WTC7's "Free Fall"

[SAYIT]

"Truthers" aren't just asking questions. They are proposing alternative realities such as the absurd "No planes" theory promoted as "fact" by one of this thread's idiots.

again, insult & abuse rather than information.

Spammy, like so many like-minded "Truther" sheeple, has rejected the facts surrounding the 9/11 attacks on America so often and so completely that there is no longer any reason to respond with anything but the insults and abuse he clearly craves and even demands. Spammy's "No Plane" theory is so off the wall that semi-rational "Truthers" - there being no rational "Truthers" - dismiss it as disinformation intended to discredit their movement and discussion of it has been banned at some CT websites.

9 11 conspiracy theories - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
Nico Haupt and former chief economist within the Labor Department under the Bush administration, Morgan Reynolds, argue that no planes were used in the attacks. Reynolds claims it is physically impossible that the Boeing planes of Flights 11 and 175 could have penetrated the steel frames of the Towers, and that digital compositing was used to depict the plane crashes in both news reports and subsequent amateur video. "There were no planes, there were no hijackers," Reynolds insists. "I know, I know, I'm out of the mainstream, but that's the way it is." According to David Shayler, "The only explanation is that they were missiles surrounded by holograms made to look like planes," he says. "Watch footage frame by frame and you will see a cigar-shaped missile hitting the World Trade Center." Some truth movement veterans have repeatedly refuted the "no-plane" claims. In fact, discussion of no-plane theories has been banned from certain conspiracy theory websites and advocates have sometimes been threatened with violence by posters at other conspiracy theory websites."

So having totally run out of excuses as to why WTC7 should have collapsed as it did, the opposition launches into an attack on a completely different aspect of the false flag that was 9/11/2001. And lacking documented physical evidence that "FLT11", "FLT175", "FLT77" or "FLT93" even existed at all, the opposition still supports the fairy tale about those 19 suicidal radical Arabs.

I am not "the opposition" but rather just one tormentor and as you may (or may not) have noticed, I quit the rational approach with you months ago as I am not one to bang my head against a wall (you) needlessly. As already noted, your theories are so off the wall that even some truth movement veterans repeatedly refuted your "no-plane" claims and consider them to be disinformation intended to discredit the Movement. In fact, discussion of no-plane theories has been banned from certain conspiracy theory websites.
"I thought the term ‘Truth Movement’ meant that there’d be some search for truth. I was wrong." - Charlie Veitch

So again, without a rebuttal to the WTC7 physics argument, you choose to create a tangent in the hope that nobody will notice the shift, the fact is that you can NOT supply a proper argument as to why WTC7 should have collapsed as it did in response to fire. The NIST "report" on the subject constitutes fraud...

You seem to forget I twice watched you disappear for weeks when your pseudoscience was challenged by real science. Does the SN "Skylar" still make you break out in a cold sweat, Princess? Do you need to call your therapist? Chills would run up and down your spine if you had one.
The fact remains even your fellow "Truthers" consider you and your theories to be fraudulent.

 

[n0spam4me]

any given individuals judgement of me personally has NO bearing whatsoever on the fact that the free-fall acceleration of WTC7 clearly indicates that it was an engineered event.

 

[SAYIT]

any given individuals judgement of me personally has NO bearing whatsoever on the fact that the free-fall acceleration of WTC7 clearly indicates that it was an engineered event.

No it wasn't, and your lengthy disappearances when your pseudoscience was confronted by Skylar's real science didn't just expose you as a fraud but was highly representative of the "Truther" Movement or, as Charlie Veitch said after years as a loyal "Truther":
"I thought the term ‘Truth Movement’ meant that there’d be some search for truth. I was wrong."

 

[n0spam4me]

Bravo! The opposition has succeeded in shifting the focus off the facts of the case on to personalities, & passing judgement upon an individual rather than actually discussing the events of 9/11/2001 ...... Thank U ever so much 4 showing your true colors!

 

[SAYIT]

Bravo! The opposition has succeeded in shifting the focus off the facts of the case on to personalities, & passing judgement upon an individual rather than actually discussing the events of 9/11/2001 ...... Thank U ever so much 4 showing your true colors!

The events have been discussed ad nauseam on this board for years and, as already noted, your particular "No Planes" theory has been so thoroughly discredited that you disappeared for weeks at a time whenever your pseudoscience was challenged by Skylar. If you have something new to discuss, by all means post it but to require others to continue rehashing the same tired arguments is just plain silly.

