Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?

[Thumpalumpacus]

Next you'll be telling us that Pearl Harbor was an UNprovoked SUPRISE attack, even though documents released under FOIA prove without a doubt Roosevelt provoked it, and even knew the exact day and hour it would come.  

This has already been shown to be false earlier in this thread.

Are you ignoring every single thing that might show you to be wrong? That's no way to run a discussion.  Communication is a two-way street.  Pretending something hasn't been rebutted when it has in fact been rebutted is extremely poor form.

[Moriarty]

Next you'll be telling us that Pearl Harbor was an UNprovoked SUPRISE attack, even though documents released under FOIA prove without a doubt Roosevelt provoked it, and even knew the exact day and hour it would come.  

This has already been shown to be false earlier in this thread.

Are you ignoring every single thing that might show you to be wrong? That's no way to run a discussion.  Communication is a two-way street.  Pretending something hasn't been rebutted when it has in fact been rebutted is extremely poor form.

Everyone knows it was the Germans that bombed Pearl Harbor...Belushi said so!

[youtube:2a71d9o6]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V8lT1o0sDwI[/youtube:2a71d9o6]

[Jason78]

I wonder how much thermite you'd need to bring down a building.

Quite a lot I'd imagine.   Unless the building itself was made of thermite, or made with cold-riveted beams with cores of pure selenium.

[Moralnihilist]

I wonder how much thermite you'd need to bring down a building.

Quite a lot I'd imagine.   Unless the building itself was made of thermite, or made with cold-riveted beams with cores of pure selenium.

Estimates range from 5-10 tons of thermite to hold a burn long enough to cut through enough of the structural steel for the building to fail on its own.

[Plu]

Yeah I figured it was somewhere in that area. That's literally about a truckload.

[Moralnihilist]

Ive seen estimates as high as 60+ tons, but the average seems to between 5-10 tons

[Hakurei Reimu]

Ive seen estimates as high as 60+ tons, but the average seems to between 5-10 tons

Is that altogether, or per member cut?

I like it how AMF screams for a "REAL investigation" when a real investigation would begin by throwing away obvious nonsense. The controlled demolition theory is obvious nonsense, because there is a distinct lack of means (absence of the required explosives) and opportunity (no time to set up the explosives, and really no way to hide it once set).

Also, isn't thermite highly flammable? Wasn't there a RAGING FIRE in WTC 7 for hours prior to the building collapse, and as such would set off a bunch of those charges prematurely and out of sequence? And since thermite melts through heat transfer (rather than mechanical shockwaves as ordinary demolition explosives), wouldn't the heating effect of the fire confound the failure times of those members, undercutting any kind of free-fall controlled collapse theory?

Yeah, obvious bullshit. This forum supplies the only "REAL investigation" required of that theory.

[josephpalazzo]

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.

Alright.  We got off on the wrong foot.  As a newbie here, I saw a post about israelis/jews and their track record of false-flag operations, and jumped straight into the debate without testing the water.  When my position was attacked from 360 degrees, I started a new thread "Is Free-Fall Proof of Controlled Demolition," thinking that in the face of irrefutable evidence of freefall, it would put the question to rest.  WRONG.

Responses came at me from every angle.  Mostly they point blank rejected my arguments without even reading what I wrote.  Stupid moron, idiot, asshole/asshat, and various expletives, with essentially nothing to say.  So for the most part, I just ignored the teenage mutant ninja hoodlums and only responded to serious posts.  But the overwhelming majority of posts were the mere tauntings of teenage mutant ninja hooligans which I pretty much ignored.  (Though I do admit to taunting a few of them back!)

Buried in this barrage of insanity, I misread your post about "the input of energy being unnecessary because gravity does the work."  My (mis)interpretation was that you asserted "*NO* ENGERGY was necessary" because gravity does the work.  My bad, in the currnet vernacular.  Not knowing your background, and in the midst of the constant barrage of "tinfoil hat share prices on the upswing," "Godzilla does New York" and other nonsense posts by teenage mutant ninja hoodlums, I did not take your posts seriously.

