Would anyone care to elaborate for/against the elaborate WTC7 CT?

[Patriots4Truth]

I believe it's essentially the same theory in both of these links but I'm no scientist. Is this controlled demolition hypothesis flawless? Are the assumptions all factual?

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread612056/pg1&addstar=1&on=9591114#pid9591114

http://heiwaco.tripod.com/nist7.htm

Sorry if I didn't use the search function. I just want the quick summary points

[BigAl]

I believe it's essentially the same theory in both of these links but I'm no scientist. Is this controlled demolition hypothesis flawless? Are the assumptions all factual?

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread612056/pg1&addstar=1&on=9591114#pid9591114

http://heiwaco.tripod.com/nist7.htm

Sorry if I didn't use the search function. I just want the quick summary points


Is it 2004 or 2006, I've lost track.

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Is this controlled demolition hypothesis flawless?

Like "flat earth" theory.

Are the assumptions all factual?

Not a single bloody one.

[Chorduroy]

Given your user name, I would imagine you've already made up your mind, but on the off chance that you're truly inquiring ...

You can safely dismiss anything from Anders Bjorkman. He is a complete fraud.

[Patriots4Truth]

can you all be more specific about the flaws? sorry I'm new to 9/11 conspiracy as of 1 week ago

[Patriots4Truth]

Given your user name, I would imagine you've already made up your mind, but on the off chance that you're truly inquiring ...

You can safely dismiss anything from Anders Bjorkman. He is a complete fraud.

I'm in limbo. I don't know what is truth atm.

[DGM]

can you all be more specific about the flaws? sorry I'm new to 9/11 conspiracy as of 1 week ago
Lurk the forum for a while. How did you come up with your screen name?

[T.A.M.]

The science - flawed
The assumptions - flawed
The narrative - flawed
The brains behind them - flawed

Anything else?

TAM:)

[T.A.M.]

I'm in limbo. I don't know what is truth atm.

please enlighten me on the thought process behind the user name you chose for this forum?

Oh, and after that, please tell us how you found this forum?

TAM:)

[DGM]

I believe it's essentially the same theory in both of these links but I'm no scientist. Is this controlled demolition hypothesis flawless? Are the assumptions all factual?

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread612056/pg1&addstar=1&on=9591114#pid9591114

http://heiwaco.tripod.com/nist7.htm

Sorry if I didn't use the search function. I just want the quick summary points
Here's something about Heiwa.

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=185871

[fitzgibbon]

I thought that horse'd been flogged to a bloody smear on the pavement 3 years ago.

Silly me.

[T.A.M.]

Is the user at ATS "LaBTop" Heiwa? That pathetic douche usually uses his own name.

TAM:)

[Patriots4Truth]

please enlighten me on the thought process behind the user name you chose for this forum?

Oh, and after that, please tell us how you found this forum?

TAM:)

Before I started reading numerous JREF posts today I was definitely leaning towards CD. Several posts have put me in limbo since then.

I answered your question. Now can you tell me what science is wrong with whatever is the current WTC7 CT? (the specifics)

Is there more up to date WTC7 conspiracy theories than the ones in my links?

[beachnut]

can you all be more specific about the flaws? sorry I'm new to 9/11 conspiracy as of 1 week ago
Nut case ideas. Dumb lies made to fool idiots.

[BigAl]

Before I started reading numerous JREF posts today I was definitely leaning towards CD. Several posts have put me in limbo since then.

I answered your question. Now can you tell me what science is wrong with whatever is the current WTC7 CT? (the specifics)

Is there more up to date WTC7 conspiracy theories than the ones in my links?

Troll much?

[Patriots4Truth]

Yesterday or the day before I started reading 'Invitation for Derek...' after I was linked to that thread via a google search. I've been keeping up with that thread ever since. I've also been reading 'Applicability of Bazant's model to the real world' and stuff about the WTC1 core.

[Patriots4Truth]

These threads are humongous. That's why I was hoping for summary points. But specifics.

[T.A.M.]

Sorry Patriot, no one is likely going to take the time to address that ridiculous Heiwa's insanity this late in the ballgame. Search the site, or use the word "JREF" and what ever topic you want, but I got my doubts anyone wants to take the time to spell it out for you...you are a grown up...look around.

TAM

Go here to read about the nutjob Heiwa, and his theories...

http://sites.google.com/site/wtc7lies/

[Patriots4Truth]

the 2.25 second freefall had 0 resistance. was that ever explained?

[Sword_Of_Truth]

the 2.25 second freefall had 0 resistance. was that ever explained?

The other 13.75+ seconds of the collapse had significant resistance.

Have the tinfoilers ever explained that?

[T.A.M.]

the 2.25 second freefall had 0 resistance. was that ever explained?

lol..now the truth is beginning to seep out.

It has been explained here many times, and relatively recently...go search.

TAM:)

[beachnut]

These threads are humongous. That's why I was hoping for summary points. But specifics.
The executive summary:

All claims made by 911 truth are false. Tools required to figure this out; grade school education, and the will to use it.

[TexasJack]

Not this song and dance again. Can someone please explain to him that this gig has already been done to death?

[T.A.M.]

Not this song and dance again. Can someone please explain to him that this gig has already been done to death?

We did, but he is either lazy or exhibiting the "Mark of Woo".

TAM:)

[Disbelief]

Not this song and dance again. Can someone please explain to him that this gig has already been done to death?

No, because he admitted that he is too lazy to read because the threads are too big.

[bill smith]

Before I started reading numerous JREF posts today I was definitely leaning towards CD. Several posts have put me in limbo since then.

I answered your question. Now can you tell me what science is wrong with whatever is the current WTC7 CT? (the specifics)

Is there more up to date WTC7 conspiracy theories than the ones in my links?

Can you be more precise about what swayed you away from the CD theory >

[beachnut]

Classic 911 truth tactic, make a few posts in other areas, then move to the woo of 911. A lot of sock-puppets did this back in the day. Post in other areas, and then jump into 911.

hello, I'm new here and I will be a threat to the real disinfoagents ;)

Why do I feel only a truther would pick the name Patriots4Truth, defending their version of the Constitution, by pushing woo, thick and stupid. Stirring slowly at first and then exploding in a thermite shower falling faster than free-fall.

Where is the BINGO card, I think ...

[bill smith]

the 2.25 second freefall had 0 resistance. was that ever explained?

I think NIST said it was a three-part process of some kind. 'Plummet,Plunge and GONE ' if you ask me..

[T.A.M.]

Can you be more precise about what swayed you away from the CD theory >

I don't think he did bill. I think he is using such declarations to MAKE himself APPEAR more neutral, to make it easier to get in his questions/points without drawing fire.

Maybe I am wrong...time will tell.

TAM:)

[Patriots4Truth]

basically my whole argument for CD involves those 2.25 seconds.

So people are saying that the insides of the building collapsed first and that's why we see 2.25 free fall?

the search tool here doesn't search specific posts. it's like rummaging through stacks of newspapers looking for an article and you only know the section it is in but not the date that the article was published.

[Patriots4Truth]

I'm off to dinner. Later for now

[beachnut]

basically my whole argument for CD involves those 2.25 seconds.

So people are saying that the insides of the building collapsed first and that's why we see 2.25 free fall?

the search tool here doesn't search specific posts. it's like rummaging through stacks of newspapers looking for an article and you only know the section it is in but not the date that the article was published.

"free fall site:randi.org" in google


free fall site:randi.org

copy and paste , narrow it down, add wtc 7 or wtc7, or ... etc

Thermite, no evidence. 9 years, how did you fall for these lies and make up the thermite delusion?


911 truth lets you eat dinner; the NSA never lets me out of my cubical/bed/...

[Sword_Of_Truth]

basically my whole argument for CD involves those 2.25 seconds.

You should try to explain the other 13.75+ seconds then.

[fitzgibbon]

Can you be more precise about what swayed you away from the CD theory >

Speaking of the Mark of Zero Zorro Woo....

Ever notice that you say bill smith's name 3 times and he appears? You any relation to Michael Keaton, bs? ;)

[beachnut]

I believe it's essentially the same theory in both of these links but I'm no scientist. Is this controlled demolition hypothesis flawless? Are the assumptions all factual?

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread612056/pg1&addstar=1&on=9591114#pid9591114

http://heiwaco.tripod.com/nist7.htm

Sorry if I didn't use the search function. I just want the quick summary points

I hate ... studying

Simple research.

Heiwa has delusions. He wrote a letter and it was published! Bad news for Heiwa. He was found to be wrong.

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=6345291#post6345291

see. I thought you went to dinner? Go

[bill smith]

Speaking of the Mark of Zero Zorro Woo....

