WTC7's "Free Fall"

[Faun]

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.

Of course you run from that since it destroys your entire hallucination. You've offered up two different ways the buildings could have been brought down in a controlled demolition. Either with thermite or with explosives; and you vacillate between the two, however you find it convenient.

Meanwhile, you can prove neither because neither were used.

 

[n0spam4me]

you can prove neither because neither were used.

The fact that WTC7 descended in the manner that it did ( that is free-fall acceleration + keeping its shape as it fell straight down ) is proof plenty, but there are people who simply refuse to accept the facts here.

 

[SAYIT]

you can prove neither because neither were used.

The fact that WTC7 descended in the manner that it did ( that is free-fall acceleration + keeping its shape as it fell straight down ) is proof plenty, but there are people who simply refuse to accept the facts here.

You mean like those who refuse to accept the fact that 2 passenger jets slammed into the Towers on 9/11? You mean those kind of facts?

 

[daws101]

you can prove neither because neither were used.

The fact that WTC7 descended in the manner that it did ( that is free-fall acceleration + keeping its shape as it fell straight down ) is proof plenty, but there are people who simply refuse to accept the facts here.

false. you made that bogus conclusion with no evidence to support it.
all it proves is the north face met no resistance FOR 2.25 SEC
that is not proof of cause ...

 

[daws101]

you can prove neither because neither were used.

The fact that WTC7 descended in the manner that it did ( that is free-fall acceleration + keeping its shape as it fell straight down ) is proof plenty, but there are people who simply refuse to accept the facts here.

You mean like those who refuse to accept the fact that 2 passenger jets slammed into the Towers on 9/11? You mean those kind of facts?

 

[Faun]

you can prove neither because neither were used.

The fact that WTC7 descended in the manner that it did ( that is free-fall acceleration + keeping its shape as it fell straight down ) is proof plenty, but there are people who simply refuse to accept the facts here.

"How" it fell is of minor consequence in this discussion since no one has ever seen a 110 story office building collapse before in the entire history of mankind and therefore, no one can say it fell "incorrectly" unless brought down in a controlled demolition.

"Why" it fell is at the crux of the matter. It was either a controlled demolition as you claim or it was due to the 9.11 attack as others claim. While there is sufficient evidence of the attack, there is virtually no evidence of a controlled demolition. There were no explosions throughout any of the 3 buildings in the seconds prior to them falling. So explosives were not used. This is undeniable. Your only other explanation would be thermite devices, which there is not a shred of evidence any such devices were used.

Conclusion: You are batshit insane.

 

[n0spam4me]

north face met no resistance FOR 2.25 SEC
that is not proof of cause ...

This is compelling evidence that the collapse event was not a random occurrence but something that was planned & engineered to happen as it did.
That is the 2.25 sec of free-fall acceleration.

 

[Capstone]

When weighing the two hypotheses against the observed and agreed upon occurrence of freefall, only one of them could possibly account for the requisite absence of resistance from more than 8 floors worth of both internal and external building materials. The fact that the other hypothesis happens to be the officially authorized one is no reason for any reasonable person to accept it at the expense of his or her faith in the laws of physics. In fact, according to the widely accepted determinants of delusional thought processes, those who've apparently done just that could rightfully be characterized as 'clinically delusional', if not "batshit insane".

 

[Faun]

When weighing the two hypotheses against the observed and agreed upon occurrence of freefall, only one of them could possibly account for the requisite absence of resistance from more than 8 floors worth of both internal and external building materials. The fact that the other hypothesis happens to be the officially authorized one is no reason for any reasonable person to accept it at the expense of his or her faith in the laws of physics. In fact, according to the widely accepted determinants of delusional thought processes, those who've apparently done just that could rightfully be characterized as 'clinically delusional', if not "batshit insane".

That is complete bullshit since it ignores the structural damage done to the building when the twin tower fell on it and ignores the damage done to the building when the interior collapsed about 7 seconds prior to the exterior.

If there is no evidence of a controlled demolition, whether by explosives or thermite, then one has to be batshit insane to cling to the delusion it was a controlled demolition nonetheless.

Explosives are loud and produce smoke; neither of which occurred prior to the collapse of any of the buildings.

Thermite is brilliantly bright; there was only one spot of molten aluminum among 270 stories of the 3 buildings, which was most likely from the plane. Other than that, there were no bright flashes just before any of the buildings fell.

 

[Capstone]

When weighing the two hypotheses against the observed and agreed upon occurrence of freefall, only one of them could possibly account for the requisite absence of resistance from more than 8 floors worth of both internal and external building materials. The fact that the other hypothesis happens to be the officially authorized one is no reason for any reasonable person to accept it at the expense of his or her faith in the laws of physics. In fact, according to the widely accepted determinants of delusional thought processes, those who've apparently done just that could rightfully be characterized as 'clinically delusional', if not "batshit insane".