After the endless barrage of posts saying little more than moron, fucktard, Godzilla, idiot, Death Star, tinfoil, mamma's panties, I started having doubts about the intelligence level of the group as I was addressing as a whole.  Although I have never made any claims regarding WTC 1 or 2, all of my assertions of the facts regarding WTC 7 have been misattributed to WTC 1 and 2.  Outside of gravity, the collapses of WTC 1 and 2 have little in common with WTC 7.  Though I have expressed my skepticism about many of the things that happened on that day, the only thing I have ever asserted as absolute fact is that 7 WTC fell for over two seconds at the rate of gravity.  PNAC objectives, NORAD failures, yatta yatta are all offered as corroborating evidence that the evil is not strictly limited to only muslim jihadists, which you can take with a grain of salt or not.

If you want to have a serious debate about the collapse of WTV 7, please say so.  Otherwise, just reply to this post with remarks befitting of a kindergartener and I will know to disregard all your future posts.

Thank you.

Fine. Right now I'm away from home, and answering from my  phone. If you don't mind, reiterate all your arguments point by point, including whatever supporting evidence you ha've.

[Moralnihilist]

Ive seen estimates as high as 60+ tons, but the average seems to between 5-10 tons

Is that altogether, or per member cut?

I like it how AMF screams for a "REAL investigation" when a real investigation would begin by throwing away obvious nonsense. The controlled demolition theory is obvious nonsense, because there is a distinct lack of means (absence of the required explosives) and opportunity (no time to set up the explosives, and really no way to hide it once set).

Also, isn't thermite highly flammable? Wasn't there a RAGING FIRE in WTC 7 for hours prior to the building collapse, and as such would set off a bunch of those charges prematurely and out of sequence? And since thermite melts through heat transfer (rather than mechanical shockwaves as ordinary demolition explosives), wouldn't the heating effect of the fire confound the failure times of those members, undercutting any kind of free-fall controlled collapse theory?

Yeah, obvious bullshit. This forum supplies the only "REAL investigation" required of that theory.

That would be all together to bring a building such as WTC 7 down. The reason for the varying difference is dependent on the amount of damage from the falling debris from the towers. One if the major issues with thermite is that it isn't a controllable burn it burns HOT and FAST. Another is that the support structures would have to be wide open(something that anyone would notice) and in order for them to burn through enough supports would take several days(or weeks depending on how many you wanted to cut). And the FINAL nail in the thermite coffin is: you have to know what support structures were taken out by falling debris from the other tower.

Meaning that in order for this entire bullshit to be true they would have had to rig a building while the world press was rolling live in record time while not being seen.

There is a reason explosives and not thermite are used for building demo, explosives are easy to predict and control, thermite is not.

[AtheistMoFo]

@Moralnihilist

And by the way moron, since you have NO fucking evidence what so ever of this bullshit you claim, it can be disregarded with the same level of proof.

As to the pyramids, I can see those, Ive been there. They are quite amazing. The difference between those is that we admit that we don't know the entire story on how they were made. You claim this grand conspiracy and automatically jump to a conclusion that has been discounted because its impossible. Do we know why the building fell the way it did? Nope. But I can firmly and without a doubt in my mind say that it wasn't explosives that brought it down. Do you know why the building fell the way it did? Again no. And until you have an ounce of proof, you are spewing nothing but bullshit.

Tell us your theory on how the "troofers" managed to plant thermitic residue in all the dust samples?  And how they managed to plant molten iron in the debris?

Your argument is based solely on the fact that controlled demolition is evidence that you failed your job and you are unwilling to take that blame.  You say I have no evidence, and when I present evidence you discount it not because it is impossible, but for the simple reason that it does not fit into your preferred scenario.  Do I know why the building fell the way it did?  Yes, it was planned controlled demoition.  And I have given the evidence but you refuse to accept it because you are in denial.

[center:1oz1o9gy]= = = = =[/center:1oz1o9gy]

@Thumpalumpacus

After the endless barrage of posts saying little more than moron, fucktard, Godzilla, idiot, Death Star, tinfoil, mamma's panties, I started having doubts about the intelligence level of the group as I was addressing as a whole.

