Merged Freefall is not evidence for Controlled Demolition

[tsig]

ozeco: Hogwash david. It acted like a shell except for some minor details. No way was it "just" a shell. Remember the measured bit went "over G" which is near certain indication that something inside the "shell" was pulling it down.

Sorry ozeco. My presumption was due to your reference to "visible shell."

ozeco: No way could I have explained a lot of the WTC collapse stuff back in 2006. I'm a damn sight more confident now but - WTC 9/11 is a big challenge to anyone coming new to the material.

Apparently, you have come up with your own theory as to how things happened. Do you have an 'initiating event?'

Do most people here have their own/different theories? Is there one which most people agree with? Again, since it seems that at least most of you do not buy the NIST explanation I would think you would have your own explanations. But then again, as ozeco said, the primary reason to believe in a fire caused collapse, is that CD has not been proven. In that case, I understand why you would have no need for a specific explanation as you would not need one since it was not a CD. And since it was not a CD, it had to be due to fire.

I think I was a bit hung up as to what role the NIST report played.

I thought I had a reply to jaydee, but on further review I guess I don't.

Mine is that two plane slammed into two buildings and the resultant damage and fire caused them to collapse.

What's yours?

 

[jaydeehess]

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.

 

[jaydeehess]

As the below post most closely matches my thoughts on the matter I'll use it as a sounding board

No, we shouldn't throw the NIST report out the window. It's a useful reference with a lot of factual information.

Exactly. As I stated, NIST is a starting point and an example of the level of research and calculation that is required in any report that the authors wish to put forth as a radical alternative to impact and fire induced damages caused collapse, for any of the three WTC structures.

You would be terribly mistaken to assume that the lack of response to your regurgitation of AE911Truth's arguments is a sign that we agree with any of it. Far from it.
It's just that we want you to use your own eyes and brain and come up with your own ideas about it, perhaps in discussion with people here.

We here have looked at NIST's work and come to accept it , often with slight modification. I have yet, however, to see any truther look at AE911T's work, as sparse as it is, and accept it in anything other than in its original form.

That said, I have often stated that poking holes in NIST sequences, or calculations, does nothing at all, whatsoever, nada, zip, zilch, to support any hypothesis that includes thermite or explosives. THAT is THE major failing of the entire 'truth' movement, and AE911T is as guilty as any other group. They have no working hypothesis beyond "it was done by some deliberate means other than hijacked aircraft, impact and fire".They have a few scattered details. One example being a few bits of circumstantial observations which if stretched are suggestive of the existence of thermite, but none of which do not require more definitive investigation. For ANY true sceptic that simply cannot be enough to go on.

For the record I agree with ozeco41 that the collapse of the PH into the building is hard evidence that the main column directly below had buckled.
What exactly caused the buckling is conjecture; NIST has provided a reasonable model to explain how it might have happened, but another model might find something significantly different.

In any event, the EPH then western structures on the roof, plus the buckling evidenced as the 'kink', plus the rapid progression of window breakage below the EPH are directly significant evidence of a large and progressing internal collapse well before the failure of the exterior moment frame.

I wouldn't mind if a university were to take on the task of doing a model of either WTC 7 or WTC 1 or 2. I think it would add something of value to the understanding of the collapses.

There was a thread suggesting the MIT + UCLA were setting up a reference for exactly that type of work.

But I remain highly doubtful that any thorough and competent investigation would ever support the CD hypothesis,........

Nor is there any inkling that any group is about to even try to do an investigation with regard to overcoming all the evidence for the null hypothesis, that 19 hijackers took 4 planes, slammed two into the tallest structures in the NYC skyline, another into a highly visible and very large office structure alongside a major waterway in Virginia, and were unsuccessful in maintaining control of the 4th aircraft and crashed it into afield in Penn. That the death and destruction occurring after these events is all directly attributable to those aircraft crashes.

 

[alienentity]

That's an assumption that the column buckled. All you can say is that ALL the columns supporting the EPH... and there were 10 of the had to have "failed" in order for the structure above them to collapse as we saw. You can't conclude HOW they failed although the cause appears to be heat related... since there fores burning all day throughout the building.