That is complete bullshit since it ignores the structural damage done to the building when the twin tower fell on it and ignores the damage done to the building when the interior collapsed about 7 seconds prior to the exterior. ...

What's "complete bullshit" is your apparent disregard even for the aspects of NIST's explanation that don't fit your delusion.

Quoting NIST:

"The debris from WTC 1 caused structural damage to the southwest region of WTC 7—severing seven exterior columns—but this structural damage did not initiate the collapse. The fires initiated by the debris, rather than the structural damage that resulted from the impacts, initiated the building's collapse after the fires grew and spread to the northeast region after several hours." -- FAQs - NIST WTC 7 Investigation

Apart from the concession that the exterior damage played no role in the initiation of the collapse (beyond igniting the office fires), the question, as to how 7 severed exterior columns on the building's "southwest region" could account for the symmetrical 105 ft. freefall of the building's exterior "north face", still looms large and unanswered.

Regarding any external damage that could have possibly been caused by the wholesale collapse of the building's internal supports, the likelihood that it could have naturally occurred in the manner required to explain the symmetry of the observed "collapse"...is close enough to zilch to be discounted at the outset.

...If there is no evidence of a controlled demolition, whether by explosives or thermite, then one has to be batshit insane to cling to the delusion it was a controlled demolition nonetheless. ...

You could try to repeat that into infinity, and the effort would have no effect on the reality of the situation, namely that 3 independent studies confirmed the presence of physical materials in the WTC dust that cannot be explained by any means other than the use of pyrotechnics/incendiaries.

...Explosives are loud and produce smoke; neither of which occurred prior to the collapse of any of the buildings. ...[emphasis Capstone's]

That's a bald-faced lie, and I think you know it.

Explosions were both reported by many eyewitnesses and inadvertantly recorded on a number of videos throughout the day, clear indications that some of the buildings' crucial support columns had been weakened or severed by explosives in advance of the interior ignitions of the thermate cutter charges, which were most likely heavily clouded by dust and debris, simply by virtue of an inward-facing placement M.O.

...Thermite is brilliantly bright; there was only one spot of molten aluminum among 270 stories of the 3 buildings, which was most likely from the plane. Other than that, there were no bright flashes just before any of the buildings fell.

Since the thermitic reactions could have been heavily clouded as I've described, the perceived deficiency of visible flashes during the "collapses" is entirely moot.

The pools and flowing streams of molten metals that were discovered at the bottom of all three debris piles, along with the sporadic fires that burned for several weeks in places strongly indicative of the prospect that the fires had their own self-contained oxygen supplies, ...not so moot.

 

[Capstone]

 

[SAYIT]

Explosions were both reported by many eyewitnesses and inadvertantly recorded on a number of videos throughout the day, clear indications that some of the buildings' crucial support columns had been weakened or severed by explosives in advance of the interior ignitions of the thermate cutter charges, which were most likely heavily clouded by dust and debris, simply by virtue of an inward-facing placement M.O.

Really? So now you are saying there were both thermite charges AND general explosives with the explosives set to go off before the thermite and all to happen in the context of the jet impact and ensuing chaotic fires? And you wonder why so many have abandoned you and the "Truther" Movement?

 

[Capstone]

Explosions were both reported by many eyewitnesses and inadvertantly recorded on a number of videos throughout the day, clear indications that some of the buildings' crucial support columns had been weakened or severed by explosives in advance of the interior ignitions of the thermate cutter charges, which were most likely heavily clouded by dust and debris, simply by virtue of an inward-facing placement M.O.

Really? So now you are saying there were both thermite charges AND general explosives with the explosives set to go off before the thermite and all to happen in the context of the jet impact and ensuing chaotic fires? And you wonder why so many have abandoned you and the "Truther" Movement?

Since when is the use of explosives and incendiaries a mutually exclusive proposition for a single demolition event, particularly when the ignition temp. of the incendiary in question is sufficiently above any temperatures that might be reached as a result of the explosives?

As I've pointed out on numerous occasions, careful placement in accordance to predetermined impact zones that could have later been ensured by precision RC guidance of the aircraft/drones, along with the high ignition temps mentioned above, would have circumvented any of the possible problems you've so desperately clung to as means to belittle the CD hypothesis.

Your overused bag of tricks isn't nearly as effective as it used to be, Sayit. I know I'm not the only one on this board who's seen the same ol' crap from you so often that it just rings hollow.

