WTC7's "Free Fall"
- Thread starter SAYIT
- Start date
n0spam4me
VIP Member
So rather than supply a real rebuttal, you simply label it "bullshit"
I guess that settles that.......
n0spam4me
VIP Member
What we taxpayers got for our $$$ was analysis by committee and under-funded, set-up to fail, rife with conflict of interest, ( etc... ) and making statements such as "total collapse was inevitable after collapse initiation" and people are actually buying this crap?
for the random average citizen here, LOOK at the various videos of the events that is the crash of the alleged "FLT175" the collapse events of WTC1, 2 & 7, the Pentagon scene, the Shanksville crash ( or shall I say alleged crash )
and LOOK, really LOOK at these bits and make up your own mind, come to your own conclusions, the court of public opinion needs to come to an informed verdict.
for the random average citizen here, LOOK at the various videos of the events that is the crash of the alleged "FLT175" the collapse events of WTC1, 2 & 7, the Pentagon scene, the Shanksville crash ( or shall I say alleged crash )
and LOOK, really LOOK at these bits and make up your own mind, come to your own conclusions, the court of public opinion needs to come to an informed verdict.
E.L.C.
Member
- Oct 29, 2013
- 89
- 3
- 6
WORLD TRADE CENTER BUILDING 7
An Empirically Verifiable Scientific Method
Driven Graphical Target System
Analysis And Conclusion
An Empirically Verifiable Scientific Method
Driven Graphical Target System
Analysis And Conclusion
The conditions required for gravitational acceleration to occur have been known for centuries....
"The condition under which a body is, literally, free to fall under the influence of the local gravitational field with no resistance to its acceleration."
The control that appears on the right in many of the animations is intended as a reminder of that, and also signals the beginning of a comparison....
We can know with certainty in some cases (like this one) what conditions exist beneath an object (or building) as it falls....
....even though we may not be able to see into the space beneath it as it does....
Buckled columns, whether one or a hundred, whether one at a time or all at once (or any combination thereof) won't just go from 100% to 0% when they buckle, they'll steadily decrease in strength while they buckle and that takes time.
The mechanism of buckling (a mode of natural progressive structural failure), whether caused by heat....
....or by overloading....
....absolutely cannot match or create the conditions required for gravitational acceleration to occur, it's literally impossible. There is no such thing as progressive gravitational acceleration....
Some force must be introduced to quickly remove all support from beneath the literally falling visible upper part of the building seen in the video. The progressive collapse of the building (NIST probable collapse sequence starting with column 79 on the left)....
....that essentially happens all at once....
....is clearly physically inconsistent with what we empirically know of natural progressive structural failure (defined as a time consuming process of individual/sequential/simultaneous failure involving one or a number of related structural components).
It's a physical impossibility for the lower part of the asymmetrically damaged building (reportedly three core columns and nine perimeter columns) to have naturally progressively collapsed in any way that could result in the upper part of the building symmetrically descending straight down through itself (NIST probable collapse sequence starting with column 79 circled below) at anything near gravitational acceleration for any period of time. The scenario playing out below is an absolute physical impossibility....
....and there is absolutely no mode or combination of modes of natural progressive structural failure driven solely by gravity that can ever give rise to the conditions required for free fall to have occurred at any point during it's descent....
The scenario playing out below is an absolute physical impossibility. Just as there is no such thing as progressive gravitational acceleration, nor is there any known structural failure mode known as natural progressive structural gravitational acceleration....
There is simply no point during a natural progressive gravity driven collapse of a steel frame skyscraper like this where one could say....
"Hold it.... right there! That's the point where all the steel columns and structural components that were supporting the building just a moment ago (with an area greater than that of a football field) will undoubtedly be found to be behaving in a manner very much like air (below left). It will take very careful calculation to tell the fall times apart during this free fall period of the ongoing progressive structural failure (below right)"....
For the 2.25 seconds (eight stories, approximately 105 feet) that we know the upper part of the building literally fell at gravitational acceleration it cannot have been using any of it's potential energy to crush the building contents, columns and other structural components beneath it and undergo free fall at the same time.
It's physically impossible for the lower asymmetrically damaged part of the building to have naturally progressively collapsed in a way that could result in the upper part of the building actually accelerating as it descended symmetrically straight down through itself, through the path of greatest resistance (below right), and then, driven on solely by gravity, actually continue to accelerate so nearly to gravitational acceleration (below left) as to require very careful calculation for any difference between the two to be detected....