Ever notice that you say bill smith's name 3 times and he appears? You any relation to Michael Keaton, bs? ;)

Why no Suh..I have not been formally introduced to the gentleman

[catsmate1]

please enlighten me on the thought process behind the user name you chose for this forum?

Oh, and after that, please tell us how you found this forum?

TAM:)

Lurk the forum for a while. How did you come up with your screen name?

Classic 911 truth tactic, make a few posts in other areas, then move to the woo of 911. A lot of sock-puppets did this back in the day. Post in other areas, and then jump into 911.


So I'm not the only one who noticed a certain........familiarity.......with the posting style/screen name?:D

[bill smith]

So I'm not the only one who noticed a certain........familiarity.......with the posting style/screen name?:D

Cad ta tu a ra ?

[Horatius]

In a video, it appears that WTC 7 is descending in free fall, something that would not occur in the structural collapse that you describe. How can you ignore basic laws of physics?

In the draft WTC 7 report (released Aug. 21, 2008; available at http://wtc.nist.gov/media/NIST_NCSTAR_1A_for_public_comment.pdf), NIST stated that the north face of the building descended 18 stories (the portion of the collapse visible in the video) in 5.4 seconds, based on video analysis of the building collapse. This time period is 40 percent longer than the 3.9 seconds this process would have taken if the north face of the building had descended solely under free fall conditions. During the public comment period on the draft report, NIST was asked to confirm this time difference and define the reasons for it in greater detail.

To further clarify the descent of the north face, NIST recorded the downward displacement of a point near the center of the roofline from first movement until the north face was no longer visible in the video. Numerical analyses were conducted to calculate the velocity and acceleration of the roofline point from the time-dependent displacement data. The instant at which vertical motion of the roofline first occurred was determined by tracking the numerical value of the brightness of a pixel (a single element in the video image) at the roofline. This pixel became brighter as the roofline began to descend because the color of the pixel started to change from that of the building façade to the lighter color of the sky.

The approach taken by NIST is summarized in Section 3.6 of the final summary report, NCSTAR 1A (released Nov. 20, 2008; available at http://wtc.nist.gov/NCSTAR1/PDF/NCSTAR%201A.pdf) and detailed in Section 12.5.3 of NIST NCSTAR 1-9 (available at http://wtc.nist.gov/NCSTAR1/PDF/NCSTAR%201-9%20Vol%202.pdf).

The analyses of the video (both the estimation of the instant the roofline began to descend and the calculated velocity and acceleration of a point on the roofline) revealed three distinct stages characterizing the 5.4 seconds of collapse:

* Stage 1 (0 to 1.75 seconds): acceleration less than that of gravity (i.e., slower than free fall).
* Stage 2 (1.75 to 4.0 seconds): gravitational acceleration (free fall)
* Stage 3 (4.0 to 5.4 seconds): decreased acceleration, again less than that of gravity


This analysis showed that the 40 percent longer descent time—compared to the 3.9 second free fall time—was due primarily to Stage 1, which corresponded to the buckling of the exterior columns in the lower stories of the north face. During Stage 2, the north face descended essentially in free fall, indicating negligible support from the structure below. This is consistent with the structural analysis model which showed the exterior columns buckling and losing their capacity to support the loads from the structure above. In Stage 3, the acceleration decreased as the upper portion of the north face encountered increased resistance from the collapsed structure and the debris pile below.



http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/factsheet/wtc_qa_082108.cfm

[leftysergeant]

I only had time to read the first few paragraphs. I'll look again later for details, but for now, rest assured, LaBTop is bat crap crazy. We have lots of threads here on that blather.

[triforcharity]

the 2.25 second freefall had 0 resistance. was that ever explained?

Yes, columns that have buckled provide minimal resistance. Read NIST's report of 7WTC.

[Patriots4Truth]

Yes, columns that have buckled provide minimal resistance. Read NIST's report of 7WTC.

like how minimal? what percent resistance?

[UNLoVedRebel]

I'm new to 9/11 conspiracy as of 1 week agoAnd I was born yesterday.

[Patriots4Truth]

I'm new to what the conspirators are claiming. I've always heard "fire can't collapse steel buildings". I've never cared enough to look into truth. I don't remember why I did it this year around 9/11 but there had to of been something on the internet...

I didn't even know about building 7 until, like I said, around a week ago

[triforcharity]

like how minimal? what percent resistance?

Sorry, that should have read "negligable" or " Not enough to provide any kind of support to the upper portion of the North Face"

[triforcharity]

I'm new to what the conspirators are claiming. I've always heard "fire can't collapse steel buildings". I've never cared enough to look into truth. I don't remember why I did it this year around 9/11 but there had to of been something on the internet...

Fire can and will cause the collapse of steel buildings. Often.

[beachnut]

I'm new to what the conspirators are claiming. I've always heard "fire can't collapse steel buildings". I've never cared enough to look into truth. I don't remember why I did it this year around 9/11 but there had to of been something on the internet...

I didn't even know about building 7 until, like I said, around a week ago

Fire destroys the strength of steel.
http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll116/tjkb/onemeridiansag.jpg
911 truth lies for 9 years and you just woke up?
http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll116/tjkb/woodsteelfire.jpg
Wood beats steel. Fire wins. oops

[Patriots4Truth]

I need to see NIST's virtual simulation in action

like a 3-D model animation

[uke2se]

Hi Patriots. I see you've managed to find this forum as well. Don't expect your crap to fly here.

[triforcharity]

I need to see NIST's virtual simulation in action

like a 3-D model animation

You need to see a 3-D model to know that fire weakens steel? Wow, amazing......

[beachnut]

I need to see NIST's virtual simulation in action

like a 3-D model animation
NIST, and you just figured out there were idiots making up lies about 911?


Don't need NIST, WTC7 burned and collapsed. It was not a surprise.

Guess what happen to WTC5?

[Horatius]

I need to see NIST's virtual simulation in action

like a 3-D model animation



And how exactly would that convince you of anything? If They were powerful enough to pull off the 9/11 CT as most Ctists conceive of it, would it be beyond them top create a "3-D model animation" that non-specialists would not be able to spot the errors in?

If you don't have the skills and knowledge to understand what NIST has published already, why do assume you'd have the skills and knowledge to get anything more from an animation?

[Patriots4Truth]

back when I was practically convinced about the truther argument I posted this picture because I see a huge mass of junk and I can't visualize too well the zero resistance
http://img412.imageshack.us/img412/6518/noresistance.jpg
-------------------------
(a side note - I can understand why a lot of people would be obsessed with trying to prove a conspiracy. but what's the deal with debunkers being so obsessive? there are debunkers that do "counter-resistance" forum posting for hours, practically daily. I don't get how you can be obsessed with disproving conspiracy. isn't NIST's official report satisfying enough? :boggled: It's kind of weird, i mean, the amount of obsessed debunkers)

hi uke2se

[beachnut]

...

:boggled: It's kind of weird, i mean, the amount obsessed debunkers) ...

Lucky we took typing class. So we can babysit and work. I baby sat my grandson, he is three, we have been busy all day. I find the more you do, the more you can do. Cooking, typing, reading, mowing the lawn, etc. hours doing all. You must not have taken typing class.

If anyone is doing this exclusively, then they need to figure out how to do more! It helps to have wireless. But if you are taxed doing this maybe you should stop.

If you studied 911 first you would not be posting the woo, you would be debunking the woo.

Lucky we listened or learned not to trust the liars of 911 truth. Obsessed? With what?

Kind of weird you picked a truther name and came to a forum for skeptics, obsessed with rational thinking.

Your name is like a failed web site with names of people who have no evidence to support the lies and delusional claims of 911 truth.

[Patriots4Truth]

Man, I had already edited that typo out before you posted that. I don't like to proofread what I write. I am more of the kind of guy that lets my words flow like I am talking.

[Patriots4Truth]

Obsessed? With what?
with debunking.

You might be obsessive too but from what I gather in other threads you appear to be a cheerleader of some sorts. Every post I can sort of recall from you has been a variation of "we told you so", "why are u asking us?", "ohhh snap", "that's idiotic" or an emoticon of a dog laughing. I have yet to see you contribute rational thinking but maybe you are taking a couple days off

[Horatius]

(a side note - I can understand why a lot of people would be obsessed with trying to prove a conspiracy. but what's the deal with debunkers being so obsessive? there are debunkers that do "counter-resistance" forum posting for hours, practically daily. I don't get how you can be obsessed with disproving conspiracy. isn't NIST's official report satisfying enough? :boggled: It's kind of weird, i mean, the amount of obsessed debunkers)




For some it's a hobby. For some it's practice. And for some, we're actually concerned that there are people out there promoting falsehoods in attempts to fleece the gullible, or to influence the political process.