 

[SAYIT]

Explosions were both reported by many eyewitnesses and inadvertantly recorded on a number of videos throughout the day, clear indications that some of the buildings' crucial support columns had been weakened or severed by explosives in advance of the interior ignitions of the thermate cutter charges, which were most likely heavily clouded by dust and debris, simply by virtue of an inward-facing placement M.O.

Really? So now you are saying there were both thermite charges AND general explosives with the explosives set to go off before the thermite and all to happen in the context of the jet impact and ensuing chaotic fires? And you wonder why so many have abandoned you and the "Truther" Movement?

Since when is the use of explosives and incendiaries a mutually exclusive proposition for a single demolition event, particularly when the ignition temp. of the incendiary in question is sufficiently above any temperatures that might be reached as a result of the explosives?

As I've pointed out on numerous occasions, careful placement in accordance to predetermined impact zones that could have later been ensured by precision RC guidance of the aircraft/drones, along with the high ignition temps mentioned above, would have circumvented any of the possible problems you've so desperately clung to as means to belittle the CD hypothesis.

Your overused bag of tricks isn't nearly as effectiveb as it used to be, Sayit. I know I'm not the only one on this board who's seen the same ol' crap from you so often that it just rings hollow.

I have indeed used the "same ol' crap" in response to your same ol' crap and in case you haven't noticed, there's only a handful of participants in any of these 9/11 CT threads because - as I've so often reminded you - your "Truther" Movement is D-E-A-D. Over 13 years after the fact and you've managed to prove N-O-T-H-I-N-G other than your inability to deal with reality:
"I thought the term ‘Truth Movement’ meant that there’d be some search for truth. I was wrong." - former believer Charlie Veitch

 

[Faun]

When weighing the two hypotheses against the observed and agreed upon occurrence of freefall, only one of them could possibly account for the requisite absence of resistance from more than 8 floors worth of both internal and external building materials. The fact that the other hypothesis happens to be the officially authorized one is no reason for any reasonable person to accept it at the expense of his or her faith in the laws of physics. In fact, according to the widely accepted determinants of delusional thought processes, those who've apparently done just that could rightfully be characterized as 'clinically delusional', if not "batshit insane".

That is complete bullshit since it ignores the structural damage done to the building when the twin tower fell on it and ignores the damage done to the building when the interior collapsed about 7 seconds prior to the exterior. ...

What's "complete bullshit" is your apparent disregard even for the aspects of NIST's explanation that don't fit your delusion.

Quoting NIST:

"The debris from WTC 1 caused structural damage to the southwest region of WTC 7—severing seven exterior columns—but this structural damage did not initiate the collapse. The fires initiated by the debris, rather than the structural damage that resulted from the impacts, initiated the building's collapse after the fires grew and spread to the northeast region after several hours." -- FAQs - NIST WTC 7 Investigation

Apart from the concession that the exterior damage played no role in the initiation of the collapse (beyond igniting the office fires), the question, as to how 7 severed exterior columns on the building's "southwest region" could account for the symmetrical 105 ft. freefall of the building's exterior "north face", still looms large and unanswered.

Regarding any external damage that could have possibly been caused by the wholesale collapse of the building's internal supports, the likelihood that it could have naturally occurred in the manner required to explain the symmetry of the observed "collapse"...is close enough to zilch to be discounted at the outset.

...If there is no evidence of a controlled demolition, whether by explosives or thermite, then one has to be batshit insane to cling to the delusion it was a controlled demolition nonetheless. ...

You could try to repeat that into infinity, and the effort would have no effect on the reality of the situation, namely that 3 independent studies confirmed the presence of physical materials in the WTC dust that cannot be explained by any means other than the use of pyrotechnics/incendiaries.

...Explosives are loud and produce smoke; neither of which occurred prior to the collapse of any of the buildings. ...[emphasis Capstone's]

That's a bald-faced lie, and I think you know it.

Explosions were both reported by many eyewitnesses and inadvertantly recorded on a number of videos throughout the day, clear indications that some of the buildings' crucial support columns had been weakened or severed by explosives in advance of the interior ignitions of the thermate cutter charges, which were most likely heavily clouded by dust and debris, simply by virtue of an inward-facing placement M.O.

...Thermite is brilliantly bright; there was only one spot of molten aluminum among 270 stories of the 3 buildings, which was most likely from the plane. Other than that, there were no bright flashes just before any of the buildings fell.

Since the thermitic reactions could have been heavily clouded as I've described, the perceived deficiency of visible flashes during the "collapses" is entirely moot.

The pools and flowing streams of molten metals that were discovered at the bottom of all three debris piles, along with the sporadic fires that burned for several weeks in places strongly indicative of the prospect that the fires had their own self-contained oxygen supplies, ...not so moot.

