Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?

[Plu]

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.

I'll gladly ban him once you people stop engaging with him. It gives the idea that you aren't tired of him if you keep up the responses.

[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.

I'll gladly ban him once you people stop engaging with him. It gives the idea that you aren't tired of him if you keep up the responses.

That didn't seem to bother y'all when Old Seer and Eve got banned. :-|

[theory816]

prettty good arguments.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VKFiGfW6aGY

[AtheistMoFo]

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.
...
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.

If I have said this once I have said this a hundred times, SHOW ME the fucking EVIDENCE OF A PLANE FLYING INTO No. 7 WTC.  Two of the four hijacked planes attacked buildings in New York, 1 WTC and 2 WTC.  Another plane attacked the Pentagon.  The fourth crashed (or was shot down) in Pennsylvania.  No plane ever crashed into WTC 7.  In the 12 years and five months since 9/11 the only claims I have ever heard about a plane crashing into 7 WTC are the claims I have heard here in this thread.  Show me a link, any link outside this forum alleging a plane crashed into 7 WTC.

Furthermore, 7 WTC collapsed at 5:20 p.m. not 9:59 a.m.  (Roughly 20 minutes after BBC reported its demise.)  
I have checked the facts.  Now it is your turn.  

WTC 1 collapse: 10:28 a.m.
WTC 2 collapse: 9:59 a.m.
WTC 7 collapse: 5:20 (exact time, 5:20:52 to be precise)

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.

Don't your own words "little media attention was given" basically also apply to WTC 7?  It was reported, in fact, the collapse was even reported before it happened.  But like the Liberty, it was briefly mentioned and then buried under so much rubble hardly anyone remembered it.  And don't forget, YOU are the one who made the assertion about people being quiet the rest of their lives, not me.

[AtheistMoFo]

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.

Is it vanity that makes you think I was referring to you, josephpalazzo?  You debunked some claims that have something to do with an airplane crashing into No. 7 WTC.

I have no knowledge of any airplane crashing into No. 7 WTC.  
I have consistently asserted from the onset that there is no documented evidence of any plane ever crashing into WTC 7.  
So tell us again what it is you debunked?

[Plu]

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.

I'll gladly ban him once you people stop engaging with him. It gives the idea that you aren't tired of him if you keep up the responses.

That didn't seem to bother y'all when Old Seer and Eve got banned. :-|

That wasn't me banning them :P This is just my personal reason for not banning him yet.

[Sargon The Grape]

If I have said this once I have said this a hundred times, SHOW ME the fucking EVIDENCE OF A PLANE FLYING INTO No. 7 WTC.

He's not talking about WTC 7, numbnuts.

[Johan]

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.
...
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.

If I have said this once I have said this a hundred times, SHOW ME the fucking EVIDENCE OF A PLANE FLYING INTO No. 7 WTC.  

Moron. Did WTC 7 have 70 floors? No? Pretty hard for him to be talking about a plane hitting the building around the 70th floor when WTC 7 didn't have 70 floors isn't it? Which would lead anyone who isn't a complete moron to assume he was was talking about the planes that hit WTC 1 and 2 thus causing them to collapse in an uncontrolled manner which then heavily damaged WTC 7. In a word, duh. What would lead you to make such an assumption?

I have no knowledge

Looks like we have an answer.  :roll:

[josephpalazzo]

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.
...
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.

If I have said this once I have said this a hundred times, SHOW ME the fucking EVIDENCE OF A PLANE FLYING INTO No. 7 WTC.  

Then you complain when people are calling you an idiot. If I gave you the times 9:37 am and 9:59 am, I'm obviously not talking about WTC-7. Yet, you go on a rant as if I did. The rest of your post will be ignored as you are deliberately obfuscating the discussion about the behavior of a free falling building that has collapsed.

In regard to WTC-7, it was pointed out to you on many occasions by different members of this forum that it was heavily damaged indirectly -- no one is talking about a plane crashing into WTC-7, so quit that stupid line --and the firefighters who went into that building could not extinguish the fire on account that the city water pipes had been heavily compromised by the collapse of the two towers. Now try to extinguish such a humongus fire with no water?!? But the physics behind the collapse of WTC-7 is no different than the physics behind the collapse of the other two towers. - and that you have failed to understand even after many explanations given to you so that you could correct the error in your thinking.

[AtheistMoFo]

If I have said this once I have said this a hundred times, SHOW ME the fucking EVIDENCE OF A PLANE FLYING INTO No. 7 WTC.  

Then you complain when people are calling you an idiot. If I gave you the times 9:37 am and 9:59 am, I'm obviously not talking about WTC-7. Yet, you go on a rant as if I did. The rest of your post will be ignored as you are deliberately obfuscating the discussion about the behavior of a free falling building that has collapsed.

No, I'm not complaining about anything, you may call me whatever you wish.

But when this whole thread is about No. 7 WTC and I give proof that the collapse of 7 WTC was due to controlled demolition, then you "debunk" my claims about WTC 7 by talking about the collapse of 1 WTC and 2 WTC?  Who is the fool?

You are like the dude crawling around underneath the street light looking for his keys, and when someone asks if he is sure he lost them around here, he replies, "No, I lost them over there among the trees, but it is too dark over there so I am looking here.

Wasn't it you, josephpalazzo, who only a couple of posts ago were bitching about staying on topic?

Where did you get your Ph.D?  WalMart?

 [-X

[josephpalazzo]

If I have said this once I have said this a hundred times, SHOW ME the fucking EVIDENCE OF A PLANE FLYING INTO No. 7 WTC.  

Then you complain when people are calling you an idiot. If I gave you the times 9:37 am and 9:59 am, I'm obviously not talking about WTC-7. Yet, you go on a rant as if I did. The rest of your post will be ignored as you are deliberately obfuscating the discussion about the behavior of a free falling building that has collapsed.

No, I'm not complaining about anything, you may call me whatever you wish.

But when this whole thread is about No. 7 WTC and I give proof that the collapse of 7 WTC was due to controlled demolition, then you "debunk" my claims about WTC 7 by talking about the collapse of 1 WTC and 2 WTC?  Who is the fool?

[-X

My debate with you started with your misunderstanding of the physics of a collapsing building, which wtc-1 and 2 are also part of that discussion. If I wasn't precise on which building I was using to make you understand the physics, I apologize. But if you know your facts, which you pretend to have, then it should have been clear to you with the times I gave out,  9:37 am and 9:59 am, I was referring to the South tower, and therefore your rant was a waste of time, and also indicative of your state of mind which is not conducive to any reasonable discussion. Regardless of this mistep on my part, the fact is that you still don't understand the physics, and unless you can show demonstrative signs that you can learn, any further discussion will be a waste of time.

[Sargon The Grape]

If I have said this once I have said this a hundred times, SHOW ME the fucking EVIDENCE OF A PLANE FLYING INTO No. 7 WTC.  

Then you complain when people are calling you an idiot. If I gave you the times 9:37 am and 9:59 am, I'm obviously not talking about WTC-7. Yet, you go on a rant as if I did. The rest of your post will be ignored as you are deliberately obfuscating the discussion about the behavior of a free falling building that has collapsed.

No, I'm not complaining about anything, you may call me whatever you wish.

But when this whole thread is about No. 7 WTC and I give proof that the collapse of 7 WTC was due to controlled demolition, then you "debunk" my claims about WTC 7 by talking about the collapse of 1 WTC and 2 WTC?  Who is the fool?

You are like the dude crawling around underneath the street light looking for his keys, and when someone asks if he is sure he lost them around here, he replies, "No, I lost them over there among the trees, but it is too dark over there so I am looking here.

Wasn't it you, josephpalazzo, who only a couple of posts ago were bitching about staying on topic?

Where did you get your Ph.D?  WalMart?

 [-X

The collapse of Building 7 was caused by the collapse of 1 and 2, you fucking idiot.

[Hakurei Reimu]

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?

I made no comment at all about how many seconds the total time that part of the collapse took. I was pointing out that the penthouse collapsed seven seconds before what we see as the building facade fell.

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.

Is not the penthouse supported by the building's structure? What do you think supported it? Fairy dust? If the penthouse falls, then there is something seriously wrong with the rest of the structure. As such, saying that any part of the collapse was at strictly freefall is deceptive, and you have retreated from your former claim. An uncontrolled collapse is a chaotic affair. As such, it's not surprising that a portion of the collapse was at freefall as it was preceeded by a lot of other structure falling seconds prior.

The videos of the WTC 7 collapse you usually see is the north face (the east penthouse that collapsed first is on the left side). The part you see is the last part to fall — that is, everything else had already fallen and offering no support for the facade. The north face is also opposite to the ConEd substation that the building was built over and around, as such the south side was the structurally weakest part of WTC 7, and as such it is absolutely no wonder why you see the north face collapse last and the fastest, as there would be no more longitudinal strength holding the support pillars true.

A steel-framed structure depends on its vertical support members remaining nearly true in order to hold itself up. If the vertical supports buckle, then the entire structure collapses quickly. That's why there is significant cross framing to lend longitudinal rigidity, for without them the vertical columns would quickly bend like noodles. It keeps the vertical supports vertical and at their strongest.