You ask, "isn't NIST's official report satisfying enough?" Sure it is, to those who understand it, or who are willing to listen to those who understand it. But there's lots of people out there who don't understand it, and who have fallen under the influence of liars who misrepresent what NIST has said. We try to help those people come to a better understanding of what NIST has said, because at the end of the day, some of us believe that truth really does matter.

It matters, because when you have lots of people listening to the likes of Alex Jones et al., very nasty things can happen. We can offer examples if you'd like.

[Horatius]

I have yet to see you contribute rational thinking but maybe you are taking a couple days off



Ask him a serious question about flying, and you'll see why we like having him around.

[Sword_Of_Truth]

I didn't even know about building 7 until, like I said, around a week ago

Your forum nom 'de guerre suggests otherwise.

[Patriots4Truth]

Your forum nom 'de guerre suggests otherwise.

I love you guys have first impressions of other posters as well

[T.A.M.]

I'm new to what the conspirators are claiming. I've always heard "fire can't collapse steel buildings". I've never cared enough to look into truth. I don't remember why I did it this year around 9/11 but there had to of been something on the internet...

I didn't even know about building 7 until, like I said, around a week ago

uh huh. You seem knowledgeable enough to have said that the heart of your issue with WTC7 is the 2 seconds of free fall...that is pretty specific for a newbie who barely knows anything about the conspiracy theories.

I'm calling Mark of Woo on this one guys.

TAM:)

[T.A.M.]

back when I was practically convinced about the truther argument I posted this picture because I see a huge mass of junk and I can't visualize too well the zero resistance

-------------------------
(a side note - I can understand why a lot of people would be obsessed with trying to prove a conspiracy. but what's the deal with debunkers being so obsessive? there are debunkers that do "counter-resistance" forum posting for hours, practically daily. I don't get how you can be obsessed with disproving conspiracy. isn't NIST's official report satisfying enough? :boggled: It's kind of weird, i mean, the amount of obsessed debunkers)

hi uke2se

It is amazing that;

(A) uke2se knows you well enough to tell you your crap will not fly here, if you have only been at this for a week.
(B) That you would have such knowledge and a grasp on the truther concepts in just a week
(C) That you would have formulated such opinions about "debunkers" with only a week of this stuff under your belt.

Just come clean, admit you have been at this a lot longer then a week, and move on.

TAM:)

[triforcharity]

with debunking.

You might be obsessive too but from what I gather in other threads you appear to be a cheerleader of some sorts. Every post I can sort of recall from you has been a variation of "we told you so", "why are u asking us?", "ohhh snap", "that's idiotic" or an emoticon of a dog laughing. I have yet to see you contribute rational thinking but maybe you are taking a couple days off

Wow, um......That's a pretty tall accusation for a new kid in town.

Just.....amazing.

Are you going to post any kind of evidence as to why you believe what you believe? Or are you going to continue with your argument from personal ignorance?

[T.A.M.]

Wow, um......That's a pretty tall accusation for a new kid in town.

Just.....amazing.

Are you going to post any kind of evidence as to why you believe what you believe? Or are you going to continue with your argument from personal ignorance?

Wait for it. Right now he is still in the "pretend to be a newbie so they won't metaphorically gang rape me until I have them where I want them." stage.

TAM;)

[AJM8125]

:D

[triforcharity]

Wait for it. Right now he is still in the "pretend to be a newbie so they won't metaphorically gang rape me until I have them where I want them." stage.

TAM;)

NSFW. Foul language, crude humor.

This is him.

http://www.collegehumor.com/video:1939725

[Patriots4Truth]

It is amazing that;

(A) uke2se knows you well enough to tell you your crap will not fly here, if you have only been at this for a week.
(B) That you would have such knowledge and a grasp on the truther concepts in just a week
(C) That you would have formulated such opinions about "debunkers" with only a week of this stuff under your belt.

Just come clean, admit you have been at this a lot longer then a week, and move on.

TAM:)

it's been a week pal so I take that all as a compliment

[Dog Town]

Ask him a serious question about flying, and you'll see why we like having him around.

Don't talk to "Capt." Boobie like that!;)

[uke2se]

(A) uke2se knows you well enough to tell you your crap will not fly here, if you have only been at this for a week.


He came to another forum I frequent and started dropping twoofer talking points. It was less than a week ago, but I find it amazing that he's been able to inundate himself in crap and lies in that short period of time. It's got to be some sort of record.

[Patriots4Truth]

He came to another forum I frequent and started dropping twoofer talking points. It was less than a week ago, but I find it amazing that he's been able to inundate himself in crap and lies in that short period of time. It's got to be some sort of record.
This is hardly surprising with the sheer amount of truther material on the web including old theories that have been disproved but one wouldn't know until they do the extra research.

But as I said earlier in this thread, I am still undecided. No one has been able to disprove that explosives could have been used at World Trade Center building 7. The collapse has characteristics of a controlled demolition. I find the symmetrical collapse to be interesting along with the 2.25 second free fall.

[uke2se]

This is hardly surprising with the sheer amount of truther material on the web including old theories that have been disproved but one wouldn't know until they do the extra research.

What's surprising is the arrogance you displayed.


No one has been able to disprove that explosives could have been used at World Trade Center building 7.

That's because no one has to. It's up to the twoofers to prove that explosives were used at WTC 7. They haven't done so in 9 years.


The collapse has characteristics of a controlled demolition.

Which characteristics other than the fact that it fell down?


I find the symmetrical collapse to be interesting along with the 2.25 second free fall.

Symmetrical collapse? Explain yourself. How is a collapse that is spread over several city blocks and hitting several surrounding buildings symmetrical?

Also, why is the 2.25 seconds of free fall significant? Would you say that free fall is a characteristic of a controlled demolition?

[Chuck Guiteau]

Here's what you need to do, P4T:
Join the Army. Enlist in the Infantry (with a Ranger option), or Engineers ( Sapper School). You'll live up to your screen name in a way that no one can easily challenge, and at the same time learn everything you ever wanted to know about demolitions.

[TruthersLie]

Before I started reading numerous JREF posts today I was definitely leaning towards CD. Several posts have put me in limbo since then.

I answered your question. Now can you tell me what science is wrong with whatever is the current WTC7 CT? (the specifics)

Is there more up to date WTC7 conspiracy theories than the ones in my links?

There is a search function, and countless threads which go over wtc7 indepth.

As for heiwa... he is a crackpot and a loon.
https://sites.google.com/site/resipsa2006/bazant-bjorkman/Bazant_Discussion_Closure.pdf?attredirects=0&d=1

Here is an excellent refutation of his basic claims on the towers by Bazant... it is rather amusing to watch the beatdown.

any of his claims are waaaaay out there...
My particular favorite flavor of his woo

the top of the towers could have been dropped from 2 miles up in the air and they wouldn't have crushed down the lower parts.

[TruthersLie]

I'm new to what the conspirators are claiming. I've always heard "fire can't collapse steel buildings". I've never cared enough to look into truth. I don't remember why I did it this year around 9/11 but there had to of been something on the internet...

I didn't even know about building 7 until, like I said, around a week ago

<snort>
<snicker>
<lol>

which socky are you?
Don't worry.. the truthiness will seep out.

[TruthersLie]

back when I was practically convinced about the truther argument I posted this picture because I see a huge mass of junk and I can't visualize too well the zero resistance

-------------------------
(a side note - I can understand why a lot of people would be obsessed with trying to prove a conspiracy. but what's the deal with debunkers being so obsessive? there are debunkers that do "counter-resistance" forum posting for hours, practically daily. I don't get how you can be obsessed with disproving conspiracy. isn't NIST's official report satisfying enough? :boggled: It's kind of weird, i mean, the amount of obsessed debunkers)

hi uke2se

Found your problem.
http://img412.imageshack.us/img412/6518/noresistance.jpg

You don't understand the image. This is what was happening BEFORE The 2.25 seconds of freefall. This is where that was starting. What you may not realize is that once those columsn start to shear and buckle, it is a done deal. You are looking at that image and thinking, that should hold up.

Here is a good experiment for you (if you really are honest about looking for the truth.)

Take an empty soda can. Now carefully stand on top of it. don't twist, don't jump, just stand on it. You should be able to do that.

it shoudl be able to hold your weight and be very stable.

now have a friend poke the can with a stick, or start twisting and watch how quickly that aluminum can provides "zero" resistance and your body weight crushes the can.

Your image is the can, JUST AS IT IS STARTING to buckle.

[TruthersLie]

This is hardly surprising with the sheer amount of truther material on the web including old theories that have been disproved but one wouldn't know until they do the extra research.

But as I said earlier in this thread, I am still undecided. No one has been able to disprove that explosives could have been used at World Trade Center building 7. The collapse has characteristics of a controlled demolition. I find the symmetrical collapse to be interesting along with the 2.25 second free fall.

<facepalm>

Yes wtc7 does KINDA look like a CD. In that the building goes KINDA straight down.

Tell me what is MISSING from any and all video footage of the collapse of wtc7?

oh there is NO BOOM, BOOM, BOOM's present.

That is the FIRST sign that it isn't CD.

Now go to the FULL collapse of the wtc7 which includes the eastern mechanical penthouse. The full collapse is over 18 seconds. Yet again, there are no characteristic boom boom boom's.

What is also missing? OH bright flashes as the cd charges are detonated. You can't miss those. yet there are none.

What else is missing? MILES of det cord, unexploded/partially exploded CD charges, blasting caps... all of which are very recognizable to anyone who has worked in CD.

and you bring up the "symmetrical" twoofie argument. Can you tell me how it is symmetrical? How does a building which collapses and strikes two adjacent buildings which are about 270ish degrees apart symmetrical? Now if it struck 2 buildings which were 180 degrees apart, that would be symmetrical.

How does a building in which the eastern mechanical penthouse collapses 8 seconds PRIOR to the exterior wall collapsing be symmetrical? Now if there was a WESTERN MECHANCIAL PENTHOUSE which collapsed at the same time, OR 8 seconds AFTER that would be symmetrical.

How does a building which collapses and strikes another building across the street ON THE ROOF and causes a partial collapse do that symmetrically? Did it strike a building on the OTHER side of the stree and hit it from the roof? That would be symmetrical.

You are using a twoof talking point which doesn't make any sense. What part of the collapse of wtc7 was symmetrical?

[Patriots4Truth]

The odds are I won't be around long enough for my real identity to come slipping out (if I were a sock) because this thread is for people to elaborate on current WTC7 CT and I don't think anyone wants to. Unfortunately I can't elaborate much more than quoting scientists and web reports.

Symmetrical features during the building collapse and the change of speed during the collapse (including the 2.25 second free fall) and when the speed changes happened are all of interest to me. I could just dig through google but the numbers aren't what interest me. Finding Implications to CD would be interesting. In general this thread could be interesting if talking heads from both sides wanted to elaborate on implications. I understand that there is a very good chance this won't happen.

Goodnight

[Sword_Of_Truth]

No one has been able to disprove that explosives could have been used at World Trade Center building 7.

That's the biggest gawddamn lie you've told yet.

No sounds of explosives.

No mass shattering of windows.

No injuries from flying debris.

No Seismic signatures of explosives.



The collapse has characteristics of a controlled demolition.

Yeah... it fell down!

WTC7 didn't have any characteristics that only a controlled demolition would have.

Not a single bloody one.

[Patriots4Truth]

<facepalm>

Yes wtc7 does KINDA look like a CD. In that the building goes KINDA straight down.

Tell me what is MISSING from any and all video footage of the collapse of wtc7?

oh there is NO BOOM, BOOM, BOOM's present.

That is the FIRST sign that it isn't CD.

Now go to the FULL collapse of the wtc7 which includes the eastern mechanical penthouse. The full collapse is over 18 seconds. Yet again, there are no characteristic boom boom boom's.

What is also missing? OH bright flashes as the cd charges are detonated. You can't miss those. yet there are none.

What else is missing? MILES of det cord, unexploded/partially exploded CD charges, blasting caps... all of which are very recognizable to anyone who has worked in CD.

and you bring up the "symmetrical" twoofie argument. Can you tell me how it is symmetrical? How does a building which collapses and strikes two adjacent buildings which are about 270ish degrees apart symmetrical? Now if it struck 2 buildings which were 180 degrees apart, that would be symmetrical.

How does a building in which the eastern mechanical penthouse collapses 8 seconds PRIOR to the exterior wall collapsing be symmetrical? Now if there was a WESTERN MECHANCIAL PENTHOUSE which collapsed at the same time, OR 8 seconds AFTER that would be symmetrical.

How does a building which collapses and strikes another building across the street ON THE ROOF and causes a partial collapse do that symmetrically? Did it strike a building on the OTHER side of the stree and hit it from the roof? That would be symmetrical.

You are using a twoof talking point which doesn't make any sense. What part of the collapse of wtc7 was symmetrical?

there are tons more ideas that you could try to cancel out but I will leave you guessing which ones are the best.

also, there is a 'boom' sound recording out there and maybe seismic readings too. I can't verify how accurate they are. but I don't think either has been officially debunked. I don't know, I haven't looked into this. Plus how important is seismic readings and 'boom' recordings to CD theories. It depends on the theory, when the boom happened, and the distance to the source of the sound recording.

ps. the penthouse collapse means nothing to me. it doesn't eliminate certain CD theories

pss. at the beginning of the fall it was a lot more symmetric. all I'm saying that there are certain things about the symmetry and asymmetry that interest me.

[Patriots4Truth]

WTC7 didn't have any characteristics that only a controlled demolition would have.

well if someone was trying to get away with a conspiracy they probably would plan to hide at least one characteristic of a CD

[TruthersLie]

The odds are I won't be around long enough for my real identity to come slipping out (if I were a sock) because this thread is for people to elaborate on current WTC7 CT and I don't think anyone wants to. Unfortunately I can't elaborate much more than quoting scientists and web reports.

Symmetrical features during the building collapse and the change of speed during the collapse (including the 2.25 second free fall) and when the speed changes happened are all of interest to me. I could just dig through google but the numbers aren't what interest me. Finding Implications to CD would be interesting. In general this thread could be interesting if talking heads from both sides wanted to elaborate on implications. I understand that there is a very good chance this won't happen.

Goodnight

Of course not. YOu will be banned as the sock puppet that you are... sooner or later.

YOu keep using that word

Symmetrical

I don't think that word means what you think it means...

[Sean84]

well if someone was trying to get away with a conspiracy they probably would plan to hide at least one characteristic of a CD

You mean the kind that only high school drop-outs can figure out but people knowledgeable in the applicable fields can't?

(I knew I shouldn't have wandered into the 9/11 section.)

[TruthersLie]

there are tons more ideas that you could try to cancel out but I will leave you guessing which ones are the best.

also, there is a 'boom' sound recording out there and maybe seismic readings too. I can't verify how accurate they are. but I don't think either has been officially debunked. I don't know, I haven't looked into this. Plus how important is seismic readings and 'boom' recordings to CD theories. It depends on the theory, when the boom happened, and the distance to the source of the sound recording.

ps. the penthouse collapse means nothing to me. it doesn't eliminate certain CD theories

pss. at the beginning of the fall it was a lot more symmetric. all I'm saying that there are certain things about the symmetry and asymmetry that interest me.

Roflmao

Thanks. I needed that.

You state it is CD. ALL CD's make very loud, clearly defined, easily heard BOOMS. (except for the verinage technique, are you saying it was verinage?)

There were HUNDREDS of videos of wtc7 prior to its collapse, yet not one has BOOMS in it.

ETA: A yes that telephone call of the firemen when something explodes AFTER the first tower collapsed, but BEFORE the second tower collapsed. That is 7 hours before WTC 7 collapsed.

Now can you think of anything that might be present in a collapsed building (or under it) which might explode? I can think of about a dozen things....


The eastern mechanical penthouse should interest you, as it was the start of the full collapse.

If there are certain things about symmetry that interest you, then you can clearly state them and how they relate to wtc7... since very little about the collapse is "symmetrical."

[bill smith]

back when I was practically convinced about the truther argument I posted this picture because I see a huge mass of junk and I can't visualize too well the zero resistance

-------------------------
(a side note - I can understand why a lot of people would be obsessed with trying to prove a conspiracy. but what's the deal with debunkers being so obsessive? there are debunkers that do "counter-resistance" forum posting for hours, practically daily. I don't get how you can be obsessed with disproving conspiracy. isn't NIST's official report satisfying enough? :boggled: It's kind of weird, i mean, the amount of obsessed debunkers)

hi uke2se

There are those who say (God forbid) that many posters here are actually government agents tasked to categorically deny a 9/11 inside job in a wall-to-wall way.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=awy8cmcuBlk&feature=related video on cointelpro

[Sword_Of_Truth]

well if someone was trying to get away with a conspiracy they probably would plan to hide at least one characteristic of a CD

No sounds of explosives.

No mass shattering of windows.

No injuries from flying debris.

No Seismic signatures of explosives.