Apparently you and NIST assume that the fires can cause a single girder to be pushed off by heat expanded beams framed into it and this leads to the that column buckling and then the EPH collapsing. They don't as far as I understand explain how that happened.

Where's the reasonable model?

I guess we could argue over exact wording, but I can't back my understanding up with my own FEA model anyway. In my view, the collapse of the PH requires the buckling of column(s) directly below it. And the consequences of that buckling can be followed directly down the visible part of the building for many floors, shown by the change of alignment of windows. That's why I see it as hard evidence.
Call it proof...

One thing is virtually universal about CD/Thermite/nanothermite conspiracists: they can't really find a way to incorporate this evidence into their vague hypothesis, so they take great pains to avoid it.

I'm still seeing a rather pathetic effort to claim that there was a massive explosion as the PH collapsed into the building, with vague excuses as to why the explosion doesn't sound like anything on the videos.

For a diehard conspiracist, if you must acknowledge the PH, then you must hear an explosion as well. It simply is unacceptable to them that fire caused the failure, no matter what. It's astonishing to see the mental gymnastics the more intelligent ones go thru to maintain their position. The dull ones simply stick to the 'freefall = CD' mantra and leave it at that.

 

[alienentity]

David, the main reason that the 'freefall = CD' meme fails is that it relies on the principle that all support had to be removed simultaneously throughout the whole building.

Yet a thermitist has insurmountable issues, as follows:
a) conventional thermite couldn't possibly do that, under any conceivable strategy.
b) nanothermite, essentially as a high-explosive, would need to cut all major columns simultaneously, resulting in many loud explosions, which at the exterior would have to be visible.

Neither of those scenarios is possible given what actually is observed on any of the videos of the collapse. This means that, the hypotheses are internally inconsistent or contradictory; they fail even the most basic test of logic.

The argument that the collapse is fairly symmetrical so can't be fire-induced is an argument from incredulity; it's neither evidence for or against anything. (Not having any real comparables for the collapse we can't say with certainty what it should or should not look like)

 

[Robrob]

b) nanothermite, essentially as a high-explosive, would need to cut all major columns simultaneously, resulting in many loud explosions, which at the exterior would have to be visible.

Not to mention, the pre-set explosives would have to survive both a jet impact and and hour plus of out of control inferno.

Funny the Illuminati would be so willing to have their great plan go "poof" when one tower fails to explode and tons of Sci-Fi explosives are discovered inside.

 

[jaydeehess]

Not to mention, the pre-set explosives would have to survive both a jet impact and and hour plus of out of control inferno.

For the towers, yes. This thread deals primarily with #7 though.

 

[DGM]

For the towers, yes. This thread deals primarily with #7 though.

I understood the OP to mean what it says. "freefall is not evidence of CD", the building doesn't matter.

Ok Truth seekers, time to put your money where your mouth is. Prove to the world that there was significant sustained freefall (right at the acceleration of gravity), or that periods of freefall cannot be explained by a collapse without demolitions.

AE claims, "freefall" is proof of CD. Tell us why(or more accurate, how is it proof?).

 

[jaydeehess]

I understood the OP to mean what it says. "freefall is not evidence of CD", the building doesn't matter.



AE claims, "freefall" is proof of CD. Tell us why(or more accurate, how is it proof?).

There isn't much discussion wrt free fall concerning the towers though.

Yes, its a major fault of AE911T that this is a bald contention with no evidence backing it. .

 

[david.watts]

Thank you for the well stated responses above.


Here is where I am. Last night I was trying to put together my summation/conclusion of where all of the discussion lead me to. (Yes, that is a preposition at the end of my sentence, but I don’t think it is treated as a ‘hard’ rule anymore or maybe it never was. Bottom line, I ain’t changing the sentence.) I know this discussion hasn’t lead any of you from where you started. Primary reason: I have not proven CD and am not going to be able to. (“to,” there it is again at the end.) jaydee, if I am saying this correctly, I am not able to disprove the null hypothesis -- there was fire and fire brought WTC7 down. With all of you the only way I could do that would be if I had the science and physics to prove it. I, of course, don’t. I would like to talk with you about the twin towers; but its the same thing: I need the science and physics. But you have been through all of this probably an endless number of times and you obviously know very well your physics, etc.. So anything I could present to you, you have already seen and “debunked.” This just occurred to me, as there is at least one architect and one engineer among you, I should try to come up with a name. Maybe “architects and engineers for … “ Probably not a good idea. That would make it really hard to keep things straight.