 

[irosie91]

we could talk about the LOCHNESS MONSTER-------way back
when I was a little kid------there was something called
THE ABOMINABLE SNOWMAN------lets debate the existence
of that alluring character

 

[Capstone]

. . .you disappeared for weeks at a time whenever your pseudoscience was challenged by Skylar. ...

The resident stalker strikes again.

I've noticed your dossier on M.I.A.'s from certain discussions seems enormously one-sided, SAYIT. I don't believe I've seen a single mention of any of the OCT apologists' weeks-long hiatuses from some of these debates (and I could cite more than a few, including Skylar's current break from Koko's Silent Thermate thread, which has been in effect at least since my replies were posted back on January 10). If you're not going to be even-handed with your pathological documentation of other members' posting habits, how can you expect anyone to take you seriously?!

 

[daws101]

any given individuals judgement of me personally has NO bearing whatsoever on the fact that the free-fall acceleration of WTC7 clearly indicates that it was an engineered event.

false. There is no evidence to indicate any engineering..

 

[daws101]

On August 31, 2009, the National Geographic Channel aired the program 9/11 Science and Conspiracy, in which the Energetic Materials Research and Testing Center tested some of the claims frequently made by those who question the accepted 9/11 account. Specifically, the experiments concluded that burning jet fuel alone can sufficiently raise the temperature of a steel support column to the point of structural failure, that a controlled demolition using conventional techniques would leave clear evidence that was not found at Ground Zero, that using thermite is not an effective technique to melt a steel column, and that even if thermite chemical signatures were found, it would be impossible to tell if thermite was actually used or if the traces came from the reaction of aircraft aluminum with other substances in the fire. The testing also concluded that the type of hole found at the Pentagon was consistent with the standard scenario, and that damage from a bombing or missile attack would differ from the damage that occurred. In the program, several prominent 9/11 conspiracy theorists viewed rough edits of the experiments, and expressed their disagreement with the findings

 

[n0spam4me]

On August 31, 2009, the National Geographic Channel aired the program 9/11 Science and Conspiracy, in which the Energetic Materials Research and Testing Center tested some of the claims frequently made by those who question the accepted 9/11 account. Specifically, the experiments concluded that burning jet fuel alone can sufficiently raise the temperature of a steel support column to the point of structural failure, that a controlled demolition using conventional techniques would leave clear evidence that was not found at Ground Zero, that using thermite is not an effective technique to melt a steel column, and that even if thermite chemical signatures were found, it would be impossible to tell if thermite was actually used or if the traces came from the reaction of aircraft aluminum with other substances in the fire. The testing also concluded that the type of hole found at the Pentagon was consistent with the standard scenario, and that damage from a bombing or missile attack would differ from the damage that occurred. In the program, several prominent 9/11 conspiracy theorists viewed rough edits of the experiments, and expressed their disagreement with the findings

There is no evidence to indicate any engineering..

I am personally rather shocked to see that people are using the Nat-Geo fiasco to support the official story about 9/11/2001. The "experiments" were totally rigged to yield the results that the paid shills wanted to present to the TV watching masses.
Have you seen this:

How many people here actually listened during those SCIENCE 101 lectures?

Note that because of testimony before Congress, we have it totally nailed down that is the fact that TV is a VERY persuasive medium ( note that Cigarette ads are banned from TV ) so now, on TV the "news" people proclaim that hijacked airliners were used as weapons, and the viewing public just laps it up.

 

[daws101]

On August 31, 2009, the National Geographic Channel aired the program 9/11 Science and Conspiracy, in which the Energetic Materials Research and Testing Center tested some of the claims frequently made by those who question the accepted 9/11 account. Specifically, the experiments concluded that burning jet fuel alone can sufficiently raise the temperature of a steel support column to the point of structural failure, that a controlled demolition using conventional techniques would leave clear evidence that was not found at Ground Zero, that using thermite is not an effective technique to melt a steel column, and that even if thermite chemical signatures were found, it would be impossible to tell if thermite was actually used or if the traces came from the reaction of aircraft aluminum with other substances in the fire. The testing also concluded that the type of hole found at the Pentagon was consistent with the standard scenario, and that damage from a bombing or missile attack would differ from the damage that occurred. In the program, several prominent 9/11 conspiracy theorists viewed rough edits of the experiments, and expressed their disagreement with the findings

There is no evidence to indicate any engineering..

I am personally rather shocked to see that people are using the Nat-Geo fiasco to support the official story about 9/11/2001. The "experiments" were totally rigged to yield the results that the paid shills wanted to present to the TV watching masses.
Have you seen this:

How many people here actually listened during those SCIENCE 101 lectures?