Some other force powerful enough to quickly remove all support from beneath the upper part of the building as it descended must be introduced to explain the observed rate of descent during the 2.25 second period of gravitational acceleration.
For the 2.25 seconds that the building iliterally fell at gravitational acceleration, no other force powerful enough to quickly remove all support from beneath the upper part of the building was seen to be introduced from outside the building, and no other force powerful enough to quickly remove all support from beneath the upper part of the building is known to have existed inside the building as an element or normal function of it's infrastructure.
For a load supported by a column to descend at gravitational acceleration, all support must be quickly removed, there's absolutely no other way. It must be knocked out, pulled out, blown out, vaporized, etc.
Since no eight story tall boulders were seen rumbling through Manhatten that day that could have quickly knocked out all support....
....and no suspicious looking Frenchmen were spotted rigging for verinage (another form of controlled demolition) the night before that could have quickly pulled out the support....
....and no bombs or rockets were seen to be dropped on/fired at it that could have quickly blown out all support....
....and no giant laser beams or other secret weapons were being tested in the area that could have quickly vaporized all support....
....and no other force capable of quickly removing all support from beneath the upper part of the building existed in the building as a normal function of it's infrastructure (blue)....
....it naturally follows that whatever the other force was that must be introduced to explain the observed 2.25 seconds of descent at gravitional acceleration, it must have been introduced some time before the event, and unless someone can show how the other force that must be introduced either during or just before the collapse of the building was introduced from outside the building, or that it was already existing inside the building as a normal function of it's infrastructure, the process of elimination really leaves only one possible explanation for the building's behaviour.
Some energetic material powerful enough to quickly remove all support from beneath the upper part of the building during the 2.25 second period of gravitational acceleration must have been physically transported inside the building some time before the event, it had to be brought in.
The explosion model is the only one....
....that can realistically match and empirically be expected to create the conditions that we know must have existed....
....beneath the literally falling visible upper part of the building during its observed largely symmetrical descent at gravitational acceleration for approximately 105 feet in 2.25 seconds....
The undisputed (both the NIST and independent researchers alike agree) confirmed observation of a significant well defined period of gravitational acceleration....
....means that an explosion, or a number of explosions, must have occurred that was powerful enough to quickly remove all support from beneath the upper part of the building (below right), either all at once or incrementally in advance of its descent, permitting it to descend at gravitational acceleration for the observed period and under the conditions required (below left) for free fall to occur....
The building was brought down by explosives.
Last edited:
- Thread starter
- #28
Wow! All these years and you're still really weird.
BTW, the prob with your theory is that no evidence of explosives or a controlled demo were found.
Next!
deep_space
Member
- Dec 26, 2014
- 76
- 6
- 16
what tests were done?
Capstone
Gold Member
- Feb 14, 2012
- 5,502
- 953
- 290
You mean besides the three independent dust studies, the swiss-cheesified steel (documented by FEMA), the so-called meteor, the several highly credible eyewitness accounts of pools and streams of molten metals, the fires that burned for months beneath the rubble (indicating the sort of self-contained oxygen supplies that can only be explained by the use of thermitic incendiaries), the many eyewitness reports of "secondary explosions", the firefighters' accounts of demolition-like sequential detonations during the "collapses", and last but not least, the incontrovertible occurrence of a period of gravitational acceleration that cannot be explained by any means other than the complete removal of physical resistance from more than 8 floors worth of building materials?
Sorry, Sayit, but the fact that the group apparently tasked by the government to explain the "collapses" in a manner consistent with the official storyline―a group that had to ignore and/or look the other way in order not to see the mountain of evidence for the use of pyrotechnics/incendiaries―isn't itself evidence of anything but the very real likelihood that that's exactly what they were deployed to do: overlook and deny the undeniable.
Kind of like your empty but persistent pronouncements that "the 9/11 truth movement is dead", in that they, too, are simply denials of the undeniable robustness of a movement that's done nothing but grow, both in terms of numbers and credibility, ever since its inception.
- Thread starter
- #31
All of which has been explained or refuted dozens of times here in far more plausible terms than any of your silly "Truther" scenarios and conspiracy theories. Those charged with investigating 9/11 - those whose reputations you so blithely impugn by claiming they "had to ignore and/or look the other way in order not to see the mountain of evidence for the use of pyrotechnics/incendiaries" - include both gov't inspectors, private industry specialists and international scholars whose experience and integrity far exceeds that of any "Truther" in your now defunct Movement. You offer not a shred of evidence that any of these experts were part of the massive cover-up you allege and certainly no evidence that they were all involved:
Engineering specialists from the Structural Engineering Institute of the American Society of Civil Engineers (SEI/ASCE) and
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA).
