Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?

[The Skeletal Atheist]

The 9/11 commission was Bush and congress' way 'to prepare a full and complete account of the circumstances surrounding the September 11 attacks.' And they spent as minimal as they could.

Great job ignoring my post where I pointed out the extensive costs from government agencies other than the Commission. You're really grade A, top of the line aren't ya?

[Hijiri Byakuren]

The 9/11 commission was Bush and congress' way 'to prepare a full and complete account of the circumstances surrounding the September 11 attacks.' And they spent as minimal as they could.

[ Image ]

Great job ignoring my post where I pointed out the extensive costs from government agencies other than the Commission. You're really grade A, top of the line aren't ya?

Don't be too surprised. He's ignored everything of mine as well.

[Thumpalumpacus]

[Hakurei Reimu]

@AtheistMoFo: Cybercommuter, is that you?

[AllPurposeAtheist]

I've been to the grassy knoll, even passed out drunk there before. You wouldn't believe all the telephone poles with mind control probes. Most of them move now. We call them tourists,  but anyone who's ever lived near Dallas can tell you they're really mind probing androids...big cell phones with legs.. :shock:  :-$  :-$  :-$

[AtheistMoFo]

This is incorrect.  Look:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8XMTALBYRNA
You'll notice that the failure happens in a very short time (0:49 - 0:52) -- not a gradual process, as you've asserted several times.

Somebody switched the videos on you between the time you posted this and when I watched.  What I saw (0:49 - 0:52) was a partial and uneven collapse, with so much smoke that it is impossible to determine the exact timing of the collapse.  Quite unlike the video I posted of the WTC 7 symetrical total collapse that is in plain sight and easliy measurable.  Also, we do not know when/where your builiding collapse took place or whether it was controlled demolition or not.

THE. WAY. IT. FELL. IS. THE. PROOF.

No it is not. At this point you have said only why (you think) the towers could not have fallen from a plane crash, ...

Duh.  I think Jumper was talking about WTC 7, not WTC 2 or WTC 2.  But even those collapses are very suspicious.  Suspicious enough to call for a REAL investigation, which has never happened.

"In over 100 years of experience with steel-framed buildings, fires have never caused the collapse of a single one, even though many were ravaged by severe fires. Indeed, fires have never caused the total collapse of any permanent steel structure."

You're right, and they didn't in this case either. Notice the hole:...

If you are making a claim that the debris from either or both of the towers caused the collapse, you are contradicting the findings of NIST (National Institute of Standards and Technology) because they say "normal office fires" were the cause of the WTC 7 collapse.  If you claim the hole in WTC 7 caused it to collapse, where is your evidence?  You are so keen on demanding evidence from Jumper and me, but you make claims and no need to back up?  You don't get to say the hole caused the collapse until you show us the evidence.

I'd actually like to see the math :)  I like numbers.

Then by all means please do!  I posted links in my OP.

So we're agreed.  You don't know what charges were used, where they were placed, who placed them, how they were detonated, or when.  But you still expect me to believe that your demolition theory is correct.

Actually I do have a pretty good idea, but I am not making that argument in this thread.  If you really wanted to know, you could do your own research and you would easily find the answers you are looking for.  My point is that WTC 7 was intentionally demolished, and freefall is the smoking gun.

I don't know why I would show you evidence that Osama masterminded the attack.  I've never asserted that he had.

And this is coming from the person who talks about "...girders would have been removed by the several tons of plane slamming into them.  The towers ..." when the only claims I have ever made are about WTC 7?  Sheesh!   :rollin:

Sorry, I misspoke.  WTC 7 collapsed after being by the substantial debris flying out of WTC 1.  See paragraph L.2.1

You not only misspoke.  You also misLinked.See paragraph L.2.1 brings up only a blank page.

Perhaps you're not understanding what I mean by "hole."

Oh, no!  Now you are trying to blame Godzilla!  Man, I have heard some outrageous theories, but...

You know, forensic teams at the site would have picked up evidence of explosives. So for those of you stating that a controlled demolition took place you also have to account for the fact that out of the hundreds of forensic scientists, materials specialists, explosives experts, and other assorted people trained to notice this sort of thing NOT ONE of them came forward and said ANYTHING.

The fact is, there are MANY such scientists and specialists.  But seek not, find not.  Why not try looking for them rather than just make up claims that they don't exist?  Same for the official investigators at ground zero, they did not find evidence of controlled demolition, but they also admit that they did not look for evidence of controlled demolition.

[AtheistMoFo]

Now, freefall means that 100% of energy is being used to propel the building toward the ground.  Id est, there is 0% energy remaining to crush the structural steel and concrete.  Even if the steel was weakened by the heat, you could not pulverize concrete with zero energy nor could you turn "weakened" steel into pretzels.  Have you ever tried to pulverize concrete and bend weakened steel?  I would like to see a demonstration.

You seem to have forgotten this basic bit of physics: F=m*a

Ah!  You've switched sides !

F = M times A is exactly what I have been talking about this whole time!

[Hijiri Byakuren]

You're right, and they didn't in this case either. Notice the hole:...

If you are making a claim that the debris from either or both of the towers caused the collapse, you are contradicting the findings of NIST (National Institute of Standards and Technology) because they say "normal office fires" were the cause of the WTC 7 collapse.  If you claim the hole in WTC 7 caused it to collapse, where is your evidence?  You are so keen on demanding evidence from Jumper and me, but you make claims and no need to back up?  You don't get to say the hole caused the collapse until you show us the evidence.