[Moralnihilist]

That wasn't me banning them :P This is just my personal reason for not banning him yet.

I'd go ahead an ban him plu he seems to think it will make his mommy more likely to get into her panties:

...until I eventually get my ass banned for being to stupid to live, maybe then my mommy will finally let me actually get what is in her panties.

And lets be honest this guy is simply too stupid to understand that in order for all this bullshit to be true somebody would have had to somehow rig a building for demolition without 27 EOD's or any of the equipment noticing. Something that he has yet to put forth a shred of evidence showing that it is even a possibility of happening. That or he is insinuating that I and the other EOD's in the building were responsible for taking part in one of the worst terrorist attacks in US history. Something that even I hope that is minuscule brain is not even considering, because that would indeed be one of the stupidest things to have ever been uttered on this forum, which would indeed mark him as too stupid to live.

[stromboli]

http://www.urban75.org/info/conspiraloons.html

10 characteristics of conspiracy theorists:

1. Arrogance. They are always fact-seekers, questioners, people who are trying to discover the truth: sceptics are always "sheep", patsies for Messrs Bush and Blair etc.

2. Relentlessness. They will always go on and on about a conspiracy no matter how little evidence they have to go on or how much of what they have is simply discredited. (Moreover, as per 1. above, even if you listen to them ninety-eight times, the ninety-ninth time, when you say "no thanks", you'll be called a "sheep" again.) Additionally, they have no capacity for precis whatsoever. They go on and on at enormous length.

3. Inability to answer questions. For people who loudly advertise their determination to the principle of questioning everything, they're pretty poor at answering direct questions from sceptics about the claims that they make.

4. Fondness for certain stock phrases. These include Cicero's "cui bono?" (of which it can be said that Cicero understood the importance of having evidence to back it up) and Conan Doyle's "once we have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however unlikely, must be the truth". What these phrases have in common is that they are attempts to absolve themselves from any responsibility to produce positive, hard evidence themselves: you simply "eliminate the impossible" (i.e. say the official account can't stand scrutiny) which means that the wild allegation of your choice, based on "cui bono?" (which is always the government) is therefore the truth.

5. Inability to employ or understand Occam's Razor. Aided by the principle in 4. above, conspiracy theorists never notice that the small inconsistencies in the accounts which they reject are dwarfed by the enormous, gaping holes in logic, likelihood and evidence in any alternative account.

6. Inability to tell good evidence from bad. Conspiracy theorists have no place for peer-review, for scientific knowledge, for the respectability of sources. The fact that a claim has been made by anybody, anywhere, is enough for them to reproduce it and demand that the questions it raises be answered, as if intellectual enquiry were a matter of responding to every rumour. While they do this, of course, they will claim to have "open minds" and abuse the sceptics for apparently lacking same.

7. Inability to withdraw. It's a rare day indeed when a conspiracy theorist admits that a claim they have made has turned out to be without foundation, whether it be the overall claim itself or any of the evidence produced to support it. Moreover they have a liking (see 3. above) for the technique of avoiding discussion of their claims by "swamping" - piling on a whole lot more material rather than respond to the objections sceptics make to the previous lot.

8. Leaping to conclusions. Conspiracy theorists are very keen indeed to declare the "official" account totally discredited without having remotely enough cause so to do. Of course this enables them to wheel on the Conan Doyle quote as in 4. above. Small inconsistencies in the account of an event, small unanswered questions, small problems in timing of differences in procedure from previous events of the same kind are all more than adequate to declare the "official" account clearly and definitively discredited. It goes without saying that it is not necessary to prove that these inconsistencies are either relevant, or that they even definitely exist.

9. Using previous conspiracies as evidence to support their claims. This argument invokes scandals like the Birmingham Six, the Bologna station bombings, the Zinoviev letter and so on in order to try and demonstrate that their conspiracy theory should be accorded some weight (because it's "happened before".) They do not pause to reflect that the conspiracies they are touting are almost always far more unlikely and complicated than the real-life conspiracies with which they make comparison, or that the fact that something might potentially happen does not, in and of itself, make it anything other than extremely unlikely.

10. It's always a conspiracy. And it is, isn't it? No sooner has the body been discovered, the bomb gone off, than the same people are producing the same old stuff, demanding that there are questions which need to be answered, at the same unbearable length. Because the most important thing about these people is that they are people entirely lacking in discrimination. They cannot tell a good theory from a bad one, they cannot tell good evidence from bad evidence and they cannot tell a good source from a bad one. And for that reason, they always come up with the same answer when they ask the same question.

A person who always says the same thing, and says it over and over again is, of course, commonly considered to be, if not a monomaniac, then at very least, a bore.