Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?

[Plu]

Can I ask a really dumb question? If they blew up the WTC with explosives, why the hell were they dumb enough to make it freefall when this is clearly evidence that explosives have been used and that's exactly what they were trying to avoid showing?  :roll:

[The Skeletal Atheist]

Can I ask a really dumb question? If they blew up the WTC with explosives, why the hell were they dumb enough to make it freefall when this is clearly evidence that explosives have been used and that's exactly what they were trying to avoid showing?  :roll:

Dude shut up, don't you know it's reverse psychology? They made it look like a controlled demolition so you would think it was a terrorist attack. Just like Jesus buried dinosaur bones so you'd believe in him.

[Jason78]

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

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

Hang on...  You're the one that's asserting that the building fell in a controlled demolition.  You're the one that said you could do the math to show it.

I'm not doing your homework for you!

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.

So you're still making the argument that WTC fell by controlled demolition, and you have some sort of idea how it occurred;  yet you aren't going to tell us.  

Okay...

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.

I made a mistake and I admitted it.  Which is more than you've done in this thread.   Did you even try waiting for the PDF to load?

[Atheon]

Here's a non-woo, non-conspiracy-nut explanation of the collapse.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uFJa9WUy5QI

[Sargon The Grape]

Here's a non-woo, non-conspiracy-nut explanation of the collapse.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uFJa9WUy5QI

Ah, thanks, I was looking for that. No wonder I couldn't find it, I thought it was dprjones who had done it, not Edward.

[Poison Tree]

Here's a non-woo, non-conspiracy-nut explanation of the collapse.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uFJa9WUy5QI

Ah, thanks, I was looking for that. No wonder I couldn't find it, I thought it was dprjones who had done it, not Edward.

I think dprjones video was on (one of) the twin towers

[Hakurei Reimu]

Here's a non-woo, non-conspiracy-nut explanation of the collapse.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uFJa9WUy5QI

This. When conspiracy nuts think that the entire building fell at freefall, they willfully disregard the fact that the penthouse collapsed about 8 seconds prior, which was a sign that the building was already falling.

Also, the building was never the most well-built one to begin with, as it was built around a pre-existing ConEd power substation and as such was quite a bit of engineering schenannigans down at the base. Add in the fact that there had been the energy equivalent of an entire squadron of B-52 bomber loadouts in the form of the twin towers collapsing right next to it, it's surprising that the building stayed up as long as it did.

[Insult to Rocks]

[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."

From the article I posted:
Thermite was used to cut structural members in the buildings

Rebuttal: This is based on a few pictures of vertical beams that had been sheared off by recovery workers. Although a thermite reaction is highly exothermic, it is nearly impossible to effectively channel it sideways to cut a vertical beam, since it tends to pour straight down as it burns. Some creative truthers have suggested the use of "thermite straps"; given that thermite is generally a powder delivered from a cone-shaped cup, it's not clear that such a device is even possible, much less practical. This was later amended to thermate, a variation which includes sulfur, and appeared when there were chemicals were found that matched what was found in the debris. However, such claims ignore the natural occurrence of these chemicals, do not match the chemical signatures that were found in the debris, and do not have corresponding traces of two major byproducts from thermate, aluminum oxide[10] and barium nitrate.[11]

Moreover, the thermite reaction is highly exothermic. Supposed evidence of thermite use is the presence of unreacted thermite in the WTC debris. This, however, comes as close to falsifying the hypothesis of thermite use as one can reasonably get: any place containing significant amounts of elemental aluminum and iron oxide (unreacted thermite), yet not far higher amounts of aluminum oxide and elemental iron (the reaction products), can be safely assumed to be not even close to where a thermite reaction recently occurred. This criticism has been "answered" by claiming that the unreacted "nanothermite" is indeed merely a trace residue. But this would require attaching some 100 metric tons[12] of thermite to the WTC buildings' structure, in hundreds or even thousands of small packages, with nobody noticing. And even if that were true, the corresponding amount of reacted thermite has simply failed to turn up. Finding thermite educts yet failing to find the appropriate amount of thermite products turns the supposed "proof" of thermite use into a quite robust refutation of thermite use.

In any case, "unreacted thermite" is composed (in bulk) of elemental aluminum and iron oxide. Commercial aircraft contain enormous amounts of aluminum, and the WTC was a steel-frame building. If an airliner crashes at high speed into a large steel-frame building, causing an enormous explosion, fire, and building collapse, we can expect to find aluminum and iron oxide in the debris, and no thermite charges are required to explain it.