It just simply was not a controlled demo. For someone who claims he doesn't know, who says he hasn't decided yet. You're having a pretty hard time dealing with the facts.

[bardamu]

Found your problem.
http://img412.imageshack.us/img412/6518/noresistance.jpg

You don't understand the image. This is what was happening BEFORE The 2.25 seconds of freefall. This is where that was starting. What you may not realize is that once those columsn start to shear and buckle, it is a done deal. You are looking at that image and thinking, that should hold up.

Here is a good experiment for you (if you really are honest about looking for the truth.)

Take an empty soda can. Now carefully stand on top of it. don't twist, don't jump, just stand on it. You should be able to do that.

it shoudl be able to hold your weight and be very stable.

now have a friend poke the can with a stick, or start twisting and watch how quickly that aluminum can provides "zero" resistance and your body weight crushes the can.

Your image is the can, JUST AS IT IS STARTING to buckle.

Now take 82 empty soda cans, get 82 friends to carefully stand one on each can, tell them to hold hands, then poke one of the cans with a stick. You should find that 24 of your friends crush their can one after the other over a period of around 7 seconds, then the remaining 58 all crush their can at exactly the same time.

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Now take 82 empty soda cans, get 82 friends to carefully stand one on each can, tell them to hold hands, then poke one of the cans with a stick. You should find that 24 of your friends crush their can one after the other over a period of around 7 seconds, then the remaining 58 all crush their can at exactly the same time.

Stundied.

What else can we say?

[TruthersLie]

Now take 82 empty soda cans, get 82 friends to carefully stand one on each can, tell them to hold hands, then poke one of the cans with a stick. You should find that 24 of your friends crush their can one after the other over a period of around 7 seconds, then the remaining 58 all crush their can at exactly the same time.

Goody bard.
goody.

Now can you provide any example where thermite (any form) can cut through a verticle steel column?

and can you provide any example where MULTIPLE thermite (any form) can cut through them at the same time?

Nope? me neither.

My example stands, and in fact if you were to hook up lateral bracing between those cans, as soon as one starts failing the others would too as the bracing gets pulled out of position, distorting the can and causing the collapse.

would it be instantanous? I doubt it... would it be fast? Yup...would they all collapse? probably.

feel free.

[leftysergeant]

I love you guys have first impressions of other posters as wellSopmetimes we just get this feeling of dread like "Oh, crap, here we go again."

Maybe it oes seem that some of us are a bit obsessed, but then, if people really are out to get you,are you really paranoid?

My main reason for being here is that 9/11 woo sites seem a good recruiting ground for some rather nasty movements that have nothing to do with the mechanics of a collapsing building and actual government cover-ups.

To be blunt, the tragedy of 9/11 is being milked for all the fun and profit that can be extracted by various groups who could best be described as white nationalists, tax resisters, anarchists (both capitalist and syndicalist) and total grifters, like R Gage and Alex Jones.

That any significant segment of a society may be roused to action based on propoganda advanced by a malevolent operator cannot, in the long run, be a good thing for civilization.

We saw this movie back in 1933. It did not end well.

Worst case scenario, enough people get pissed off that the government is hioding something ghastly from us and needs to be overthrown. Into the void step the Nazis.

I'm in a racially-mixed family (everybody except Australian Aboriginies and Eskimos, to the best of my knowldge, though I wonder about how my brother got his hands of some much fossil ivory and Coober Peedee opal.)

Obviously, I have an interest in keeping Nazis from portraying themselves as adequate human beings. This is just one of the battlegrounds where they exercise the newest offspring of the Big Lie.

[leftysergeant]

like how minimal? what percent resistance?Since it was not feasible to send anyone into the building to eyeball them, this cannot be really assessed, but, at some point, the columns below the obstructions that prevented our seeing the process in action may have offered ZERO resistance.

The back wall that we see most of was relatively undamaged. The narrower side was heavily damaged and on fire. Looking in through the windows in some of the video, the fire can be seen to be in flashover. Could be as much as 1000F, easily. Stand up in a room in that condition and you are dead.

Steel loses at 10% of its strength at 1000F, if I recall correctly. (It's late here so I am just going to wing it, and we have other fire fighters here to correct me if my memory is not correct.)

So we have the south side of the building only capable of supporting 90% of its normal load.

We have reports that fire department surveyors measured a considerable bulging of the building in that direction long before collapse.

Now let us initiate collapse. We need not quibble here about why collapse initiated. I have no background in chaos theory and it might just be a distraction at the moment.

Now you have the south face of the building accelerating downward, restrained to some degree by the still-strong north wall.

But the north face is under stress and being pulled downward and slightly southward by the collapsing south face. It leans a bit, stressing columns.

The building is a bit unconventional in design, having very few internal columns toi allow more office space without obstacles, so there are fewer than normal elements to arrest a collpase.

So we have the north face being tipped out over, effectively, a void.

Now the stressed north face columns break. There is nothing, really, to arrest them.

Can you, from what I have written here, estimate the acceleration of the north face in this condition?

I would say that there is nothing to arrest or resist the parts of the building that had swayed out over the void, once the columns broke. Think of the wall as a crane, supporting the whole of a building. When the crane's arm breaks, I see no way that it would fall any slower than g, at least until the bottom of it came to rest over a considerable pile of something.

Hope that helps.

[T.A.M.]

He came to another forum I frequent and started dropping twoofer talking points. It was less than a week ago, but I find it amazing that he's been able to inundate himself in crap and lies in that short period of time. It's got to be some sort of record.

yah, I could care less what he claims...sounds like a truther in newbie clothing.

TAM:)

[fitzgibbon]

I love you guys have first impressions of other posters as well

Walks like a duck. Quacks like a duck. What do you think the odds are that it's a duck?

[T.A.M.]

Now take 82 empty soda cans, get 82 friends to carefully stand one on each can, tell them to hold hands, then poke one of the cans with a stick. You should find that 24 of your friends crush their can one after the other over a period of around 7 seconds, then the remaining 58 all crush their can at exactly the same time.

And this my friends, is why Jon Stewart and others mock them...the stupidity is overflowing...

Thanks for the example...it should be stundied.

TAM:)

[T.A.M.]

Stundied.

What else can we say?

damn...ya beat me to it...damn sleep.

TAM:D

[TruthersLie]

Walks like a duck. Quacks like a duck. What do you think the odds are that it's a duck?

it's not... it's mothra

[bardamu]

The science - flawed
The assumptions - flawed
The narrative - flawed
The brains behind them - flawed

Anything else?

TAM:)

"Flawed" is far too vague to be meaningful. Compare with:

The Official Conspiracy Theory
Science - post-9/11 revisionist physics
Methods - diversion, deception and downright lies
Support - collapsing at freefall
Brains - devious

[bardamu]

Walks like a duck. Quacks like a duck. What do you think the odds are that it's a duck?

What if it quacks like a CD?

[TruthersLie]

"Flawed" is far too vague to be meaningful. Compare with:

The Official Conspiracy Theory
Science - post-9/11 revisionist physics

Then I'm sure you can support that claim with any peer reveiwed engineering papers right?

or a peer reviewed physics paper which says that it is wrong?


Methods - diversion, deception and downright lies

by who? support and provide citations.


Support - collapsing at freefall

the towers collapsed at freefall? amazing. OMG.
Wtrc7 collapsed at freefall? amazing. OMG.

support.


Brains - devious

and you left out. Much smarter than you.

[TruthersLie]

What if it quacks like a CD?

but it doesn't, as has been explained to you repeatedly P.

[Horatius]

Plus how important is seismic readings and 'boom' recordings to CD theories. It depends on the theory, when the boom happened, and the distance to the source of the sound recording.

ps. the penthouse collapse means nothing to me. it doesn't eliminate certain CD theories




You're asking us to prove that this wasn't a CD, and yet you dismiss without any discussion the evidence we provide you. So, I must ask, what evidence are you looking for? Do you even have an idea what might convince you that there was no CD?

If you can't answer that question with something that's at least theoretically possible for us to supply, then we're all wasting our time here, you included.

[T.A.M.]

"Flawed" is far too vague to be meaningful. Compare with:

The Official Conspiracy Theory
Science - post-9/11 revisionist physics
Methods - diversion, deception and downright lies
Support - collapsing at freefall
Brains - devious

now aren't you all crafty taking my post and doing your own like it...but the trick is to be the originator.

tsk tsk tsk

TAM:)

[triforcharity]

This is hardly surprising with the sheer amount of truther material on the web including old theories that have been disproved but one wouldn't know until they do the extra research.

But as I said earlier in this thread, I am still undecided. No one has been able to disprove that explosives could have been used at World Trade Center building 7. The collapse has characteristics of a controlled demolition. I find the symmetrical collapse to be interesting along with the 2.25 second free fall.

