Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?

[Thumpalumpacus]

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

Your exception is far too narrow. Retreating into ad homeneim, especially against an entire group, is usually a pretty good sign of a failed argument. You've reiterated points which have already been disposed as if they haven't been rebutted, dismissed the experience of someone who was actually there based on what is obviously a flawed understanding of the behavior of steel under heat, and waved away other points that don't comport with your view without even rebutting them in detail. To then continue on to insult the intelligence of a group because your argument doesn't carry the day is silly.

You clearly have not, and will not, consider another option here, namely, that you are wrong. More's the pity.

[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.

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?

I'm unsure how being a combat photographer qualifies him to expound upon diplomatic history, but out of respect for his service, I'll simply say that I think he's wrong ... I much prefer agreeable disagreement, myself.

Insofar as your point, it was positively disposed of when the evidence you presented "supporting" FDR's foreknowledge was shown to have been unknown to FDR.  Additionally, the diplomatic reasoning I used is pretty good circumstantial evidence that even if FDR had known in advance (a point you've not proven), he and his Administration understood that a Japanese attack would not have justified a war against Germany, which is what they really wanted.

Sorry, but you'll need to start another thread if you want to "show" that you've proven your point.

Also, do me a favor and rather than expect me to spend money here, simply  explain your reasoning and present your evidence.  I can link to books and tell you to go shopping all day long, but that isn't an argument.

[stromboli]

Thumpalumpacus wrote:

Your exception is far too narrow. Retreating into ad homeneim, especially against an entire group, is usually a pretty good sign of a failed argument. You've reiterated points which have already been disposed as if they haven't been rebutted, dismissed the experience of someone who was actually there based on what is obviously a flawed understanding of the behavior of steel under heat, and waved away other points that don't comport with your view without even rebutting them in detail. To then continue on to insult the intelligence of a group because your argument doesn't carry the day is silly.

You clearly have not, and will not, consider another option here, namely, that you are wrong. More's the pity.

^this. If you can continue arguing for this long against a huge pile of contrary evidence, the statements of professionals, the statement of a highly qualified eyewitness.- wow. You are either the conspiracy theorist from hell or the king of all trolls.

[AtheistMoFo]

@Moralnihilist

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.

1. If the model you refer to is the NIST model, what kind of "specialists in structural mechanics and structural engineering" accept a model they have never seen?  NIST never revealed the data necessary to either verify or disprove their model.
http://cryptome.org/nist070709.pdf

2. A number of firefighters on the scene reported seeing molten steel "like you were in a foundry"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uQyIN6OTMyY
and even Guliani mentioned underground fires 2000 degrees or more that raged for hundreds of days.  New York firefighters AND Giuliani -- tinfoil hat unofficial conspiracy theorists?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YgYf6gK-N1U
http://nymag.com/news/features/28517/

3. I've already said at least twice that the technique used to smuggle thermite into WTC 7 is theorized to be the same trick they used to smuggle boxcutters past airport security.  Why is that so difficult for you to understand.

4. & 6. That would depend on which floors the charges were placed and we do not know that information.  For the sake of argument, let's say all the interior columns vanished, with only the outer columns remaining intact for a short while.

Why would all the outer columns buckle inward and none buckle outward?  What else other than controlled demolition would make them all buckle simultaneously?  If you can not explain how the columns all failed simultaneously, how else do you explain the building coming straight down symetrically?

5. Gimme a break.  You know as well as I do nobody has even suggested that.

[AtheistMoFo]

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.

Oop!  Wrong thread.  This is the thread about WTC 7, not the Twin Towers.

[Moralnihilist]

2. A number of firefighters on the scene reported seeing molten steel "like you were in a foundry"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uQyIN6OTMyY
and even Guliani mentioned underground fires 2000 degrees or more that raged for hundreds of days.  New York firefighters AND Giuliani -- tinfoil hat unofficial conspiracy theorists?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YgYf6gK-N1U
http://nymag.com/news/features/28517/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YW1jsUX ... dded#at=31
Now tell me again where is this supposed 2000 degree molten steel?

3. I've already said at least twice that the technique used to smuggle thermite into WTC 7 is theorized to be the same trick they used to smuggle boxcutters past airport security.  Why is that so difficult for you to understand.

And Ive debunked this time and time again. Again where is the evidence that 5 TONS(minimum) of thermite was smuggled into a building that was manned 24/7 by USSS and EOD's? And again you fail to see the stupidity in comparing an over paid rent-a-cop to 27 of the best EOD's in the world. Not to mention that the building being reduced to a construction zone in order for the structural supports to accessed would be painfully obvious to anyone.

4. & 6. That would depend on which floors the charges were placed and we do not know that information.  For the sake of argument, let's say all the interior columns vanished, with only the outer columns remaining intact for a short while.
[ Image ]
Why would all the outer columns buckle inward and none buckle outward?  What else other than controlled demolition would make them all buckle simultaneously?  If you can not explain how the columns all failed simultaneously, how else do you explain the building coming straight down symmetrically?