It's no lie. The explosions that I'm talking about are explosions brought about by a controlled demolition. Such explosions are not set off sporadically over many hours; but simultaneously within seconds of a building's collapse.

That did not happen, there were no explosions as a result of a controlled demolition. They simply didn't exist. And there is no evidence thermite was used. Whatever you dreamed up about concealing the brilliant flashes from thermite stems from your imagination. There's no evidence such [cutting] devices existed, there's no evidence any were used. Not to mention, your imaginary dust clouds to conceal the flashes from thermite were from charges -- which didn't exist. There were no explosives set off in the seconds prior to any of the buildings collapsing.

Unbelievably, you twofers actually believe the nonsense you dream up.

 

[n0spam4me]

There's no evidence such [cutting] devices existed, there's no evidence any were used.

There are pictures of neatly cut steel, and people who allege that said pix are of steel cut during the clean up operation, HOWEVER, where is the DOCUMENTATION that is the statements from specific photographers who will certify the time/date & location for any given pix?
For that matter, did the FBI, NYPD, or? take documentary pix and if so where are these pictures?

The most poorly documented disaster in history!

 

[n0spam4me]

There are pictures of neatly cut steel, and people who allege that said pix are of steel cut during the clean up operation, HOWEVER, where is the DOCUMENTATION that is the statements from specific photographers who will certify the time/date & location for any given pix?

Do you have any documentation that the pix were taken before the clean up? That they came down in that condition? Any evidence of same? Nothing? Does it make sense that any photographer was allowed or even wanted to climb into that mess before the clean-up peeps?

Given the fact that documentary photographers have worked in places such as combat zones during various wars, I see no reason at all for shying away from shooting pix of ground zero immediately post collapse of the twin towers. The fact that there are not pix (or at least documented pix... ) to be had re-enforces my position that 9/11 was the most poorly documented disaster in history.

Look at the presentation of the pix that are available, how often is it identified as to exactly when the pix was taken and where was the photographer standing? and for some pix that are published on the web, there isn't any info, and requests for info are consistently ignored.

 

[SAYIT]

There are pictures of neatly cut steel, and people who allege that said pix are of steel cut during the clean up operation, HOWEVER, where is the DOCUMENTATION that is the statements from specific photographers who will certify the time/date & location for any given pix?
For that matter, did the FBI, NYPD, or? take documentary pix and if so where are these pictures?

The most poorly documented disaster in history!

Do you have any documentation that the pix were taken before the clean up? That they came down in that condition? Any evidence of same? Nothing? Does it make sense that any photographer was allowed or even wanted to climb into that mess before the clean-up peeps[/QUOTE]

 

[SAYIT]

There are pictures of neatly cut steel, and people who allege that said pix are of steel cut during the clean up operation, HOWEVER, where is the DOCUMENTATION that is the statements from specific photographers who will certify the time/date & location for any given pix?

Do you have any documentation that the pix were taken before the clean up? That they came down in that condition? Any evidence of same? Nothing? Does it make sense that any photographer was allowed or even wanted to climb into that mess before the clean-up peeps?

Given the fact that documentary photographers have worked in places such as combat zones during various wars, I see no reason at all for shying away from shooting pix of ground zero immediately post collapse of the twin towers.

Do you have any documentation or evidence of any photographer being restricted from the site?

 

[Capstone]

All the denial in the world won't make the testimonies of those who were there go away...




If the pointlessness of doing so weren't a foregone conclusion, I'd also post a link to one of Graeme MacQueen's targeted analyses of the FDNY oral histories, in which he identified 118 non-ambiguous testimonies of "secondary explosions" -- secondary, that is, in relation to the aircraft impacts. That's a startling number, considering that 343 of the firefighters in the best positions to hear such explosions didn't make it out to tell their stories.

But again, above and beyond the mountain of highly credible eyewitness testimonies of multiple explosions, the best evidence for the controlled demolition hypothesis is physical in nature. We can say with absolute certainty that certain conditions must have prevailed at Ground Zero in order to account for the physical materials recovered from the crime scenes. Some of those materials demand temperatures and conditions far too extreme to be explained by fires fuelled by office furnishings and/or jet fuel. This means the official explanation not only fails to account for, but is directly contradicted by, some of the hard physical evidence.

In conjunction with the lack of corroboration by eyewitness testimonies and an entire body of physical evidence that must have been ignored (including previously molten steel and concrete in the form of 'the meteor'), there's also the occurrence of a period of freefall, which constitutes a violation of the third law of motion under the fire-induced progressive collapse model. Since none of these factors are reasonably in doubt, I can only assume that the people who sincerely doubt any one of them (much less all of them collectively)...are ignorant, in denial, or otherwise deluded.

Including you, Faun.