Bomb sniffing dogs (hundreds of them) were in and around the entire WTC complex. None detected by any of them. Not to mention the fact that an explosive would have been heard all throughout the complex. None were heard consistant with an explosive going off.

7WTC's collapse was not symmetrical. It hit two other buildings, the Verizon Building, and Fitterman Hall. It hit FH on the ROOF.

Now, about that 2.25 seconds of FFA. That is PART of the collapse. The collapse as a whole was 40% LONGER than complete freefall, and was NOT the entire building. It was a PORTION of the North face.

[bill smith]

You're asking us to prove that this wasn't a CD, and yet you dismiss without any discussion the evidence we provide you. So, I must ask, what evidence are you looking for? Do you even have an idea what might convince you that there was no CD?

If you can't answer that question with something that's at least theoretically possible for us to supply, then we're all wasting our time here, you included.

Why not show him the 'before' and 'after' pictures that I showed you Horatius ? They might convince him that WTC7 was not a controlled demolition. What do you say ?

[bardamu]

Sopmetimes we just get this feeling of dread like "Oh, crap, here we go again."

Maybe it oes seem that some of us are a bit obsessed, but then, if people really are out to get you,are you really paranoid?

My main reason for being here is that 9/11 woo sites seem a good recruiting ground for some rather nasty movements that have nothing to do with the mechanics of a collapsing building and actual government cover-ups.

To be blunt, the tragedy of 9/11 is being milked for all the fun and profit that can be extracted by various groups who could best be described as white nationalists, tax resisters, anarchists (both capitalist and syndicalist) and total grifters, like R Gage and Alex Jones.

That any significant segment of a society may be roused to action based on propoganda advanced by a malevolent operator cannot, in the long run, be a good thing for civilization.

We saw this movie back in 1933. It did not end well.

Worst case scenario, enough people get pissed off that the government is hioding something ghastly from us and needs to be overthrown. Into the void step the Nazis.

I'm in a racially-mixed family (everybody except Australian Aboriginies and Eskimos, to the best of my knowldge, though I wonder about how my brother got his hands of some much fossil ivory and Coober Peedee opal.)

Obviously, I have an interest in keeping Nazis from portraying themselves as adequate human beings. This is just one of the battlegrounds where they exercise the newest offspring of the Big Lie.

The average novelist would give their right arm to have an imagination like yours!

[Thunder]

the theory that the Sun revolves around the Earth, has more weight than 9-11 Truth.

[T.A.M.]

Yes, and logic and sanity is their Copernicus.

TAM:)

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Lefty tends to see things that aren't there as much as twoofers do, but in this case he's mostly correct.

He's right that the twoof movement in a lot of ways mirrors the rise of paranoid fascist movements in the past. He's right that 9/11 tinfoil-hattery draws a lot of disparate whackos into the same rubber-room. I think these groups are much smaller than Lefty perceives them to be, but the recent string of 9/11 truther murders proves their capacity for violence.

[Oystein]

Now take 82 empty soda cans, get 82 friends to carefully stand one on each can, tell them to hold hands, then poke one of the cans with a stick. You should find that 24 of your friends crush their can one after the other over a period of around 7 seconds, then the remaining 58 all crush their can at exactly the same time.

Cute :D

But wrong

The 82 friends holding hands are not a credible model for a structural assembly. They probably should stand closer together, arms tightly wrapped around each other, so that when the first can fails, that one friend standing on it does not fall, but his weight gets redistributed to the neighbouring cans via the shoulders etc.
In that case, it might indeed happen that the first failing friend might initially get nearly caught, but the commotion makes one neighbour fail in observable time.
Etc.
Progessive failures will accelerate, yes.



However, a much nicer model for a structural assembly is the can itself! You could view the continuous tin as 82 separate vertical strips, all laterally braced to the neighbours along their full length.

[Thunder]

Now take 82 empty soda cans, get 82 friends to carefully stand one on each can, tell them to hold hands, then poke one of the cans with a stick. You should find that 24 of your friends crush their can one after the other over a period of around 7 seconds, then the remaining 58 all crush their can at exactly the same time.

typical Truther analogy for the WTC.

Orange Fanta cans, 82 stoned friends, and a stick.

[beachnut]

with debunking.

You might be obsessive too but from what I gather in other threads you appear to be a cheerleader of some sorts. Every post I can sort of recall from you has been a variation of "we told you so", "why are u asking us?", "ohhh snap", "that's idiotic" or an emoticon of a dog laughing. I have yet to see you contribute rational thinking but maybe you are taking a couple days off
You might be lacking knowledge to fall for moronic delusions of 911 truth.

Yes I am a Cheerio. You are so good at this! I taught you how to search on Google - I did not post a laughing dog. OOPS, your lack of research skill is showing. Did Balsamo train you, or was it Gage?
"free fall site:randi.org" in google


free fall site:randi.org

copy and paste , narrow it down, add wtc 7 or wtc7, or ... etc

...
So trying to help you search better is cheer-leading? Helping you search this forum is obsessive? Trying to help you stop believing idiotic liars and frauds is obsessive? Helping is obsessive?

Posted the truth; why can't 911 truth grasp it?

Then you posted, in the OP, a link to Heiwa! I posted a link to Heiwa being critiqued by structural engineers. Cheer-leading again.
Simple research.

Heiwa has delusions. He wrote a letter and it was published! Bad news for Heiwa. He was found to be wrong.

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=6345291#post6345291 (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=6345291#post6345291)

...
I have yet to see you contribute rational thinking I gave you a link. Did you go see what they said about the claims you posted in links. Did you understand the links you posted?

I gave you photos of failed steel! Trying to cheer-lead you on to rational thinking! You failed to grasp reality; I am so sorry.
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=6345645&postcount=47
Did you miss it? Do you have problems learning?

Fail to read about Heiwa, what other engineers say about his claims. I am an engineer (cheerio engineering, I work for Sue), and I knew he was full of BS, did you? To understand Heiwa is full of failed claims on 911, takes a grade school education; do you qualify?

Good luck - (darn, more cheer-leading - I would rather be a cheerleader than a 911 truth pusher of lies like your OP makes you appear to be; how do you recover with a name like Patriots4Truth, the mark of woo)

when does the 11.2g of failed physics start?

BTW, all of 911 truth claims are nonsense. Can you figure that out? I will be cheering you on! Go super truther, go.

You lack knowledge and bring woo, you ignore evidnce, and lie. There were no sounds of explosives on 911, your boom claim is a lie. You have to ignore the penthouse falling through WTC7, it ruins your delusions.

Got some failed ideas on 77 and 93? Why was WTC4 destroyed? Why was WTC5 destroyed? Why was WTC6 destroyed? WTC7 not a target on 911, and you are stuck on it. 9 years of failure. Going for 10; I know you can make it.

[dc1971]

Given your user name, I would imagine you've already made up your mind, but on the off chance that you're truly inquiring ...

You can safely dismiss anything from Anders Bjorkman. He is a complete fraud.

Anders Bjorkman? You mean the guy who tried to compare the collapse of the WTC to a stack of oranges?

[dc1971]

I'm new to what the conspirators are claiming. I've always heard "fire can't collapse steel buildings". I've never cared enough to look into truth. I don't remember why I did it this year around 9/11 but there had to of been something on the internet...

I didn't even know about building 7 until, like I said, around a week ago

Yes, and let me guess... you looked on the internet to find information about the attacks of 9/11 and found a bunch of conspiracy theory websites, forums, and videos? Am I right?

[dc1971]

I love you guys have first impressions of other posters as well

Did you come here to express critical thinking about 9/11 or are you here to attack us "debunkers"?

[The Almond]

I believe it's essentially the same theory in both of these links but I'm no scientist. Is this controlled demolition hypothesis flawless? Are the assumptions all factual?

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread612056/pg1&addstar=1&on=9591114#pid9591114

http://heiwaco.tripod.com/nist7.htm

Sorry if I didn't use the search function. I just want the quick summary points


Hi P4T, I'm The Almond. I wanted to answer the OP because I think you at least deserve a summary of 9 years of arguing with the chronically ignorant.

Basically, there are two groups of theories:
1) Theory supported by a carefully researched timeline of events and the largest forensic collapse investigation in the history of the world.
2) Theories supported by people who, for some reason or another, have disregarded (1).

