• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Merged Freefall is not evidence for Controlled Demolition

jaydeehess said:
...
However its shown that your fantastical eight storey column removal would result in an eight storey acceleration profile completely dissimilar to that which describes the fall of wtc7. ...
Click to expand...

Come to think of it, wouldn't the "explosive removal" of eight stories worth of columns been noticed by someone? MM cited the lack of broken windows as evidence, but his own scenario should also have windows blown out.
 
000063 said:
Come to think of it, wouldn't the "explosive removal" of eight stories worth of columns been noticed by someone? MM cited the lack of broken windows as evidence, but his own scenario should also have windows blown out.
Click to expand...

That's because they used Shrink-A-Boom, it causes implosions instead of explosions.
 
Which would implode the windows. Even parodic, made up substances aren't enough.
 
000063 said:
Come to think of it, wouldn't the "explosive removal" of eight stories worth of columns been noticed by someone? MM cited the lack of broken windows as evidence, but his own scenario should also have windows blown out.
Click to expand...

Indeed, and I noted in a post above, window breakage in the event of dozens of simultaneous explosions, some of which MM states, are the north perimeter columns. I may have forgotten to note that there is no witness to this widespread explosive demolition of all columns for eight floors. The reason of course is that these floors were already collapsing removing any requirement for explosives.
 
Seeing this idea that it "looks like" according to opinion an "industry standard" demolition get thrown around isn't even amusing anymore... If the parties responsible for making these claims are too lazy to do a real investigation this conspiracy theory should be left for dead. Of course it runs contrary to their interests if they decide to commit to anything that involve themselves being responsible for proving their own theories wrong to the audience they've captivated
 
Last edited:
Grizzly Bear said:
Seeing this idea that it "looks like" according to opinion an "industry standard" demolition get thrown around isn't even amusing anymore... If the parties responsible for making these claims are too lazy to do a real investigation this conspiracy theory should be left for dead. Of course it runs contrary to their interests if they decide to commit to anything that involve themselves being responsible for proving their own theories wrong to the audience they've captivated
Click to expand...

Yes, that! I have stated many times that before one can go spouting that the collapse and its acceleration profile up to and beyond 'g' is definitive evidence of a controlled demolition, that one would absolutely need to study other CD and non-CD collapses and determine IF there is a common acceleration profile for a CD ( I strongly suspect there is not), and if there is any commonality that can set CD versus non-CD apart.

Unfortunately those who wish to point to a short period of FFA as definitive proof of CD seem quite content to simply make pseudo-technical declarative statements rather than anything they can back up without waving their arms about.
 
What's up with this WTC7 FREE FALL proof?

Can you disprove this simple proof?
I. Given that “free fall is impossible for a naturally collapsing building” due to the structural components below providing resistance; (David Chandler, Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth)(1.)

II. And given that NIST agrees, “free fall” is only possible if there are “no structural components below” providing resistance; (Shyam Sunder, NIST)(2.)

III. Therefore, NIST understands that it requires no structural resistance below for a building to free fall.

IV. Given that NIST showed WTC7 was in free fall, and therefore there was no structural resistance from the structural components below;(3.)

V. And given that the only way for there to have been no structural resistance below allowing WTC7 to free fall, would have been to remove all structural resistance at once and that can only be done with a controlled demolition;

VI. Therefore, the free-falling WTC7 was a controlled demolition.
Q.E.D


(Note re: footnotes. I apparently not allowed to add URLs until afyer 15 posts)
1.) Freefall and Building 7: Search: "ae911truth 426-freefall-and-building-7-on-911"

2.) “WTC 7 Technical Briefing,” NIST, August 26, 2008. Although NIST originally had a video and a transcript of this briefing at its Internet website, it recently removed both of them. The transcript, under the title “NIST Technical Briefing on Its Final Draft Report on WTC 7 for Public Comment,” is available at David Chandler’s website


3.) NIST NCSTAR 1A, Final Report on the Collapse of World Trade Center Building 7 - p.45 (The report talks about WTC7 “descend[ing] at gravitational acceleration, i.e., free fall” and the “free fall continu[ing].
 
Last edited:
david.watts said:
V. And given that the only way for there to have been no structural resistance below allowing WTC7 to free fall, would have been to remove all structural resistance at once and that can only be done with a controlled demolition;
[Citation Needed]
Click to expand...

I don't accept that this is a given.
 
david.watts said:
Can you disprove this simple proof? :boggled:

I. Given that “free fall is impossible for a naturally collapsing building” due to the structural components below providing resistance; (David Chandler, Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth)

II. And given that NIST agrees, “free fall” is only possible if there are “no structural components below” providing resistance; (Shyam Sunder, NIST)

III. Therefore, NIST understands that it requires no structural resistance below for a building to free fall.

IV. Given that NIST showed WTC7 was in free fall, and therefore there was no structural resistance from the structural components below;

V. And given that the only way for there to have been no structural resistance below allowing WTC7 to free fall, would have been to remove all structural resistance at once and that can only be done with a controlled demolition;

VI. Therefore, the free-falling WTC7 was a controlled demolition.
Q.E.D
Click to expand...

Sure, IV is untrue. Global collapse was at least 14.6 seconds, which is far longer than free fall.

QED. Thanks for posting.
 
david.watts said:
VI. Therefore, the free-falling WTC7 was a controlled demolition.
Q.E.D
Click to expand...

Wow, I'm glad that's settled. Now we don't have to explain all of those uncomfortable anomalies such as the complete absence of any audible or visible explosions.
The complete lack of any evidence of blast damage from explosions.
The complete lack of any recovered evidence of explosives or explosive residue.
Nor do we have to bother explaining how the explosives got in the building without anyone noticing or how they survived 8 hours of raging fires without cooking off prematurely.
And best of all, we don't have to come up with a plausible motive for why anyone would want to blow up an unimportant office building and use an elaborate scheme of hijacking 4 airliners and crashing them into different buildings - even different cities - as a cover.

Thanks for that. :D

PS

Who is taking bets on this being another drive-by Truthing? Anyone?
 
Kid Meatball, you do not take 'IV' as a "given." Well, how else do you "remove ALL structural resistance at once."?
 
Last edited:
Mark F said:
Wow, I'm glad that's settled. Now we don't have to explain all of those uncomfortable anomalies such as the complete absence of any audible or visible explosions.
The complete lack of any evidence of blast damage from explosions.
The complete lack of any recovered evidence of explosives or explosive residue.
Nor do we have to bother explaining how the explosives got in the building without anyone noticing or how they survived 8 hours of raging fires without cooking off prematurely.
And best of all, we don't have to come up with a plausible motive for why anyone would want to blow up an unimportant office building and use an elaborate scheme of hijacking 4 airliners and crashing them into different buildings - even different cities - as a cover.

Thanks for that. :D

PS

Who is taking bets on this being another drive-by Truthing? Anyone?
Click to expand...
Mark F, The proof is valid. But, maybe you can disprove it. Please make a valid attempt.
Thanks
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom