The 100% Impossible 9/11 Inside Job

[Cuddles]

Several posts have been removed to AAH. Remain civil and avoid making personal attacks.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Cuddles

 

[GlennB]

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.

Let's try again then ...

Assuming a fire-induced failure what clue(s) would you expect to witness, prior to the beginning of the roofline descent, to indicate that the N face was about to collapse?

Assuming a CD-induced failure what clue(s) would you expect to witness, prior to the beginning of the roofline descent, to indicate that the N face was about to collapse?

 

[Sabretooth]

Documented how? You mean it was written down after being assumed? The north face, structurally, is completely intact during collapse. There is no evidence to suggest otherwise. The columns that make up the north face, for 2.25 seconds, were unable to resist collapse to any degree. There is no logical reason for this.

So the penthouse collapsing prior to the rest of the building was magic and/or unrelated?

Stop being obtuse...you are focused on what truthers are telling you to look at on those stupid utube videos. The fact that the penthouse failed prior to the rest of the building means there was something critically failing inside (ie: out of visual range).

What does this mean? It means that your prescious buckling beams had already buckled and failed...and not at free fall speed. Is the fact that WTC7 burned unchecked for 7 hours completely lost on you?

You are really, really trying very hard not to see past your nose.

 

[aggle-rithm]

No you don't. I've gone into quite a bit of detail as to how steel columns offer resistance, even when buckling/failing.

Watch this video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zrq1QdvCqEQ

Why don't the things they are shooting at provide resistance to the bullet? Doesn't the bullet follow the same laws of physics as buildings would?

Hint: They DO offer resistance, but it is not noticeable because of the high energy involved. High energy can come from either high velocity, low mass, or low velocity, high mass. In the case of collapsing buildings, it's the second one.

I'm sure you'll choose not to understand this simple principle, though.

 

[carlitos]

You haven't demonstrated how it doesn't fit into my theory.

Hi tempesta29!

Perhaps you could outline your theory, so we could avoid confusion on this? If you think it's off topic, you could post it in this thread.

Thanks!

 

[Dragon37]

Documented how? You mean it was written down after being assumed? The north face, structurally, is completely intact during collapse. There is no evidence to suggest otherwise. The columns that make up the north face, for 2.25 seconds, were unable to resist collapse to any degree. There is no logical reason for this.

What are you meaning by "intact"? Do you mean that it is still standing and shows no deformity? If this is what you are saying then you would be wrong. There is a clear kink on the east side and the west is leaning towards the east near the top. It is still standing as a unit but by no means is it not showing signs of imminent collapse.

Again with the free fall. Sheesh how many times must it be described to you? The columns were leaning off the centre of gravity and when the west penthouse began to collapse into the building this moved the upper loads completely of the centre of gravity and there was nothing holding or resisting that load anymore and it fell ... fast ... until it met resistance again. It is perfectly logical.

Besides you have yet to provide any evidence whatsoever that anything else happened that can explain the free fall. All you have done is asserted that it couldn't have been cause by a progressive collapse. You insinuate that it was explosives but there is no sign of explosives either before, on, or after 9/11.

 

[chipmunk stew]

No you don't. I've gone into quite a bit of detail as to how steel columns offer resistance, even when buckling/failing.

...consistently ignoring the fact that this doesn't apply in Stage 2.

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.

I don't claim it's impossible. I claim no one proposing controlled demolition has explained it. Until you can articulate a controlled demolition theory that explains it, you are applying a double-standard.

You haven't demonstrated how it doesn't fit into my theory.

*WHAT* theory?!?!? Where were the charges placed? What type of charges were they? What was the timing of their detonation? What was the sequence of events that caused the acceleration curve on the descent of the north face roofline? How does the collapse of the east penthouse several seconds prior work in to all this?

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.

As of right now, I don't have ANY reason to even consider a controlled demolition. A bald assertion that a fire induced collapse cannot have a collapse stage that approaches freefall is not enough. You have failed right out of the gate.

 

[Regnad Kcin]

Will the gentleman from the side advocating the 100% impossible theory be returning to the OP at any time?

 

[tempesta29]

Let's try again then ...

Assuming a fire-induced failure what clue(s) would you expect to witness, prior to the beginning of the roofline descent, to indicate that the N face was about to collapse?

Assuming a CD-induced failure what clue(s) would you expect to witness, prior to the beginning of the roofline descent, to indicate that the N face was about to collapse?

