baffles me that I completely debunked your last post to me, and you completely ignored it. Oh wait, I'm not baffled at all. It's to be expected from someone who invested some much time and energy and can't face the facts.

[Sargon The Grape]

Why haven't the mods banned this troll yet? It's pretty clear at this point that he's just trying to get a rise out of us.

I mean it. On my forums, he'd have been gone at page 5. Maximum. Do your damn jobs.

[Shiranu]

Don't worry guys, some unqualified guy I have never met is more qualified to tell me what happened than qualified people I have never met + common sense!

[Mister Agenda]

Back in 81 I was working at the NSA for a year on Russian Air Defense regarding Afghanistan. Basically I took what Russian radar stations were telling each other about where their planes were and used that to track their aircraft. This was during the Soviet invasion, so it was pretty boring: troop transport flies in through the air corridor, troop transport flies out through the air corridor.

So, compared to that, a Soviet simulation was entertainment. Basically the radar stations start tracking imaginary jets, kind of like Norad tracking Santa Clause. Superficially it looks real. One day, I saw tracking of a jet that was at a very high altitude and going very fast. I assumed they were simulating an SR-71 flyover, because a real Blackbird would fly significantly higher and faster than what the Soviets were reporting, but nothing else I knew of could perform at even that reduced level. There were also a couple of earmarks consistent with it being a simulation. And it WAS a simulation, but of one of their own recon aircraft, I thought a Tsybin R-020, although not only would that have been pretty old, intelligence said that although several had been built in the sixties, they had never actually put one in the air. But the nice thing about simulations is that you don't have to use real planes. So the simulated response fighters were chasing a simulated Tsybin acting like a Blackbird.

Then things got confusing as a second Tsybin showed up. Some of the simulated fighters broke off to chase this one, but it was going nearly Mach 3. Then the first Tsybin starts chasing the second one, but can't close the distance. So I've got dots and lines all over my map and it was about an hour before I was able to piece together what actually happened: A real Blackbird had flown over Afghanistan and the Soviet radar stations thought it was part of the simulation...that is, the stations that picked it up and reported it were assumed by the other stations to be reporting a new twist in the scenario, so they altered their scenario accordingly. The only real plane was the SR-71. Mystery solved!

But, the Army sergeant I reported to could not believe that. He was convinced that the Soviets had put a new Tsybin or similar vehicle into production, and that although the fighters were simulated, the Tsybin was real, and that the SR-71 had been sent to get a look at it. He had the same information I did, and thought I was naive and incurious for not seeing how obvious it was. When we checked on the SR-71, we were told it was a scheduled flyover that didn't find anything unusual. That just made the sergeant more certain that the Soviets had a new plane that could do Mach 2.5 and was maybe capable of delivering a bomb (maybe nuclear) like the old Tsybin RSR that preceeded the R-020. It was his bugaboo for the rest of the time I was there until he was reassigned. Super-fast Russian bombers never materialized. After he left, I saw two more similar simulations, minus the Blackbird.

But that doesn't mean he was wrong. We both had the same evidence and reached different conclusions. I had lots of previous experience with Russians running Air Defense simulations when I was stationed at Misawa NAB, and based my conclusions largely on that. The sergeant had the feeling that there had to be more to it, because it was so unusual, and it was, for Afghanistan, just not for Eastern Russia. Not being able to accept that there isn't more to something is what drives conspiracy theorism.