Split Thread 7WTC - controlled demolition or fire and damage induced collapse?

[Christopher7]

One would have to assume at least as much explosives as in this actual controlled demolition:

Only if one is looking for a reason to deny the obvious; WTC 7 was a CD.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SaBQ3AkRetI

Note the many loud bangs, and how it does not resemble any of the collapses on 9/11.

It has not occurred to you that they would try to minimize the sounds of the explosions. In spite of this, over 100 first responders and survivors said they heard explosions. Your denial will not permit you to accept that what they all heard, and in some cases felt, were explosives. Don't bother with the denial tactic "it could have been something else" as you will NEVER admit that it "could have been explosives".

 

[Christopher7]

Nor do you, so how can you be so sure explosives and/or thermite was used?

[FONT=&quot]Lead investigator for NIST, Shyam Sunder, stated:[/FONT][FONT=&quot]
"a free fall time would be an object that has no structural components below it . . . there was structural resistance that was provided in this particular case. And you had a sequence of structural failures that had to take place. Everything was not instantaneous."[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]In other words, the NIST progressive collapse hypothesis does not include a period of free fall acceleration because there is always structural resistance. [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]The only way to get a building to fall at free fall acceleration is to remove all the supporting structure [/FONT][FONT=&quot]simultaneously [/FONT][FONT=&quot]with explosives.[/FONT]

 

[funk de fino]

It has not occurred to you that they would try to minimize the sounds of the explosions. In spite of this, over 100 first responders and survivors said they heard explosions. Your denial will not permit you to accept that what they all heard, and in some cases felt, were explosives. Don't bother with the denial tactic "it could have been something else" as you will NEVER admit that it "could have been explosives".

You do know that many of them were interviewed by NIST again?

 

[funk de fino]

[FONT=&quot]Lead investigator for NIST, Shyam Sunder, stated:[/FONT][FONT=&quot]
"a free fall time would be an object that has no structural components below it . . . there was structural resistance that was provided in this particular case. And you had a sequence of structural failures that had to take place. Everything was not instantaneous."[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]In other words, the NIST progressive collapse hypothesis does not include a period of free fall acceleration because there is always structural resistance. [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]The only way to get a building to fall at free fall acceleration is to remove all the supporting structure [/FONT][FONT=&quot]simultaneously [/FONT][FONT=&quot]with explosives.[/FONT]

I thought they said "near" freefall or "close" to freefall?

 

[twinstead]

[FONT=&quot]The only way to get a building to fall at free fall acceleration is to remove all the supporting structure [/FONT][FONT=&quot]simultaneously [/FONT][FONT=&quot]with explosives.[/FONT]

You appear to be in the abject minority though, because I don't recall any respected engineering, law enforcement, or scientific organizations declaring this. You might want to try to convince some of them if you think you are right.

Why should I believe you?

 

[AZCat]

I thought they said "near" freefall or "close" to freefall?

It doesn't really matter - C7 is butchering the meaning of Sunder's quote anyway. He's confusing the difference between a "free fall time" and a "period of free fall acceleration".

 

[Christopher7]

Well, as you keep lying, we'll keep calling you a liar. Did you expect we would grow tired of doing it if you just lied enough? Does this explain your disproportionate amount of lying?

Who made you the arbitrator of truth? Y'all call EVERYBODY who says something you don't like a liar. It has become meaningless, a joke.

 

[Christopher7]

I thought they said "near" freefall or "close" to freefall?

You are incapable of thought. [just kidding]
NCSTAR 1-A pg 45 [pdf pg 87]
"The slope of the velocity curve is approximately constant between about 1.75 s and 4.0 s, and a good straight line fit to the points in this range (open-circles in Figure 3-15) allowed estimation of a constant downward acceleration during this time interval. This acceleration was 32.2 ft/s2(9.81 m/s2), equivalent to the acceleration of gravity g." [within 0.1%]

 

[Andy_Ross]

I think he calls obvious trolls and liars like you a liar.