I have presented a plausible explanation gathered from the facts; fuck NIST, they don't enter into it. Also, you have yet to present any evidence that explosives were planted in any of the buildings, not to mention explain how they got in there unnoticed, as well as how and why they thought planes would be needed to fake the whole thing. Your explanation of explosives also accounts for none of the events surrounding the plane that hit the Pentagon, nor the one that crashed in Pennsylvania that was headed for the Capitol Building. So don't give me this crap about "you don't get to say" such and such when you have presented less evidence than the people you are accusing.

Perhaps you're not understanding what I mean by "hole."

Oh, no!  Now you are trying to blame Godzilla!  Man, I have heard some outrageous theories, but...

You're a fucking retard.

[Hijiri Byakuren]

Ah!  You've switched sides !

F = M times A is exactly what I have been talking about this whole time!

Then how about some math, bitch? We're all waiting with baited breath.

[jumper]

...

[Hijiri Byakuren]

a Godzilla-like hole

Yes, yes, let's focus on the fact that the picture happens to be from Godzilla, and not on the fact that you had to have it explained to you that when people say "hole," they do not mean, "the side of a building got scraped." We're talking about an event that resulted in around 3000 people dying, and you and Mofo need to be guided through simple terms as though you're small children. I might have turned on the forum's ignore feature by now, if not for my astonishment that two human beings who have not undergone a process of indoctrination can nevertheless cling to a belief in the face of massive evidence to the contrary.

[jumper]

Speaking of holes, did you see the one in the pentagon that was apparently from a 757?



Nevermind, let's not go there.  8-[

[Hijiri Byakuren]

Nevermind, let's not go there.  8-[

Smartest thing you've said this whole thread, but let's entertain this for a moment:

http://www.popularmechanics.com/technol ... s-pentagon

Why wasn't the hole as wide as a 757's 124-ft.-10-in. wingspan? A crashing jet doesn't punch a cartoon-like outline of itself into a reinforced concrete building, says ASCE team member Mete Sozen, a professor of structural engineering at Purdue University. In this case, one wing hit the ground; the other was sheared off by the force of the impact with the Pentagon's load-bearing columns, explains Sozen, who specializes in the behavior of concrete buildings. What was left of the plane flowed into the structure in a state closer to a liquid than a solid mass. "If you expected the entire wing to cut into the building," Sozen tells PM, "it didn't happen."

[The Skeletal Atheist]

Rocks, I'm not ignoring, just have not had time to respond to everything today. Ok, so yes there was more than $14,000 spent on investigating 9/11. I admit that.

How about where you didn't answer anything back about your feelings on insisting we 'let 9/11 go' even though we have been in decade long wars...

And at some point, you stated

These aren't people associated with the government, they're civilians from all walks of life who spent years sifting through and studying the debris, and yet not a single fucking one has come forward to suggest that explosives were used.

And I answered back with

Nano-thermite explosives shown above were gathered from the WTC debris shortly after the towers fell on 9/11. Brigham Young University Physics Professor, Dr. Steven Jones, discovered the explosives and joined an international team of nine scientists for further analysis. Through extensive laboratory testing, the scientists concluded that the samples were Nano-thermitic explosives.

And if you clicked the link, you'd see that "After a rigorous peer-review process, their paper was published in the Bentham Chemical Physics Journal, which has been endorsed by Nobel Laureates and is respected within the scientific community."

But wait..

and yet not a single fucking one has come forward to suggest that explosives were used

So, now, are you being dishonest or dumb?

And 2 things Hijiri. First, it really doesn't matter, but I'm a she  :-| And second, Ok, so you believe that a Godzilla-like hole along with the fires and ground shaking caused building 7 to fall like it did. Ok, if that's what you believe that's fine with me. I get it though, that they claim it was more than fire that brought it down. Still, to me, it looks like a controlled demolition.

Seriously this debate could go on and on and on. I'm just stating what I think. I have no idea what really happened that day or the following days. I just get angry that we've been at war for years because of this whole 9/11 story, that I find completely suspicious.

They found "active thermite" material. Do you have any idea what "active thermite" material is? Aluminum and iron oxide. What do they make planes out of? Aluminum. What do they make buildings out of? Steel, some of which is oxidized. What happens when a plane hits a steel building? Dust is produced. Now if they found reacted thermite (the products of a thermite reaction: aluminum oxide and free iron) in sufficient quantities you'd have something to show.

Also I do apologize, but Betham being a respected journal? Are you fucking kidding me? The same assholes who nearly accepted a nonsense article for money? Their peer review process is at best applied inconsistently.

As per Jones, I can't find anything that indicates he was an official investigator of the 9/11 attacks. He was a scientist, all right, but not an actual investigator of the attacks.

[The Skeletal Atheist]

You know, forensic teams at the site would have picked up evidence of explosives. So for those of you stating that a controlled demolition took place you also have to account for the fact that out of the hundreds of forensic scientists, materials specialists, explosives experts, and other assorted people trained to notice this sort of thing NOT ONE of them came forward and said ANYTHING.

The fact is, there are MANY such scientists and specialists.  But seek not, find not.  Why not try looking for them rather than just make up claims that they don't exist?  Same for the official investigators at ground zero, they did not find evidence of controlled demolition, but they also admit that they did not look for evidence of controlled demolition.

I sought and I didn't find any official investigators who have challenged the official report. If I am wrong in that then please direct me to someone who actually worked compiling evidence at the scene who challenged the official report, maybe my Google-fu is rusty.

They didn't specifically look for evidence of a controlled demolition, but even if they didn't specifically look for evidence of a controlled demolition they would have found it if it existed. Explosives of all types leave behind a shit ton of evidence. All it would take to find the chemical reactants of an explosion would be to take a chemical sample of the debris. If you're going to suggest that they didn't do that then you have no fucking idea how a forensic investigation works.