A more recent truther claim is that traces of red-gray chips and iron-rich microspheres in the WTC rubble are best explained by thermite. This is held as their "smoking gun." A study of the dust from Ground Zero contradicts this: "There is no evidence of individual elemental aluminum particles of any size in the red/gray chips..."[13] Essentially, the chips are epoxy resins. Unfortunately, any explosives or their markers were never officially tested

[Thumpalumpacus]

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.

That was posted in response to your claim that no steel-framed building had ever, in history, collapsed.

And that it wasn't as complete as you'd like doesn't mean that it didn't collapse; it doesn't mean that WTC7 was demolished; and it doesn't mean that you're right.  The collapse in this case was partial likely because some of the other redundant members of the building weren't damaged by a collapsing skyscraper next door.  Had this building suffered from physical impact as well as fire damage then perhaps it would have collapsed more completely, or more uniformly.   But the fact remains that despite your claim to the contrary, a steel-framed building has, in history, collapsed as a result of fire.

You're clearly wrong.  Steel-framed building do collapse, due to fire. You've been presented with evidence.

Furthermore, the building in the video collapsed as a result of fire, not demolition.  Look it up.

In short, this is special pleading on your part.

[stromboli]

And once again, to cause a building to cave in a certain way requires a considerable amount of deconstruction. It would take weeks and require many, many people, tons of explosives and there is no way you could hide that activity from discovery. Watch a video of how professionals bring down high rise buildings. You have miles of cables, wires, Primacord, connection junctions and who knows what else. You have to physically cut columns with power tools and insert explosives at hundreds of locations to make it detonate sequentially in a specific pattern.

[The Skeletal Atheist]

And once again, to cause a building to cave in a certain way requires a considerable amount of deconstruction. It would take weeks and require many, many people, tons of explosives and there is no way you could hide that activity from discovery. Watch a video of how professionals bring down high rise buildings. You have miles of cables, wires, Primacord, connection junctions and who knows what else. You have to physically cut columns with power tools and insert explosives at hundreds of locations to make it detonate sequentially in a specific pattern.

But...but in the video it looked like a controlled demolition! Why are you being such a meanie with your reason and logic?

[Poison Tree]

You have miles of cables, wires, Primacord, connection junctions and who knows what else.

Much (all?) of which could be be damaged or destroyed by fire.

[FrankDK]

>  NOT EVEN ONE person who posted here even bothers to come up with a lame ass excuse of how the laws of physics could have been suspended for a few seconds on September 11. My point was, and still is, freefall is impossible if controlled demolition is ruled out.

No one needed to explain how the laws of physics were suspended, because there is no evidence that they were.  Measurements based on multiple videos of the collapses show that the disintegration of the towers proceeded at about 2/3 freefall, which is what you would expect under the circumstances.  The continued claim that they fell at the rate of freefall is simply a lie.

Why did the second tower struck fall first?  If it were controlled demolition, the first tower struck would have been scheduled for demolition first.

Why didn't anyone notice the hundreds of workers who would have been needed to install the demolition materials?

Why hasn't even one person of the thousands who would have been in on such a conspiracy come forward by now?  There have been many other whistle-blowers on many other issues.  Why not one on this one?

And most damaging to your delusion is the question, where did you get the idea that the Bush administration was competent to pull off anything at all, let alone something of this magnitude?

Your claims, like the story of Noah's Ark, fall apart under the least scrutiny.

Frank

[The Skeletal Atheist]

You have miles of cables, wires, Primacord, connection junctions and who knows what else.

Much (all?) of which could be be damaged or destroyed by fire.

Lol wut?

The point here isn't that the wires and such would've been found, but rather that installing all of that while people are still working at the building and having no one at all notice is ridiculous to say the least. Can you covertly place bombs in a building? Certainly! Can you covertly place them in such a manner as to cause a controlled demolition? Hell no.

[Poison Tree]

You have miles of cables, wires, Primacord, connection junctions and who knows what else.

Much (all?) of which could be be damaged or destroyed by fire.

Lol wut?

The point here isn't that the wires and such would've been found, but rather that installing all of that while people are still working at the building and having no one at all notice is ridiculous to say the least. Can you covertly place bombs in a building? Certainly! Can you covertly place them in such a manner as to cause a controlled demolition? Hell no.

My comment was intended to say that, if I had wired a building for controlled demolition, I'd be nervous that 7 hours of out of control fire would damage the "miles of cables, wires, Primacord, connection junctions and who knows what else" so that they may not work as intended once it is finally time to bring down the building.

Even if an army of ninjas had rigged the building to blow, the fire would likely have destroyed some of their work.