National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), which also consulted outside engineering entities including but not limited to the Structural Engineering Institute of the American Society of Civil Engineers, Society of Fire Protection Engineers, National Fire Protection Association, American Institute of Steel Construction, Simpson Gumpertz & Heger Inc., Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat, the American Concrete Institute, and the Structural Engineers Association of New York.
In 2003 Asif Usmani, Professor of Structural Engineering at University of Edinburgh, published a paper with two colleagues. They provisionally concluded the fires alone, without any damage from the airplanes, could have been enough to bring down the buildings. In their view, the towers were uniquely vulnerable to the effects of large fires on several floors at the same time. When the NIST report was published, Barbara Lane, with the UK engineering firm Arup, criticized its conclusion that the loss of fire proofing was a necessary factor in causing the collapses; "We have carried out computer simulations which show that the towers would have collapsed after a major fire on three floors at once, even with fireproofing in place and without any damage from plane impact." Jose L Torero from the BRE Centre for Fire Safety Engineering at the University of Edinburgh is pursuing further research into the potentially catastrophic effects of fire on real-scale buildings.
But I am curious about your "meteor" scenario. Could you explain?
Collapse of the World Trade Center - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
- Thread starter
- #32
I have little doubt that you actually care more about your particular CT than you do the truth but the first link is to the NIST Q & A session which answers most rational people's questions. The second link is to former "Truther" royalty Charlie Veitch who had the cajones to admit the "Truther" Movement had no interest in the truth (and was roundly threatened by his fellow comrades for doing so) and the third link is to the letter of resignation by the co-founder of 9/11 Truth UAlbany who was so disgusted by the DVD & T-shirt hawking nature of your movement that he also felt compelled to post a mea culpa when he quit.
Questions and Answers about the NIST WTC 7 Investigation
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=6&cad=rja&uact=8&sqi=2&ved=0CC0QFjAF&url=http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/10079244/The-911-conspiracy-theorist-who-changed-his-mind.html&ei=MdC6VOTOF6fksAT-6IHgDw&usg=AFQjCNHz3Uj1z8KHiP4tI_4IZGlW6DV9qw&bvm=bv.83829542,d.cWc
Confessions of an Ex-Truther Letter of Resignation Scroll Down for Newer Posts
n0spam4me
VIP Member
"confessions of an ex-truther" notwithstanding, Post #27 here, tells it all and tells it very well ..... thank U very much!
Capstone
Gold Member
- Feb 14, 2012
- 5,502
- 953
- 290
The confirmed presence of iron micro-spheres, melted molybdenum, and trace elements of vaporized lead in the WTC dust has neither been refuted nor in any way explained (much less plausibly so) by proponents of the OTC. That's hard physical evidence that extreme temperatures and conditions were sustained at ground zero―requisite temperatures and conditions that cannot be explained by jet fuel or office furnishings, which probably does at least explain why the NIST group ignored it.
Likewise, FEMA's infamous chunk of swiss-cheesified steel and the so-called "meteor" (melted concrete, metals, and other building debris all fused together) have received similar treatment by OTC apologists, in that their existence hasn't been credibly refuted and any explanations (eutectic reactions. ETC.) are equally damning to the official narrative in comparison to the explosive demolition hypothesis, which, again, probably explains why the NIST group apparently chose to look the other way.
The same goes for the rest of the evidence I mentioned. So-called counter-explanations like, "They could have been pools and streams of molten aluminum." and "Eyewitness testimonies are notoriously unreliable." are vacuous in relation to the continuity of the body of evidence as a whole, including incontrovertible aspects ("freefall", ETC.) that not only corroborate the CD hypothesis but directly contradict the official fable, which, there again, probably explains why the NIST group offered no explanation for what amounts to a clear violation of physical law under the auspices of its fire-induced progressive collapse hypothesis.