If we are assuming a fire induced collapse, and we take into account the 2.25 seconds of free fall, then I would expect to see evidence that those columns are already fractured. That's the only way I can see free fall being possible.

As for a CD, I wouldn't expect to see anything "wrong" at all because levels are taken out sequentially.

 

[WildCat]

Hi tempesta29!

Perhaps you could outline your theory, so we could avoid confusion on this? If you think it's off topic, you could post it in this thread.

Thanks!

I'd also like to hear tempesta's theory.

 

[Sabretooth]

If we are assuming a fire induced collapse, and we take into account the 2.25 seconds of free fall, then I would expect to see evidence that those columns are already fractured. That's the only way I can see free fall being possible.

As for a CD, I wouldn't expect to see anything "wrong" at all because levels are taken out sequentially.

So, with 7 hours of unchecked burning...and multiple internal failures and collapses leading up to the final collapse...your hanging your toofer-cap on the 2.25 seconds of near free fall as proof of a conspiracy?

You really are trying hard to be ignorant, I tell ya.

 

[tempesta29]

...consistently ignoring the fact that this doesn't apply in Stage 2.

I don't claim it's impossible. I claim no one proposing controlled demolition has explained it. Until you can articulate a controlled demolition theory that explains it, you are applying a double-standard.

What exactly is there to explain? Controlled demolitions are not 100% free fall operations.

*WHAT* theory?!?!? Where were the charges placed? What type of charges were they? What was the timing of their detonation? What was the sequence of events that caused the acceleration curve on the descent of the north face roofline? How does the collapse of the east penthouse several seconds prior work in to all this?

Where were the charges place? What type were they? Seriously man, there are other people of your ilk that are asking more interesting questions. The collapse of the east penthouse isn't all that out of the ordinary. Again, in controlled demolitions certain sections can lead global collapse. There are a lot of factors involved. And typically, controlled demolitions are not used on buildings that are already on fire and damaged. Again, there's too much chaos to know exactly what happened and why, particularly since we can't see inside the building.

As of right now, I don't have ANY reason to even consider a controlled demolition. A bald assertion that a fire induced collapse cannot have a collapse stage that approaches freefall is not enough. You have failed right out of the gate.

Well, you should at least consider controlled demolition. I've certainly considered a fire-induced collapse. That's called being open minded and thinking critically, something you seem opposed to. We're talking about one column failing and leading to a global collapse in a virtual (and partially actual) free fall. Do you see no red flags there? WTC 7 had 80+ industrial steel columns, and the building fell like a house of cards. I'm really shocked that people aren't at least curious.

I'll also point out that NIST doesn't actually explain free fall, they simple measure and record it.

 

[twinstead]

So, with 7 hours of unchecked burning...and multiple internal failures and collapses leading up to the final collapse...your hanging your toofer-cap on the 2.25 seconds of near free fall as proof of a conspiracy?

And this is without ANY corroborating evidence of CD whatsoever. Amazing.

 

[WildCat]

As for a CD, I wouldn't expect to see anything "wrong" at all because levels are taken out sequentially.

A sequential CD rules out thermite, yes?

So why don't we hear a series of explosions, or any explosion at all, in any of the videos of WTC7?

 

[Thunder]

I'd also like to hear tempesta's theory.

you know better than to make strawman requests.

 

[Sabretooth]

temp - I'd really like to hear what you "expected" to happen on 9/11. For now we could even keep this spotlight on WTC7. What conclusion did you expect after several large unfought fires burned in a building for 7+ hours?

So far, all we've heard from you is that the OCT is wrong. What makes your CT the correct one?

 

[chipmunk stew]

If we are assuming a fire induced collapse, and we take into account the 2.25 seconds of free fall, then I would expect to see evidence that those columns are already fractured. That's the only way I can see free fall being possible.

Why don't you apply this same standard to the CD proposal?

For CD, you use freefall AS evidence that the columns are already fractured. I agree with you that it is good evidence that the columns are already fractured.

And yet, for fire-induced collapse theory, you demand OTHER evidence that the columns are already fractured to EXPLAIN freefall.

Double standard.

 

[chipmunk stew]

What exactly is there to explain? Controlled demolitions are not 100% free fall operations.

Where were the charges place? What type were they? Seriously man, there are other people of your ilk that are asking more interesting questions. The collapse of the east penthouse isn't all that out of the ordinary. Again, in controlled demolitions certain sections can lead global collapse. There are a lot of factors involved. And typically, controlled demolitions are not used on buildings that are already on fire and damaged. Again, there's too much chaos to know exactly what happened and why, particularly since we can't see inside the building.