Hey, nothing like broad-brushing folks who have been decent to you throughout.  Thanks for nuthin'.

Sorry Thump, I should have said "...the intelligence level of the group as a whole with the exception of Thumpalumpacus."

[the_antithesis]

* bullshit snipped *

You still here?

[AtheistMoFo]

Next you'll be telling us that Pearl Harbor was an UNprovoked SUPRISE attack, even though documents released under FOIA prove without a doubt Roosevelt provoked it, and even knew the exact day and hour it would come.  

This has already been shown to be false earlier in this thread.

No, not really.  Being denied is not the same thing as being shown to be false.  And while I do not want to get off topic, I feel compelled to offer this one piece of proof.  Robert Stinnett was a navy photographer during WW2 and was awarded 10 battle stars and a Presidential Unit Citation.  Are you calling him a tinfoil hat looney?

Stinnett is also the author of _Day of Deceit_.  He dug very deep into the archives making FOIA request after FOIA request as research for his book, and he has seen the documentation.  Buy his book.
http://www.independent.org/newsroom/article.asp?id=408

[Moriarty]

Buy his book.

I don't support lunatics or their beliefs, it would be like buying a bible. Lending credence to insane ideas.

[Moralnihilist]

@Moralnihilist

And by the way moron, since you have NO fucking evidence what so ever of this bullshit you claim, it can be disregarded with the same level of proof.

As to the pyramids, I can see those, Ive been there. They are quite amazing. The difference between those is that we admit that we don't know the entire story on how they were made. You claim this grand conspiracy and automatically jump to a conclusion that has been discounted because its impossible. Do we know why the building fell the way it did? Nope. But I can firmly and without a doubt in my mind say that it wasn't explosives that brought it down. Do you know why the building fell the way it did? Again no. And until you have an ounce of proof, you are spewing nothing but bullshit.

Tell us your theory on how the "troofers" managed to plant thermitic residue in all the dust samples?  And how they managed to plant molten iron in the debris?

Your argument is based solely on the fact that controlled demolition is evidence that you failed your job and you are unwilling to take that blame.  You say I have no evidence, and when I present evidence you discount it not because it is impossible, but for the simple reason that it does not fit into your preferred scenario.  Do I know why the building fell the way it did?  Yes, it was planned controlled demoition.  And I have given the evidence but you refuse to accept it because you are in denial.

No my argument is based on the following facts:
1. The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) and the magazine Popular Mechanics examined and rejected these theories. Specialists in structural mechanics and structural engineering accept the model of a fire-induced, gravity-driven collapse of the World Trade Center buildings, an explanation that does not involve the use of explosives.

2. The "molten iron" you refer too would have had to have been over 2000 degrees, and NONE was found to be in its molten state.
 
3. Every argument that you have presented has been disproven by simple math. Thermite would have required at minimum 5 TONS. An astounding amount of material to get into a building without ANYONE noticing. Something that your "evidence" has yet to show to be possible.

4. The fact that tower 7 had several of its structural support beams damaged by falling debris from tower 1. In order to properly rig the building for demo using a cutting method, you would have to know in advance of what support structures would be damaged and or destroyed by the falling debris.

OR

5.You would have to rig a building(while it is on fire and all over the news) without being seen in record time.

OR

6. Lets say for argument sake that they had pre rigged the building for demolition. The damage from the falling debris to the building would have cut or damaged the rigging of the explosives, meaning that you would have to rewire the explosive chain, under the same set of circumstances.


If you are going to claim that I somehow "failed my job". Then I, and I assume others, want to see your proof. And asshole it had better be something good if you are going to insinuate that I, a native New Yorker and damn good EOD, was part of one of the worst terrorist attacks in U.S. history. Your "theory" has been debunked time and time again because of simple physics and logistical impossibilities.


Remember there is a reason explosives and not thermite are used for building demo, its because thermite isn't effective as a building demo tool.