THEORY 1:

Who: Radical fundamentalist terrorists who crashed airplanes into the WTC towers.
What: Self initiated collapse of building 7 due to fire, and fire initiated by falling debris from collapse of WTC towers.
When: September 11th, 2001. Planning for the event commenced years prior with funding provided by Al Qaeda, enrollment of several hijackers in pilot school and the acquisition of Visas from undercover cell in Germany.
Why: Terrorism to support the goals of Osama bin Laden, who seeks, among other things, the destruction of Israel and the US.
How: Uncontrolled fires burning for several hours caused major structural elements to weaken, buckle and collapse. See NCSTAR WTC 7 report.

THEORY 2:
Who: No proof provided for any specific perpetrators. Among those accused include:

The elders of Zion/The Jews/Israel
The government of the US
Rogue elements within the US government
Larry Silverstein
Space Aliens

What: No single theory within the truth movement. Theories include giant space microwaves, controlled demolition via conventional explosives, the use of thermate, the use of thermite, the use of nano-thermite, the use of conventional explosives with nano-thermite triggers and space aliens.
When: No timeline has ever been established. Since the event would need to be extensively planned and prepared, some guesses include 9 months prior to the event (given the involvement of the Bush Administration, which came into power in January of that year) and 30+ prior (when the WTC was constructed).
Why: 9 years of silence from the Truth movement on this question. Most common theory states that evidence and documentation of the 9/11 attack was hidden in WTC 7, and it needed to be destroyed. No publication has ever elaborated the "why" aspect in a cohesive, evidence supported way. Other theories include insurance payouts for Larry Silverstein, the necessity of having 3 buildings collapse.
How: No theory has ever been posited. No evidence given for type, method, amount, delivery, placement or persons involved with any alternative method of collapse.

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

<snip>

Symmetrical features during the building collapse and the change of speed during the collapse (including the 2.25 second free fall) <snip>

You aren't "Michael" by any chance are you? If you are you commented on my blog a while back with that 2.25 sec. free fall lie:

Michael said...
You seem to have an odd understanding of what free fall is. NIST has admitted WTC 7 was in free fall for 2.25 seconds. How do you explain how office fires magically removed 8 stories of structure simultaneously and continuously to allow this period of free fall?

[ProBonoShill]

Sorry if I didn't use the search function. I just want the quick summary points

back when I was practically convinced about the truther argument I posted this picture because I see a huge mass of junk and I can't visualize too well the zero resistance


I don't like to proofread what I write. I am more of the kind of guy that lets my words flow like I am talking.

there are tons more ideas that you could try to cancel out but I will leave you guessing which ones are the best.

I don't know, I haven't looked into this. Plus how important is seismic readings and 'boom' recordings to CD theories.

Yep you're a truther.

Don't worry though, when you grow up, you'll realize that the truth movement is one giant delusion and you'll be able to lead a happy and normal life.

[Horatius]

Why not show him the 'before' and 'after' pictures that I showed you Horatius ? They might convince him that WTC7 was not a controlled demolition. What do you say ?



I'd say I wasn't talking to you; we already know there's nothing we could say that could convince you.

But hey, go ahead and post your photos again, maybe you'll have better luck.

[Miragememories]

I'd say I wasn't talking to you; we already know there's nothing we could say that could convince you.

But hey, go ahead and post your photos again, maybe you'll have better luck.
And your position is malleable?

Too funny.

MM

[leftysergeant]

I think these groups are much smaller than Lefty perceives them to be, but the recent string of 9/11 truther murders proves their capacity for violence.

I know very well that they are small. My point is that they have an enormous stake in selling 9/11 twoof. They need every useful idiot they can find. That's why they gravitate to twoofer sites and feed them BS science. Scare a man stupid, show him an "enemy," and he will do everything in his power to destroy that enemy, whether there is a valid reason or not.

Yes, the Nazis are few, but where would the twoofers be with Eric Huffschmid and Chris Bollyn?

They are few and I want to keep them that way. Any door I can slam in their faces, I shall.

[Miragememories]

Scare a man stupid, show him an "enemy," and he will do everything in his power to destroy that enemy, whether there is a valid reason or not.

Any door I can slam in their faces, I shall.
Delusion is an excellent fear defense.

MM

[bill smith]

I'd say I wasn't talking to you; we already know there's nothing we could say that could convince you.

But hey, go ahead and post your photos again, maybe you'll have better luck.

If he returns I will show him the pictures , Not many see them and are left unmoved I can tell you Hotatius.

[jhunter1163]

In one of the famous Szamboti threads, Sword_of_Truth made a really swell post that really seemed to torque Mr. Szamboti off. It's right here:

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=6278797#post6278797

P4T, would you like to take a shot at this one?

[Miragememories]

In one of the famous Szamboti threads, Sword_of_Truth made a really swell post that really seemed to torque Mr. Szamboti off. It's right here:

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=6278797#post6278797

P4T, would you like to take a shot at this one?
It is curious how selective the window breakage was.

Oddly, the middle windows did not cooperate in the east to west progression
theorized by the NIST.

No one questions that something of a destructive nature was occurring internally.

Obviously the collapse of the East Penthouse is clear evidence of that.

It is not too surprising that some windows below that collapse point would reflect the internal trauma.

It is odd that so few windows break before global collapse initiation, and especially that none of the windows closest to the East Penthouse.

MM

[leftysergeant]

Delusion is an excellent fear defense.

Being confronted with the fact that we are not omnipotent, and that guerillas from a whackadoodle religous cult could, with next to no command and control or infrastructre, inflict such a horrendous wound on us as 9/11 was certainly causes some people stultifying fear.

It has to have been one of our own with access to great resources that did this to us. We can take back our government. We can't extirpate that foreign cult that hit us. We have to do something. We can do something about an inside job.

We have to do something, even if it is wrong.

Alex Jones knows who the enemy is.

Chris Bollyn knows who the enemy is.

Richard Gage knows who the enemy is.

Follow their guidons.

Any guidon.

Or all of them.

Doesn't matter which.

You're doing something.

[Horatius]

And your position is malleable?

Too funny.

MM



Once again, we have a truther pretending that none of us have ever listed evidence that would convince us to take a second look at the 9/11 attacks.


What evidence could we suppy to prove there weren't explosives in the Towers? Seriously. How can we prove they weren't there?

The only way to show that something wasn't there is to show that evidence that should be there, if they were there, isn't there. Can you understand that? I know you have difficulty with all these words 'n stuff.

So, what evidence shoud we find, if there were explosives?

Sounds for one thing. Show us a video of the collapse of any of WTC1, 2 or 7 that has anything like the explosive sounds you find in known CD cases. Show us that these sounds are correlated with the collapse. An explosion minutes before the collapse is meaningless. If explosives were used to bring down the towers, they would have collapsed almost immediately upon detonation.

Another thing would be flashes or high-speed jets of debris. Lots of them, co-ordinated with each other, and with the sounds mentioned above, and proceeding the collapse, not following it. All of the "squibs" and "flashes" that have been shown so far fail on all these counts.

A third thing would be residue of explosives. Contrary to your claims that all the evidence was removed, NIST had access to hundreds of pieces of steel. None show any residue of explosives.

So that's three things we would expect to find, if your hypothesis was correct. Since we see none of these things, we conclude your hypothesis has failed the test, and it is rejected.

So, now you can go on about your day, and dismiss or ignore this post like all the others you don't like.


Oops, sorry for proving you're wrong, again.

[Miragememories]

Once again, we have a truther pretending that none of us have ever listed evidence that would convince us to take a second look at the 9/11 attacks.

Oops, sorry for proving you're wrong, again.

Only in the delusional world of OCTers is proof so easily established.

MM

[DGM]

Only in the delusional world of OCTers is proof so easily established.

MM
What are your guide lines for "proof"?

[jhunter1163]

No one questions that something of a destructive nature was occurring internally.

He's getting there...

It is odd that so few windows break before global collapse initiation, and especially that none of the windows closest to the East Penthouse.

Ah, damn.

[Horatius]

Only in the delusional world of OCTers is proof so easily established.

MM



FTFY


But hey, go ahead and try to provide any of the evidence I asked for. I won't be holding my breathe, because we all know that the truthers don't have any of the evidence that should be there, if they're correct, don't we?

[leftysergeant]

Oddly, the middle windows did not cooperate in the east to west progression
theorized by the NIST.There was a kink in the parapet relatively close to the first windows to break. The wall was buckling. You can't expect it to buckle in uniformly-oriented bands. I thus fail to see how they support your line at all.

It is odd that so few windows break before global collapse initiation...

Only odd if one assumes CD. But, there having been no explosions inside, there would be no damage to the windows on floors which were not on fire. HE explosions would have taken every bit of the glass out.

... and especially that none of the windows closest to the East Penthouse.


Why?

[Miragememories]

"It is curious how selective the window breakage was.

Oddly, the middle windows did not cooperate in the east to west progression
theorized by the NIST.