What explosives are silent?
You have been given an example of a CD. ALl those explosions were very obvious.

What kind of explosive can you think of that doesn't go bang?

 

[uke2se]

Only if one is looking for a reason to deny the obvious; WTC 7 was a CD.

Something which has remained unproven for close to 9 years, and for which there appears to be absolutely no evidence, unless you're willing to accept fantasy as reality.

It has not occurred to you that they would try to minimize the sounds of the explosions.

Ah, the famous Hushaboom argument. How, pray tell, would someone go about to conceal sounds of explosions of the magnitude we witnessed in the video I posted? Super secret gubmint experiments? Alien technology?

In spite of this, over 100 first responders and survivors said they heard explosions.

Despite this, thousands apparently did not. I'm sure you are aware that there were significantly more than 100 people near ground zero on that day.

Your denial will not permit you to accept that what they all heard, and in some cases felt, were explosives.

I tend not to accept assertions without evidence. You have presented none.

Don't bother with the denial tactic "it could have been something else" as you will NEVER admit that it "could have been explosives".

It couldn't have been explosives for a few reasons:

1. Explosives weren't needed to induce the collapses we saw on 9/11.
2. No traces of explosives have been found in the WTC remains.
3. There appears to be no way for gubmint NWO agents to plant explosives throughout the buildings without anyone noticing.
4. Explosives don't react well to being hit by airplanes.
5. There is no evidence, aside from a scattered few people's claims, of any explosions from demolition charges being heard on 9/11. Large bangs don't mean explosions, explosions don't mean demolition charges.

Now, I realize you are in complete denial and that you're going to continue to cling on by your fingernails to the delusion you have built up your world around, but I would urge you to come back to reality. It's nice out here. No global conspiracy, no gubmint men in black helicopters coming after you. Sure, there are evils in this world, and things happen that we don't want, but we get by and remain rational in the face of it all.

Step into the light.

 

[uke2se]

Who made you the arbitrator of truth? Y'all call EVERYBODY who says something you don't like a liar. It has become meaningless, a joke.

No, I call you a liar because you lie. It might be unintentional on your part, but as you have spent a lot of time here having many people explain to you why what you think is BS, there's really no excuse.

So, stop lying, liar.

 

[Christopher7]

I think he calls obvious trolls and liars like you a liar.

Name calling is childish and supposedly against the "rules".

What explosives are silent?

The sound of explosions can be dampened somewhat. Ashley suddenly turned her head because she heard explosions, your denial notwithstanding.

 

[uke2se]

Name calling is childish and supposedly against the "rules".

Something for you to think about, then.

The sound of explosions can be dampened somewhat.

First, prove that you can dampen the sounds of demolition charges.
Secondly, prove that you could dampen the sounds of explosives needed to bring down a structure like the Twin Towers or WTC 7.
Thirdly, prove that this was done.

The Hushaboom argument is possibly one of the stupidest arguments that have arisen from the twoof-movement these last 9 years. It's right up there with demon-faces in the billowing smoke and space beams.

ETA: Clunkityclunk was pretty damn stupid as well, let's never forget that.

Ashley suddenly turned her head because she heard explosions, your denial notwithstanding.

Or she suddenly turned her head for any number of other reasons. Am I to believe that every time you suddenly turn your head, an explosion is going off behind you?

ETA: Having watched the tape, it seems fairly obvious that she's reacting to the collapse of one of the buildings, not an explosion.

 

[Christopher7]

Something which has remained unproven for close to 9 years,

IYO

and for which there appears to be absolutely no evidence

Hello? Free fall acceleration is proof that explosives were used to simultaneously remove all the supporting structure.

Despite this, thousands apparently did not. I'm sure you are aware that there were significantly more than 100 people near ground zero on that day.

You have no idea who heard what yet you refuse to accept that these people heard explosives.