Kevin Ryan was one of those "private industry specialists" you mentioned. In the course of his oversight and work on the testing his company was contracted to conduct by the NIST group, he became one of the most ardent and highly credible figures in the 9/11 Truth Movement, because he saw first-hand that the government's science lackeys were out to make the test results conform to their predetermined conclusion by twisting the data so badly that Ryan became seriously concerned about his company's credibility. Had he fallen in line and kept his mouth shut like some of the other individuals in the groups you've cited, the truth movement today would be minus the excellent body of research he's contributed at great risk to his personal safety and financial well-being. Granted, there haven't been many like him, but that's probably due to the fact that there simply aren't many like him on the planet. This goes straight to the heart of your persistent proclamation that "millions" of people would have to be kept silent. Human nature is such that most of the people unwittingly involved in aspects of the operation and/or in its coverup would be more inclined to obey and conform than to question and denounce like Kevin Ryan had the principles and courage to do...
- Thread starter
- #35
Yes, I understand you need to believe that happy horse shit but I just don't understand why. There had to be a Kevin Ryan in the stable of investigators, just as there had to be a tiny minority of "experts" who have slid down the same rabbit hole in which you find yourself. The small army of demo riggers would have known what they were doing and some among them would have had the integrity (or just would have wanted to cover their own ass) to speak up while the work was in progress. They had nothing to gain by their silence then and much to gain by blowing the whistle in any of the 13 YEARS since 9/11.
n0spam4me
VIP Member
There are people who have attempted to be whistle blowers and have been shouted-down in the media. There is a huge problem in that the U.S.A. has been under siege for the past 13 years now, its a psychological war.
- Thread starter
- #37
No Spammy. Two flaming loons like you have spun their paranoid delusions into a massive conspiracy theory that after 13 years still has gained no traction.
Your "Truther" Movement is DEAD, Princess ... get over it.
"I thought the term ‘Truth Movement’ meant that there’d be some search for truth. I was wrong." - Charlie Veitch
deep_space
Member
- Dec 26, 2014
- 76
- 6
- 16
[QUOTEflaming loons][/QUOTE]
Your attitude is showing,....
Your attitude is showing,....
Capstone
Gold Member
- Feb 14, 2012
- 5,502
- 953
- 290
As I've told you before, neither my belief system nor any of the individual beliefs drawn from it are matters of preference. If I could believe in the officially authorized story, I would. I'm not a "twoofer" by choice; to the contrary, I'm a product of the sincerest efforts to justify my continued belief in the official account as that delusion was gradually dismantled piece by piece over the years, ultimately leaving me with no choice but to reject it wholesale some years back. It's hard to put into words, but it was almost as though the deeper I dug in order to justify the official narrative in my own mind...the more shallow and transparently phony it became.
In my experience, people like Kevin Ryan are few and far between. I like to think I would have acted in a similar fashion under those circumstances, but I really can't say with certainty that I'd have been as strong in his shoes. No, there didn't have to be a person with the high principles and great courage to call bullshit on the NIST group's underhanded tactics, but thank God there was at least one such person.
You've got it bass-ackwards, Sayit. From the day my eyes were opened, I've been digging out of the pit into which I was born buried alive. Whether or not I make it all the way out, at least I'll be able to look at myself in the mirror at the end of my excavating days (hopefully, many years down the road from now), both with the knowledge that I was true to my convictions to the last...and with confidence that I strove to be on the right side of history.
Obviously, the men directly involved in rigging the buildings had (and still have) everything to gain by their silence. The suggestion that it's completely ludicrous none of these mass-murderers have come forward to blow the whistle on themselves...is itself completely ludicrous!
Having said that, I think such individuals can be categorized in one of the following two camps: complete psychopaths or 'true believers'. I'm personally inclined to believe they were/are, for the most part, members of the latter camp (and I'm not talking about Muslims here). It's not likely that these people have been struggling with their consciences, because they probably truly believe in their cause. Religious zealots tend to roll like that.
- Thread starter
- #40
So you've determined that those who in your mind rigged those buildings for demo were "religious zealots" who were willing to bring down the Towers and Bldg 7, potentially murdering tens of thousands of innocent people. Ignoring the virtually impossibility of doing so without being noticed and the fact that the rigging could not have survived the fires that followed the impact of two passenger jets, just what proof do you have that the riggers were "religious zealots?"
Similar threads
New Topics
-
80 Student protesters take over Columbia University Library.
- Started by MarathonMike
- Replies: 5
-
Unreliable Al jazeera [jihad zeera] promotes fakenews / Pallywood imagery [PallyWeid]- Started by Sayaras
- Replies: 2
-
Frontier agents who mocked passenger were terminated- Started by Quasar44
- Replies: 3
-
FAA announces new air traffic control system in hope of taming busy skies- Started by Crepitus
- Replies: 4
