The 100% Impossible 9/11 Inside Job

[DGM]

What about the ~10 seconds before that?

That's how I answer questions that don't make sense.

That's your problem. You only concentrate on one small portion of the collapse and ignore the part that explains it.

 

[tempesta29]

Why do you refuse to read the report?

This is completely erroneous. Stage 1 is a slow curve.

Please explain how this CAN be achieved WITH controlled explosives.

I didn't even mention stage 1 in the post you quoted, first of all. Second, stage 1 is 1.75 seconds long, not 10 seconds as you suggested earlier. I think the graph is on page 47 of the final report.

 

[chipmunk stew]

Stage 1 is 1.75 seconds long. I think you need to reread your own propaganda pamphlet.

Yes, and Stage 1 is only the beginning of the global collapse sequence. The East Penthouse collapsed first.

7 feet over 1.75s is CONSIDERABLY slower than freefall, which would be expected while the columns are buckling.

 

[chipmunk stew]

I misspoke. Obviously the north face isn't perfectly intact during collapse because it's collapsing and is therefore being destroyed. I mean the north face just prior to the onset of collapse. There is nothing to indicate that some structural failure has occurred to the north face columns before its roofline descends.

And there is nothing in the NIST report to suggest otherwise. You acknowledged yourself that the first 7 feet of descent took 1.75s, which is consistent with the columns putting up some resistance.

How does a 7 foot drop over 1.75 seconds fit in to a controlled demolition theory?

 

[GlennB]

There is nothing to indicate that some structural failure has occurred to the north face columns before its roofline descends.

Yes there is. The E Penthouse had collapsed several seconds earlier and this cannot fail to have affected the structural integrity of the N wall. And in fact we see a ripple of broken windows cascading down the building prior to the roofline drop. The core was collapsing ahead of the N wall.

If you mean there was no indication of why the building should be falling before it actually began to fall then, well, you just self-debunked in monumental style. A new World and Olympic record in fact. Of course if there had been a CD-led collapse we'd have seen many synchronised blinding flashes and heard many deafening booms. But no ... that didn't happen.

 

[carlitos]

How does a 7 foot drop over 1.75 seconds fit in to a controlled demolition theory?

There is no controlled demolition theory.

 

[twinstead]

There is no controlled demolition theory.

Yup. Only ignorant claims of "it had to be CD!!!!!!". A theory requires a tad more specifics.

 

[WildCat]

How does a 7 foot drop over 1.75 seconds fit in to a controlled demolition theory?

tempesta will run away from this question.

 

[alienentity]

This is just getting even more silly. Even you must realise that you've plucked this possibility out of thin air, you are just guessing. And you expect people to take it seriously. The reason your having to resort to wilder and wilder speculation is because under scrutiny your other speculations have fallen apart.

Put your hands in the air and step away from the internet, seriously. Even by your own standards there has been no movement for ten years in the cause for 9/11 Truth. It's not going anywhere, have a break for a year, take up some other hobby.

I don't think your a liar at all but I think you are repeating the falsehoods of others and those people are not interested in the truth and have their own agenda. Don't waste any more of your time dancing to their tune.

Good advice. I've been away from the claptrap of 9/11 Truth for a couple of months, I see nothing new has come along..

Since the FOIA NIST videos were released, every truther in trutherdom has been bleating on about the 'explosions' you can hear, yet they really don't sound like anything more than some kind of noise, possibly fairly loud - but not high explosives, like we've heard on real demolitions.

Truthers are really scraping the bottom of the barrel, some 9 years after the events. This movement is dead.

 

[alienentity]

Know what will immediately remove all load bearing capacity of a column? Controlled charges. So what fits the bill? Certainly not buckling.

Except that to remove all the 'load bearing capacity' of the building with explosives would have taken a massively large explosion......but that's not what happened.
So your theory fails as it is directly contradicted by the evidence and facts (video and audio).

As the trained engineers explained, using exhaustive computer models, the 8 floors of support were removed by a progressive collapse, which began roughly 8 seconds before this.

Also, the support was not removed 'immediately', according to the careful measurements of truthers and NIST, as you've actually pointed out (but failed to understand). There was a multi-stage collapse, if you look at the acceleration graph, roughly stated as stage 1, 2 and 3.
Stages 1 and 3 were not in fact at freefall acceleration.

Given that the entire collapse spanned roughly 15 to 18 seconds, what about the 2.25s of acceleration at G (about 14% of the total collapse, about halfway thru) makes it in ANY way similar to ANY explosive controlled demolition?
Can you correlate this claim with any other existing CD? I don't think you can, but you really ought to try before repeating the errors of other truthers like a robot.

 

[triforcharity]

You mean the incendiary that everyone claims is an explosive? That explosive?

Or the "explosive" that burns hotter than any thermite?

 

[Carlos]

I misspoke. Obviously the north face isn't perfectly intact during collapse because it's collapsing and is therefore being destroyed. I mean the north face just prior to the onset of collapse. There is nothing to indicate that some structural failure has occurred to the north face columns before its roofline descends.

Do you have x-ray vision?

 

[tempesta29]

And there is nothing in the NIST report to suggest otherwise. You acknowledged yourself that the first 7 feet of descent took 1.75s, which is consistent with the columns putting up some resistance.

How does a 7 foot drop over 1.75 seconds fit in to a controlled demolition theory?

How does it directly contradict a controlled demolition theory? Do you have some evidence that the above rate of descent can't occur in a controlled demolition?

I'll give you time on this one.

Yes there is. The E Penthouse had collapsed several seconds earlier and this cannot fail to have affected the structural integrity of the N wall. And in fact we see a ripple of broken windows cascading down the building prior to the roofline drop. The core was collapsing ahead of the N wall.

A ripple of broken windows? Wow. I don't even see this ripple of broken windows, at least not prior to the roofline's descent, or see why windows breaking would indicate failure of any north face columns.

If you mean there was no indication of why the building should be falling before it actually began to fall then, well, you just self-debunked in monumental style. A new World and Olympic record in fact. Of course if there had been a CD-led collapse we'd have seen many synchronised blinding flashes and heard many deafening booms. But no ... that didn't happen.

I don't know what to make of what you've typed here. It has nothing to do with anything I've said.

 

[BasqueArch]

There is no controlled demolition theory.

Right. It's uncontrolled, the demolition is by gravity and the proposition doesn't even rise to the level of an unexamined hypothesis, having being disproved.

Say, I heard you have a girlfriend, but in another city.
Me too !
Her name is Lydia.
I wrote a song for her.



There is more information here in three minutes than in three days of truther entropic braying.

 

[alienentity]

How does it directly contradict a controlled demolition theory? Do you have some evidence that the above rate of descent can't occur in a controlled demolition?

I'll give you time on this one.

The burden of proof is on truthers. They claim freefall of any kind is proof of CD, yet they cannot offer any real world data in support. Nor can you.

And you've failed to address the challenge of my previous post to you....not surprisingly.
Keep running from the responsibility of your allegations..

 

[dafydd]

How does it directly contradict a controlled demolition theory? Do you have some evidence that the above rate of descent can't occur in a controlled demolition?

I'll give you time on this one.



A ripple of broken windows? Wow. I don't even see this ripple of broken windows, at least not prior to the roofline's descent, or see why windows breaking would indicate failure of any north face columns.



I don't know what to make of what you've typed here. It has nothing to do with anything I've said.

You almost sound like you know what you're talking about. Not quite though.

 

[chipmunk stew]

How does it directly contradict a controlled demolition theory? Do you have some evidence that the above rate of descent can't occur in a controlled demolition?

I have precisely as much evidence of it as you have evidence that the acceleration in Stage 2 can't occur in a fire-induced collapse.

However, I have the overwhelming advantage of having a coherent, fully-articulated theory that explains the evidence.

So again, how does Stage 1 fit in your theory? And the collapse of the east penthouse, for that matter?

 

[tempesta29]

I have precisely as much evidence of it as you have evidence that the acceleration in Stage 2 can't occur in a fire-induced collapse.

No you don't. I've gone into quite a bit of detail as to how steel columns offer resistance, even when buckling/failing. You haven't said a damn thing about why Stage 1 is impossible under a controlled demolition. In fact, this is the first I've ever even heard you mention it.

So again, how does Stage 1 fit in your theory? And the collapse of the east penthouse, for that matter?

You haven't demonstrated how it doesn't fit into my theory. As of now, you've given no reason as to why Stage 1 isn't applicable under a controlled demolition. You're obviously claiming Stage 1 doesn't fit so let's hear your supporting argument.

 

[Dave Rogers]

Once again, buckling occurs when a column begins to fail.

Typically and ridiculously wrong. Elastic buckling can occur without column failure, and column failure can occur without buckling. But you're right, it's pointless trying to argue about things you refuse to understand, so let's move on to the bit you apparently did understand.

Sure, AFTER the column fractures then it loses all of its load bearing capacity, so during that process, until that fracturing occurs, the columns still have load bearing capacity, YET in the case of WTC 7, over roughly 8 floors there was no resistance. There was no load bearing capacity across those floors.

So, let's see: initially, the top block descends at less than gravitational acceleration, indicating significant resistance. Then its acceleration increases to something very close to 1G, indicating that resistance has decreased to a negligible effect. What does that look like? It looks like a column initially deforming elastically, then inelastically, then fracturing. If the initial buckle is several storeys in height, then you'll expect freefall over several storeys in height.

Know what will immediately remove all load bearing capacity of a column? Controlled charges. So what fits the bill?

The key word is "immediately". Controlled charges cut the columns very quickly, so with explosives you'd expect the acceleration to go from zero to 1G in a very short time. In fact, we see an initial period of slower acceleration, while the columns are deforming inelastically, then an increase to gravitational acceleration when they fracture. This fits to a buckling failure very well, and to an explosive demolition very badly. So, in fact, it's buckling that fits the bill.

Dave

 

[TruthersLie]

Bump for Tempest...

I think he must have just missed it...

Because it has been shown.

Alienentity has a channel on youtube.
http://www.youtube.com/user/AlienEntity1




He has done a rather indepth analysis of buildings which were CD and found that even with intentional CD, the buildings did not fall at gravitational acceleration. Oopsie.

So the fact that wtc7 had 2.25 seconds of gravitational accelerations shows it wasn't a CD.

You are trying to claim that
a. free fall acceleration is a product of CD.

when shown that free fall acceleration isn't a product of CD now you shift to
b. the fact that free fall acceleration isn't the product of CD means it is CD.

how does that work again?