Well, you should at least consider controlled demolition. I've certainly considered a fire-induced collapse. That's called being open minded and thinking critically, something you seem opposed to. We're talking about one column failing and leading to a global collapse in a virtual (and partially actual) free fall. Do you see no red flags there? WTC 7 had 80+ industrial steel columns, and the building fell like a house of cards. I'm really shocked that people aren't at least curious.

I'll also point out that NIST doesn't actually explain free fall, they simple measure and record it.

Bah. I'm done with Armchair Engineer's bald assertions about what's ordinary in a CD yet extraordinary in a fire-induced collapse.

WTC 7 is an Ex-omaly* for those who really wanted to understand the cause of its collapse and a Pseudo-maly* for Truthers who continue to insist that it's suspicious.

* http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=196617

tempesta29, I hope one day you come to grips with the reality of what happened on 9/11. Good luck to you.

 

[tempesta29]

So, with 7 hours of unchecked burning...and multiple internal failures and collapses leading up to the final collapse...your hanging your toofer-cap on the 2.25 seconds of near free fall as proof of a conspiracy?

You really are trying hard to be ignorant, I tell ya.

First, there is nothing "near" about the free fall. It is cited in NIST's report as "at gravitational acceleration". Even in Stage 3, the roofline accelerates only slightly slower than free fall due to the increased resistance from the rubble pile forming underneath it.

As for your unchecked burning, the only serious fire was on the south face. You can hardly see fire from the north. Why then does the north face experience gravitational acceleration? There is no evidence columns there were damaged to any significant degree. Surely if the undamaged north face fell at free fall then the heavily damaged south face must have as well. We are told this building was expected to fall because of its damage from fire and debris. Wouldn't you expect the south face to fall faster?

How can both of these faces have descended at the same rate if there is such a massive discrepancy in the strength of their respective columns? The answer is that debris and fire damage weren't factors at all in the collapse rates. Explosives made this discrepancy in resistance irrelevant. There is nothing natural at all about that collapse. There is nothing progressive or "cascading" about it. The roofline descends nearly parallel to the horizon in a virtual free fall. Any controlled demolition expert without any knowledge of WTC 7 would instantly recognize it as a CD.

 

[alienentity]

Where were the charges place? What type were they? Seriously man, there are other people of your ilk that are asking more interesting questions. The collapse of the east penthouse isn't all that out of the ordinary.

Evasion. Answer the question.At least, because they were thinking critically, the NIST did employ experts to calculate what high explosives would be needed and how it would have manifested.
You? Nada.

Well, you should at least consider controlled demolition.

We have. It doesn't fit the evidence.

That's called being open minded and thinking critically, something you seem opposed to.

Excuse me. If you were thinking critically you'd realize, very quickly, that the complete absence of direct evidence of high explosives rules out CD.
Here is yet another example of this complete lack of evidence for you.

We're talking about one column failing and leading to a global collapse in a virtual (and partially actual) free fall.

Incorrect. The roughly 14-18s for the collapse is nowhere near freefall. If you refuse to correct your massive errors, you will continue to come to erroneous conclusions. Yes, I see red flags.

I'm really shocked that people aren't at least curious.

You conclude with a glaring strawman. Of course we're curious. Do you have any idea how inaccurate most of your thinking is?

I'll also point out that NIST doesn't actually explain free fall, they simple measure and record it.

False. They do clearly explain it. Please don't lie about the NIST reports.

'NCSTAR 1-9, p 612 Chapter 14 Global Collapse, it states:

The exterior columns buckled at the lower floors (between floors 7 and 14) due to load redistribution to the exterior columns from the downward movement of the building core. The entire building above the buckled-column region then moved downward in a single unit, as observed, completing the global collapse sequence.


And on p 606
'As the interior columns buckled at the lower floors and the corresponding upper column sections began to move downward, the exterior columns buckled inward at the lower floors as a result of floor pull-in forces caused by the downward movement of the building core. The floor connections to the columns had not yet failed in this region, as there were no fires observed on the West side of Floors 19 through 14 at any time during the day, so the floors were intact and able to pull the exterior columns inward.''

I fully expect you to deny this explanation, then continue to claim that NIST didn't explain it. That would be very dishonest of you, but yet I expect you'll do it anyway. Your call.