After trying to put something together last night, I woke up this morning and decided I should take a different angle. Trust me, I understand there is no “right” angle -- even obtuse or acute -- that is going to change any of your minds. So maybe all I hope to do is to put something down that will show you that the stance that I take (WTC7 and 9/11 in general) is not unreasonable.

This new angle may take a bit but I will do it as quickly as I can. I know I said previously that I would finish up forthwith. But you know me well enough by now to understand that my definition of “forthwith” probably doesn’t belong in the dictionary.

Have a good weekend. I know ozeco's is already half over.

 

[DGM]

Yes, its a major fault of AE911T that this is a bald contention with no evidence backing it. .

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.

 

[beachnut]

... So maybe all I hope to do is to put something down that will show you that the stance that I take (WTC7 and 9/11 in general) is not unreasonable.

This new angle may take a bit but I will do it as quickly as I can. I know I said previously that I would finish up forthwith. But you know me well enough by now to understand that my definition of “forthwith” probably doesn’t belong in the dictionary.

New angle? Like evidence, and then you realize 911 truth claims are nonsense. New angle? Like the truth, instead of the lies you post about 911 at OEN?

Inside job already debunked. Free-fall is debunked. Your Flight 77 BS about the hole in the Pentagon not being big enough is debunked. All you have written about 911 is debunked.

When will you retract the lies you posted at OEN? Where the big lie is the "truth".

19 terrorists did 911. Debunks all you make up. '

http://www.opednews.com/Diary/9-11-How-many-virtual-pro-by-David-Watts-080324-705.html
Your fantasy version of 911 is what keeps you from understanding a simple thread about free-fall.
Now you have figured out you can't back in CD at a skeptics' forum, because you are lacking evidence. You know your religious claims of an inside job are based on faith, nothing, a failed fantasy.

 

[david.watts]

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

If that turns out to be the case, I want to apologize in advance.

 

[beachnut]

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

If that turns out to be the case, I want to apologize in advance.

Since you can't retract your lies from 5 years ago, how can you back in CD for the free-fall thread?

 

[david.watts]

Just curious. IF there HAD been explosions at Building 7, would any of you think differently?

 

[DGM]

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

If that turns out to be the case, I want to apologize in advance.

Why not just go for it and stop trying to beat around the bush? Life's short, say what's on your mind.

I can prove beyond any doubt that list you posted from Gage is BS if you want, just not in this thread.

 

[DGM]

Just curious. IF there HAD been explosions at Building 7, would any of you think differently?

Who cares? Please find a point.

 

[alienentity]

Just curious. IF there HAD been explosions at Building 7, would any of you think differently?

You mean at the exact time that it began to fall? Yes obviously I would.

As I've already written above, that didn't happen by any account, so it's a moot point. If there had been a flying unicorn with a laser which had destroyed the building, I'd think differently, if that could be established as fact.
I'd actually really like to see a video of that.

Have a good weekend yourself, I'm working.. showbiz.

 

[DGM]

david.watts:

I don't want to sound blunt but, would you feel different if they found Godzilla urine in the dust?

Understand where I'm going with this?

 

[beachnut]

Just curious. IF there HAD been explosions at Building 7, would any of you think differently?

There were sounds of explosions, loud noises, but no sounds of explosives. Fire did it. WTC 7 was not a target on 911, it burned all day because there was no water due to an event of two towers falling equal to more than 260 2,000 pound bombs destroying the WTC, only from E=mgh. The heat from the fires was more heat than 2,700 tons of thermite. Science defeats 911 truth.

If there was evidence of explosives being used, we would have traced it to some more nuts, and they would be in jail.

Who did the free-fall CD in your mind? You make up lies using zero evidence and expect some different outcome than being exposed as spreading lies?

Now you are saying if explosives were used would we think different? If there was evidence, what do you think? You make up fantasy without thinking twice it is based on nothing, and now speculate about what did not happen.

19 murderers did 911 for some perverted reasons - they were as proud to do it as you seem to spread nonsense. They figured out 911 before you did. Are you smarter than 19 terrorists?