It couldn't have been explosives for a few reasons:

The deniers playbook.

1. Explosives weren't needed to induce the collapses we saw on 9/11.

Or so we are told. Explosives were needed to bring them to the ground. NIST could not explain how the towers disintegrated so they just skipped that part.

2. No traces of explosives have been found in the WTC remains.

NIST did not look for explosive residue or thermite even though the NFPA guidelines specifically call for it.

3. There appears to be no way for gubmint NWO agents to plant explosives throughout the buildings without anyone noticing.

Assumption

4. Explosives don't react well to being hit by airplanes.

True

5. There is no evidence, aside from a scattered few people's claims, of any explosions from demolition charges being heard on 9/11.

[FONT=&quot]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CcRs1fv8i3I&eurl=[/FONT]

Large bangs don't mean explosions, explosions don't mean demolition charges.

Never, ever, ever

 

[DGM]

Free fall acceleration is proof that explosives were used to simultaneously remove all the supporting structure.

How's that?

Repeating something does not make it true.

 

[Andy_Ross]

[quotehttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CcRs1fv8i3I&eurl=[/quote]

Argument by Youtube.

Spot on.

 

[grandmastershek]

[quotehttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CcRs1fv8i3I&eurl=

Argument by Youtube.

Spot on.[/QUOTE]

duh...of course it was a bomb. he just said so. it was one of those bombs that was dampened thats why you cant hear them when the buildings collapsed. it was one of those dampened bombs that ashley turned her head due to hearing it and is unrecordable on her camera which we seem to hear on this one. makes total sense.

 

[uke2se]

IYO

Not really, no.

Hello? Free fall acceleration is proof that explosives were used to simultaneously remove all the supporting structure.

Hello? No, it isn't. Are you a clunkityclunker as well as a hushaboomer? Figures.

You have no idea who heard what yet you refuse to accept that these people heard explosives.

You have no idea who heard what yet are perfectly convinced that whatever these people heard, it had to be explosives, despite a complete lack of evidence.

The deniers playbook.

Yes, you're running every play.

Or so we are told. Explosives were needed to bring them to the ground. NIST could not explain how the towers disintegrated so they just skipped that part.
NIST did not look for explosive residue or thermite even though the NFPA guidelines specifically call for it.

Explosives weren't needed because science tells us so. NIST didn't need to explain why the towers "disintegrated". They explained everything that happened up to the collapse. Once the collapse was in motion, disintegration was just a natural result.

I did not know that the NFPA guidelines specifically called for NIST to look for explosive residue or thermite in the WTC dust. Would you care to point out exactly where in the NFPA guidelines this is written?

Assumption

Not unless you can provide a window of opportunity. The burden of evidence is on you, dear twoofer.

[FONT=&quot]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CcRs1fv8i3I&eurl=[/FONT]

Fair enough. I should rephrase: There is no evidence, aside from a scattered few people's claims, of any explosions from demolition charges being heard before or during the collapses on 9/11. As you can see from the video, these explosions occurred after the collapses.

Never, ever, ever

It appears you have trouble understanding causality. Do you believe that every large bang is an explosion? Do you believe that every explosion is from a demolition charge? Your gullibility is remarkable.

 

[uke2se]

duh...of course it was a bomb. he just said so. it was one of those bombs that was dampened thats why you cant hear them when the buildings collapsed. it was one of those dampened bombs that ashley turned her head due to hearing it and is unrecordable on her camera which we seem to hear on this one. makes total sense.

C7 is spreading his weak arguments in all directions, no matter if they are mutually exclusive. It's a version of the shot-gun approach called the "explosion" approach, or if you will, the "uncontrolled demolition" approach.

 

[AZCat]

NIST did not look for explosive residue or thermite even though the NFPA guidelines specifically call for it.

Oh? That's news to me, since I checked the NFPAs when I first heard this claim. Please list the NFPA code and section(s) that is your source for this claim.