Note that because of testimony before Congress, we have it totally nailed down that is the fact that TV is a VERY persuasive medium ( note that Cigarette ads are banned from TV ) so now, on TV the "news" people proclaim that hijacked airliners were used as weapons, and the viewing public just laps it up.

you can just feel the desperation in this post ....
so many false accusations I don't know where to start.
1. you have no evidence that the tests in nat geo's science and conspiracy were in any way rigged...
you've made a false allegation AND PROVIDED NO EVIDENCE to support it.
as to that clip , every one has seen it and it's been debunked in every way possible.
what ass hats like you don't seem to grasp is, it's the best evidence ever presented showcasing why it would be extremely unlikely to pull off.

 

[SAYIT]

On August 31, 2009, the National Geographic Channel aired the program 9/11 Science and Conspiracy, in which the Energetic Materials Research and Testing Center tested some of the claims frequently made by those who question the accepted 9/11 account. Specifically, the experiments concluded that burning jet fuel alone can sufficiently raise the temperature of a steel support column to the point of structural failure, that a controlled demolition using conventional techniques would leave clear evidence that was not found at Ground Zero, that using thermite is not an effective technique to melt a steel column, and that even if thermite chemical signatures were found, it would be impossible to tell if thermite was actually used or if the traces came from the reaction of aircraft aluminum with other substances in the fire. The testing also concluded that the type of hole found at the Pentagon was consistent with the standard scenario, and that damage from a bombing or missile attack would differ from the damage that occurred. In the program, several prominent 9/11 conspiracy theorists viewed rough edits of the experiments, and expressed their disagreement with the findings

There is no evidence to indicate any engineering..

I am personally rather shocked to see that people are using the Nat-Geo fiasco to support the official story about 9/11/2001. The "experiments" were totally rigged to yield the results that the paid shills wanted to present to the TV watching masses.
Have you seen this:

How many people here actually listened during those SCIENCE 101 lectures?

Note that because of testimony before Congress, we have it totally nailed down that is the fact that TV is a VERY persuasive medium ( note that Cigarette ads are banned from TV ) so now, on TV the "news" people proclaim that hijacked airliners were used as weapons, and the viewing public just laps it up.

you can just feel the desperation in this post ....
so many false accusations I don't know where to start.
1. you have no evidence that the tests in nat geo's science and conspiracy were in any way rigged...
you've made a false allegation AND PROVIDED NO EVIDENCE to support it.
as to that clip , every one has seen it and it's been debunked in every way possible.
what ass hats like you don't seem to grasp is, it's the best evidence ever presented showcasing why it would be extremely unlikely to pull off.

To a rational person virtually any of the "evidence" or "facts" trotted out by the now defunct "Truther" Movement is proof that the official findings must be what really happened on 9/11. Evidently Spammy does not qualify.

 

[n0spam4me]

that clip , every one has seen it and it's been debunked in every way possible.

I would like to ask, exactly what allegedly debunks the demo that Jonathan Cole presents?

 

[daws101]

that clip , every one has seen it and it's been debunked in every way possible.

I would like to ask, exactly what allegedly debunks the demo that Jonathan Cole presents?

besides having no credentials.....
you 've never seen it obviously......
the first thing any sane person would see is that it's not possible to reach structural joints in just about any steel framed building ever made with out preparing the area to be cut ...as the nat geo clips clearly show...

 

[SAYIT]

that clip , every one has seen it and it's been debunked in every way possible.

I would like to ask, exactly what allegedly debunks the demo that Jonathan Cole presents?

besides having no credentials.....
you 've never seen it obviously......
the first thing any sane person would see is that it's not possible to reach structural joints in just about any steel framed building ever made with out preparing the area to be cut ...as the nat geo clips clearly show...

This is the moment when the CT defaults to the we're-just-asking-questions defense. What did Skylar call 'em? Silent Ninja Demo Riggers?

 

[n0spam4me]

the first thing any sane person would see is that it's not possible to reach structural joints in just about any steel framed building ever made with out preparing the area to be cut ...as the nat geo clips clearly show...

Clearly the Nat-Geo fiasco speculates as to the accessibility of any given structural bit in WTC7. Speculation isn't good science.

The facts are, that people heard explosions all throughout the day of 9/11/2001 and in the sound track of some video, the explosions do very neatly line up with the event ( that is the fall of WTC7 ) The nay-sayers have so-far only produced speculation & appeals to emotion, but nothing like the hard evidence arguments to be had from the false flag faction.

people can continue to stick their heads in the sand as long as they want, but humanity is suffering the consequences of the BIG LIE.

There were explosive events recorded + there is clearly seen the results of explosive events.

 

[Faun]

Speculation isn't good science.

Holyfuckingshit!

 

[Faun]

the first thing any sane person would see is that it's not possible to reach structural joints in just about any steel framed building ever made with out preparing the area to be cut ...as the nat geo clips clearly show...

Clearly the Nat-Geo fiasco speculates as to the accessibility of any given structural bit in WTC7. Speculation isn't good science.

The facts are, that people heard explosions all throughout the day of 9/11/2001 and in the sound track of some video, the explosions do very neatly line up with the event ( that is the fall of WTC7 ) The nay-sayers have so-far only produced speculation & appeals to emotion, but nothing like the hard evidence arguments to be had from the false flag faction.

people can continue to stick their heads in the sand as long as they want, but humanity is suffering the consequences of the BIG LIE.

There were explosive events recorded + there is clearly seen the results of explosive events.

Explosions? Isn't your speculation that thermite was used to bring the building down? Thermite doesn't explode. So what relevance is the explosions? Make up your mind. Was it explosives or thermite?

 

[n0spam4me]

What I am attempting to do is discuss the known evidence.

The fact of the way the WTC7 fell, is plenty of evidence that this was NOT a single point of failure initiated collapse event.

 

[daws101]

the first thing any sane person would see is that it's not possible to reach structural joints in just about any steel framed building ever made with out preparing the area to be cut ...as the nat geo clips clearly show...

Clearly the Nat-Geo fiasco speculates as to the accessibility of any given structural bit in WTC7. Speculation isn't good science.

The facts are, that people heard explosions all throughout the day of 9/11/2001 and in the sound track of some video, the explosions do very neatly line up with the event ( that is the fall of WTC7 ) The nay-sayers have so-far only produced speculation & appeals to emotion, but nothing like the hard evidence arguments to be had from the false flag faction.

people can continue to stick their heads in the sand as long as they want, but humanity is suffering the consequences of the BIG LIE.

There were explosive events recorded + there is clearly seen the results of explosive events.

bullshit .
Is it possible that thermite or thermate contributed to the collapse of WTC 7?
NIST has looked at the application and use of thermite and has determined that its use to sever columns in WTC 7 on 9/11/01 was unlikely.

Thermite is a combination of aluminum powder and a metal oxide that releases a tremendous amount of heat when ignited. It is typically used to weld railroad rails together by melting a small quantity of steel and pouring the melted steel into a form between the two rails.

To apply thermite to a large steel column, approximately 0.13 lb of thermite would be needed to heat and melt each pound of steel. For a steel column that weighs approximately 1,000 lbs. per foot, at least 100 lbs. of thermite would need to be placed around the column, ignited, and remain in contact with the vertical steel surface as the thermite reaction took place. This is for one column . presumably, more than one column would have been prepared with thermite, if this approach were to be used.

An emergency responder caught in the building between the 6th and 8th floors says he heard two loud booms. Isn't that evidence that there was an explosion?
The sound levels reported by all witnesses do not match the sound level of an explosion that would have been required to cause the collapse of the building. If the two loud booms were due to explosions that were responsible for the collapse of WTC 7, the emergency responder-located somewhere between the 6th and 8th floors in WTC 7-would not have been able to survive the near immediate collapse and provide this witness account.

In June 2009, NIST began releasing documents in response to a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request from the International Center for 9/11 Studies for "all of the photographs and videos collected, reviewed, cited or in any other way used by NIST during its investigation of the World Trade Center building collapses." One of the items released, a video obtained from NBC News , shows World Trade Center Building 7 (WTC 7) in the moments before it collapsed, then cuts to the collapse already in progress, with the building's east penthouse "disappearing" from the scene (as it had already fallen in the intervening time). Other videos of the WTC 7 collapse show the penthouse falling first, followed by the rest of the building. Did NIST edit the NBC News video to remove the collapse of the penthouse?
The video footage released under the FOIA request was copied from the original video exactly as it was received from NBC News, with video documentation of the WTC 7 east penthouse collapse missing. The footage was not edited in any way by NIST.


It is unlikely that 100 lbs. of thermite, or more, could have been carried into WTC 7 and placed around columns without being detected, either prior to Sept. 11 or during that day.

Given the fires that were observed that day, and the demonstrated structural response to the fires, NIST does not believe that thermite was used to fail any columns in WTC 7.

Analysis of the WTC steel for the elements in thermite/thermate would not necessarily have been conclusive. The metal compounds also would have been present in the construction materials making up the WTC buildings, and sulfur is present in the gypsum wallboard used for interior partitions.
Questions and Answers about the NIST WTC 7 Investigation