Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?

[stromboli]

Oh noes guys now he is showing us origami with money AND youtube? Man we are so screwed by this retards attempt at evidence.[/quote]
I think he's trying to say that the World Trade Center collapse is on the money.[/quote]

I know, I was simply mocking what passes for evidence to this drooling window licker.

Anyone else missing the attempt at being semi intelligent "arguments" posed by AMF? At least he attempts to put SOME thought into his arguments.[/quote]

you're being too kind, moral.  [-X

[AtheistMoFo]

...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:

Danny Jowenko is the owner of a controlled demolition company in the Netherlands.  He was shown a video of the collapse of WTC 7 without his knowing what it was and asked to comment.  (Jowenko had been unaware that a third building had collapsed on 9/11.)  After viewing the video, Jowenko said: "They simply blew up columns, and the rest caved in afterwards. . . .  This is controlled demolition."  When asked if he was certain, he replied: "Absolutely, it's been imploded. This was a hired job. A team of experts did this."
   Your ace team of 27 experts guarding seven buildings 24/7 -- so that means how many of your experts at 7 WTC at any given time of any day?  Guarding how many possible entrances?
   You have repeatedly denied that the required volume of thermite could have been brought into the building and strategically placed, citing your own infallibility as proof, thought it is precisely your overconfidence that makes you so vulnerable.  The city of Troy was impregnable until the Greeks figured out how to get in.  Encryption FIPS 140-2 Level 2 was considered impossible to break, until someone circumvented it.  The Titanic was unsinkable, until it sank.  All you have done is belittle airport security agents while touting your own horn.
   And you have still not shown us how the truthers planted the thermitic residue in the dust samples.  If you can't show us how it was done, you have to explain some other mechanism by which the residue got into the dust.  Otherwise, the residue is valid evidence that thermite could have been what brought 7 WTC down.
   You have shown us a video with no molten steel and claimed this as proof that there was none whereas I have shown videos of firefighters who say they saw it, Mayor Rudy Giuliani speaking about fires of 2000 degrees or more, and interviews with responders shown on the History Channel, yet you still deny molten iron/steel.  This refusal to believe anything that challenges your world view is known as denial.

[AtheistMoFo]

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

It appears to be hopeless, T816.  These guys are in such a state of denial they would insist they were never born if it challenged their world view.  Especially the dude who worked there as a rent-a-cop, EOD, whatever he calls himself.  He seems to feel we are blaming him for the failure rather than to look at it objectively, pick up the pieces and move on.

[The Skeletal Atheist]

Ahem: thermite residue = elemental iron and aluminum oxide. Aluminum plane + steel (carbon + iron) structure building = iron and aluminum. It's not hard to see how this would be present when an aluminum plane slams into a steel structure.

Yes yes, I know you're talking about building 7, but a plane slamming into a building (or anything for that matter) would produce a lot of particulate matter spread out over a large area. I addressed this point much earlier in this sprawling thread, so it's appropriate that I bring it up again.

[aitm]

Does anyone still have a pic of a dead horse being beaten?  please post it for me to steal so I can use it on this thread.

[Moralnihilist]

...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:

Danny Jowenko is the owner of a controlled demolition company in the Netherlands.  He was shown a video of the collapse of WTC 7 without his knowing what it was and asked to comment.  (Jowenko had been unaware that a third building had collapsed on 9/11.)  After viewing the video, Jowenko said: "They simply blew up columns, and the rest caved in afterwards. . . .  This is controlled demolition."  When asked if he was certain, he replied: "Absolutely, it's been imploded. This was a hired job. A team of experts did this."
   Your ace team of 27 experts guarding seven buildings 24/7 -- so that means how many of your experts at 7 WTC at any given time of any day?  Guarding how many possible entrances?
   You have repeatedly denied that the required volume of thermite could have been brought into the building and strategically placed, citing your own infallibility as proof, thought it is precisely your overconfidence that makes you so vulnerable.  The city of Troy was impregnable until the Greeks figured out how to get in.  Encryption FIPS 140-2 Level 2 was considered impossible to break, until someone circumvented it.  The Titanic was unsinkable, until it sank.  All you have done is belittle airport security agents while touting your own horn.
   And you have still not shown us how the truthers planted the thermitic residue in the dust samples.  If you can't show us how it was done, you have to explain some other mechanism by which the residue got into the dust.  Otherwise, the residue is valid evidence that thermite could have been what brought 7 WTC down.
   You have shown us a video with no molten steel and claimed this as proof that there was none whereas I have shown videos of firefighters who say they saw it, Mayor Rudy Giuliani speaking about fires of 2000 degrees or more, and interviews with responders shown on the History Channel, yet you still deny molten iron/steel.  This refusal to believe anything that challenges your world view is known as denial.

The funny thing about EOD offices is that there is the latest and greatest of bomb detection equipment, thermite(your explosive of choice) was one of the many things that is picked up by said equipment its success rate is 99.999%. But lets say that somehow this particular thermite was part of the .0001% miss rate of the equipment. Again you still have to take into account that the building would still have to be rigged for demo. A process that involves removal of interior walls, wiring, and the exposing the structural support members to be demoed to bring the building down. This level of building destruction would have been noticed by any of the hundreds of office workers and security guards in the building.

Now once you get the structural supports exposed NOW you have to set the charges and run the lines for the demo. The lines are primacord an explosive. Then there are the blasting caps, also an explosive. Those chemical makeups are detected 100% by the EOD equipment. But, again, for the sake of argument lets say that somehow the equipment misses something it never misses. Or better yet lets say that they are using some sort of "super secret" unknown detonation cord and blasting cap that the equipment isn't set to detect. Now then you would have all this cabling connecting from one structural support to another. Something that even you would have to admit would draw some sort of attention from somebody. Again remember that NOBODY that worked in that office saw ANYTHING remotely close to this.

Now, again for the sake of argument, lets say that you get lucky and NONE of this is detected by anybody or any of the equipment. Now then you have to contend with the damage to the building from falling debris from tower 1. This damaged the lower 1/3 to 2/3(depending on the report) of the building. This would have damaged the chain and would have to be fixed on the fly, something that is quite difficult to do in controlled situations and virtually impossible to do in a chaotic environment like that building was. All of this while there were people being evacuated from the building, firefighters, and police swarming to assist the injured, and NONE of this rigging being noticed.

Now do you see why this theory of yours has been discounted? The series of events that would be required for this to be a true scenario are astounding. This is what disproves your theory. This isn't one thing that is unlikely, this is a series of next to impossible actions that would have had to taken place for this to occur.

Notice this entire dispute so far I have taken the EOD factor out of the equation. The EOD factor simply adds another layer of difficulty to the equation. And makes it even less likely to have occurred.

Also the EOD(and good job on getting a good one by the way, I actually hadn't heard that one before. But he is a damn good EOD), said only that the building looked like it was brought down by explosives, Not that the series of events that I have just described(your own admission stated that he was unaware of the third building falling on 9/11) were even remotely possible, nor did he claim to be able to complete the demo rigging under the noses of EOD's.

[Sargon The Grape]

[Hakurei Reimu]

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?

First off, the interior columns didn't vanish. They may have broken, but they're still there, their weight unchanged, but now needing support themselves instead of doing the supporting, pulling on those cross beams you see with the weight they formerly supported. Hence, the outer columns get pulled inward, in the direction of that weight.

Secondly, you say they all buckled simultaneously? How "simultaneous" is that, because that statement is based on the fact that the roof appeared to fall as one unit from a quarter mile away. That can mean that individual members could have failed such that they got no further than a half foot before its neighbors did, which case the difference in failure times can be as much as a tenth of a second, which is certainly sufficient time for the stress from those broken members to be transferred to their neighbors and cause them to fall.

Now how did the building get in such a state where one breakage would mean that failure would rip through the building? Remember that fire cooking all that structure? Well before the final collapse, the building would settle as the members slowly weakened from the fire and the weight shifted around to stronger members from the weaker ones (the ones doing more buckling), so at the end of seven hours, an already compromised building would have all of its weight transferred away from members that could no longer support it onto a relatively few members that are still able to bear the weight of the building. Thus, the entire building was on the brink of failure, and it took only a little push to cause a catastrophic unzipping of the entire thing. And remember that eyewitnesses in the building saw that walls were bulging, indicating that the members inside were buckling already.

So, in a real way, the actual collapse of the building took hours, not seconds; it just had a rather dramatic final phase.

[stromboli]

You keep citing the opinions of "experts" including known conspiracy theorists to protest your case, and keep ignoring the obvious arguments. I don't care how many experts view videos and cite opinions, you have completely overlooked what the people who made the determination of what brought the buildings down concluded.

The fact is that a building brought down by detonation leaves a huge amount of evidence of that demolition. Explosive residue, obvious marking of blast sites, necessary deconstruction, point of explosive detonation, tearaway or shearing of both concrete and steel members and so on and so on. That evidence was nonexistent when the NYFD and other explosive experts examined the wreckage.

Well, that is it for me. I'm not wasting any more time on this drivel.

[AtheistMoFo]

@everyone

This post is not addressed to any OCT'er in particular.  Just a general observation that ought to be considered.

Former Transportation Secretary Norman Y. Mineta testifies to 9/11 Commission:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MBwW5Lo_CD0

The plane is 50 miles out
...30 miles out
...10 miles out, then the young man comes in and asks, "Do the orders still stand?"  Cheney replies in the affirmative.

QUESTIONS WE SHOULD ALL ASK:
1.) What were those orders?
2.) Why were the ordinary workers in the Pentagon not warned about the hijacked aircraft coming at them 50 miles out, 30 miles out and 10 miles out so they could have taken cover?  And those who died not have died?


But the above is probably off topic, because this thread is about 7 WTC, so please disregard it.  My bad.   :roll:

Getting back to 7 WTC...
even BEFORE either of the TwinTowers collapsed, there were massive explosion(s) in WTC 7.  Since the building had not been hit by either any aircraft nor any debris from the falling towers, what caused the explosion(s)?

 :-k

[stromboli]

https://www.google.com/search?q=explosi ... 3&ie=UTF-8



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Trad ... y_theories

[Sargon The Grape]

The structural engineering community rejects the controlled-demolition conspiracy theory. Its consensus is that the collapse of the World Trade Center buildings was a fire-induced, gravity-driven collapse, an explanation that does not involve the use of explosives.[2][77][page needed]
The American Society of Civil Engineers Structural Engineering Institute issued a statement calling for further discussion of NIST's recommendations,[78] and Britain's Institution of Structural Engineers published a statement in May 2002 welcoming the FEMA report, noting that the report expressed similar views to those held by its group of professionals.[79]
Following the publication of Jones' paper "Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Completely Collapse?"[6] Brigham Young University responded to Jones' "increasingly speculative and accusatory" statements by placing him on paid leave, and thereby stripping him of two classes, in September 2006, pending a review of his statements and research. Six weeks later, Jones retired from the university.[21] The structural engineering faculty at the university issued a statement which said that they "do not support the hypotheses of Professor Jones".[3][22] On September 22, 2005, Jones gave a seminar on his hypotheses to a group of his colleagues from the Department of Physics and Astronomy at BYU. According to Jones, all but one of his colleagues agreed after the seminar that an investigation was in order and the lone dissenter came to agreement with Jones' suggestions the next day.[22]
Northwestern University Professor of Civil Engineering Zden?k Bažant, who was the first to offer a published peer-reviewed theory of the collapses, wrote "a few outsiders claiming a conspiracy with planted explosives" as an exception.[80] Bažant and Verdure trace such "strange ideas" to a "mistaken impression" that safety margins in design would make the collapses impossible. One of the effects of a more detailed modeling of the progressive collapse, they say, could be to "dispel the myth of planted explosives". Indeed, Bažant and Verdure have proposed examining data from controlled demolitions in order to better model the progressive collapse of the towers, suggesting that progressive collapse and controlled demolition are not two separate modes of failure (as the controlled-demolition conspiracy theory assumes).[2]
Thomas Eagar, a professor of materials science and engineering at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, also dismissed the controlled-demolition conspiracy theory.[3] Eagar remarked, "These people (in the 9/11 truth movement) use the 'reverse scientific method.' They determine what happened, throw out all the data that doesn't fit their conclusion, and then hail their findings as the only possible conclusion."[81]
Regarding Jones' theory that nanothermite was used to bring down the towers, and the assertion that thermite and nanothermite composites were found in the dust and debris were found following the collapse of the three buildings, which was concluded to be proof that explosives brought down the buildings,[6][7][8][12] Brent Blanchard, author of "A History of Explosive Demolition in America",[82] states that questions about the viability of Jones' theories remain unanswered, such as the fact that no demolition personnel noticed any telltale signs of thermite during the eight months of debris removal following the towers' collapse. Blanchard also stated that a verifiable chain of possession needs to be established for the tested beams, which did not occur with the beams Jones tested, raising questions of whether the metal pieces tested could have been cut away from the debris pile with acetylene torches, shears, or other potentially contaminated equipment while on site, or exposed to trace amounts of thermite or other compounds while being handled, while in storage, or while being transferred from Ground Zero to memorial sites.[83] Dave Thomas of Skeptical Inquirer magazine, noting that the residue in question was claimed to be thermitic because of its iron oxide and aluminum composition, pointed out that these substances are found in many items common to the towers. Thomas stated that in order to cut through a vertical steel beam, special high-temperature containment must be added to prevent the molten iron from dropping down, and that the thermite reaction is too slow for it to be practically used in building demolition. Thomas pointed out that when Jesse Ventura hired New Mexico Tech to conduct a demonstration showing nanothermite slicing through a large steel beam, the nanothermite produced copious flame and smoke but no damage to the beam, even though it was in a horizontal, and therefore optimal position.[84]
Preparing a building for a controlled demolition takes considerable time and effort.[85] The tower walls would have had to be opened on dozens of floors.[6] Thousands of pounds of explosives, fuses and ignition mechanisms would need to be sneaked past security and placed in the towers[6][86] without the tens of thousands of people working in the World Trade Center noticing.[1][50][85][86][87][88] Referring to a conversation with Stuart Vyse, a professor of psychology, an article in the Hartford Advocate asks, "How many hundreds of people would you need to acquire the explosives, plant them in the buildings, arrange for the airplanes to crash [...] and, perhaps most implausibly of all, never breathe a single word of this conspiracy?"[89]
World Trade Center developer Larry Silverstein said, "Hopefully this thorough report puts to rest the various 9/11 conspiracy theories, which dishonor the men and women who lost their lives on that terrible day." Upon presentation of the NIST's detailed report on the failure of Bldg. 7, Richard Gage, leader of the group Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth said, "How much longer do we have to endure the coverup of how Building 7 was destroyed?" in which Dr. S. Shyam Sunder, the lead NIST investigator said he could not explain why the skepticism would not die. "I am really not a psychologist," he said. "Our job was to come up with the best science."[36] James Quintiere, professor of fire protection engineering at the University of Maryland, who does not believe explosives brought down the towers, questioned how the agency came to its conclusions, remarking, "They don't have the expertise on explosives," though he adds that NIST wasted time employing outside experts to consider it.[90]

[stromboli]

Thanks for posting that. I've got better things to do than playing derp tag with the tinfoil hat crowd.

[PopeyesPappy]

They determine what happened, throw out all the data that doesn't fit their conclusion, and then hail their findings as the only possible conclusion.

Sounds familiar.

[Hakurei Reimu]

The plane is 50 miles out
...30 miles out
...10 miles out, then the young man comes in and asks, "Do the orders still stand?"  Cheney replies in the affirmative.

QUESTIONS WE SHOULD ALL ASK:
1.) What were those orders?

If you watched the first part of the tape, you would know that it was to shoot commercial planes down.

2.) Why were the ordinary workers in the Pentagon not warned about the hijacked aircraft coming at them 50 miles out, 30 miles out and 10 miles out so they could have taken cover?  And those who died not have died?

I have no idea, but you cannot conclude from that that there was any ill intent directed towards those workers. However, a plausible timeline is summarily described as, "We got the Air Force protecting us in the Pentagon... what do you mean they're not scrambled yet?"

even BEFORE either of the TwinTowers collapsed, there were massive explosion(s) in WTC 7.  Since the building had not been hit by either any aircraft nor any debris from the falling towers, what caused the explosion(s)?

 :-k

First, find evidence that proves (a) that these explosions existed, and (b) that these explosions came from WTC 7 and not some other source. Because we don't have to explain irrelevant and/or nonexistant data.