And you have no explanation that has ANY supporting evidence either. So..... Yea.

5. Gimme a break.  You know as well as I do nobody has even suggested that.

Really? Damn I love catching liars in a lie.

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.

Care to try that bullshit again asshole?

[stromboli]

Part and parcel. The whole event or bldg. 7, same cause. You still cannot give any answer to the large questions of how a team of specialists managed to insert tons of explosives and truckloads of control devices in any of the buildings in the presence of advanced security, thousands of people and do so over a long period of time, and not be seen; and then leave virtually zero evidence afterward.

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.

Same link, dumbass. you didn't read it.

[AtheistMoFo]

I'm unsure how being a combat photographer qualifies him to expound upon diplomatic history, but out of respect for his service, I'll simply say that I think he's wrong ... I much prefer agreeable disagreement, myself.

Combat photographer during World War 2, when he was a young man, who later became a distinguished journalist.  The book was written more than five decades after the war ended.  While he was serving in the military during the war, he believed the official line about the unprovoked sneak attack.  Then more than 50 years of research later, his opinion had changed.

One ironic thing about Stinnett is that although he exposes Roosevelt's lie, Stinnett himself agrees with Roosevelt's strategy.  He feels that Roosevelt had no other choice.  Go figure.  But you have already made up your mind on the issue, so it would be pointless for me to try to persuade you.

FDR ... and his Administration understood that a Japanese attack would not have justified a war against Germany, which is what they really wanted.

Funny, because war against Germany is exactly what happened, isn't it.  As a history buff, surely you know that Germany had a three-way pact with Italy and Japan, that if one of the three were attacked, the other two would would come to the defense?  Or maybe that is also just a part of the conspiracy theory?

Sorry, but you'll need to start another thread if you want to "show" that you've proven your point.

From what I have seen of the open mindedness of most members of this forum, I think not.  Let's just leave it as another point we disagree on.

But do tell us this.  As a history buff, (if you are still a history buff), what is your take on the Reichstag fire in 1933 and Goering's "proof" it was the evil doings of the commies?  Have you ever heard of the Lavon Affair?  What about the Manchurian Incident?  Are these nothing but false flag conspiracy theories and the ravings of lunatics?  Or maybe these never happened?  What say you, Mr. History Buff?

[AtheistMoFo]

2. A number of firefighters on the scene reported seeing molten steel "like you were in a foundry"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uQyIN6OTMyY
and even Guliani mentioned underground fires 2000 degrees or more that raged for hundreds of days.  New York firefighters AND Giuliani -- tinfoil hat unofficial conspiracy theorists?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YgYf6gK-N1U
http://nymag.com/news/features/28517/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YW1jsUXoRgs&feature=player_embedded#at=31
Now tell me again where is this supposed 2000 degree molten steel?

Wow, how clever.  You post a video showing no molten steel and claim that as proof there was no molten steel.  You may as well have posted a video of Donald Duck.  That would be as much proof of anything as the video you posted.  The links I posted show firefighters saying they saw molten steel.  Mayor Giuliani talking about fires of 2000 degrees or more.  And how about this one, the History Channel...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Ogrupgt4mI

Firefighters, Mayor Giuliani, the History Channel, all liars?

3. I've already said at least twice that the technique used to smuggle thermite into WTC 7 is theorized to be the same trick they used to smuggle boxcutters past airport security.  Why is that so difficult for you to understand.

And Ive debunked this time and time again. Again where is the evidence that 5 TONS(minimum) of thermite was smuggled into a building that was manned 24/7 by USSS and EOD's? And again you fail to see the stupidity in comparing an over paid rent-a-cop to 27 of the best EOD's in the world. Not to mention that the building being reduced to a construction zone in order for the structural supports to accessed would be painfully obvious to anyone.

You have DENIED it, not debunked it.  You have not shown how the method of smuggling thermite past security is any different than smuggling boxcutters through security.

5. Gimme a break.  You know as well as I do nobody has even suggested that.

Really? Damn I love catching liars in a lie.

Show me any truth seeker posting in this forum suggested that WTC was rigged for demolition after the planes hit the towers.  And by truth seeker, that means Godzilla thoeorists, laser weapons from outer space theorists, death star theorists, mini-nuke theorists and the like are automatically disqualified.

[Moralnihilist]

3. I've already said at least twice that the technique used to smuggle thermite into WTC 7 is theorized to be the same trick they used to smuggle boxcutters past airport security.  Why is that so difficult for you to understand.

And Ive debunked this time and time again. Again where is the evidence that 5 TONS(minimum) of thermite was smuggled into a building that was manned 24/7 by USSS and EOD's? And again you fail to see the stupidity in comparing an over paid rent-a-cop to 27 of the best EOD's in the world. Not to mention that the building being reduced to a construction zone in order for the structural supports to accessed would be painfully obvious to anyone.

You have DENIED it, not debunked it.  You have not shown how the method of smuggling thermite past security is any different than smuggling boxcutters through security.

Let me use smaller words of you since you don't understand the difference between 5 tons vs several ounces. Nor do you seem to understand how pathetically trained airport security is compared to U.S. military EOD's. Nor do you understand the why trying to rig a building for demolition under the noses of people who's job it is to know what that looks like, WITHOUT those same people noticing.

No demolitions expert would be able to pull it off. Plain and simple its not fucking possible. Your "theory" does not have a leg to stand on. The other issues that this "theory" of yours has are the following:

1. As stated previously 5 tons(thats 10,000 pounds) of thermite would leave MORE than particles behind.
2. Anybody with eyes could see the buildings support structures being exposed for demolition, yet NOBODY has come forward saying anything close to that.
3. There was NO explosive residue, nor was there ANY primacord casings found(remember primacord is an explosive)
4. And here is the killer for this whole "theory", without one shred of scientifically acceptable proof to back your story, all you are left with is the building fell funny you don't know why so it MUST be explosives. All of this despite all of the contradictory evidence from people much smarter than you or I and their scientifically verifiable and repeatable testing.

[stromboli]

http://science.howstuffworks.com/engine ... osion1.htm

Detonators and Dynamite
In the last section, we saw how blasters plan out a building implosion. Once they have a clear idea of how the structure should fall, it's time to prepare the building. The first step in preparation, which often begins before the blasters have actually surveyed the site, is to clear any debris out of the building. Next, construction crews, or, more accurately, destruction crews, begin taking out non-load-bearing walls within the building. This makes for a cleaner break at each floor: If these walls were left intact, they would stiffen the building, hindering its collapse. Destruction crews may also weaken the supporting columns with sledge hammers or steel-cutters, so that they give way more easily.
Next, blasters can start loading the columns with explosives. Blasters use different explosives for different materials, and determine the amount of explosives needed based on the thickness of the material. For concrete columns, blasters use traditional dynamite or a similar explosive material. Dynamite is just absorbent stuffing soaked in a highly combustible chemical or mixture of chemicals. When the chemical is ignited, it burns quickly, producing a large volume of hot gas in a short amount of time. This gas expands rapidly, applying immense outward pressure (up to 600 tons per square inch) on whatever is around it. Blasters cram this explosive material into narrow bore holes drilled in the concrete columns. When the explosives are ignited, the sudden outward pressure sends a powerful shock wave busting through the column at supersonic speed, shattering the concrete into tiny chunks.
Demolishing steel columns is a bit more difficult, as the dense material is much stronger. For buildings with a steel support structure, blasters typically use the specialized explosive material cyclotrimethylenetrinitramine, called RDX for short. RDX-based explosive compounds expand at a very high rate of speed, up to 27,000 feet per second (8,230 meters per second). Instead of disintegrating the entire column, the concentrated, high-velocity pressure slices right through the steel, splitting it in half. Additionally, blasters may ignite dynamite on one side of the column to push it over in a particular direction.

READ THE ARTICLE. Look at the picture that shows how the explosives are rigged. It takes miles of wire, connectors, fuses, demolition igniters and so on. You have to bore holes in concrete, remove fascia and any other impeding material. And a considerable amount of deconstruction prior to the implementation of the drtonation.

It takes a large crew of people, truckloads of material and explosives, and many days of preparation. Oh and by the way, you won't see Thermite mentioned anywhere. It is not used in building demolition and as far as I know hasn't been for some time.

[Moriarty]

Tacking inc~

[the_antithesis]

No, not really.  Being denied is not the same thing as being shown to be false.

Nor is it the same as being shown to be true.

It is the same as being worthless, however.

Why are you so worthless?

Did your mommy not love you enough?

Did your daddy love you too much?

[theory816]

This is a vid explaining how the buildings could have possibly been rigged for those who are interested. I didn't watch it all as I already believe its to be a inside job. For most, the question is if it was rigged is wrong, it should be how it was rigged.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E3EQV223Y-M

[Moralnihilist]

This is a vid explaining how the buildings could have possibly been rigged for those who are interested. I didn't watch it all as I already believe its to be a inside job. For most, the question is if it was rigged is wrong, it should be how it was rigged.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E3EQV223Y-M

An INSIDE JOB??? Really dipshit? You are going to tell me, an EOD present in the very building not to mention A NATIVE NEW YORKER, that I had something to do with this? You must without a doubt the stupidest motherfucker on the face of this fucking planet.

=edit=
do the world a favor and put a gun in your mouth and eat a fucking bullet.