[stromboli]

I noted this early on in the thread, and others may have as well. If so, my apologies. I didn't quote from it originally.

http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/11-09-07/#feature

1EXPLOSIVE DEVICES WERE CAREFULLY AND SECRETLY PLANTED IN THE WTC BUILDINGS. You cannot secretly prepare a controlled demolition of the two World Trade Center buildings containing 50,000 workers, plus extensive security systems and guards, working round the clock, without anyone noticing anything unusual. Instead, we should accept at face value what we all witnessed: two massive jets that slammed into the buildings, damaging the structures and setting off raging fires and igniting more than 40,000 square feet of office space per floor in a matter of seconds, igniting furniture, carpeting, desks, paper, etc. You cannot control the area around such a raging fire to start a demolition.1

3WHAT ABOUT THE ALMOST FREE-FALL COLLAPSE OF THE TWIN TOWERS? The key is the "almost" modifier. If I told you I was making almost $100,000 and you found out I was making only $67,000, you'd say I was exaggerating. So stop exaggerating the collapse speed of the WTC Towers! The 80,000 tons of structural steel slowed down the collapses of the Twin Towers to about ? (two-thirds) of free-fall.3 And the core collapsed at about 40% of free-fall speed, coming down last.4 According to Richard Gage: "To bring a building symmetrically down, what we have to do is remove the core columns." But on 9/11 the stronger core columns came down last, which violates this supposed most fundamental rule of controlled demolition.

5WHAT ABOUT THOSE BILLIONS OF IRON MICROSPHERES THAT R.J. LEE FOUND IN A DUST ANALYSIS THAT PROVES THE THEORY THAT THE IRON IN THE BUILDINGS WAS MELTED BY THERMITE? Thermite would leave tons of formerly melted iron blobs, not just microspheres. But in the 1970s, while workers welded thousands of steel beams together, hot microspheres were splattered everywhere. Concrete has fly ash in it, and I have a photo of iron-rich spheres in Tolk fly ash in my YouTube video response. Even if the microspheres were created in the fires on 9/11, the R.J. Lee dust study said, "Considering the high temperatures reached during the destruction of the WTC ... Iron-rich spheres ... would be expected to be present in the Dust."6

10WHAT CAUSED BUILDING 7 TO COLLAPSE? Many firefighters reported seeing structural deformations of Building 7 hours before its collapse, including the top FDNY fire Chief Daniel Nigro, who stated, "I feared a collapse of Building 7 (as did many on my staff). The collapse of WTC 1 damaged portions of the lower floors of 7. Building 7 was built on a small number of large columns providing an open Atrium on the lower levels. Fires on many floors of WTC 7 burned without sufficient water supply to attack them. For these reasons I made the decision (without consulting the owner, the mayor or anyone else—as ranking fire officer, that decision was my responsibility) to clear a collapse zone surrounding the building and to stop all activity within that zone. Approximately three hours after ... WTC 7 collapsed. Conspiracy theories abound and I believe firmly that all of them are without merit."
In a World Trade Centre Task Force Interview, FDNY Lieutenant Rudolph Weindler said: "So we left 7 World Trade Center... and Captain Varriale told Chief Coloe and myself that 7 World Trade Center was badly damaged on the south side and definitely in danger of collapse. Chief Coloe said we were going to evacuate the collapse zone around 7 World Trade Center, which we did."
And Deputy Chief Peter Hayden said: "We saw a bulge in the southwest corner between floors 10 and 13, and we had put a transit on that, and we were pretty sure she was going to collapse."
Another Building 7 eyewitness was Michael Hess, Mayor Giuliani's chief lawyer. He and fellow city worker Barry Jennings got caught in Building 7 and barely escaped with their lives. Michael Hess said that he heard and felt the building shake like an earthquake for 5–10 seconds prior to the collapse of either tower. But in 2007, he too changed his story, claiming in a BBC interview that he got his timing wrong and that the 10-second-long earthquake sound was most likely caused by tower debris hitting the building later in the morning. "There were no explosions. That was caused by the north half of #1 falling onto the southern half of our building." He compared what he heard to a loud rumbling earthquake, not the staccato blasts of explosions.

This has all been refuted numerous times.

I repeat- NYFD is one of the finest fire departments on the planet. They have one of the best fire investigative teams in existence. If you think they are going to find and then cover up evidence of the death of 340 of their brothers, trust me, you do not understand firefighters.