• 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

Sorry if anybody takes offense to my question. Honestly, I was just being curious. Curious as to whether or not some of you base your position solely on the basis of "no explosions."

I know a number of you have TOTALLY lost patience with me. And that is no doubt perfectly valid.

Back with my final jeopardy summation as quickly as I can be.
 
I wonder if that's where david.watts hopes to go. He obviously values AEs' opinion. Maybe he will get around to actually proving their statement (or excepting it as false).

In his case (and speed/focus), I'm not sure any one of us will live long enough. ;)

He seems to be specifically stating he personally has neither the training or experience to do that and I would not expect him to.
Neither would I expect a high school teacher or a carpenter to do so. However I would expect some contingent from among 2000 engineers and architects to do so even if , due to financial constraints, they needed over a decade to do it.
 
Sorry if anybody takes offense to my question. Honestly, I was just being curious. Curious as to whether or not some of you base your position solely on the basis of "no explosions."

No. Explosions do happen in building fires for a variety of reasons and very possibly there were explosions at WTC7. Sealed containers subject to too much heat ... that kind of thing.

The significant fact is the lack of 00's or 000's of synchronised explosions with their attendant flashes required by CD.

We can see that you're trying really hard not to commit to a CD position prior to getting some kind of impicit agreement that your 'evidence' is sound.

It ain't working.
 
Just curious. IF there HAD been explosions at Building 7, would any of you think differently?

I would like to know what the 'explosions' were.

However, even that would not, could not overcome the null hypothesis of the events of the day.
We have a perfectly good null, aircraft impacts and immediate( in even a narrow sense of the term) widespread, multilevel, office tower fire. Two 110 storey structures collapsing as a result of the insults to them , leading to impact damage and fires to dozens of other structures, resulting in one of those others suffering a late day global collapse.
In addition, we have another aircraft impacting the Pentagon, and a fourth crashing in a field.
Any alternative needs to address all of these events in a cohesive and detailed way.

However, AE911T chooses instead to focus on various minute details, with largely handwaving arguments, and jump to the conclusion of a vast complicated and utterly unnecessary conspiracy by an unnamed shadowy power.

Its fiction and really bad fiction at that.

Ok, we had a thread here in which it was to be assumed by all that there actually was thermite in the rubbles dust. The challenge was to then work thermite into a cohesive and workable scenario of controlled demolition. There were no takers.

Now we have the proposal that we assume the existence of explosions, as a thought experiment. What are the implications?
For me the biggest change to my thoughts would be to want an investigation of the origin of said explosions.
Would it cause me to automatically question the underlieing reason for the death and destruction? No! There would still be the Pentagon, Shankesville, and AlQada's expressed declaration of war on the west and the USA in particular.

In short, the so called ' official conspiracy theory' accounts for every major aspect of the events.

So, explosions, where? when? Both towers and #7? Where in the towers? On the fire floors, somehow surviving impacts and fires? On lower floors yet not affecting the people in the core stairwells protected only by a couple layers of drywall? In WTC7 where, when? When Jennings and Hess were there, before noon? How does that fit a collapse occurring 5-6 hours later? At the time of collapse initiation? At the time of moment frame collapse? All of the above?

How far into such a fiction do you wish to go?

As I said, we tried this path for the benefit of truthers, with the excistance of thermite and saw nothing come of it.
 
Last edited:
David, Probably the strongest argument against CD for me is that I hired Jim Millette to analyze the dust (red-grey chips) and his extensive tests came up negative. Part of me was perversely hoping he'd find thermite, because I enjoy a good surprise. Free fall = CD? Then why is Building 7 faster than freefall for a few moments? And of course there were random explosions in Building 7, those are common during major fires. But a series of rapid-fire explosions an instant before collapse? Didn't happen. If they did, it would change my mind. As I've said many times, I was looking for reasons to believe in CD. I just value science more than my odd little wishes.
 
Sorry if anybody takes offense to my question. Honestly, I was just being curious. Curious as to whether or not some of you base your position solely on the basis of "no explosions."

No. That would mean they actually needed to be convinced of something that had no reason or evidence of in the first place. Why would anyone think it was a CD considering what was going on that day?

Explosions happen in fires. Do you disagree with this?
 
To clarify -- and we might as well drop the "IF"/"explosions" question -- I did state that it applied only to WTC7 but I was not specific about when the "if" explosions occurred. For the purpose of the question, I'm talking about just prior to the collapse; not any during the collapse. Again, it's fine with me if we drop it. I have seen enough to see how you would treat the "if."

Update: I am feverishly composing my exciting, mysterious, flawless and irreproachable "final" response/summation of my position, with ... a smoke break here and there.
 
An explosion , a few seconds before the EPH falling? Well that would be suggestive of it being connected to the initial failure of that one 911 event.
Connected probably...
...for example it could be a pressure vessel cook-off involved in the same hot spot fire that resulted in the failure of a critical structural member which then acted as a trigger for the collapse. But that means the explosion was consequential not causal of the collapse mechanism.

Because "a few seconds before" means that it would not be THE trigger of a CD induced collapse - unless you can get a "trigger" to delay its effect by a "few seconds"?

The only person I can remember making a claim which relied on "delayed action gravity" was Tony Szamboti.

Quite an innovative concept but I doubt that the technology is available even to truthers at this stage..... :rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
An explosion , a few seconds before the EPH falling? Well that would be suggestive of it being connected to the initial failure of that one 911 event.

Any explosion, regardless of when it happened, is evidence of CD as is free fall, molten iron, and symmetrical collapse.

The very birds of the air were used in this dastardly deed.

Repent, repent, make straight the way of the Gage.
 
Connected probably...
...for example it could be a pressure vessel cook-off involved in the same hot spot fire that resulted in the failure of a critical structural member which then acted as a trigger for the collapse. But that means the explosion was consequential not causal of the collapse mechanism.

Because "a few seconds before" means that it would not be THE trigger of a CD induced collapse - unless you can get a "trigger" to delay its effect by a "few seconds"?

The only person I can remember making a claim which relied on "delayed action gravity" was Tony Szamboti. Quite an innovative concept but I doubt that the technology is available even to truthers at this stage..... :rolleyes:

You mean like when the coyote runs off a cliff and it takes him a while to fall? Must be true I saw it on TeeVee.
 
The CTBUH made this comment about the cooling phase after the draft was released and before NIST released the fire simulation. For the fire simulation, the 12th floor gas temperatures at the northeast portion of WTC7 remained above 500C from 3-5PM. It didn't cool down.

Here’s the Floor 12 fire simulation: http://nate.flach.s3.amazonaws.com/12th-Floor_Fire.wmv
I stand corrected on what, I am sure you will agree, is a minor point anyway. The CTBUH had no probalem, at any time, with the hypothesis that fire damage was what initiated the collapse, nor did they find any contentiousness in the idea that it was a combination vertical and horizontal progression that made up the global collapse sequence.
You're right. I mentioned that for two reasons:

1) By the time the NE portion of the floor had experienced temperatures of 500-1000C for two hours , the slab shear studs had failed, composite floor strength of the beams reduced, construction bolts of the girder sheared, girder becoming unrestrained; beams buckled and sagged, girder pushed and buckled, lateral torsion buckling of the girder had occurred and the floor failed. Too late for a cooling phase to affect the floor failure. The CTBUH just didn't have the NIST fire modeling information at the time.

2) Many truthers believe, like Chris Sarnes, that damage to a steel structure only occurs when the fire flames are licking the steel. Even in his MSPaint imaginary illustrations, he obliviously shows that the NE section remains green, indicating temperatures of 400-600C. In his non-engineering mind red is hot, green is cold.
 
Last edited:
Sorry if anybody takes offense to my question. Honestly, I was just being curious. Curious as to whether or not some of you base your position solely on the basis of "no explosions."

I know a number of you have TOTALLY lost patience with me. And that is no doubt perfectly valid.

Back with my final jeopardy summation as quickly as I can be.
On a related note, a Truther on FaceBook recently demanded (following the usual claim a couple firefighters thought they heard explosions) that I produce quotes from all the other firefighters on 911 stating they did not hear explosions - otherwise how did we know they didn't hear them as well but hadn't bothered to mention it?
 
You're right. I mentioned that for two reasons:

1) By the time the NE portion of the floor had experienced temperatures of 500-1000C for two hours , the slab shear studs had failed, composite floor strength of the beams reduced, construction bolts of the girder sheared, girder becoming unrestrained; beams buckled and sagged, girder pushed and buckled, lateral torsion buckling of the girder had occurred and the floor failed. Too late for a cooling phase to affect the floor failure. The CTBUH just didn't have the NIST fire modeling information at the time.

2) Many truthers believe, like Chris Sarnes, that damage to a steel structure only occurs when the fire flames are licking the steel. Even in his MSPaint imaginary illustrations, he obliviously shows that the NE section remains green, indicating temperatures of 400-600C. In his non-engineering mind red is hot, green is cold.
The other big error that Szamboti et al make with the "girder walk-off" issue is that they assume that the temperature expansion/contraction applies only to the beams and girders and leaves the columns in their original locations to a fraction of an inch accuracy.

The idea that the frame of a fire ravaged building other than that one girder would remain unaffected by heat is....err...lets be polite.. :o

...it is "some what naive"... ;)
 
Last edited:
On a related note, a Truther on FaceBook recently demanded (following the usual claim a couple firefighters thought they heard explosions) that I produce quotes from all the other firefighters on 911 stating they did not hear explosions - otherwise how did we know they didn't hear them as well but hadn't bothered to mention it?
clap.gif
clap.gif

That takes "reversed burden of proof" up to an entirely new level.
nono.gif
 
Still here. This has taken more time than I thought it would. The biggest thing that has held me up are some things that I had in my head that I was not sure I recalled accurately and needed to 're-research.' Its been a few years since I was much more in touch with the happenings on 9/11. And if I have a chance at all here JREF, I know I do need to be accurate. You will certainly let me know if I am not. My hope is I can post in a few hours. The post will be in more than part.
 
On a related note, a Truther on FaceBook recently demanded (following the usual claim a couple firefighters thought they heard explosions) that I produce quotes from all the other firefighters on 911 stating they did not hear explosions - otherwise how did we know they didn't hear them as well but hadn't bothered to mention it?

Did that internet warrior even bother thinking that if the firefighters did not hear any explosion or simply didn't find it out of place considering the situation, then why bother telling the media and the statement collectors about it at all?

This brings stupidity and ignorance to a whole new level.
 

Back
Top Bottom