No one questions that something of a destructive nature was occurring internally.

Obviously the collapse of the East Penthouse is clear evidence of that.

It is not too surprising that some windows below that collapse point would reflect the internal trauma.

It is odd that so few windows break before global collapse initiation, and especially that none of the windows closest to the East Penthouse"
"There was a kink in the parapet relatively close to the first windows to break. The wall was buckling. You can't expect it to buckle in uniformly-oriented bands. I thus fail to see how they support your line at all."

http://img525.imageshack.us/img525/5530/wtc7eastpenthouse.jpg

http://i30.photobucket.com/albums/c345/Kilstryke/WTC7-004a.jpg

Considering the connectivity with the banks of windows embedded in the perimeter walls, the fact that only a few panes broke a number of floors below the fully collapsed East penthouse is a bit odd, yes.

It is suggestive of a very clean support removal rather than a chaotic fire induced failure.


"Only odd if one assumes CD. But, there having been no explosions inside, there would be no damage to the windows on floors which were not on fire. HE explosions would have taken every bit of the glass out."
Progressive column failure induced by thermite rather than office cubicle fires, would not have blown out the windows either.

MM

[T.A.M.]

1. delusion is an excellent fear defense? Absolutely. It is the fear of randomness, and that a small group of jihadists could carry out 9/11 on the most powerful country in the world that causes TRUTHERS to form their delusions of a grand Govt and Elite involved conspiracy to bring the towers down. Well done...Very insightful.

2. Proof easily established...well, given most truthers consider the ramblings of a madman like A. Jones, the delusional pseudoscience of a madhatter like S. Jones, and the insane and unfounded accusations of a snake oiler like DRG to all be proof, I am guessing it is pretty easily established with the truther-ilk as well.

TAM:)

[triforcharity]

It is suggestive of a very clean support removal rather than a chaotic fire induced failure.


Argument from personal belief. Care to back this up with some kind of fact? Maybe something that you base this conclusion on?


Progressive column failure induced by thermite rather than office cubicle fires, would not have blown out the windows either.

MM

And yet, no thermite found in any of the piles. Remember the dogs?

No evidence of any core column, or any other column, cut with any kind of explosive, or with any kind of incendiary. Why is that?

[Miragememories]

1. delusion is an excellent fear defense? Absolutely.

Proof easily established...well, given most truthers consider the ramblings of a madman like A. Jones, the delusional pseudoscience of a madhatter like S. Jones, and the insane and unfounded accusations of a snake oiler like DRG to all be proof, I am guessing it is pretty easily established with the truther-ilk as well.

TAM:)

Name calling and smear labeling.

Nazism at its finest.

MM

[Miragememories]

No evidence of any core column, or any other column, cut with any kind of explosive, or with any kind of incendiary. Why is that?
I don't know about you, but to me, there were lots of examples of fractured steel that looked to be possible candidates.

Of course after being crushed and pulverized by a 47 story building, the steel
is quite scoured.

Without careful analysis based on suspicion, is it any wonder that no evidence was declared?

Things of course changed when the dust was analyzed.

MM

[triforcharity]

I don't know about you, but to me, there were lots of examples of fractured steel that looked to be possible candidates.

Of course after being crushed and pulverized by a 47 story building, the steel
is quite scoured.

Without careful analysis based on suspicion, is it any wonder that no evidence was declared?

Things of course changed when the dust was analyzed.

MM

Really? Show us what steel you found "suspicious". Also then explain the damage that you see to said steel, and why you conclude it was cut/damaged by anything other than the collapse.

You do realize that the FBI, ATF, and other local, state, and national LEOs know much more about evidence and explosive signatures than you do, correct?

Also, the red/grey chips that were found, this paper was NEVER published in a RESPECTABLE journal, was NEVER peer-reviewed, and has NEVER been submitted to any other lab, in ANY country, for independant analysis. Why is that? Gee, maby because they found paint?

You have been taken for a ride.

[AaronMHatch]

I need to see NIST's virtual simulation in action

like a 3-D model animation

Jeez.. kids these days are so demanding.

[BigAl]

I don't know about you, but to me, there were lots of examples of fractured steel that looked to be possible candidates.


Fractured at the joints (every 30 ft?) which is no surprise to anyone with relevant expertise.

[T.A.M.]

Name calling and smear labeling.

Nazism at its finest.

MM

The shoes fit, so I feel no remorse about them wearing them. Because no one in the truth movement has ever called Bush or Cheney a name...right?

TAM:)

[HeyLeroy]

What if it quacks like a CD?

Clean it. Wipe straight out from the center; avoid using circular motion, it'll scratch.

[Miragememories]

You have been taken for a ride.

You are taking the ride you wish to take.

I'm taking the ride my conscience tells me to take.

MM

[DGM]

You are taking the ride you wish to take.

I'm taking the ride my conscience tells me to take.

MM
Wow.......that's deep!



:rolleyes:

[Miragememories]

" Proof easily established...well, given most truthers consider the ramblings of a madman like A. Jones, the delusional pseudoscience of a madhatter like S. Jones, and the insane and unfounded accusations of a snake oiler like DRG to all be proof, I am guessing it is pretty easily established with the truther-ilk as well."
"Name calling and smear labeling.

Nazism at its finest."
The shoes fit, so I feel no remorse about wearing them. TAM:)
Corrected your quote to reflect the misinterpretation of my accusation.

MM

[AaronMHatch]

You are taking the ride you wish to take.

I'm taking the ride my conscience tells me to take.

MM

I used to think my coach was mad at me because of the tone he used. I had a feeling he was mad; and it was sufficient for me to think he actually was.

He wasn't.

When does going with your gut - assuming you meant your gut feeling with the word 'conscience' - trump critically assessing the evidence?

[Miragememories]

I used to think my coach was mad at me because of the tone he used. I had a feeling he was mad; and it was sufficient for me to think he actually was.

He wasn't.

When does going with your gut - assuming you meant your gut feeling with the word 'conscience' - trump critically assessing the evidence?
Your coach huh?

Sad.

Coaches are not interested in the truth.

They are only interested in motivation.

My conscience responds to what I know to be true.

My conscience is not my gut!

MM

[Disbelief]

My conscience responds to what I know to be true.

My conscience is not my gut!

MM

Like the "truth" that freefall is planned as part of a manmade demolition? You have proven repeatedly that you are not interested in the truth, only your version.

[DGM]

My conscience responds to what I know to be true.

MM

Shouldn't that be "believe"?

[AaronMHatch]

Your coach huh?

Sad.

Coaches are not interested in the truth.

They are only interested in motivation.

My conscience responds to what I know to be true.

My conscience is not my gut!

MM

It doesn't matter what my coach was interested in. What mattered is how I interpreted the situation.

Would you consider conscience and intuition to be synonymous?

[AaronMHatch]

Shouldn't that be "believe"?

If he's religious, then not necessarily. I have a religious friend who "knows" god exists and "knows" his conscience is god speaking to him. These aren't things to believe because they are "known".

[Miragememories]

It doesn't matter what my coach was interested in. What mattered is how I interpreted the situation.

Would you consider conscience and intuition to be synonymous?
No.

MM

[AaronMHatch]

No.

MM

So, you believe conscience always speaks about an objective truth. How do you know when it's your conscience talking and not your intuition?

[DGM]

If he's religious, then not necessarily. I have a religious friend who "knows" god exists and "knows" his conscience is god speaking to him. These aren't things to believe because they are "known".
I kind of remember him saying he was an atheist (I could be wrong). But, I see.


:rolleyes:

[uke2se]

If he's religious, then not necessarily. I have a religious friend who "knows" god exists and "knows" his conscience is god speaking to him. These aren't things to believe because they are "known".

There's no "ifs" about it. He's religious. He might not believe in any deity, but he is still part of the Church of Truthology.

[T.A.M.]

Corrected your quote to reflect the misinterpretation of my accusation.

MM

SOme people here may tolerate changing their quotes...I do not. Do it again and will be reported, as it is against forum rules.

TAM:)

[triforcharity]

You are taking the ride you wish to take.

I'm taking the ride my conscience tells me to take.

MM

Good for you. I take the path that my personal experience, and my years of firefighting experience, and my degree tells me to.

But hey, you can take your "conscience" if you want. That's cool. I take facts.

[dafydd]

Name calling and smear labeling.

Nazism at its finest.

MM

I now declare this thread Godwinned.

[Dave Rogers]

I now declare this thread Godwinned.

There ought to be a variant on Godwin's law for 9/11 threads. The strong form of the law is that, when one participant compares another to Hitler, all rational discourse has ceased. The problem with 9/11 threads is that it rarely ever started in the first place.

Dave