• 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

clap.gif

Well said sir.

Maybe we should link to the femr2 measurements which show movement minutes before the release>>collapse time? ;)



PS BTW I've never seen any truther explain HOW you can get "free fall' by use of explosives. They seem to take it for granted....
 
Last edited:
ozeco41 said:
[qimg]http://conleys.com.au/smilies/clap.gif[/qimg]
Well said sir.

Maybe we should link to the femr2 measurements which show movement minutes before the release>>collapse time? ;)



PS BTW I've never seen any truther explain HOW you can get "free fall' by use of explosives. They seem to take it for granted....
Click to expand...

Indeed, as I stated above, the claim that ffa=CD is a bald and unsupported mere contention based on simplistic 1d physics and a subjective parsing of the data.
 
If WTC7 was a controlled demolition, then why did the following happen?

- WTC7 collapse ravaged nearby buildings. Controlled demolitions don't do that - that's why they're called "controlled."

- Why did the East Mechanical Penthouse fall, which was followed by a 5-10 second delay, and then the rest of the building go?

- Where are the very loud and obvious detonations seconds before the collapse? Surely that would have been captured on film?

- Where are the very obvious blast of light? Surely that would have been captured on film?

- Why did FDNY Chief Daniel Nigro set up a collapse zone at 2:30 PM EST on 9/11; three full hours before the building collapsed? He made the decision to do it, no one told him.

Answer those, and then maybe we'll talk...

Spoiler: He won't.
 
david.watts said:
Gosh, NIST showed WTC7 was in free fall. I'm just taking their word for it.
Click to expand...

During the general collapse, part of the (North?) facade split off and fell free for approximately four seconds (out of the entire 10-12 second collapse) before impacting on the rest of the more slowly collapsing main structure.

Your welcome. Glad I could keep you from looking foolish. ;)
 
david.watts said:
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.)
Click to expand...

I. is not a given. It's a bare assertion, made by a person who isn't a structural engineer, nor a demolitions expert, nor even a forensic fire and safety expert.

So I reject the statement as unsupported; how can he prove it's impossible? The burden of proof is actually on him, not skeptics of his theory.
But he never showed up to prove it.

The rest of your premise fails due to that alone.
 
Brass said:
If WTC7 was a controlled demolition, then why did the following happen?

- WTC7 collapse ravaged nearby buildings. Controlled demolitions don't do that - that's why they're called "controlled."
Click to expand...

"They were controlled to do that to throw us off the scent!"

- Where are the very loud and obvious detonations seconds before the collapse? Surely that would have been captured on film?
Click to expand...

"They used Nanothermite for a quiet detonation!"

- Where are the very obvious blast of light? Surely that would have been captured on film?
Click to expand...

"They used nanothermite for less obvious flashes!"

Then why do the collapses match a CD in other aspects, according to your claims? If the evidence, in your opinion, inevitably points to a CD, how do you tell it from evidence that doesn't point to a CD?

"[DEAFENING SILENCE]"
 
ozeco41 said:
[qimg]http://conleys.com.au/smilies/scratch.gif[/qimg] That is an interesting definition of "proof".

I usually take a "Proof" to consist of:
A) elements of facts verified (or verifiable) by evidence;
B) linked by a logical structure of argument.

So the simple "logical structure" may be correct but the other half of the "proof" is wrong. The concept that the facts are not part of the 'proof' is new to me.
Click to expand...

You pulled the words out of my mouth, sir! There is no conclusive evidence.
 
Brass said:
- Why did the East Mechanical Penthouse fall, which was followed by a 5-10 second delay, and then the rest of the building go?
Click to expand...
Tony Szamboti used the same mechanism in what I think was his most recent "CD Claim" on this sub-forum. The sequence is "cut something with explosives" >>>> delay of many seconds/minutes >>> THEN fall. The interesting bit being "How does the building remain standing with its columns cut?"

When I explained to Tony that it requires 'Delayed Action Gravity' Tony was very quick to restate his claim - plus insult me which is SOP for Tony and many truthers when faced with sound argument.

Certainly these truther hypotheses require "Delayed effect" explosives AND "silent banging" explosives - unless said truthers are not telling the truth.
 
ozeco41 said:
[qimg]http://conleys.com.au/smilies/scratch.gif[/qimg] That is an interesting definition of "proof".

I usually take a "Proof" to consist of:
A) elements of facts verified (or verifiable) by evidence;
B) linked by a logical structure of argument.

So the simple "logical structure" may be correct but the other half of the "proof" is wrong. The concept that the facts are not part of the 'proof' is new to me.
Click to expand...

Sorry I missed this. I was basically being pedantic; in my world, logical arguments are mathematical constructs where the premises can be replaced by variables and logical mathematical operations performed upon them. In this world, "valid" and "correct" have two different meanings; a "valid" proof is one where the conclusion must necessarily follow from the truth of the premises. That is to say, if one were to set all the variables in the logical equation to TRUE, then the conclusion must be TRUE with no ambiguity. A "correct" proof is a valid proof in which the premises also happen to be true. In this case, the Truther's proof is valid; if all the premises were true, we would be forced to accept his conclusion. But they aren't and we aren't, and so his proof, while valid, is incorrect.
 
thedopefishlives said:
Sorry I missed this. I was basically being pedantic; in my world, logical arguments are mathematical constructs where the premises can be replaced by variables and logical mathematical operations performed upon them. In this world, "valid" and "correct" have two different meanings; a "valid" proof is one where the conclusion must necessarily follow from the truth of the premises. That is to say, if one were to set all the variables in the logical equation to TRUE, then the conclusion must be TRUE with no ambiguity. A "correct" proof is a valid proof in which the premises also happen to be true. In this case, the Truther's proof is valid; if all the premises were true, we would be forced to accept his conclusion. But they aren't and we aren't, and so his proof, while valid, is incorrect.
Click to expand...
Understood (now ;) ) and thanks for the explanation. I have some similar bits of professional pedantry myself. e.g. I often use "fact" in the lawyer's sense so something is a fact does not imply "true fact". "The sky is blue" is a statement of fact even if the sky is cloudy and grey. Then, wearing my more usual hat, I tend to use words like "stress" or "strain" with their engineering meanings.
 
ozeco41 said:
Understood (now ;) ) and thanks for the explanation. I have some similar bits of professional pedantry myself. e.g. I often use "fact" in the lawyer's sense so something is a fact does not imply "true fact". "The sky is blue" is a statement of fact even if the sky is cloudy and grey. Then, wearing my more usual hat, I tend to use words like "stress" or "strain" with their engineering meanings.
Click to expand...

The specific distinction between valid and correct proof is what trips up many people who dabble in CT's. They see a chain of arguments and say to themselves, "Well, the reasoning is sound, therefore the conclusion must be true." No, the reasoning can be perfectly sound, but if your facts are full of the proverbial, then the conclusion is useless. It's a very useful lesson that gets taught here at JREF in multiple forms, but no true CT'er ever questions his/her premises. We wind up having to do that for them. ;)
 
thedopefishlives said:
The specific distinction between valid and correct proof is what trips up many people who dabble in CT's. They see a chain of arguments and say to themselves, "Well, the reasoning is sound, therefore the conclusion must be true." No, the reasoning can be perfectly sound, but if your facts are full of the proverbial, then the conclusion is useless. It's a very useful lesson that gets taught here at JREF in multiple forms, but no true CT'er ever questions his/her premises. We wind up having to do that for them. ;)
Click to expand...
Yes. I didn't say it but I fully appreciate the distinction between 'valid' and 'correct'.

As for the need to spoon feed truthers.....;)
 
david.watts said:
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].
Click to expand...

Can you show us any controlled demolition that exhibited free fall?
 
ozeco41 said:
[qimg]http://conleys.com.au/smilies/clap.gif[/qimg]
Well said sir.

Maybe we should link to the femr2 measurements which show movement minutes before the release>>collapse time? ;)



PS BTW I've never seen any truther explain HOW you can get "free fall' by use of explosives. They seem to take it for granted....
Click to expand...

Indeed, the fact that CD's do not achieve freefall seems to be completely missed by both sides most of the time.
 
thedopefishlives said:
The specific distinction between valid and correct proof is what trips up many people who dabble in CT's. They see a chain of arguments and say to themselves, "Well, the reasoning is sound, therefore the conclusion must be true." No, the reasoning can be perfectly sound, but if your facts are full of the proverbial, then the conclusion is useless. It's a very useful lesson that gets taught here at JREF in multiple forms, but no true CT'er ever questions his/her premises. We wind up having to do that for them. ;)
Click to expand...

It is this distinction that trips up some people readng JSO's posts. His hypothysis for the collapse mechanism for WTC7 is valid, as is NIST's. What is in question is which, is true or if either are true.

I have come to accept that his proposition could be true with the caveat that there is no proximate cause for his proposed failure of TT1 whereas a proximate cause of the failure of col 79 is in evidence, the fires in the area of the beams and girders of the 12th floor.
JSO proposes diesel fuel fed fires on the fifth(iirc) floor but neither FEMA or NIST, who both looked into that possibility, could find evidence of such a fire.
 
tsig said:
Indeed, the fact that CD's do not achieve freefall seems to be completely missed by both sides most of the time.
Click to expand...

Not sure if you can actually claim that either. I for one, know of no studies of controlled demolitions from which to base any commonality on the acceleration of bits o' building during a demolition, much less for that of a non-demolition collapse.

I would however suspect that during a verniage demolition (patently not applicable to WTC 7) , that the initial movement of the upper section approachs or even reachs 'g'.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom